Belarus: A Step Forward or a Step Back?

Belarusian and Russian flags. Image courtesy of Adam Jones via Wikimedia, © 2016, some rights reserved.

Russia’s foreign policy, given its global power status, remains at the centre of attention for many Western politicians, journalists and scholars. Interference with US elections, the Salisbury incident and several other acts have encouraged media outlets to reflect on the aggressiveness of Russian policy to the West. As these issues continue to be discussed, less attention has been given to Russia’s actions in its neighbourhood. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, fifteen states pursued independence and some have developed to become strong advocates of joining the European Union over remaining Russian allies. As President Putin engages in a strategy of Russia’s military expansion and consolidation of its international position, post-Soviet countries must be wary of the consequences enhanced Russian integration may have. This encourages a closer look at Russia’s most recent behaviour towards its ‘closest’ allies like Belarus.

Postage stamp commemorating the Belarusian-Russian Union Treaty. Image courtesy of NickPo via Wikimedia, © 2008, some rights reserved.

Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 experienced Russian intervention, justified as the preservation of the integrity of its ethnic population. Significant majorities of the Georgian and Ukrainian populations demonstrated their desire to seek closer ties with the EU, considering a second period of Russian integration as a step backwards. This encouraged the government to send the army to regions of both countries heavily populated with ‘ethnic Russians’, whose rights, according to the Kremlin, were being violated. Ever since the logical diffusion of power in the regional context following the collapse of the USSR, Russia’s policy has focused on the maintenance of its ability to dominate the economic and geopolitical situation in the region. An initiative like the Eurasian Economic Union, dominated by Russia, is a clear example. Such attempts at reintegration mean that several post-Soviet states, traditionally within Russia’s sphere of influence, must decide as to whether they take a step back to the past and seek closer ties with their historic ally or take a step forward and pursue European and Western integration.

What appeared to be a historically simple economic and geopolitical relationship, based on Russian economic and geopolitical assistance, has complicated significantly over the recent years. The situation with Belarus is different as the focal point of tension between the two countries is economic. Following the 1999 Union State Treaty aiming to promote the long-term integration, Russia has worked to advance the relationship in its favour. Belarus is heavily dependent on the oil and gas trade agreements in place, which is why any escalation of tension and potential Russian retaliation will hurt its economy considerably. Several theories have been developed as to why the Russian government is so interested in ensuring control over Belarus. Some suggest it is a strategy to provide a platform for Putin to stay on as leader, despite the constitutional restrictions in place. This would require a union between the two states, which he would subsequently lead. Such possibilities have increased speculation over the Russian intentions in Belarus, as in more than one way it has pushed for an economic and political merger. Belarus simply cannot afford a rupture of relations, given that it relies on Russia for 80% of its supplies. In fact, the situation reached a stage at which Belarusian officials were forced to negotiate trade agreements with countries like Norway and Kazakhstan to compensate for potential costs of total Russian fallout.

In the concluding months of 2019, Russia halted oil supplies to Belarus over a disagreement for the price to be paid by Belarus in the following year. In 2020, several talks have taken place in an attempt to establish new oil contract terms, which would ease tension and continue the oil-gas partnership. Most recently, President Putin has proposed a deal worth $300 million in order to compensate for the losses incurred from last year’s temporary suspension of supply. The Belarusian side, with President Lukashenko leading the way, is unhappy with the pressure experienced. The 1999 Treaty makes it clear that Belarus reserves the right to accept or decline integration mechanisms, such as single currency and united parliament. Although Russian pressure has not yet reached a level at which Belarus feels a need to resort to this mechanism, most recent economic confrontations have worried the Belarusian population. This raises several geopolitical questions, and above all, encourages us to reflect on whether Russia is heading towards a return to its policy of re-integration, aiming to restore and even strengthen its geopolitical, economic and social control over a region it considers key in separating itself from the West.

A review of public opinion helps interpret the position of Belarus’ population in the current situation. In December of 2019 protests began in the capital, Minsk, against the possibility of a union with Russia. People brought out European Union flags, with hopes of advocating deeper integration with Europe. Moreover, a survey carried out among the public revealed that, rather surprisingly, only 7.7% would support a union between their country and Russia. This is an important statistic, as among the Soviet sphere of influence, Belarus was always considered as the most “pro-Russian” and “Soviet nostalgic” country. The simple fact that the majority of schools are Russian speaking, with only 7 Belarusian schools in the capital, makes this rather clear. Many of Belarus’ leading industries, like agriculture, share a concern with the general public over the potential consequences of Russian integration. As seen in Georgia and Ukraine, a newly established trend of thought considers Soviet methods and ideas as old-fashioned, with European integration as more appealing and rewarding. Economically, the country ranks 49th in Europe in terms of living standards and Minsk has enjoyed significant development in comparison to Soviet times.

Both the public and politicians face an important decision to make, with Belarus at crossroads between a return to the past or a new, ambitious future. Russian intentions, despite appearing to regularly shift from a hostile to a friendly approach, are relatively clear with significant effort placed in achieving as much control over the Belarusian economy as possible. As mentioned initially, Russian foreign policy, ever since the collapse of the USSR, has focused on establishing a strong sphere of influence, which protects its territorial integrity and the sovereignty of its ethnic populations. To a large extent, both the Georgian and Ukrainian populations succeeded in their attempt to capture international attention over their preference for Europe. Undoubtedly, both still remain important partners for Russia and to a certain extent, Russia itself did succeed in what it claims as protection of its ethnic communities. Belarus faces a similar dilemma. With President Lukashenko considered as the “last dictator in Europe”, and public opinion increasingly turning against Russia, the possibility of cooperating with Europe will always remain and even develop with time. Russia continues to be the ‘intimidator’ in this relationship, however, and Belarus must be wary of this, ensuring it encounters a sufficient enough balance between European integration and its economically fundamental relationship with Russia.

For Russia, the Belarus case presents another opportunity to cement itself as the leading super-power in what is considered to be it’s historically dominated region. It is, however, undoubtedly paying the price for its actions in Georgia and Ukraine. As mentioned, a traditionally simple relationship has been complicated due to the on-going fear from the Belarusian side over the vulnerability of its sovereignty to a Russian takeover. This shows that countries traditionally considered as allies are continuing to prefer alternative pathways to development, both economically and socially. This really makes one re-consider the extent to which a sphere of influence continues to exist. For Belarus, this situation is logically going to create uncertainty, with its future heavily dependent on the progress achieved during negotiations between President Putin and President Lukashenko.