In the first days of the new, 2019 year, a sensation happened, which all the Russian mass media preferred to keep silent about, which distracted the attention of readers-viewers-listeners from it in all possible ways, since the sensational news turned out to be very scandalous, no matter how diligently it was interpreted in the benefit of the current government of the Russian Federation and personally the brightest popularly elected in the "most honest elections in history" ...
A popular pseudo oppositional liberal resource conducted an online vote, asking its readers a single question, but which one: Who should head the Union State of Russia and Belarus? - and having received a completely disappointing answer for the Russian authorities, which, despite the obvious unrepresentativeness of the sample in such surveys, nevertheless, is not just a bell, but perhaps a bell, here are its results at this moment:
---
11875 people voted.
Vladimir Putin
8% 997 people
Alexander Lukashenko
67% 7958 people
find it difficult to answer
25% 2920 people
(updated at 21.50 01/05/19)
---
No, well, if for you almost 10,000 people who want to elect the leaders of the state not their own president, but the neighboring one, and even 9 months after the triumphant election of their own in 76.6% - this is not a sensation, then you can stop reading - live in parallel reality is not forbidden to anyone, and if they do not talk about this on Channel 1 and Russia-24, then this does not exist in nature, never mind, it is better to fix the pan on it, or, take a look, looked askance, will move out inadvertently ...
There is no need to console yourself, by the way, that the media is liberal, it is quite pro-Kremlin, subordinate, completely loyal to the authorities, which feeds, cares for and cherishes it, the whole front is purely for show, in the style of the struggle of the Nanai boys, and the most important thing here is that Putin just a true liberal, to the marrow of his bones, of liberal origin, in a liberal environment and with a liberal policy for all 19 years of rule, which cannot be said about Lukashenka in any way.
The Belarusian president is an ardent anti-liberal, has been under sanctions for a long time, was portrayed by the West as a fiend of hell, and indeed for a long time had an honorary title - "the last dictator of Europe", he also has Soviet idols in favor, and there is no trace of decommunization or desovetization for you, and the coat of arms of the country looks suspiciously like a Soviet one, and, oh, horror, even the death penalty has not been abolished and is quite used for itself, as recently for serial murders, for example - in general, "terrible despot and tyrrran", by liberal standards, however, You saw the results of the vote, and all without any fools, I voted too, added my click in 67% ...
Lukashenko defeated Putin in the Echo vote. But in real life there is no chance 04.01.19
So the Belarusian president will not flatter himself with the prospect of a new game of "union building".
In a poll organized by the Ekho Moskvy radio station, Alexander Lukashenko put Vladimir Putin on his shoulder. The listeners were asked to answer on the website or by phone which of these two leaders should head the Union State of Russia and Belarus.
The media, suffering from the holiday information vacuum, eagerly spread this, albeit a little amusing, but in its own way sensational news.
Why polls like these are mind-boggling
It is clear that the survey is not representative. But, firstly, it resonates with the excitement that has risen among the politicized public in both countries (especially in Belarus) after the “Medvedev ultimatum”.
The bottom line, let me remind you, is that Moscow, as the Russian prime minister explained on December 13 in Brest, intends to continue to provide financial and economic assistance to Minsk only on condition of "advanced" integration under the 1999 union agreement. The intrigue was exacerbated by Lukashenka's two seemingly unsuccessful visits to the Kremlin at the end of the year.
Moscow offers Minsk two scenarios for further integration
Second, the story of the Echo vote raises serious questions about the popularity of the two leaders and their prospects if Moscow's proposed "advanced" integration is seen as a viable option for extending Putin's power after 2024, when he ends for the second time in a row. (and generally the fourth) presidential term.
Yes, and if we talk about representativeness, then quite a serious survey about Russia's partners in the post-Soviet space, conducted by the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion in November last year, also brought a small triumph to the Belarusian president.
It turned out that 65% of Russian citizens trust him. In second place is the Kazakh leader Nursultan Nazarbayev with 49%, while the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, for obvious reasons, gained only 1%.
So who is really more popular in Russia?
Now let's try to figure out what these numbers say. Because ordinary people and tabloid media are prone to simplified inferences like: in, so Lukashenko is more popular in Russia than Putin!
There is, by the way, the opposite opinion - that in Belarus Putin is much more popular than Lukashenka (and therefore, others add in a whistling whisper, annexation is just a matter of time and technique).
In fact, everything is much more complicated.
Echo of Moscow: Putin and Lukashenko will discuss whether Belarus will become the new Crimea
For example, “Echo of Moscow”, said Valery Karbalevich, an expert of the analytical center “Strategy” (Minsk), in a commentary for Naviny.by, “has a specific audience”.
If we talk about the VTsIOM poll, then the Russians have little choice in conditions when their country has quarreled with a significant part of the world, including a number of neighboring states. So the leadership of Lukashenko and Nazarbayev (the heads of the regimes closely cooperating with Moscow within the EAEU and other structures) in the rating of trust in the presidents of the “near abroad” is not surprising, Karbalevich said.
Political analyst Yuri Drakokhrust also drew attention to the peculiarities of Echo's audience - "generally liberal, mainly Moscow, in opposition to the Kremlin".
“This is an indicator not so much of love for Lukashenka as of dislike for Putin, a desire to pour salt on his tail,” the expert said, commenting on the results of the poll organized by the radio station for Naviny.by.
The reasons may be different - from rejection of the current Kremlin regime in principle to a negative attitude towards the annexation of Crimea and resentment for the May decrees, pension reform (which actually boiled down to a sharp, more abruptly than in Belarus, increase in the retirement age).
Karbalevich also emphasizes that one cannot compare Lukashenko's performance in such polls with Putin's popularity as a national leader among Russians.
Another thing, the analyst adds, that Lukashenka has used his relative popularity in Russia more than once during periods of aggravation of relations with the Kremlin, appealing to ordinary Russians: here, they say, your aces, oligarchs, offend me.
“This element of soft power used to work, it influenced, and Putin cannot ignore it,” Karbalevich said.
Indeed, “Russian people have a very good attitude towards Belarusians and have a good attitude towards Lukashenka,” but at the same time they hardly represent him as the ruler of Russia, Drakokhrust believes. Especially when you consider that, compared to the 90s, the support of the Belarusian president among the governors and the military has weakened, and in general Russia has become different - "less Soviet, more imperial."
“The Russian electorate argues: Putin took Crimea, Aleppo took. And what did Lukashenka take? A bag of bulba that you brought to the Kremlin? " - Drakokhrust sneers.
Putin, come and get it?
Yes, but what about talking about Putin's colossal popularity in Belarus? And this is not just talk. For example, as shown in April 2017 by a study by the Belarusian Analytical Workshop (BAW, Warsaw, headed by Andrey Vardomatsky), 65.7% of Belarusians have a positive attitude towards the Russian president.
Other media outlets in this regard drew conclusions in the headlines in the spirit of “Belarusians choose Putin” or “In Belarus, Putin is more popular than Lukashenka”. And, of course, the political opponents of the permanent Belarusian president, who are convinced that the elections in the country are being falsified, were happy to trample on the topic.
But even for an amateur it is obvious that here green is compared with soft. After all, the question is about the attitude towards a foreign leader, and not, for example, who would you choose if there were presidential elections in Belarus tomorrow.
It is worth making a remark here. If in Russia at least the data of sociological services are published on the degree of Putin's popularity among the citizens of their own country, then in Belarus after the defeat of IISEPS in 2016 the general public does not know anything about the electoral rating of the official leader. Yes, presidential sociologists are taking measurements, but the ruling elite do not consider it necessary to inform the people of these figures. So a strict, correct comparison of the ratings of the two presidents, in principle, is not available to us.
When the Belarusians in the polls highly assess Putin, this is an assessment precisely as the leader of another, and not their own, country, Drakokhrust emphasizes. That is, the point is that "Putin is good for Russia."
Do Belarusians want to join Russia?
At the same time, the sympathy of Belarusians for Putin can be largely due to "approximately the same mechanism - pour salt on the tail", Drakokhrust suggests. That is, dissatisfaction with the policy of the leader of his own country works here, only in this case - Lukashenka.
But this does not necessarily mean that behind the answer is the desire "Putin, come and rule us!", The analyst emphasizes.
And this is easy to explain. After all, Belarusians keep in their heads a blatant social stratification, and bad, but expensive medicine, and legal chaos in Russia, and its endless wars, to which you probably don't want to send your sons.
In this regard, the same BAW poll speaks volumes, showing that only 4.6% of our fellow citizens support the entry of Belarus into Russia as a subject of the federation. In short, friendship is friendship, and tobacco apart.
“The popularity of Putin as a foreign leader should not be directly converted into the desire of the Belarusians for Putin to rule over them. Rather, it is not even so, ”Drakokhrust summed up.
The Kremlin neutralizes a competitor a priori
In general, the trick is that in addition to all sociological calculations, there is also a purely practical side of the issue. Do you seriously think that someone will allow organizing real political competition between the Russian and Belarusian leaders if, in fact, as the Kremlin wants, they finish building the Union State and introduce the post of its leader with strong powers?
No, the garden is not fenced for that.
“It is unlikely that Lukashenka has illusions that he can compete with Putin for the post of head of the Union State,” says Karbalevich.
Drakokhrust also predicts that "if, God forbid, the unification takes place, then the institutions of the Russian state will simply not allow Lukashenka to reach what is called a popular vote."
The Belarusian president has already been deceived once when he hoped to take a seat in the Kremlin after Boris Yeltsin. The Moscow elite elegantly carried out Operation Successor, putting Putin in this chair.
Will Belarus fall as a ripe fruit into the hands of the Kremlin?
And if now he seriously decides to prolong his stay in power by upgrading the Union State, then it’s ridiculous to think that the Kremlin will not have the leverage and determination to a priori exclude the Belarusian competitor from the game. One can only guess how soft or harsh the neutralization method will turn out to be.
Lukashenka, with his instinct for threats, is surely aware of this so piercingly that he will torpedo the project of completing the construction of the Union State with all the passion of his soul.
Yes, and it is easier for Putin to remake the Russian constitution, as Lukashenka did in his time with the Belarusian Basic Law, removing the limitation of two presidential terms. Much easier than starting an adventurous epic with the actual incorporation of Belarus. After all, at any moment something can go wrong.
Another thing is that the Kremlin is not just capricious now. This is a new line: if you do not break Lukashenka, then at least cut subsidies and induce greater loyalty. So the Kremlin will gently squeeze it out.
And although the incorporation today is more of a horror story than the most probable (and even more fatal) version of the future of Belarus, its leadership and the entire people faced a real historical challenge. The alternative to absorption is transformations in the country and a smooth decoupling from the imperial neighbor.
* note. - the post about the general and the president explaining the attitude of the Russian military to the leader of the Republic of Belarus:
dimmech
5 January 2019, 09:20:11
They will start smearing Lukashenka with shit. Although, it is difficult to get smeared like our dear guarantor.
naberezhniy
5 January 2019, 10:33:29
Or they will arrange "Donbass" there: "the liberation of Minsk from the fascist Lukashenka junta"
P.S. If you think so, then if Lukashenko lets two tank battalions and a regiment of paratroopers with a certain informational support in the direction of Moscow, then a whole army and a multimillion-dollar rally will approach Moscow
Lukashenko instructed the government to compensate for the losses of the republican budget due to the tax maneuver in the oil sector in Russia in any areas of cooperation with this country. The head of state set a corresponding task today at a meeting on the country's socio-economic development in 2019 and approaches to the further development of integration areas, the president's official website reports.
"This is not a disaster"
Alexander Lukashenko touched upon the results of the negotiations with Vladimir Putin at the end of December. The parties, in particular, discussed issues of compensation to the Belarusian side in connection with the tax maneuver in Russia in the oil sector.
- There was no rejection on the issue of compensation. It was not that Russia said: "No, we will not compensate for your worsening of the situation, your losses." Moreover, the President of Russia proposed to continue negotiations on this issue in the new year and to work out an acceptable solution - both one-on-one, and in the composition of working groups,- said the president.
He noted that this issue would have to be settled before January 1, but there is no catastrophe due to the fact that it has not yet been resolved.
- Losses from the tax maneuver in Belarus this year will amount to a ridiculous amount: at $ 70 per barrel it will be about $ 400 million. This is not a catastrophe. But we cannot agree to this, because since 2015, when this tax maneuver was introduced, we have already lost $ 3.6 billion. Before the end of this tax maneuver, by 2025, we will lose $ 10.6 billion.- cited Lukashenka's calculations.
"We expected the best"
- We cannot bear losses to the level of last year. Therefore, all losses must be compensated for in various areas of cooperation with the Russian Federation,- set a task for the Lukashenka government. - I said this to the President of Russia, no matter how painful and regrettable it was, and I repeat it publicly and bring it to your attention as an instruction from the President of Belarus. You must perform it flawlessly and accurately. We have nothing to lose.
Lukashenko drew attention to the fact that the actions of the Russian side contradict the spirit and letter of all agreements, including within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union.
- In Russia, some people say: “We have no obligation to compensate. Nowhere is this spelled out in the union treaties. " To which I ask a direct question: "So, when we signed these agreements (on the Union State, the EAEU), we counted on a constant deterioration of the economic situation in connection with some internal actions of the Russian Federation?" No. We were counting on the best- said Alexander Lukashenko.
He added that in those years there was no question of tax maneuvers. The parties could not foresee this moment in the agreements, because there was not even a thought that such questions would appear. "There was a general wording -" prevention of deterioration in our relations "",- said the president.
"We must negotiate a set of issues"
Earlier, negotiations on compensation of losses to the Belarusian side were already held, and appropriate mechanisms were worked out and sources were identified. Representatives of Russia have publicly announced that this issue has been resolved in a positive way for Belarus. However, soon, Alexander Lukashenko reminded, the Russian side abruptly stopped the negotiations, not refusing compensation, but at the same time declaring the need to deepen the integration processes.
- To the question, what kind of integration processes these are, Russians have no answer yet. When I asked to name what the Russian Federation wants from Belarus today in terms of integration, there was no direct answer. And we, at the suggestion of the Russian Federation, agreed that these issues should be identified and tried to be resolved in the work of joint groups,- said the head of state.
At the end of 2018, such working groups were created. The Russian side in them is represented by the head of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia Maxim Oreshkin, the Belarusian side - by the Minister of Economy Dmitry Krutoy.
- I absolutely support the proposals that there should be officials of the highest level, not only specialists. We must negotiate a set of issues that are outlined in the union agreement. In the first place (this was the proposal of the President of Russia), we must put issues that should be addressed as a matter of priority: economic and financial,- the head of state drew attention.
At the same time, he stressed that decisions on all issues had long been made, but, according to Alexander Lukashenko, the Russian government had forgotten about it, informing the Russian leader.
A little educational program. What kind of tax maneuver?
Since this year, Russia has begun a tax maneuver, which it plans to complete in 2024. Its essence is that in the neighboring country the export duty on oil will be reduced from 30% to 0. At the same time, the tax on mineral extraction will be increased. Why does this concern Belarus? Because Belarus did not pay the export duty on hydrocarbons, and when oil was transported abroad, it collected the duty itself and left this money in the budget.
Now, due to the fact that oil producers will pay tax, the price of oil will automatically rise for Belarus to almost the world level: according to preliminary estimates, the cost of oil for us this year will be $ 416 per ton, which is almost 75% of the world price for oil. Further on, hydrocarbons will only rise in price.
"The population should not feel any additional burden"
The President recalled that this year it is planned to complete the modernization of two Belarusian oil refineries, after which Belarus will be able to buy oil for further processing not only from Russia.
I have set a task for a long time, and we need to solve it: to open an alternative supply of oil through the Baltic ports. If the Lithuanians do not agree, negotiate with the Latvians and purchase this oil. Refine at the Novopolotsk oil refinery and provide the Baltic republics, Lukashenko said.
According to him, it will be cheaper for the Baltic countries than now, when they buy oil products at world prices.
We can agree that this will be our common oil, which we will process at the modernized Novopolotsk oil refinery. Moreover, we even have some opportunities in this regard, ”Lukashenka noted.
The head of state urged not to exaggerate the problems associated with the losses of the Belarusian budget due to the tax maneuver in Russia, but to look for other reliable sources that compensate for these negative moments.
But I want to warn you: do not even think about such decisions as shifting these problems onto the shoulders of our people, Belarusians, ”he warned. - The population should not feel any additional burden. At least this, next year, there are no problems at all, even if we did not compensate anything.
"We can't force Russia"
According to the head of state, earning an additional $ 400 million is not a problem for Belarus.
By purchasing power parity, as is now commonly believed, the GDP of Belarus is under $ 80 billion. What is the problem here? There is no such thing, - Alexander Lukashenko is convinced.
The head of state asked the meeting participants for a comprehensive assessment of mid-term economic growth, budget conditions, inflation levels and foreign exchange reserves in the context of a tax maneuver. Alyaksandr Lukashenka was also informed about the government’s plans to develop additional sources of compensation for the tax maneuver.
Separately, the meeting discussed a set of issues of the country's socio-economic development, as well as interaction with partner countries in the EAEU and CSTO formats.
Quick contact with the editors: read the Onliner public chat and write to us on Viber!
The closed nature of the second meeting of the leaders of Russia and Belarus in a week gave rise to numerous political speculations. The situation is especially disturbing against the background of the previous mutual sharp attacks of Moscow and Minsk. While some experts talk about Lukashenko's surrender of their positions, others see signs of a gradual withdrawal of Belarus from the Russian sphere of influence. Whose version looks more convincing?
Only two things can be said with certainty about the meeting between Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko that took place on Saturday: it was already the second meeting in a week, and it lasted a very long time - 3.5 hours. On the eve of the meeting, the Russian leader called for “synchronizing watches on how the work is going on” in the previously outlined areas. The parties did not report the results of the negotiations, TASS stated.
Of the few known details of the meeting: Lukashenka presented his Russian colleague with four sacks of potatoes from the presidential garden and bacon for the New Year. The potatoes were brought to the Russian leader "on special order," explained Natalya Eismont, the spokesman for "Batka". At one of the previous meetings, “in half a joke,” Lukashenko asked Putin what else he would like to get from the President of Belarus. “And the answer sounded exactly like this:“ Well, what else can you ask from Belarus? Potatoes and bacon. " Well, it won't rust behind us. We brought four bags of these potatoes, ”Eismont said.
Lukashenka refused from another agreement - to play hockey with Putin on Red Square (even though he is considered an inveterate lover of ice games). Dmitry Smirnov, a special correspondent of Komsomolskaya Pravda, published a video with an explanation of the Russian president on his Twitter. Lukashenka "said that you have to be at home, there are many things to do and questions," Putin said.
There are indeed more than enough cases and questions. The world still has to be content with the words of Dmitry Peskov, who urged not to expect breakthrough decisions from the meeting. However, there is still a certain ground for thought: the press secretary of the Russian president stressed that “there is no talk of some kind of annexation” (of Belarus to Russia). "It is rather a movement towards each other," Peskov emphasized.
Lukashenko presented his Russian colleague with four bags of potatoes from the presidential garden and bacon for the New Year
The obstacles to mutual understanding between Moscow and Minsk are well known: the import of sanctioned products under the guise of Belarusian, the export of petroleum products under the guise of solvents, low Belarusian excise taxes (for example, on cigarettes, which "stimulates" their illegal import), tax maneuver in the oil industry.
The movement towards us, we admit, is rather difficult. Following the meeting, which took place on Tuesday (on the anniversary of the collapse of the USSR, as political analyst Alexei Chesnakov noted), and lasted about four hours, Putin and Lukashenko agreed to create a working group to resolve controversial issues. The Belarusian leader, who made a number of harsh statements before the meeting, did not communicate with the press after the meeting.
A small amount of information about the details of "moving towards" gives rise to a large number of fortune-telling. For example, the authors of the telegram channel “Neurotik” found a “curious philological detail”: “Putin, passing his greetings to the fraternal people, demonstratively removed the official word“ Republic of Belarus ”from circulation and returned the name of Belarus to the country like it was at home - as it is called in Russian ". Seeking out details, in turn, gives rise to interpretation and varying degrees of fantasy. Which they did, including among our common problematic neighbors.
For example, Oleksandr Okhrimenko, CEO of the Ukrainian Analytical Center, stated in his video blog:
“According to unofficial information, Putin demanded that Lukashenko surrender the country ... That is, Russian political scientists are quite seriously discussing the issue that from 2024 Putin will be the president of the Union State of Russia and Belarus. Naturally, Belarus will be on the rights of a secondary province, but although, of course, Lukashenka is promised a post like vice-president or something like that. This means that Belarus is becoming part of Russia. " In addition, according to Okhrimenko, the Russian Ministry of Finance allegedly demanded "that Belarus use Russian rubles." For the same reason, the Ukrainian analyst argues, instead of compensating for the tax maneuver, Russia will demand that the Belarusian refineries be handed over to “Russian oligarchs”.
Artem Shraibman, a political columnist for the Belarusian portal TUT by, comments on what is happening on his channel without fantastic assumptions, but rather pessimistic. Moscow and Minsk could not reach an agreement in five days, he believes. “In order to somehow make the dead end look like an ellipsis, they will create a working group,” at the level of not even deputy prime ministers, but ministers of the economy, Shraibman predicts. He believes that Russia's position is clearly stronger; Belarus, on the other hand, has to “chat up the process, knocking out at least some money at the expense of the conversation itself,” despite the fact that Minsk is unlikely to risk using a few, but strong instruments of influence - such as blackmail with the exit from the CSTO and the EAEU, or the question of the Russian military presence in Belarus ...
If we digress from speculation about the near future of fraternal relations between Moscow and Minsk (which Lukashenko, however, is ready to deny the right to be called such), and turn to the results of 2018, we can distinguish several main trends.
“Yes, there are serious problematic moments associated with the fact that from 2020 we are switching to a new system of payments for oil and gas. This is an exciting topic for both Belarus and Russia. In the last two meetings, the presidents discussed this, ”said Belarusian political scientist Aleksey Dzermant. “In addition, it is obvious that there is a need to revise union relations, to see what works, what does not, what needs to be strengthened,” he added.
As the experts noted earlier, the very existence of tough disputes between the two sides suggests that the Belarusian-Russian contacts are not taking place “for show”, but really presuppose the mutual interest of the partner countries.
“In my opinion, the outgoing year was very dynamic, during this time 11-12 meetings of the presidents took place,” states Dzermant. “This is a record figure, it shows that the leaders constantly communicate and promptly resolve emerging issues.”
By now, much in Russian-Belarusian relations has remained unfulfilled, said Kirill Koktysh, associate professor of the Department of Political Theory of MGIMO. In particular, this is the joint use of the industrial potential of Belarus - which this country retained in the 1990s and 2000s, "which would have been very useful for Russia, but has not yet been affected." “On the other hand, foreign policy coordination, which could make it possible to talk about the possibility of a breakthrough in the East European direction, has not yet reached a high level either. Although it is growing, ”the expert believes.
“Russia now needs political gestures from Belarus, and Belarus needs economic gestures from Russia.
Most likely, mutual understanding will be found, there is no doubt about that, ”predicts Koktysh.
President of the Institute for National Strategy Mikhail Remizov is more restrained in his assessment of the state of Russian-Belarusian relations. According to him, lately interaction with traditional allies in the post-Soviet space - Belarus and Kazakhstan - has been going downhill. We can talk about the "drift" of these countries (always positioning themselves as locomotives of Eurasian integration) away from Russia, Remizov said. In the case of Kazakhstan, this is more attention to the idea of a "Turkic world", in the case of Belarus - attempts to find other "centers of power". Therefore, Remizov believes, the natural change of elites in both countries will consolidate this trend. But the situation is not irreversible.
“The situation with Ukraine has acquired negative outlines for many decades, here the space for maneuver is limited. But if we talk about Belarus and Kazakhstan, one cannot probably say that the point of no return has been passed. With Ukraine, it has undoubtedly been passed, but the situation with Kazakhstan and Belarus can still be influenced, ”Remizov said.
"24445"
On December 14, President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko met with Russian journalists and for four hours told them about his attitude to various issues, the main of which was the issue of deepening the integration of Russia and Belarus in the format of the Union State.
The key to a successful partnership between Belarus and Russia is precisely interregional cooperation. In general, I credit the interregional cooperation and the governors of the Russian Federation with the preservation of our union. If they did not exist, this union would not exist today. Because in our relationship at least, probably twice, there was such a period when we were on the verge of breaking. And this went on at the level of the centers - the federal authorities and the authorities of Belarus. And then the regions saved our union.
There have not yet been situations in which we would not have found a compromise. The Russian Federation is our strategic partner and ally. Our people, our brothers, simply live there. Whoever they are: Russians, Chechens, Ingush, Jews, or some representative of another nationality from those over 100 nationalities who live in Russia. These are our brothers, because yesterday we lived in the same apartment, in the same state - the Soviet Union. And thank God that these good feelings have remained with Belarusians and Russians ever since.
Integration positions in Belarus are unchanged. Together with others, we initiated the creation of alliances that exist today in the post-Soviet space. And we are ready to move on, but subject to the reinforced concrete execution of our agreements. Or for two, or in the EAEU, for five members of the Eurasian Economic Union. As you can see, we do not require anything superfluous. We agreed - we must comply. That's all. If there is no execution, there is no union. This is an absolutely natural fair expectation from partners, whose relations, as was initially assumed, should be built on equal conditions and mutual trust ...
When we talk about equal conditions, this does not mean to collect everything in a heap and divide it equally. I also often say that if you take the wealth of Belarusians and Russians and divide it equally, Belarus will drown. We do not need so much, we will not master it. We only need what we are supposed to, that we can earn with our own hands and brains. We don't need anything else, as long as there are no obstacles to create it. Therefore, we demand an equal basis for any union. If, as is often customary in Russia, we will be frank, proceed from the fact that we are so huge, and you are smaller, so this is how it will be, then there is nothing to agree on. This is not a union.
It is important to note that on the outer contours Belarus and Russia, as befits allies, are united in their assessments of world geopolitics. We support each other in multilateral organizations. Together we are implementing a program of coordinated actions in the field of foreign policy, coordinating approaches to the problems of regional, pan-European security, including in the field of countering new challenges and threats. But most of all we are bound by a common history, culture, glorious working days, experienced together.
Several years ago, within the framework of such a meeting, I said that Belarus could become some kind of moral factor for Russia. Frankly, we have always strived for this. So that you appreciate us, if already quite frankly. Maybe then not everyone paid attention to these words, but their relevance today has only increased. If you follow the "Tale of Bygone Years", then both Krivichi and northerners originated from Polotsk, which means that here, on Belarusian soil, is the spiritual root of the entire Russian north-west: Smolensk, Pskov, Bryansk, Belgorod and Kursk. Maybe that's why in our country any conflict in the Slavic world is perceived especially hard and painfully.
It is the media space that often becomes a hotbed of conflicts. We must be aware of the responsibility for every word spoken and written. If it destroys the world and cripples the fate of people, then it puts the journalist on a par with the soldiers shooting to kill. And some say that you are a weapon of mass destruction, and I agree with that. It sounds harsh, but how else to reach out to those who ignore the norms of not only professional ethics, but also human morality. The general depressive information background does no less harm to society today.
Next year Belarus and Russia will celebrate our 20th anniversary, the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty on the Establishment of the Union State, as well as the first anniversary - 5 years of the Eurasian Economic Union. Together we have traveled not always an easy, but very productive and rich path for good deeds. Whatever roughness arose, we always found mutual understanding. It is obvious that any problems can only be solved together and only through cooperation. This is evidenced by a series of international summits, the G20, the EAEU, the CSTO. Only powerful integration associations are capable of responding to the global challenges of our time. Even a major power cannot cope alone.
As for the "union Schengen": I think there will be no problems here. It's just that this document has not gone through domestic procedures, but the most important thing is that I have not yet seen it. It so happened, it rarely happens that a document is discussed at the Union Council of Ministers, but the president has not seen it. Indeed, he just came to me last night. Therefore, there is only one reason that we have not made a conclusion at the level of the president. This is the last instance in our domestic procedures, probably in Russia it is exactly the same. Therefore, I think it will not be a problem to sign this agreement. Moreover, as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informs me, all the wishes of both Belarusians and Russians have been taken into account. If so, then there will be no problem.
Lately, a lot of questions have accumulated, difficult issues that are not being resolved, and the proposals, first of all, of the Russian leadership violate the letter and, most importantly, the spirit of all our agreements. For example, natural gas pricing. This is the foundation of our joint Belarusian-Russian economy. We agreed that in the middle of this year we will decide until 2025, but Russia did not even begin to negotiate, although Putin and I agreed then in St. Petersburg. We agreed - we must move. We do not know what will happen from 2020. And we consume 25 billion cubic meters of natural gas. At the same time, we talked about this very often: we do not demand low gas prices. We do not demand, give us 70 dollars, as in Smolensk. Our gas is 2-3 times more expensive today. This is not what we demand. We demand that our agreements be fulfilled, they permeate all our agreements and contracts on equal conditions for business entities.
You have 70 today - everyone should have 70, tomorrow everyone should have 200 - 200. Equal conditions are needed.
In three years of maneuvering, we have lost almost $ 3.5 billion. It has been running for three years now. Even before 2024, according to various estimates, we will lose up to $ 10.8 billion. That is, the deterioration of the situation. In fact, the basis of our union, into which you called us, is being destroyed. And what do you think, if we did not receive then assurances, we did not have an agreement that every year in Belarus and Russia the lives of people will improve, and business entities will be happy to develop their business, we would go to this union? Never in my life! There was an ironclad agreement: equal conditions for people, for business entities - well, for everything in order to develop this integration. Today it is not washing, so it is crossed out by rolling. And in this regard, there was talk that integration is failing. But wait, we are still with the president (of Russia. - Ed.) did not meet, if we do not come to an agreement, then a huge hole will open in our integration, the foundation of our integration, the financial and economic foundations of our integration.
It will never be in Belarus, as it is in Ukraine, never. Only an idiot in Belarus after me, with me this will definitely not happen, can go for it. Because this is our greatest asset - the union of Belarus and Russia.
I wonder when we are told that there will be a decision in terms of maneuver when there is deeper integration in the Union State. And some directly say, well, we are not yet ready for you and six regions to become part of Russia. Well, period. I can read, and you, too, probably between the lines. And I understand these hints.
It could be easier to say: listen, get oil, but let’s destroy the country and join Russia. I always ask the question: these are the things, what are they doing for? Is Russia ready today to accept Belarus as regions or as a whole into Russia? Think about the consequences. Are you ready for this? And how will they look at it in our country? Yes, in yours, and the international community. Not by washing, but by rolling the incorporation of a country into another country.
Blackmailing us, trying to bend us, knee on our chest is useless. You are probably convinced of this. We are not rich people, and we will not become richer if we go to the breaking point. Therefore, think about this integration, it should be in the name of unification, the unity of our peoples. This should be a deliberate step and a deliberate choice. No behind-the-scenes shenanigans. I just can't go to them. Everything should be honest and open.
Who in the EAEU is not a WTO member? Only Belarus. Only. We agreed: this is our Customs Union, we are together, we will get together and will live together. And then together, if necessary, we will join the WTO. But you broke your promise and joined the WTO. You publicly promised not to do this. Kazakhstan ran after it, because, well, you know, the subsoil, resources, they are beneficial to the West, they accepted. Armenia and Kyrgyzstan have long been in the WTO. And we stayed. And now we are on the verge of joining, and here they are, members of the government, I told them: I prohibit joining the WTO without my knowledge. We need to figure out where we are going to join. We are already ready, they have already put a clamp on us and are pulling there. It's easier for me now. And suddenly Donald comes to power. And the WTO put an end to this, and at the G20 they said that the WTO should be reformatted, it should be remade. I say to mine: well, what? Who was right?
This does not mean that we will not join some trade organization, but we need to figure it out today.
Do not reproach us that we are selling arms with Azerbaijan. The "Polonez" missile system, when we put it into service, we invited Armenians, Azerbaijanis, and Russians to test - and tested in densely populated Belarus. And everyone saw: a rocket fell four meters from the target. Four meters is a precision weapon. Azerbaijanis: Sell. And we need to repay the loan, the Chinese gave us a loan for this. I then suggested: okay, I'm selling you the complex. And I say to the Armenians (I knew that there would be a problem) - I am ready to put you a similar complex. The Armenians refused, citing the fact that they had the Russian Iskander. Azerbaijan, already opening a secret, asked: make us a "Polonaise" for the next parade. Here the Armenians showed a Russian complex at the parade, they are about the same, but a little more powerful, ours flies up to 300 kilometers, and that one for 300. And we did it before the parade. This is probably my fault that I tried to make this complex for the parade, but I also offered you, you said: don’t.
We treat both Armenians and Azerbaijanis normally.
I don't want old people to die in Donbass ... Should we, the Slavs, fight here? We are the same people. And I know Ukrainians. They are not enemies, they are not as bad as we sometimes say.
... I will tell you my position today: everyone is afraid that NATO will be there. I recently told Vladimir Vladimirovich (Putin): listen, you and I will soon ask the Lord for NATO to be there, and not frostbitten with a gun. This is where we can get it. If there are thugs standing there, okay with a gun, they will be given rockets. Aren't you surprised that at this moment NATO and the United States are withdrawing from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles? Now imagine for a moment, I have missiles with nuclear warheads near Gomel, and you have there near Rostov. How does it feel? What do we want? Therefore, before it is too late, you need to pick up your head and not shout with hubbub, but do something to stop it. So let's take steps in this direction. There is no need to reproach Lukashenka.
At one time, it sounded openly, I was already ready, like a border guard, to stand on that border, if necessary, I say: “Well, given that Russian people treat me normally, Russians and Ukrainians, and hold elections there according to the Minsk agreement ". And what do you think? Those who need to end this war, especially Poroshenko and the Ukrainians, first of all began to reject it themselves. The Russians responded in exactly the same way. Well, why should I ask for trouble if they do not want this? But I am a supporter that we, the three Slavic states, should solve this problem.
We need to keep our head on our shoulders and think that it is better for us, that we will leave the children. We must not leave this conflict to children. How Armenians and Azerbaijanis cannot leave the Karabakh conflict to their children. We brewed it, we have to clean it up, and children should not suffer afterwards without us.
We will not talk about the current "thugs" in Poland, in Ukraine, they cannot be called otherwise, those who are destroying monuments. Especially the Poles - we put 600 thousand Soviet soldiers there, liberating Poland! Today, you see, monuments interfere with them. And when I see jackhammers, when they tear off our commander's head, this is complete idiocy. These are complete "thugs" who are at war with monuments!
We also prepared for this, but the presidential elections interfered. My first decisive decision was to ban the renaming of streets and the demolition of monuments. Therefore, we still have the Partizansky district in the capital, and the Soviet and Moscow districts of the capital. They were to be renamed: Gogol Street was there, Pushkin Street and Lenin Street were very close. We have preserved all this and even a monument to Lenin. We are not ashamed of this, in front of the Government House - on the most important square - Independence Square - there is this monument. We had such a leader. It turns out that they were bad leaders with us. But they were.
This was, this is our story. So take your time. We must comprehensively assess and not demolish the monuments to these people. Let them stand. Our grandchildren, great-grandchildren will come and ask: who was that? At least they will look at something about this person on the Internet.
For us, remember, sacred is sovereignty. I have already spoken about this. Well, that relative independence. I believe that there are no absolutely independent states. And we, too, are not so independent, but sovereign. If they want to divide us into regions, as your Zhirinovsky suggested, and shove us into Russia, this will never happen. And if in Russia they think in such categories, it is to the detriment of Russia itself.
I now feel a big threat, for example, not to sovereignty, to my country, and I also feel it from the south. When weapons poured out from there. This is a problem for me, a danger. So I quickly build a border in the south.
- We held a referendum on the death penalty when the issue came up. At 90 percent - for the preservation of the death penalty, and I did not participate in it. I did not indicate my position in any way. The population voted, and it will be so in Russia, and maybe even 99 percent will support the death penalty.
The French, the British, I talked to them, they say: “Now, if we put this issue to a referendum, the population would speak unequivocally, 2/3 at least for the death penalty. Especially against the background of what is happening. " I say: "So you see, you are acting against the will of the population." And now they are used to saying, they say that this is not a question for the people. And I think for the people. No matter how I think, we had a referendum. I cannot abolish the death penalty.
I don't see an ideal future for Belarus. Even the Russian president will not be able to see Russia's ideal future, and Russia has enormous opportunities. You know, because there is no ideal, it does not exist at all, even in the empire of the United States of America - what is ideal there? See what's going on. There are many problems. Therefore, there is no perfect. Since the world is developing, secondly, we cannot see this ideal, and for Belarus, which is at the crossroads of all paths, we have never had an ideal if we look into history. And it won't, and Russia won't. Because Russia has a great mission.
You know, I always speak in a simple way. The main thing is not to live in a war. We don't need a war. Neither you nor us. We fought like that. And we will do the rest ourselves; what we don’t do, we will buy.
The Union State was built in order to demonstrate the depth of integration. In the EAEU, we have not achieved the integration that we have here. Look, the military-political, military bloc even. There is no such thing in the CSTO. Our area of responsibility here is the western direction. A plan has been developed in case of aggravation of relations with NATO or, God forbid, a conflict or war. The essence of what it is is also no longer a secret, we are the first to enter the war. For literally up to a month there, all the armies that are located before Moscow - in Russia, of course, there are not many of them, because our area of responsibility - they are mobilized and connected to the defense of the Belarusian direction. This is not the case in the CSTO. This is not the case with other states. We have very deep integration right up to the military one.
True, this was all this base was used for. And nobody needs a base. Listen, build some kind of base at the old airfield. We discussed this problem with Putin. I ask the question: why? Three minutes flight of planes from Russia. Why go to the front line, if a war starts, drag the airfield ... I say, please, we have three or four air force bases. Land 10, 20, 30 planes on any base tomorrow. Use it. But only I asked Putin when we had the World Championship: give me a link of fighters, well, just in case. He sent it to me. Our guys flew together with the Russians on these Russian planes.
Then they took these planes away. We still have a lot of disputes here, you know. I say: listen, well, we are an outpost in this direction. Give me a dozen planes. Oh, it's expensive there and stuff. I say: are you hinting what I should buy for money? I don’t have that kind of money. I have to pay for gas, repay loans ...
We have two very important Russian bases. Zero rubles and zero kopecks are paid. And everywhere you pay for the bases. Here the term of the contract ends in 2019-2020, I do not even raise a question about payment. It is somehow even inconvenient - to ask the Russians for money for these bases. The general function is performed. True, this is for the nuclear forces. When the agreement on the nuclear cover of Belarus ended, I say: it is necessary to conclude an agreement, a nuclear umbrella. Do you think the Russians have concluded an agreement with us? Just ask some experts. This is our union and friendship. I no longer want to go deep.
We have a wonderful factory. We will restore any aircraft. Throw, which can still fly. And we will restore what is needed there. I asked and asked - they did not give it. I got angry, 10 planes were restored in two years, MIG-29 and Su. To not bow down.
The most important issue is the economic issue, which we must resolve, this is the issue of tax maneuver. So that it doesn't happen that Lukashenka, like some of our oppositionists howled, handed Belarus over for a barrel of oil. If we develop the project of the Union State, as it is fashionable to say, it must be done with dignity. Perhaps, I will say pathetically, only in the interests of Belarusians and Russians. And no one else. All personal things should be set aside.
We have nothing to share. It was not for nothing that we lived in one state. And for many years, and many centuries, not only in the Soviet state. And in no case can this common be lost. On this we stand and will stand.
Own. corr. Federal Grid Company based on materials http://www.president.gov.by/
If you notice an error in the text, select it and press Ctrl + Enter to send the information to the editor.
Lukashenko called talks about merging with Russia “far-fetched”. At the same time, he warned Moscow that it might lose its only Western ally. What made the "father", after long and difficult negotiations, again burst into harsh statements? Perhaps it's not just economic tensions, but also the fear that "the Kremlin is preparing a successor" in the 2020 elections?
“The Russian President and I have unequivocally determined that today there is no such issue on the agenda - about unification,” Alexander Lukashenko on Thursday. The statement, which in social networks has already been called the last point in conversations about the merger of Belarus and Russia, was made at a meeting on the socio-economic development of the republic for 2019. We add that this was part of the president's meeting with officials, open to the press. It can be assumed that harsher words were also sounded behind closed doors.
“There is no equal basis - there is no union,” the official news agency BelTA said. - Everything should happen on an equal basis, and there should be the will of two peoples - the Russian Federation and Belarus ... Therefore, for many, many reasons, you yourself understand, there is no talk of the unification of the two states. "
This thesis in Lukashenka's speech varied several times. “There are too many today ... in our society, and among Russians, there is talk about the unification of the two states,” the Belarusian president addressed the officials. - A lot of questions have now appeared in connection with the church in Ukraine about the autocephaly of our church in Belarus. I call these questions very stupid, far-fetched for discussion in our society. "
Lukashenko stressed that Moscow also “has no opportunity,” “taking into account the consequences of everything,” to agree to the annexation of the neighboring republic. “Therefore, we need to calm down and stop these conversations that someone tilted or tilted someone. Nobody will bend anyone here, ”added the“ daddy ”.
There was speculation about the "accession of Belarus to Russia" in the press and social networks. In fact, Moscow invited its partners to recall the treaty on the Union State, which Lukashenko and Boris Yeltsin signed in 1999. Recall that in mid-December, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced Russia's readiness to implement all the clauses of the agreement, including the formation of a single emission center and a single customs service. According to Medvedev, this would make it possible to pursue a unified tax and tariff policy, a policy in the field of pricing. Oncoming traffic from Minsk has not yet been observed.