“New opportunities for Joe Biden in Belarus”
Behind the vicissitudes of the change of power in the United States and other events, the situation in Belarus somehow receded into the background. Everything there seemed to be deceptively quiet, but it was from there that, according to the leaders ”, a new storm will begin, designed to sweep away their opponents in the East. At the moment, the main threat to Russia lurks not where it might be expected, but on the shortest and most direct line to Moscow – and it will come from the Belarusian direction.
The path to Moscow always lay across the river. Neman
The role of this trend in the “overstrain” or “depletion” of Russia was determined in a special strategy developed by the corporation RAND commissioned by the Pentagon in 2019 (Expansion of competition in Russia from advantageous positions).
Then, to change the policy of Belarus in their favor, American strategists formulated two alternative approaches.
Consistently support the Belarusian opposition, seeking to remove the long-term “dictator” of Belarus and advance liberalization up to the point of changing the existing system in the country.
It was emphasized that “Depriving Russia of its only true ally would undoubtedly be an obvious geopolitical and ideological victory for the West”… Even if the US efforts to support the Belarusian opposition did not bring the desired result, the very conduct of such a campaign would harm the leaders of Russia, place an additional burden on it and contribute to the strengthening of the opposition within itself.
At the same time, the US could have taken a different path, “pacifying the opposition” and providing economic assistance to the “Lukashenka regime” in exchange for its “closer ties” with the United States. In other words, if he agreed to follow Washington’s lead, the Belarusian opposition could not give a damn. “Maybe, – as emphasized, – it would be even more rational “…
At that time, it was considered too risky to set the task of a direct change of the regime in Minsk and a change in its geopolitical orientation in view of the inevitable “powerful rebuff” from Russia and the weakness of the Belarusian opposition. A line was adopted to involve Lukashenka in the game imposed on him while simultaneously searching for his replacement from among his own associates.
During the period of 2019 and a significant part of 2020, “plan B” of the corporation was implemented in Belarus RAND… In the main centers for the implementation of this plan – American funds SULFUR and Jamestown Foundation the performers cynically called it “Playing with Luke.”
And what is interesting, today these two organizations have suddenly somehow lost their former interest in Belarus. There were almost no articles on it, contacts with Belarusian colleagues ceased, even experts and former politicians like General Ben Hodges, who had recently besieged Minsk, met with A. Lukashenko and assured him of friendship and respect, disappeared from the staff of these funds.
General Ben Hodges, who was making friends with Lukashenka: where did he disappear to?
It’s simple. Under the influence of turbulent events in the country and in the world, the strategy changed. Plan B was sent to the dump, Plan A is being implemented. The resources of the former “thought factories” were enough only for intrigue, but not for regime change. To organize larger-scale actions, a larger and more influential organization was needed. It appears to have been the Atlantic Council (Atlantic Council)***, in which, starting from 2021, large expert forces have been concentrated, engaged at the conceptual level in developing plans to destabilize Belarus. The newly created group includes, in particular, specialists with experience in carrying out “color revolutions” in Georgia and Ukraine.
The Atlantic Council is formally considered a non-profit organization, but in fact it is a semi-official intermediary between the state and the US expert community, a member of the NATO Association, funded by many Western countries. In addition to America, he operates ten regional centers in Europe.
On the Atlantic Council
In late January – early February, the Atlantic Council held a multi-day “scientific and practical” conference on Belarus, laying down new conceptual foundations and practical steps of the West towards this country in the near future. It looks like this is a replacement for all previous developments. RAND, SULFUR and Jamestown Foundation… The discussion was based on the report Joe Biden’s New Opportunities in Belarus by Anders Aslund, Melinda Haring, John Herbst (former US Ambassador to Ukraine) and Alexander Vershbow (former US Ambassador to Russia and NATO Deputy Secretary General). According to the authors, “The report is carefully studied in the highest circles”… Full support expected, in particular, by the authors of the “maidan wet-nurse” Victoria Nuland, who returned to the State Department. I was directly involved in the discussion of the project and a well-known curator of many “color revolutions” in Eurasia, Assistant Secretary of State George Kent.
The main message of this report is cynically simple and clear: “The stake of the West should be to make Belarus its own in the future”… There will be no more “flirting with the regime”, it is planned to change. The authors have already sent for approval to J. Biden a sanction list of “hundreds of Belarusian officials” and companies serving “Lukashenka’s personal finances”. It is postulated that the US should treat Lukashenka “like the former president of Belarus.” A completely exotic scheme, unprecedented in diplomatic history, is proposed to maintain official ties with this republic. Julie Fisher, the American ambassador to the country, is to take her post in Minsk, but not to hand over her credentials to Alexander Lukashenko. “Depending on the situation, she should have visited Vilnius” (apparently, to present her credentials to Tikhanovskaya or to someone else who is deemed worthy there. D.M.).
It is emphasized that in order to achieve success in Belarus for the forces loyal to them and to withdraw the country “from the orbit of Russia” the United States must act “subtly and clearly”. Biden, according to the authors, “has a historical opportunity” to accomplish these tasks. In recent years “There was no better chance than the crisis in Belarus”to ensure US leadership in Europe. Due to the opportunities that are opening up there, Belarus should become the top priority of the new administration throughout the former Soviet Union. However, ensuring democratic changes in Belarus – “The task is not easy, given the internal resistance and decisive position of Moscow“… Russia, the report admits, continues to be a key geopolitical player in Belarus. She is probably ready to consider the military option, which in this situation “For a number of sad reasons, the United States is incapable”…
At the same time, the report says, the more the confrontation continues in Belarus, the more polarized its society will become. This could lead to the fact that Moscow and Lukashenka will have no choice but to “brutal repression”. It is predicted that for the Belarusians the possible involvement of the Russian military in case the Belarusian services show indecision, will have an “alienating effect from Russia”. In turn, this may cause discontent in the Russian Federation.
What is noteworthy: no matter what direction of work on Belarus the experts of the Atlantic Council discuss, they almost always project this experience onto Russia. Minsk is viewed by them mainly as a convenient “springboard for jumping” to Russia, as a lever for its swing. It is proposed, for example, to impose sanctions on Russian media and journalists, “Participating in propaganda campaigns against the Belarusian protest movement”…
Jesuit measures are proposed “to manage the Russian reaction to events in Belarus”.
1. The Biden administration should “Privately warn the opposition and advise them for the time being to avoid any signals indicating a desire to join the European Union or NATO”…
2. Together with the European Union, the Biden administration should maintain regular diplomatic dialogue with Moscow and emphasize that “The current protest movement has only to do with domestic Belarusian politics, not geopolitics”…
3. The Biden administration must make it clear to Moscow that it “Will face additional sanctions if it sends its security forces (overtly or covertly, including sending military and military equipment) to Belarus to support Lukashenka or suppress protests in Belarus”…
What is more striking in this strategy aimed at Russia through the “Belarusian front” – unparalleled impudence or lack of even the appearance of attempts to hide the fact that the developers of this plan are proposing to “bother Moscow”, considering that it is not difficult?
(The ending follows)
If you notice an error in the text, select it and press Ctrl + Enter to send the information to the editor.