The tendency to resolve issues related to Belarus through Moscow will develop
The migration crisis on the border of Belarus with the EU has become the top topic of recent days. European leaders angrily denounce the Belarusian authorities.
Let’s be objective: not spontaneously and not spontaneously, thousands of inhabitants of Iraq, Syria and other disadvantaged countries of the Middle East began to buy air tickets and issue visas to Belarus – a country whose existence they most likely did not suspect before, in order to get through this country to the European union.
Behind all this there are commercial structures laying such routes. It is also clear that the Belarusian competent authorities, if they so wish, could quickly stop such activities, not to mention the fact that refugees trying to get from Belarus to Poland and further to Germany with “vegetable gardens” are in direct violation of Belarusian legislation, which says: “When crossing the border of the Republic of Belarus, regardless of the way of crossing it, it is necessary to go through: border and customs control, and if necessary: automobile, veterinary, sanitary-quarantine and phytosanitary types of control. Foreign citizens and stateless persons can cross the State border of the Republic of Belarus according to the following documents: a valid document for traveling abroad (passport) with a visa for citizens of countries with which the Republic of Belarus has a visa regime; document for returning to the state of citizenship or residence (in case of loss of a passport on the territory of the Republic of Belarus) ”.
Only now the anger of the Europeans makes you remember the old anecdote: “Why me?” Europe refused to recognize last year the results of the presidential elections in Belarus and Alexander Lukashenko as the legitimate head of state; his losing rival Svetlana Tikhanovskaya is received in Europe under the state protocol as the highest official; The Seimas of Lithuania recognized Tikhanovskaya as “the legitimate president of Belarus.” Europe supports anti-government protests in Belarus, incites to them, imposes sanctions against Belarus, not hiding that it is pursuing the goal of ousting Lukashenka.
What is this if not a hybrid aggression against a sovereign state? If we talk about “hybrid” methods, then we should talk about the hybrid self-defense of the Belarusian president. We must pay tribute to Alexander Grigorievich and his analysts – they found and skillfully used against their European opponents the most sensitive problem for those.
And Lukashenka is seeking not something else, but peace – refusal of active attempts to remove him, refusal of sanctions, seeking recognition of him as the head of state, renewal of direct contacts with him and the Belarusian authorities on issues of mutual relations.
So far, the West is not giving in, and the negotiations that have become inevitable are trying to be conducted through Russia. It is known about two telephone conversations between Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin during the day. Emmanuel Macron also announced his intention to discuss the situation with the Russian leader in the coming days.
Not without attempts at blackmail. There is information about the possibility of imposing sanctions against Aeroflot and the Turkish airline Turkish Airlines due to the situation on the Polish-Belarusian border: the European Union believes that these companies are engaged in transporting migrants from the Middle East to Minsk, who are then sent to the border with Poland. The accusations against Aeroflot are generally absurd – its planes do not fly between the Middle East and Minsk. This is an attempt to put pressure on Russia to tackle a problem that has nothing to do with it. This attempt was quickly answered (so far unofficial): sanctions against Aeroflot could lead to the closure of Russian airspace for transit flights of Western airlines, which would bring down the entire air transportation market between Europe and Asia.
The official position of Moscow is as follows: “The President of Russia proposed to establish a discussion of the problems that have arisen in direct contacts of representatives of the EU member states with Minsk.” Later, in an interview with Rossiya 24, the Russian president said: “As I understand it, Alexander Lukashenko and Chancellor Merkel are ready to talk to each other. I hope that this will happen in the near future – this is the most important, because migrants tend to go to Germany first of all. “…
That is, Moscow is fulfilling its allied obligations to Minsk, helping to solve the problems that Lukashenka is solving in this situation. This is really a problem, first of all, for Germany.
In any case, there will be no return to the situation “until 2020”, when the West, avoiding direct contacts with Lukashenka, encouraged him to distance himself from Russia, and the Belarusian leader himself, with great difficulty, was engaged in the implementation of integration projects, evading Russia’s support in such sensitive issues. as, for example, the recognition of the Russian Crimea.
The current crisis has exacerbated Lukashenka’s reputation in the West as a “bad guy”, making it all the more unlikely that his relations with the West will thaw. This means that his movement towards deeper integration with Russia, which has already resulted in the signing of a package of integration documents and progress in recognizing the ownership of Crimea, will become more definite.
The tendency to resolve issues related to Belarus through Moscow will develop. These are topics that are usually solved without attracting public attention, but nevertheless always arise in relations between states – trade, contacts, citizens’ travel. In some ways, Moscow will act as a mediator “representing the interests” of Minsk, and over time, on an ever wider range of issues, it will defend the common interests of the Union State. This means that the interest of Belarus in such a state will grow, and the Union State itself will acquire more specific outlines. After all, a single foreign policy is one of the main features of confederal relations.
Alexander Grigorievich’s understanding of the need to “stick to Russia” in relations with the West has developed. In any case, his statement about the possibility of blocking the transit of gas through Belarus in response to the hostile policy of Europe sounded quite relevant in the context of efforts to bring the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline into operation as soon as possible.
If you notice an error in the text, select it and press Ctrl + Enter to send the information to the editor.