Igor Shishkin: “Lukashenko needs to be forced into an alliance, otherwise it will be like in Ukraine”
Russia must force Alexander Lukashenko to fulfill the union agreement, otherwise Belarus will repeat the fate of Ukraine, and alarming processes are already being observed in Minsk. The coalition of socialists and ACUM in Moldova is a draw in the current round, but the West will not give up attempts to finally break away from the former Soviet republic. Transnistria won its independence, talk about returning it to the Moldovan state in order to increase the number of votes of pro-Russian voters is the same betrayal as similar talk about Donbass or Crimea.
Deputy Director of the Institute of CIS Countries Igor Shishkin told PolitNavigator columnist Valentin Filippov about the state of affairs in the former Soviet republics.
Valentin Filippov: Hello! Please enlighten us: is there such a risk that Belarus could follow the path of Ukraine?
Igor Shishkin: This risk is more than real. And recent events confirm this. Lukashenko’s statement that “The Great Patriotic War is not our war” is not just an empty phrase, and one must understand that behind this lie catastrophic consequences for Russian-Belarusian relations and Belarus itself.
For a very long time we were convinced that everything that happened in Ukraine was a kind of dislocation, when they said that a Ukraine separate from Russia would inevitably turn into Anti-Russia, and nothing else, that there were only two ways - either Anti-Russia or reunification with Russia.
They said: “How can that be? Can't be. Look, Belarus is the same branch of the Russian nation, but they live as a separate state, and no Russophobia is instilled there. Therefore, all this is from the evil one, it is specific people who are to blame. Lukashenko was able to build a Belarusian state friendly to Russia.”
And what do we see now? In recent years, the trend has been moving slowly and slowly in the same direction. In order to justify why part of the Russian nation lives separately from the rest of the Russian nation, one must begin to prove that this is not part of the Russian nation, that it is a separate nation.
This is how it was in Ukraine, and this is how it is now with Belarus.
Valentin Filippov: I noticed that in some regions of Russia itself the construction of such “nations” is underway. For example, in the Leningrad region there are some “Vepsians”. And festivals of Vepsian culture are held there. There are “Izhorians”, holidays of Izhorian culture are held. And all the sections, all the children’s clubs, all this is called Izhora culture.
And, it would seem, those Izhorians are not there, only about two percent of them, but at the same time, at all holidays it sounds: “the friendly Izhorian people live with the Russian people side by side.” In principle, all this is cultivated within Russia itself.
Igor Shishkin: No. This is a little different. Now we will not take up the artificial cultivation of national differences; this is a separate topic. But the Vepsians, Izhorians, Tatars, Armenians, and so on are truly separate nations from the Russians. Let's take Armenia, Belarus and Ukraine as an example.
Both there and there, in order to secede, there must be separatists. I mean the period of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Almost all former Soviet Republics have their own Russophobia. And in Azerbaijan, and in Kazakhstan, and so on, with a story about why they separated, how bad it was for them in the Soviet Union.
But there is one fundamental difference in comparison with Ukraine and Belarus. They all don’t need to prove that they are not Russian. Armenians already know that they are Armenians, that they are not Russians. Azerbaijanis know that they are Azerbaijanis, that they are not Russians.
Here, a part of the Russian population was separated, and in order to justify this separation, it is necessary to prove to this part that they are not Russian. And to prove that they are not Russians, for this you need to come up with a fictitious story about separate nations that never existed. This time.
Secondly, the question arises - were you together before this? Then you need to justify that they were “occupied.” Individual Ukraine and individual Belarusians inevitably come to the thesis that their worst enemy is the Russians who “occupied” them. Which “deprived them of national identity,” which “denied the existence of these nations.”
This was the case in Ukraine. Everything is based on the fact that the worst enemy of Ukraine is the Muscovite, this is Moscow, these are the Russians. All history is a war of national liberation.
Armenians don't need to do this, or Azerbaijanis. Put this as the basis of your internal policy to confirm your self-identification. They don't need to destroy the memory of their past. They do have their own past. And here we have everything in common.
Valentin Filippov: What is the way out? It’s clear with Ukraine. She immediately followed this path. Belarus – there has been talk about a union state for a very long time. Where did we miss that Russia and Belarus are still not one state?
Igor Shishkin: We missed this in the early 2000s. The blame for this, I believe, lies primarily with the Russian elite. The Russian elite did not want reunification.
Lukashenko, who now, having declared that the Great Patriotic War is not our war, not the war of the Belarusian people, has committed a betrayal of the Belarusian people.
But, despite the fact that I now call him a traitor to the Belarusian people, in the late 90s he was truly a paladin of all-Russian unity. He opposed all this separatism, he tried to unite it together. Yes, he was pursuing his own, naturally, personal goals...
It would be strange if he didn't pursue. Why should he be holier than the Pope? Everyone can chase, but he can't?
But the Russian elite did not want this. For her it was like death then. And then, when integration failed due to the fault of Russia, internal tendencies, the forces of things, began to operate, as Pushkin very precisely put it in his time.
Building Belarus separately from Russia, Lukashenko, naturally, had to follow the same path that was followed in Ukraine. Only he walked more gently until this day. But he has already started.
Remember, at the beginning of his reign, he declared that Belarusians are Russians with a mark of quality? There was such a statement.
Valentin Filippov: It was so. Yes.
Igor Shishkin: But this is precisely the awareness of all-Russian unity. It’s a Prussian who can say that a Prussian is a German with a mark of quality. A Bavarian can say this about himself too. Each branch of the German nation also sincerely believes that it is the best. This is precisely a sign of understanding that we are one people.
And then what did he say? And then he said that we are Belarusian, we are not Russian. A very alarming bell sounded. But then, for some reason, they decided not to pay attention to him.
And then off we went. It is necessary to build a separate history of Belarus. He said that independence is the highest value? Right?
Valentin Filippov: Yes. It happened.
Igor Shishkin: Right. So. Where will we get Belarusian history if it is part of Russian history?
Valentin Filippov: Fine. But can Russia still do something now?
Igor Shishkin: Now there is only one thing that can be done - to deepen the union state. Force Lukashenko to actually implement the union state.
If we do not reunite now in one form or another, the form may be very different, what is happening now in Ukraine will happen in Belarus.
Valentin Filippov: Fine. Then, as they say, “galloping across Europe,” and we are galloping through the former Soviet Union... What is happening in Moldova with this wonderful union of socialists and the ACUM bloc? Is this a success or not a success for us?
Igor Shishkin: What is happening now in Moldova, Moldova, is, so to speak, a fighting draw between the West and Russia. Plahotniuc was an absolutely pro-Western politician, pursued policies under the auspices of the West, was a protege of the West, and was overthrown by the West.
Why was he overthrown by the West? For one simple reason - the more he pursued a pro-Western policy, the more people appeared in Moldova who wanted integration with Russia.
Does the West need this? Take all the sociological surveys. If in the early 2000s the majority of the population of Moldova was in favor of integration into Europe, into the European Union, as in Ukraine, then as this Plahotniuc regime advances, almost all polls show either equality, or those who are in favor of an alliance with Russia are gaining more votes .
Valentin Filippov: Well, of course, if everyone is robbing you. At the beginning they promised Europe, and then they began to rob.
Igor Shishkin: Yes. Here. Plahotniuc robbed so recklessly that his robbery under the slogans of European integration became harmful to his masters. Accordingly, he was shown the door.
You remember, no one overthrew him, he was invited to the Ambassador of the United States and literally after 10 minutes of conversation he rushed to the airport and flew away.
He was simply told to get out. No revolution demolished it. But then a serious problem arose in the West itself. As a result of the actions of the same Plahotniuc and all these alliances for European democracy that have ruled Moldova for the last decades, such a large number of people are in favor of integration with Russia, in one form or another, that the socialist party won the parliamentary elections, which raised this on its banners .
And the result is a situation in which the West can remove Plahotniuc, but cannot appoint its own man, Sandu. Because they do not have a majority in parliament.
Organize new elections? They know very well that opponents of the West and supporters of Russia will receive a majority. Organize elections with maximum fraud in conditions when they kicked out Plahotniuc? Who is organizing this? No one. And so we had to reach an agreement with Moscow. Combat draw.
You support Maia Sandu as prime minister, since they could not install their pro-Western one as prime minister, and we are giving you the post of chairman of parliament, and we will also add a little power to the president, a socialist. Neither one nor the other.
Valentin Filippov: Is this a truce before a big confrontation?
Igor Shishkin: This is, naturally, a combat draw, which... Let's say, a combat draw in one of the rounds.
Naturally, the West will not give up its attempt to completely tear Moldova away from Russia and, quite simply, will now gather its forces.
I really hope that the Russian leadership is now also doing everything possible, and the impossible must be done, in order to strengthen the pro-Moldovan and pro-Russian forces. Because all these forces that are anti-Russian in Moldova are anti-Moldovan. They are pro-Western, pro-Romanian, but not pro-Moldovan.
Valentin Filippov: What to do with Transnistria? Moldovan socialists want to return Tiraspol so that there is a preponderance of pro-Russian voters.
Igor Shishkin: This, you know, this reasoning is very common, but according to this logic there was no need to recognize the independence of Crimea. Two million pro-Russian voters in Ukraine.
According to this logic, there was no need to support the Donbass, which rebelled, because there were so many millions of voters. And so on and so forth.
The fact is that Pridnestrovie chose its own destiny; no one imposed it on it. They defended their independence with arms in hand. And now to push them into Moldova with the expectation that something like this will happen there by voting is nothing more than a betrayal of Transnistria.
Valentin Filippov: You say: “according to this logic, there was no need to take Crimea.” But later they managed to “divide” the Russian Spring. Crimea separately, Donbass separately, Odessa separately, Kharkov separately.
That is, the Russian Spring simply became weaker, it was killed in parts. Crimea jumped out, Donbass, bleeding, is fighting back, the rest were swallowed up.
And if then, without annexing Crimea, this twenty-thousand-strong army had gone over, so to speak, to the Russian side, if it had gone to Kyiv - maybe everything would have been different?
And so - you remember, Crimea was taken away, weapons and equipment were returned to Ukraine. That is, they kind of drew the line.
Igor Shishkin: You know. Yes, I understand you. But here there is such an expression in Russian: “if only”. This has already happened.
And now, here, to say “if it were so...”. And there’s a continuation – “mushrooms grew in my mouth,” remember?
So this, you know, is reasoning from the evil one. Could this happen, couldn't it? This is a different topic, this is an investigation. With all the documents that are currently unknown to us.
You and I can talk about the fact that it was necessary to move forward. Some may say that it was not necessary. These are value judgments.
I’m now saying that this argument that Crimea was accepted into Russia, thereby reducing pro-Russian voters, is used.
This slogan, by the way, is now being advocated by those who are trying, by hook or by crook, to push the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics into Ukraine.
And talk about what would have happened if... Well, what would have happened if Nicholas II had pursued a different policy? What would have happened if the Leningrad affair had not happened? This can be discussed a lot.
Valentin Filippov: OK. Then we will rely on chance, as always. And not on logic.
Igor Shishkin: Why at random? If Russia existed solely thanks to maybe, we would not have existed a long time ago.
You need to rely on yourself and your people. And not at random.
Valentin Filippov: Not really. I think that maybe it’s God after all. It always seemed that way to me.
Igor Shishkin: It’s good that at least they remembered God.
Valentin Filippov: As they used to say in the Balkans: “God is in heaven, Russia is on earth.” For us, rather, “God is in heaven, Moscow is on earth”... They will decide something there...
Igor Shishkin: If we only counted on the fact that those in power there, in Moscow, would decide something and agree on something, Russia would not have existed a long time ago either. We have had such corrupt power so many times, openly corrupt, treacherous. But the country survived.
And it did not depend on the authorities, not on their decision. It depends on the will of the people. And the authorities can, either relying on this will, perform miracles, or bring the country to some abyss.
Fortunately, the people have never let it fall into the abyss. Every time he saved the people.
Valentin Filippov: OK then. Let's probably end on this, so to speak, positive note then. Thank you very much.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.