Why Are Belarusian Authorities Trying To Pull Owl Onto Globe?

Drama turns into farce.

Top-ranked Belarusian officials are usually very reluctant to communicate with journalists from non-state media. As a rule, they give interviews to state media, whose representatives do not ask sensitive questions. Therefore, it was surprising that on October 16, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus Uladzimir Makei met and thoroughly talked with independent media reporters. For our country, this is a rare and even amazing event. What is it connected with?

The fact remains that in the public atmosphere of Belarus the mass distrust to the authorities is noticeably dominant. This can be judged not only by social networks. The said moods are confirmed by people participating in the election campaign. Part of the society was worried about the strange game of integration with Russia, the contents of which the authorities were hiding in every way. A number of public figures even tried to organize a mass campaign in defense of the independence of Belarus. And all this happens against the background of two election campaigns, which causes some concern of the authorities.

So Makei tried to neutralize these moods. It didn’t work out very well. At times, the minister’s press-conference turned into an argument with the journalists. Carefully studying the answers of the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, one gets the feeling that the authorities themselves are confused and are trying to confuse the society. In the statements of Mr. Makei, obvious contradictions are clearly noticeable.

On the one hand, he claims that the Belarusian leadership firmly stands against the creation of “certain supranational structures”, against the “political component” of integration between Belarus and Russia. And on the other hand, the minister says: “All proposals aimed at deeper integration between Belarus and Russia should be based on the “Union State treaty”, which was concluded almost 20 years ago. No need to invent new ideas, new proposals, you just need to take the provisions of that agreement and see what has been done and what hasn’t. ”

However, the trick is that the “Union State treaty” provides exactly for the creation of supranational governing bodies, and the “political component” is the dominant feature of this document. How can supranational structures be rejected by appealing to the “Union State treaty”?

The second contradiction. Uladzimir Makei says that we need to get rid of dependence on one state, referring to Russia: “We see that dependence on one source does not help the state to get out of world crises normally. That is why, at some stage, a decision was made by the leadership of the state to get away from mono-dependence and diversify our economy and foreign economic activity, which is what we are doing now. ”

And at the same time, the minister repeated several times the thesis about the need for “more in-depth economic integration between Belarus and Russia”. Which, according to Prime Minister Rumas, should ultimately lead to the implementation of the principle of “two states - one market”. A logical question arises here: how can one get rid of excessive dependence on one state through in-depth integration with it? And on the other hand, how does deep integration with one of the parties to this conflict fit into the image of Belarus as a center for resolving international conflicts?

This is some kind of non-Euclidean logic, as if logic the other way around. Or, as it is now fashionable to say, an attempt to pull an owl on a globe. This strange mix of conflicting ideas, some kind of diplomatic or foreign policy centaur, indicates that the authorities themselves poorly understand what they are doing and why. The survival instinct works instead of a clear strategy and tactics in relations with the outside world.

This conclusion is confirmed by a strange, even mysterious story with Russian citizen Anna Bogacheva, who was detained in Minsk at the request of the United States through Interpol, and then released. A. Lukashenka himself twice commented on this plot, as if making excuses to Russia. Say, why such a noise, they did everything according to the international rules, and when they figured out that she was accused of interfering in the American elections, they quickly released her.

However, there are several oddities and inconsistencies in this explanation. Firstly, Anna Bogacheva is not on the open list of people wanted by Interpol.

Secondly, why for two days, during which a Russian citizen was in the status of a detainee, Minsk and Moscow could not agree quietly, non-publicly, behind the scenes? It is important to note that it was the Russian side that raised the scandal. The first to report about this incident was the state agency of the Russian Federation RIA Novosti. Then, information about the detention appeared on Twitter of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Russian Embassy in Belarus. And only after this, Moscow (possibly after an unsuccessful attempt to negotiate secretly) pulled the scandal into the public space to put pressure on Minsk, and Anna Bogacheva was released.

Thirdly, a very noticeable dissonance in the behavior of the Belarusian state bodies hit the eye. The fact that the Russian citizen was detained was reported by the Spokesperson for the Belarusian Ministry of Internal Affairs Volha Chamadanava, the official representative of General Prosecutor's Office of Belarus Dzmitry Bryliou. The Embassy of the Russian Federation informed that it provides the detainee with “consular support provided for in such cases”.

And suddenly, after all this, the Belarusian authorities surprisingly began to refute the obvious. Natallia Eismant, Spokesperson for Lukashenka, told tut.by: “She was not detained or arrested. This is a different interpretation of the same event.” Deputy Prosecutor General Aliaksei Stuk commented on the situation more carefully. He told reporters that they did not impose on Russian citizen Anna Bogacheva “procedural coercion measures, she remained free”. Such a discrepancy in assessing the event finally turned the drama into a farce.

I can offer a hypothesis that partially explains these inconsistencies. Initially, official Minsk tried to start a bargain with Moscow over Anna Bogacheva. The hostage game is a frequent occurrence in the politics of the Belarusian authorities. Say, if for Russia her release is important, then let's negotiate, make concessions in other matters. Perhaps the Belarusian side wanted to receive economic satisfaction. And maybe, given the professional background, A. Bogacheva (an active employee of the “troll factory”, supported the structures of the “Russian world” outside the Russian Federation), Minsk demanded an end to Russia's intervention in the internal affairs of Belarus.

However, something went wrong, the original plan did not work. Anna Bogacheva was released as soon as the case became public. The Belarusian authorities played the situation back because they did not calculate the political effect. The arrest of a fiery fighter against the main enemy of Russia - the United States - made a big fuss in the Russian Federation, serious passions flared up there, A. Lukashenka was accused of betrayal. The arrest of Bogacheva touched on a very painful topic, the psychological trauma of both the Russian elite and society. Therefore, the answer from Moscow could be very tough. It took two days for Minsk to understand this. And having understood, they panicked and began to prove that I was not them. It turned out awkwardly.

Valer Karbalevich, Svobodnye Novosti