And you’re really supposed to believe that? If one reads the announcements in the press and what European politicians there say about what is happening in Belarus, one should interpret it all in this way: The citizens of Belarus are expressing their protest that they believe they are being cheated by the government of the country over your election decision. They are shown in pictures as they demonstrate and hold up posters demanding a little more than a correct counting of the election results, namely that the “long-term ruler” Lukashenka, who has been “ruling” for a little longer than the German long-term ruler Merkel, should give up nothing less than his rule and leave his opponent to govern during the election campaign. The fact that not a single demonstrator wears a mask, which causes the same friends of all the demonstrators in the world to consider banning demonstrations altogether in this country, is one of the inconsistencies in the presentation of the EU’s foreign policy concerns when it marches in its European way against its main enemy, Russia.

This also means that the politicians here know exactly what the demonstrators there, who are demanding nothing less than a change of regime, actually want, or more precisely what they do not want, namely that they have no “geopolitical interests”, in other words that the very demonstrators there in Belarus do not want what the European politicians are so interested in the demonstrators that they want to use them to shift the geopolitical situation in favour of the EU. What is meant by the constantly repeated denial of geopolitical intentions is that the demonstrators in Belarus do not want to hand Belarus over to the EU, as was the case in Ukraine at the time, as can be seen from the fact that the demonstrators in Belarus do not allow armed units to march, as did the demonstrators on the Maidan at the time. The fact that it is precisely this, the existence of armed sections of the demonstrators, which was fiercely denied at the time in Kiev and which is now being confirmed in passing, in order to prove the harmless intentions of the demonstrators in Minsk, is also one of the agitational feats of an EU-style regime change towards Russia.

Russia is not only the EU’s main enemy in Europe, because Russia limits the EU’s autocracy under the leadership of the strategic ally Germany and France over Europe with its political and above all its military power, Russia is above all not Yugoslavia, but a military world power: what was possible in Yugoslavia, to remove the troublemaker Milosevic from the world of European states by using military means, that is to say, a veritable war within peace-loving Europe, and to cut Yugoslavia up into a collection of small states with a medieval appearance, which are thus all on the sidelines, that is not possible with Russia. 

So they have to go different ways, and these ways are tried and tested and successful ways, as they have already led to success in Ukraine, that is to say, ways in which it has been possible, by cutting Ukraine out of Russia’s territory and placing it under the command of the EU, as Putin put it, to climb the Russian border fence at that part of Russians borders. The fact that this success in continuing to move closer to Russia’s borders after the incorporation of the Balkans, East Germany, Poland and the Baltic countries into the EU and into the military alliance called NATO, in other words the war alliance against Russia, with the incorporation of Ukraine, and now with the attempt by the last missing buffer country, Belarus, is, of course, not the work of demonstrators, but of military power, namely of the USA, and also the EU’s progress in bringing Russia’s dominions – incidentally dominions around Russia, not somewhere else in the world where NATO defends its borders against everything and everyone – under its command in its own way, that all this is after all the work of the progressive build-up of US military power around Russia, in particular all its new weapons systems, which it is currently renewed and expanded around Russia, and to mention all this too, the EU’s propaganda bag is forbidden to say when it comes to its geopolitical ambitions to bring Russia down, and all the more so when the same EU is in the process of establishing itself as a better world-ordering power vis-à-vis the United States by bashing its President, who is politically not a bit different from the others, it is, for that, and for nothing else, there is this picking on the person of the US President, to say that it is not the USA, that it is this way that distinguishes between the US and its current political leader and, thus both critiques and preserves this alliance – quite apart from the fact that whoever has something to say in this relationship between the US and Europe is decided finally by the USA anyway. After all, the Europeans are still useful auxiliary troops of the USA in its global power affairs, including vis-à-vis Russia, and the Europeans also know very well this as that the USA’s new front vis-à-vis China can shift the USA’s strategic priorities of the US for Europe and that, without the support of USA, nothing will work for the Europeans in their ambitions towards Russia either.

That it should therefore be pure coincidence that the Europeans, who for their power-political priorities, seeing Russia as calling into question their ambitions dominating Europe not disturbed by anybody for their power ambitions to play a role in world politics, to step by step establish finally in Moscow a policy that dances to the tune of the EU, that it should be pure coincidence and not a well tuned activity that there are demonstrators in Minsk who can be used so well for this EU strategic aims in their march towards Moscow, so that this march to Moscow can be presented last but not least to Russia as the harmless support of Belarusian citizens for a political leader, who confesses to leave all the geo-political relations as they are, above all the relationship with Russia, who should believe this story? Then why does he, Lukashenka, have to leave his office, if nothing should be changed – because of electoral fraud?  The EU interferes into a country risking their relation with Russia, and all this because elections in this country are rigged? Who wants to believe this story! The list of states that are and will remain best friends of the EU, where elections are manipulated or where there are no elections at all and where the military rules, this list is simply too long to list just a few examples here. All over West Africa, the Elysee Palace decides who governs where. 

By staging what is in fact happening in Belarus is no less than a regime change, in other words a coup d’état, the fairy tale of of the European conspiracy practitioners presenting all this nothing more but as a support for spontaneous demonstrations of citizens, and the EU intervention as nothing more than help for dissatisfied demonstrating citizens cheated out of their elections, the real story is, that it is not only the demonstrators in Minsk who are playing the idiot for the EU, but above all this story of concerns about decent elections are made up to signal to Russia that the EU is not up to anything bad against Russia – because that is exactly what the EU does in what the EU is doing: Not only is the attempt by the demonstrators to achieve nothing less than a coup d’état in full swing, and this attempt would be null and void from one second to the next if the EU gave any negative signals regarding its recognition of the demonstrators’ aims; but the EU does the contrary, in contrast to its downplaying presentations of not having anything at all in mind against Russia and its interests in Belarus, the EU, by deciding not to acknowledge the elections in Belarus, is again signalling in its typical EU manner, that it not only supports the attempt of a coup d’état in Belarus, but, whatever the demonstrators’ motives may be, that the EU will continue to promote this coup d’état in their spirit, that is to say by establishing a political force closer to the EU than Lukashenka, that is to say a political force that is dancing to its tune, and that the EU will not even deal again with the existing government in Belarus until a new political leader who suits the EU is in place there.

The opposition in Belarus understands the message from the EU, its political No. 1, Tichanowskaja, escapes to the nearest EU country, and enjoys political support there from the whole EU for not only declaring herself nothing less but the alternative head of government, but also for setting up a political body in Belarus, a “Coordinating Council”, which assigns itself no less a task than organising elections, thus executing the tasks of a state government, a political state body, which decides on the legitimacy of a country’s government.   Just imagine what it means when a political party that is defeated in an election, with the argument that it was cheated in the election, not only refuses to acknowledge the existing government, in which way ever elected, but also declares its own political leader to be the new head of this state, and organises new elections by setting up political bodies, in which this political competitor emerges as if it was already the winner of the elections to come, all this just as if the Lukashenka government had already been deposed. And this should be something different from a regime change, which the EU not only supports with its decision not to recognise the elections of Lukashenka, but with its decision not not acknowledge the elections and thus not to acknowledge Lukashenka as the ruling Prime Minister it is the EU who makes this “coordinating Council” possible to exist, to then go already the next step and appoints the appropriate European supervisory personnel to “observe” the new elections? And that is not supposed to be regime change?

And all this raises another question: Is the EU already such a political power in Belarus? What does the EU actually have in its hands there in Belarus that makes it so secure to take such actions against its political leadership and to take the leadership over such a regime change agenda?

This, too, the grab for supremacy over Belarus and to determine who is to govern there, which is being presented to appease Russia as only the non-recognition of the elections, but which in practice seeks the elimination of Lukschenka’s political power, this is anything but the spontaneous support of demonstrators who suddenly come from heaven knows where, but a well coordinated action, scheduled for these elections. However, how can the EU do such things in Belarus? Where does it take its power from in Belarus to intervene in Belarus in such a way? It was the same Lukashenka, in his Belarusian ambitions for his power games who was actually trying to play with the EU’s interests in Belarus using Belarus against Russia and Russia’s concerns about treating Belarus as a buffer against the EU and the USA and who thought it was particularly clever in order to distance Belarus from Russia by making some economic deals with the EU and to instigate all kinds of business with the EU in Belarus. In their own way, the Europeans have thanks to Lukashshenka long since landed in Belarus and established business and all sorts of networks there, as they did in the Ukraine, where they now own everything, and where another politician, who, like the leader of the demonstrators in Minsk, Tichanowskaja, is after all instigating a veritable coup d’état, both done with local politicians, both equally presented us through the EU as people who don’t want to have anything to do with politics, thus both people who are most suitably contoured for this typical EU mesh, suitable to execute this political agenda of the EU, that denies towards Russia what they do against Russia, an agenda which has, ironically, long been initiated economically in Belarus thanks to the top-notch Lukashenka. Now their new idiots among the demonstrating people there have to take care of their tasks for the EU’s next political step in Belarus, that is the elimination of that clever political tactician Lukschenka, who has done his job for the EU and to establish themselves as the new helpers of the EU for the next step of the EU agenda on their way towards Russia – until they themselves are due at some point, like Poroshenko in the Ukraine …

So as it looks at the moment, the Germans are trying this time in their blue international EU colours, i.e. with the forces of the European states, namely the old enemy France now as the best ally, not against them as they did then, which the brown Hitler with his stubborn nationalism did not succeed to do.  Only, one should not be mistaken: some people may be so stupid who would like to see this staging of an advance towards Moscow as nothing but a defence of civil rights, just as it is presented; the Russian politicians know very well what is going on, and they know even more precisely their military means of power, with which the blue-clad Europeans are also kept from their way when they try to take the next step on the Russian fence. And then, it is better not to deceive oneself, there is no demonstration, there is shooting.

Comments preferably in English.

2 Comments

  1. It is depressing to read all comments on “colored revolutions”. One is called to chose what Empire (US, Russia, or China) one prefers, for one hand. One is thought (rightly) that human rights, democracy, freedom, legal equality, are just facades and coverups of real interests, for the other hand.
    This post is about the ideological submission of Western political thinkers to Western imperial strategies as representing universal interests. I think it is right.
    Happily, is not about supporting Russia or China imperial strategies as some critical thinkers do. This post is about avoiding the disciplinary splits that scholar thinkers develop. This post shows the need to retain imperial interests included whenever one tries to understand what is going on at a given juncture in time.
    I miss hope. I feel hope whenever people mobilize, as it happens these days in Bielorusse. I know there is no much hope coming out from these events in our western direction. That is why my special knowledge concern is about understanding what kind of in loco situation supports the hope of all these people coming together.

  2. Dear Michael, thank you for the presentation of your view on events in the neighboring Belarus. It is rather ‘philosophical’ but interesting. I have not considered the situation from this angle.
    As to Ms Shevtsova, it is not easy for me to comment her text. She looks at the situation from the very simplified position – all in ‘black and white’ colors. She likes to display this card of pro- and anti-Russian orientations of the leaders in the post-Soviet countries. Unfortunately, this is typical for Western -paid (and well-paid!) Russian ‘experts’. The truth is that all leaders in these states have their own pragmatic interests. Sometimes, they are trying to find support from Russia, sometimes – not. For instance, I am sure that regimes in Azerbaijan or Armenia are not ‘ pro-Russian’. The same is true for all Ukrainian presidents. Local elites are trying to find support from different sources to reach their goals. At the same time, they have fears about competitors from the side of Russian businesses, which could easily obtain control over their assets, as there no high psychological or cultural barriers between the countries, while Westerners do not understand specific features of the mentality and business environment very often. As to the ordinary people, we have specific groups in Belarus (and earlier – in Ukraine), which are interested in easier access to the Western labor market, including, first of all, its illegal segment. They have formed a driving force of the ‘Revolution of Dignity’ in Ukraine in 2014, and similar group forms the nucleus of protesters in Belarus now. My friend and co-author, former Director of the Institute of Sociology in Hungary had a number of interviews in Kiev’s Maydan in late 2013-2014. He concluded that more than 70% of the protesters were from relatively small and underdeveloped Galicia region of Ukraine. Inhabitants of this region had high level of unemployment and a clear intention to work in the EU. Of course, Western countries were interested in diminishing Russian influence too. It had nothing with freedom and human rights. In Ukraine, new authorities have established more repressive and nationalistic regime, than the previous, so-called ‘pro-Russian’ one. Opposition newspapers are closed, some political parties are banned, despite they were not in the government before the ‘revolution’, some opposition journalists, politicians and writers have been killed, and no one has been punished for this.

    I was not a supporter of Mr. Yanukovich, when he was a President of Ukraine, and I am not a supporter of Mr. Lukashenko but I can easily predict similar developments in Belarus , if ‘opposition’ will come to power.

    By the way, Lukashenko has officially invited Western observers to the elections but they have refused to come. Now they say elections have been ‘unfair’. It is a awful. I am sure Lukashenko won these elections, however, probably, not with such ‘spectacular’ results. I assume that some falsifications could take place (but there is no any documented evidence of this). Most of Belorussians remember deep crisis of 1990s. Of course, they wish to live better and they wish faster improvements but the examples of Georgia and Ukraine show that it is not so easy.

    And it is cynical and stupid for Ms. Shevtsova to refer to the Khabarovsk case, where local governor has been arrested for his alleged involvement in the pure criminal acts in 2000s, which have been revealed during recent routine police investigations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *