"The Russian Political Class Has Formed an Opinion That Lukashenka Is Not a Tenant"

People are demanding his resignation.

Apparently, even the Belarusian leadership has no illusions about Lukashenka's ability to impose himself on the Belarusian people, and the government acts on the principle: "After me, the flood." Russian political scientist Andrey Suzdaltsev writes about this on the website politoboz.com.

Sochi: prelude

On September 14, Vladimir Putin and Lukashenka met on the Black Sea coast. It cannot be said that their conversation in terms of agreements was productive or very informative. Still, nevertheless, the working summit results, on the one hand, demonstrated Moscow's concern over the political crisis in the Republic of Belarus. On the other hand, the conversation between Putin and Lukashenka made it possible to come to certain conclusions regarding the political prospects of the Belarusian ruler.

First of all, it became apparent that Moscow has complaints to Lukashenka, whose completely insane policy led to a full-scale crisis in the country.

Replica

At the same time, we should immediately note that by recognizing Lukashenka's election, Moscow took responsibility for all his actions in relation to the protests and their participants. Apparently, there is a certain agreement between Putin and Lukashenka regarding street actions.

Evidence of this is the way Lukashenka interpreted the actions in the Belarusian capital at a meeting with the Russian president:

"Yes, and on Saturday - Sunday we liberate part of Minsk so that people can, if they want, walk through this part, but, most importantly, I constantly say this, without crossing the line."

Let us remind you that at the same time, the current Belarusian head of state spoke about the protest action of September 13, during which the Belarusian AMAP pushed more than 500 people into paddy wagons. It is clear that Lukashenka lied to Putin about some "festivities" of the inhabitants of Minsk, surrounded by barbed wire and armored personnel carriers, like the Belarusian capital is a huge concentration camp.

However, Putin, who has no illusions about Lukashenka's ability to frame Russia, instantly seized on Lukashenka's confidence that nothing threatened his power and immediately sent home a reserve of Russian security officials concentrated in August on the Russian-Belarusian border. The European Union breathed a sigh - there will be no second Crimea.

"Not a tenant"

The problem is that no matter how many times the Belarusian media and Russian federal channels repeat about Lukashenka's "undoubted" victory, thanks to street performances in Belarusian cities, in the Russian political class, an opinion was formed that Lukashenka was "not a tenant" and was doomed to disaster.

Hence, this results in the Russian public's extremely negative attitude towards any financial support for the rotten Belarusian authoritarian regime. Recall that in Sochi, Lukashenka was promised a loan of $ 1.5 billion, which caused outrage in Moscow and the Russian regions.

Replica

The negative attitude in Russia to Lukashenka's loan reminded us of the scandal in December 2013, when Yanukovich asked the Kremlin for the first tranche of a 15-billion – dollar loan-3 billion US dollars. Then, more than six years ago, the Russian political class was reassured by Dmitry Medvedev, who claimed that the loan to Viktor Yanukovich is a debt receipt, which in case of force majeure, can be sold on global financial markets.

A year later, it became clear that no one needed Yanukovich's IOUs and Russia lost the money.

Sviatlana Cikhanouskaja, on September 20, hinted at a similar result of lending to Lukashenka, noting that "in the eyes of people, Lukashenka has no legitimacy, they did not choose him. And, when a person takes a loan, and the Belarusians, who have not recognized and do not recognize this person, must give this loan, what can we talk about?"

The fate of "Lukashenka's loan"

After September 14, the Russian authorities, always sensitive to the reaction of society, in various forms immediately joined the discussion around the "Lukashenka's loan," assuring that, on the one hand, the loan is of a stabilizing nature, since Russia is not interested in the Belarusian default, and on the other hand, assuring that the loan is not burdened with any political conditions.

The last statement from Dmitry Peskov's lips caused even more gossip, since, in fact, in Russia, and someone in Belarus, they were waiting for a kind of deal: a loan in exchange for constitutional reform. But that did not happen.

In the end, it turned out, as always. The loan seems to have been issued, but it seems to be gone. On September 16, Lukashenka confirmed that 2/3 of the loan will remain in Moscow this year:

"I must tell you that it was my insistence. Both the prime minister and the finance minister offered me to repay this loan - this year, we had to return a billion to them [RF] on our old debt. Despite all the difficulties, we were ready to return this billion. This is not a new loan. This was my request to the Russian leadership that we are not paying you this billion this year, we keep it and postpone it to next year. The percentage there is acceptable. That is, this is a question of refinancing."

In other words, Lukashenka will not receive "real money" from Anton Siluanov (RF Minister of Finance), since the remaining part of the loan will go to Gazprom as payment for the Russian natural gas already supplied to Belarus.

The fuss over the "Lukashenka loan" is an indicator that street protests against the dictatorship are certainly annoying the Belarusian leadership, but there are even more complex and inevitable problems.

Despite the fact that Lukashenka puffs his cheeks, claiming that he has money to settle accounts with creditors ("Despite all the difficulties, we were ready to return this billion"), in fact, Lukashenka is bankrupt, and he just desperately needed a loan.

Recall that back in February of this year, i.e. before the coronavirus epidemic and the election campaign, Lukashenka demanded that Moscow refinance its debt.

So, the allocated loan is a political decision. The evidence of the political format is that, in order for the Ministry of Finance of Russia to issue a loan to Minsk, some legislative restrictions in the Russian Federation must be changed.

There is no doubt that these restrictions will be lifted since Moscow really does not want Minsk to reproach Russia for strangling Lukashenka with a financial "noose" when he fights off the "color revolution" with his "last bit of strength."

In other words, Moscow, having increased the total debt of Minsk to the Russian budget, continued the "blunt jigsaw" tactic, which in the conditions of the Belarusian political crisis turns into torture intolerable for Lukashenka - no real help has come from the East.

Eventually

After the Russian-Belarusian summit, the political situation in Belarus became completely confusing. Lukashenka assured Putin that constitutional reform will be carried out in the country, as a result of which another person will be elected to the post of President of Belarus. Most likely, Moscow expects that Lukashenka's successor will appear in the Belarusian political field.

A week after his return from Sochi, Lukashenka managed to speak to the "activists," where he did not say a word about his mistakes but instead revealed a global conspiracy against Belarus, i.e. against his power, held a women's Sabbath with the "officers' wives," and continued the terror against the protests (September 19-20).

But Lukashenka didn't have time to announce the beginning of the constitutional reform. In other words, on the one hand, Lukashenka has already deceived Moscow and intends to continue to deceive Russia, and on the other hand, to seek justifications for maintaining his power by referring to the military threat from the NATO bloc.

A natural question arises: who needs the constitutional reform in Belarus under the leadership of Lukashenka? At the protest rallies in Belarusian cities, people do not demand a constitutional reform, but in the format of a popular uprising, they insist on Lukashenka's resignation.

Simple and clear...