The Future of Lukashenko?

6 posts

Dr. Heywood R. Floyd

I wish I had a cool article to post, but instead I have questions.

On another site (one you guys probably haven't heard of, and hopefully never will; the fact my cover there hasn't been blown as "an evil Nazi racist anti-Semite," which might well lead to my being banned, is frankly something of a miracle at this late stage), I heard some (very approving, almost needless to say) chatter about the prospect of a "colour revolution" soon coming to Belarus (in light of yesterday's Presidential election landslide in favor of a fourth term for Lukashenko). I scoffed at this preposterous notion, but was told by someone who confidently purported to be better informed than yours truly, that Lukashenko can no longer count on Russian support. Is this true? Is there now some sort of serious rift between Lukashenko and Medvedev (Putin)? And if so, how did this come about?

Should we be worried about yet another Sorosian "colour revolution" in Belarus?


Yes, there's a serious rift.

During the last row of Russian/Belarus quarrel over the oil/gas prices / unity issues, it became evident, that Lukashenko is doing nothing:

a) to further unification of two states (de jure the Russian-Belarussian state already exists, but de facto, it's still stuck on square one)

b) to be some sort of a meaningful Russian ally. The biggest example of such treachery was when Belarus promised to recognize S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, and never did in the end.

That's when it became obvious, that Lukashenko was paying nothing more, than lip service to the idea of an alliance with Russia, always keeping a door open to the West, while throwing a riot, when the discussion about higher prices for oil for Belarus were discussed.

But no, no revolution is likely to happen. I've just heard radio reports - absolutely all opposing candidates were brought in by police, one of them was even moved from the hospital, after manifestations, involving thousands, took place.

Personally, I'd like to see this regime collapse finally. Belarussians deserve so much more, than this artifact of communist dictatorship.

Dr. Heywood R. Floyd
What an idiotic thing for Lukashenko to have neglected to do. Like the West is ever going to support his regime anyway. The only reason he doesn't get compared to Kim Jong-Il and Robert Mugabe in "our" press is because no one has ever heard of him.

I have mixed feelings about his regime myself, but if its to go, it needs to be a revolt from within. I doubt anyone here will disagree with me on that.

As an aside, I think you may have reversed your "de jure" and "de facto" here.

Indeed, its best if Lukashenko leaves as a result of internal strife. But then again, I don't want a bloodbath for my Belarussian brothers, and if a little push could help, I'd support giving such a push, at least in the form of buying out the loyalty of generals and security officers, so that they don't shoot at people, but let the people sort it out themselves.

I don't understand Lukashenko - the short-sightedness of such an attempt to sit on two chairs has been amply demonstrated by his neighbour ex-president Kuchma of Ukraine, who was also neither here, nor there, and got kicked out by a colored revolution in the end.

As for de jure, de facto - on paper there is a government and we even have a single president and a single parliament of the Russian-Belarus Union (last time I checked, it was Borodin). But in reality, nothing's working.

But I do think, that the West doesn't lump him with other rogues, because the West prefers to leave the door open in this important region. It is Lukashenko, I think, who still hasn't jumped into open Western arms, because he's afraid of Russian economic wraith, that might ensue, when playing the Slavic Unity card will stop working and oil prices will be risen to world averages, like in the Baltic states, who pay something like 4 times more.

President Camacho
The West does in fact lump Lukashenko in with other rogues... I don't feel like searching for articles but I've seen enough in the past few years, you can easily google them I'm sure.

In particular, the Western press almost always includes him on lists of "The Worst Remaining Dictatorships in the World" along with North Korea, the Burmese military junta, etc. His government is depicted as only a more primitive and cruel form of despotism than the Russian regime (which is basically true), and Belarus is always at or near the bottom of lists ranking "economic freedom", "human rights", and "xenophobia" among European nations.

The West does in fact turn a blind eye to brutal dictators in places like Africa and South Asia who are willing to play ball, but I don't think Lukashenko is or will ever be in that category. The elites will never trust a man with such close ties to the old Communist regime (and Russia), no matter how hard he tries to appease them.

Well, we view it from different angles and I'm not very familiar with western media.

The way I see it, Lukashenko wouldn't be making such overtures to the West from time to time, if he didn't see some encouragement. Besides, if Europe is willing to cope with Iran (and it was evidently much softer on Iran, than the US) I don't see a reason, why it wouldn't embrace Luka.