Prague accent: either the condition of Europe and Belarus Our homeland?

Who offers the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact for Belarus?
Drakakhrust: "This week," Our field "article appeared Vitaly Silitski" Dances with Wolves. "He, like many of the publication of this creator, fascinating even to those who disagree with him, at least entertaining precise and clear wording of the question, if no answers.
The main topic of the article — the possibility and usefulness of dialogue in Europe and Russia on Belarus, the project changes in Belarus, Brussels and Moscow could create together. Might not. Silitski begins with the observation that a recognizable "Manifesto" and Sinitsyna Parfenovich "own terry antybelaruskastsyu and natural nonsense" manifesto "created a bad background information that" part of the Belarusian society, which hitherto has not got rid of hope that the salvation of Belarus Lukashenko come from Russia. "
More representatives of this part of the name directly: "The idea that something will change in Belarus only when it becomes a" zone of fruitful cooperation between Russia and the European Union "started quite intensively voiced. Recall letter signed by Misha Marinich and others."
Not counting the former ambassador of Belarus to Latvia signed this letter, by the way, academician Radim Goretskogo, writer Gennady Buraukin and our current interlocutor Kirill Koktysh. Vitaly Silitski attitude to this and similar initiatives it definitely negative "Despite the visual appeal of the idea of" Russian euro project for Belarus ", at its fotagenichnasts for ordinary Belarusian tradesman, this question is sad parallels. Belarus has already happened" zone of constructive cooperation "between Europe and Russia: three sections of the Commonwealth, the Brest peace, contract in Riga, the Ribbentrop Molotov … This cooperation ended, but not the rise and liberation and state disaster. "
Sovereign Koktyish how you came to that proposed Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact for their own homeland? "

K. Koktyish: "Belarus — at the crossroads, it can not be isolated, it can not be without impact." "

Koktyish: "In 1-x, then you need to get rid of legends and overturn everything from head to foot. Emblem which is Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? This is the situation in which the country’s fate may be decided not herself, not her role. Otherwise this pact — International ordinary arrangement, and that happened before and that happen at the moment. litsezreem What we now in Belarus? subjectness Belarus as such, no.» Sub ektnasts Belarusian president — is a derivative of the Russian subjectivity .» Sub ektnasts official opposition — is a derivative of the subjectivity of the Belarusian president. And specifically on the creation of this subjectivity focused Declaration, signed by Gennady Buraukin, Radim Gorki, Misha and I Marinich.
I recall that there was held an appeal to the neighbors who are interested in the Belarusian subjectivity, at least as interested as neighbors. On the other hand, none of them are currently not strong enough to absorb Belarus, to attach to themselves as part of.
Because sounding statements and accusations may sound fine, but what next? Conservation of current situation, when all political actors are bad? This is not the way. Do not yield to the same as the current status quo preservation Belarus impracticable, economic processes, which began with the transition to market prices energoelementy already developed and the result will be. In Belarus itself, not a point of support, but it can occur particularly with the general will of the Belarusians. But the inability of this "third force", which may appear a force for growth inside Belarus, gives a clue to the only productive way — to negotiate with the neighbors, but with all its neighbors.
And it will be the only guarantee of order not there was a new Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. No one should bother about the future of Belarus except herself. When they say that will bother or just the West or the East only, eventually it will be a one-sided preference vyrastanne someone who is busy.
Belarus — at the crossroads, it can not be isolated, it can not be without impact. State that is only the western or eastern exposure only — it is obvious gibberish. Zbalyanasavats need them, that they both worked on the Belarusian statehood. "
Drakakhrust: "Valery Bulgakov, and with whom you agree mostly — with Vitaliy SILITSKIY or Kirill Koktysh and why?"

V. Bulgakov: "I recall that the liberation of Central and Eastern Europe in 1989 would not have been likely without geapalitychnay unique situation when the West contributed, at least while the East did not pass configuration." "

Bulgakov: "I certainly agree a little with the first and the second. Silitski In this piece very very pronounced journalistic beginning. General talk about the state disaster in connection with sections Rzeczpospolita — is, in my opinion, terrible exaggeration .. Maybe precisely because of this geopolitical actions appeared Belarusian chances of the emergence of civilization as such.
On the other hand, I have is a lot of skepticism radicalism sovereign Koktysh when he says that in Belarus there is no sub ektnasts», he says, the Belarusian economy depends, Belarusian business dependent, Belarussian President nobody recognized. I think that this is also some extreme, which is consistent with the weak and the other geopolitical reality.
As for the message of which was voiced SILITSKIY, I would define it a little differently — the primary role in the transition to democracy must belong to the Belarusian society, internal society. Belarusian intelligentsia in the midst of very often we see a shift in ideological terms hopes that the West or the East will bring liberation. In my opinion, this is a very utopian position that impacted many times over in the twentieth century.
Even if we accept for the theorem that the decisive force will belong to the Belarusian society, it does not disprove the fundamental importance of geopolitical actors position between East and West. I recall that the liberation of Central and Eastern Europe in 1989 would not have been likely without the unique geopolitical situation, when the West contributed, at least while the East has not bypassed configuration. And then, in Polish, Czech and other societies had crucial momentum to mean. "
Drakakhrust: "Alexei Pikulik, given the debate that we have already taken place, I will formulate views Silitski such makarom: changes will occur in the end thanks to the Belarusian society, but with all this probable agreement between Brussels and Moscow over policy towards Belarus is for these change is not good. you agree with that? "

A. Pikulik: "I can not even argue with the thesis about the harmfulness of Belarus in Europe and the Russian Federation agreement about it, since I do not see how such an agreement can be reached."

Pikulik: "It seemed to me that Vitali writes about the difficulty of agreement between Moscow and Brussels, having in mind that they represent different options for the transformation of Belarus. Other words, bringing the brackets ethical prepyadstviya here a question of exposure. I do not really understand how the European Union and Our motherland can find agreement on the reform dilemma Belarus. In Russia has its own model of sovereign democracy in the West — more awareness.
I can not even argue with the thesis about the harmfulness Silitski agreement for Belarus in Europe and the Russian Federation about her, since I do not see how such an agreement can be reached. The combined impact on the Lukashenko regime probable, it may lead to thaw. Joint actions to reform Belarus, what says Koktyish model of Belarus’ in the intersection zone of the Russian Federation and the impact of Europe hardly likely, because it is very different interests have both sides. "
East is East, West is West?
Drakakhrust: "Alex, you have already started to follow our theme, precisely, began a conversation about another aspect of difficulty. Vital Silitski, proving not only harmful, and the impossibility of agreement the EU and Russia on Belarus, says the purpose of the Kremlin against Belarus followed follows: "The objectives of the Kremlin in winter conflict were clear. In his address to the Federal Assembly, President Putin stressed that the issue of unification with Belarus remains open. Adopted in 2000 Russian foreign policy doctrine true nyadvuhsensovna determines that the purpose of foreign policy of the Russian Federation — Western structures and prevention institutions of the post-Soviet space … values Russian policy towards Belarus — is at least limit its sovereignty (blocking the ability of its political and economic integration into the European society) and seizing control of critical oil and gas transit infrastructure. Such things as democratization or human rights, it simply does not go. "
Indeed whether the objectives of Moscow against Belarus are specifically? Whether its purposes do it impracticable dialogue with the West, at least with Europe about Belarus? "

A. Pikulik: "Any political projects, any economic liberalization projects Belarusian economy under the control of the Russian Federation will inevitably remove Belarus from Maastryhtskih criteria."

Pikulik: "I quite agree in this respect with Vitali. He writes not that acts Moscow complicate or distract a possible dialogue with the EU, he writes that those acts are able to do Moscow, remove Belarus from EU integration . And it is really so, because any political projects, any economic liberalization projects Belarusian economy under the control of the Russian Federation will inevitably remove Belarus from Maastryhtskih criteria that are required for the reform of the Belarusian economy before joining the European Union.
There is a conflict of interest. The European version of economic reform means transition to liberal regulated economy. Our homeland itself failed to reach a fully liberal regulation of its own economy, it quickly comes to a hybrid economy with a strong influence of the country, with a vertically integrated market structures, but it is a conflict of interests in the long run. But in the short term can be accurately click on Lukashenko regime in Belarus was so certain, though small liberalization, if not democratization. "

V. Bulgakov: "To Brussels very surprising to deal with the state, which must be convinced of the necessity and usefulness of joining the European Union."

Bulgakov: "Silitski also focuses its attention on the quality of Russian-European relations. This quality is constantly exacerbated by a couple of years. Despite the fact that I strongly welcome the dialogue between Russia and Europe, I really think the highest degree of utopianism assume that consensus will be reached in Belarusian issue between Russian and European elites.
In general, these recent initiatives, including a letter and Parfenovich Sinitsyna, in my opinion, are in a certain connection with the explosion of Russian nationalism in the case of Estonia and other manifestations of contemporary Russian nationalism and chauvinism, even against the states of Eastern Europe. Here, perhaps, was also served signal prisoner Alexander Kozulin, who seems to have made no response to this letter. And had to, for sure, to react, to find its political position. Some elements of consensus on Belarus between Brussels and Moscow are likely only in some rather insignificant economic sectors of the field.
In geopolitical nuance between Brussels and Moscow are full vzaemasupyarechlivasts, Moscow analysts like sovereign right Suzdaltseva give to realize that even a change of cultural relations in today’s Belarus, for example, the rejection of municipal status Russian language, will be impossible in the case of pro-Russian transformations of Belarusian society.
In my opinion, there is a conflict of interest, but he did not feel very much alive, because Belarus and Belarusians are in the Russian zone of informational influence, and they can have a clear understanding of the position of Russian elites and very vague — the position of Brussels.
Brussels is very surprising to have to deal with the state, which must be convinced of the necessity and usefulness of EU accession. Accession of Central and Eastern Europe took place in a very different mode — the elite themselves alternately set a goal. On Belarus Brussels almost put in the position of greeters who compelled to compose some incentives to intrigue the Belarusian society.
There is still a fascinating nuance associated with neaimperskay Policy. There is a rule that the territorial empire, like the Russian Federation, break up, if you do not continue to territorial expansion. And it seems to me that desperately tries to formulate the position with regard to Belarus, that "we are one people" as it sounded from the lips of the sovereign Putin, too, not least due to the understanding of this sad trend. "
Drakakhrust: "Kiryll Koktyish, since you live in the country, according to Valery Silitski is on the verge or already in the process of decay, then for you the cards to clarify what aims Our homeland against Belarus and allow these goals it , of, all the same to come to some agreement on Belarus to Europe? "

K. Koktyish "How-or far-reaching goals in Russia over Belarus no."

Koktyish "Submissions regarding Russian political space is really very many legends that particularly thrive outside Russia. Russian political process is based on the economic foundation. Primary motive is financial power efficiency. Actually politics, political parties, political values as Russian authorities consider some unavoidable costs of the economic process.
It was different in Russia of Yeltsin and I would agree with the goals that my interlocutors to behold the Russian policy, if it concerned the Yeltsin era. But for the moment the reality is quite different. And as part of this approach, which focuses economy goals in Russia on Belarus really very little.
Let’s look at what was actually produced. After the oil embargo in January that did sire Lukashenko, Belarus lost most of their own transit capacity. In bypassing Belarus currently under construction branch in the Baltic pipeline system, gas will be mostly through the North-European gas pipeline, it will be completed 2-3 years of losses. How-or far-reaching goals in Russia towards Belarus is not … "
Drakakhrust: "Cyril, you have said that our homeland against Belarus
has no goals. But goals can be not only positive, and negative: it is possible not only to desire, that someone came out, and so something not work. Valery Bulgakov referred one such negative purpose. According to our homeland not wish that Russian language did not have municipal Belarus. can imagine that Belarus’ entry into NATO Our homeland also did not want to and it is the goal of. .. "

K. Koktyish "If formulate a positive Russian intrigued, she is interested in the appearance of Belarus responsible national-oriented management."

Koktyish: "This is certainly so bad these goals are. And if Belarus will NATO, it would be a severe blow to the Russian Federation and in Russia understand this. Regarding the language issue, then it is not as critical. I refer to his own experience of conversations with the highest Russian bureaucrats. Their eyes more liberal when the language issue will be addressed in Belarus on the basis of equilibrium, and not against their will. If formulate a positive Russian intrigued, she is interested in the appearance of Belarus responsible national-based management, which would be interested in protecting the public interest and which can be would agree.
This principle was officially formulated in the values of Russian policy in respect of the CIS states, where it was stated that the pro-Russian elites in the CIS is not and never has been, and praraseyskasts was only a means of extracting money from Russia. Our homeland refused because of what it will pay more for the pro-Russian, and has determined that it is interested in responsible government regimes. After all, when it comes to responsibility for these public interest, it is assumed that these interests will be, at least in the long term, friendly to the Russian Federation. "
Drakakhrust: "The background of our current conversation is a Russia-EU summit in Samara, which ended a tough dispute between the parties and a huge distance. Against this background, the European Union and Russian relations, which have developed independently of their business to Belarus as probable for you, Cyril, seems their agreement on Belarus? "
Koktyish: "Such an agreement between Moscow and Brussels — is really something impracticable. Unrealistic so Our homeland that, and not without reason, the European Union considers the project of the future, but not a day or current project. There are some European countries with whom we can talk. But while the Alliance will turn into some integrity, which will be able to make sense of their own political interests, it may take at least 20 years. Because Brussels Our homeland will not negotiate because they do not consider it as actors. "
On which template will be built Belarusian identity?

A. Pikulik: "The impact through the market, with the exception of the system of preferences is already happening, is that the European Union was able to do: targeted sanctions, visa bans — is also made."

Pikulik: "Here I agree with Cyril Koktysh. As they say, who need to call to talk to the European Union. European Union almost all mistyfikuetstsa and appears only structure, although it is not. And what about the ability to agree, I repeat, completely likely certain agreements pressure on Lukashenko to cause a thaw in Belarus, but it is unlikely to become severe by the country’s transformation.
European Union within its own bureaucratic procedures has practically exhausted its ability to impact on Belarus. Impact through the market, with the exception of the system of preferences is already happening, is that the European Union was able to do: targeted sanctions, visa bans — also manufactured. Someone eventually had to move their own shopping with London and Milan to Moscow. That’s all.
Level of Western influence on Belarus is very small. Belarusian authorities have not so much depend on Western creditors and west of the capital market, so in response to solve certain steps. Vorachivayas to the theme of the dialogue of the EU and the Russian Federation, is to say that the rapid transformation of the states of Eastern Europe and the Baltic States and their entry into the European Union has been associated with the level of nationalism that almost everything was directed against Russia.
These countries want to get rid of economic dependence on Russia, and they had to very quickly do what they had read in the framework of the EU accession criteria. Belarus — a totally different case. No such antagonism is already in it. While on the other hand, I do not know what in the end can lead such a cooperation between Europe and Russia, except for the question and consultations. "

V. Bulgakov: "At some point, a choice must be made and I think that this choice will certainly mean defeat 1st geopolitical magnets, which is located between Belarus".

Bulgakov: "The Emperor touched Koktyish very fascinating subject, but in my opinion is very biased and tendentious. He said that our homeland is interested in the appearance of Belarus responsible, state regime, which would report to the Belarusian society. Course, what we put on different meanings this concept — state. Referring to the expression of the sovereign Pikulik seemingly saw that state mode — a mode that relies on a certain type of state identity.
Experience in Eastern Europe indicates that the national identity of these countries, these societies Our homeland — is the pole repulsion, not attraction pole. And it seems to me very utopian place that Belarus will be invented some brand new identity, which in the case of success of nationalism in Belarus will accept Russia as a positive pole, and the West — as a negative.
Indeed fraction such that Belarus is at the crossroads of global geopolitical ways and corridors and is unlikely we will see the preservation of status quo. At some point, the choice should be made and it seems to me that this choice will certainly mean defeat the 1st of these geopolitical magnets, which is between Belarus ".
Drakakhrust: "Cyril, to reply to you about your bias."
Koktyish: "The theme of identity and what it can be — a very painful topic. And why talk about the west or east wing, as on some inevitability, which change Russian-Atlantic custody than one better than the other?
Russia, like other countries in Eastern Europe, felt like someone bar» EPAM, frantseram East and West, and was under the western or eastern or under the influence. And the strategy and the East and West was monotonous — to take on this critical area and a lot of exposure to dissociate itself from geopolitical adversary. But the reality is the last day.
Now Our homeland and Europe, they wish it or not, have become interdependent. Europe is dependent on Russian energoelementov. Our homeland is dependent on European buyers energoelementov. And they are interested in, that does not seriously quarrel and make an effective system of interaction. It occurs tomorrow, but in 5-10 years, but it occurs.
And this identity in Eastern Europe, if you want someone to belong to the West or the East, it becomes counterproductive. I remind you that historically the first identity in this region was the way of the Greeks in the Vikings. This and our Belarusian identity, although it differs forgotten. And again she becomes productive in the brand new geopolitical situation that arises. "

"A. Pikulik:" Located in dependence on the West, and is dependent on the East means quite different depending, both in quality and substance. "

Pikulik: "I agree with the sovereign Bulgakov. Indeed, nationalism, a strong national movement in Belarus will be targeted against Russia. Regarding the fact that the emperor said Koktyish that uniformly contradictions between the EU and Russia are reduced and that now the difference between Eastern and Western Europe will uniformly disappear — it concerns the macro level. But more fundamental is that which takes pole for the standard in economics and politics, each government. Depend on the West and East are dependent on means quite different depending, both in quality and substance. dependence on the West, integration with the following entry would mean the country’s transformation to democracy, at the same time as a result of Russia is not so clear. "

Like this post? Please share to your friends: