Vladimir Putin will have last word in Belarus — and that word will be ‘mine
Loading player...
It’s hard to think of anything more ominous than Russian President Vladimir Putin offering you his “assistance” so you can “resolve the problems” that are keeping you busy. But that’s what Putin has just promised to Alexander Lukashenko, the embattled and apparently fading dictator of Belarus.
As the post-Soviet state, wedged awkwardly between the EU and Nato on one side and Russia on the other, struggles for its freedom, it’s worth keeping in mind who will ultimately decide its future.
That person isn’t Lukashenko. Since 1994 he’s tried every dirty trick to stay in power — locking up opponents, rigging the system and cracking down brutally on demonstrators. But even he must know the game’s finally up. Despite claiming to have won the August 9 presidential election by a ludicrous 80%, he pretty clearly lost it. His thugs have failed to cow Belarusians. Instead, countless heroic women have continued marching dressed in white, the colour of their resistance, and inspiring ever more of their compatriots to rise up.
Nor is Svetlana Tikhanovskaya the person who can determine Belarus’s future. She’s the de facto opposition leader who apparently won the election but has been exiled since last week in neighbouring Lithuania, probably to assure the safety of her children, whom she had sent out of Belarus even earlier.
A moral beacon, she can inspire Belarusians to keep resisting. And if the revolution succeeds, she can return, free her husband and other political prisoners, and hold new and fair elections. But she doesn’t wield the hard power needed to make the country’s liberation credible and lasting.
No, the person who will have the last word is Putin. In a week when the world wants to cheer on the valiant Belarusians struggling for liberty, this is painful to admit. But not doing so would be self-deception.
Putin has long been driven by two things: increasing his own personal power and reassembling the “Russian world” that was lost when the Soviet Union broke up, which he considers “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” From his point of view, the West — embodied in Nato and the EU — has been steadily encroaching on Russia’s sphere of influence and must be pushed back.
That’s why he’s been the enemy of all “colour revolutions” in post-Soviet states, starting with Georgia’s in 2003. He can’t afford to allow Eastern Europe or the South Caucasus to become ...
As the post-Soviet state, wedged awkwardly between the EU and Nato on one side and Russia on the other, struggles for its freedom, it’s worth keeping in mind who will ultimately decide its future.
That person isn’t Lukashenko. Since 1994 he’s tried every dirty trick to stay in power — locking up opponents, rigging the system and cracking down brutally on demonstrators. But even he must know the game’s finally up. Despite claiming to have won the August 9 presidential election by a ludicrous 80%, he pretty clearly lost it. His thugs have failed to cow Belarusians. Instead, countless heroic women have continued marching dressed in white, the colour of their resistance, and inspiring ever more of their compatriots to rise up.
Nor is Svetlana Tikhanovskaya the person who can determine Belarus’s future. She’s the de facto opposition leader who apparently won the election but has been exiled since last week in neighbouring Lithuania, probably to assure the safety of her children, whom she had sent out of Belarus even earlier.
A moral beacon, she can inspire Belarusians to keep resisting. And if the revolution succeeds, she can return, free her husband and other political prisoners, and hold new and fair elections. But she doesn’t wield the hard power needed to make the country’s liberation credible and lasting.
No, the person who will have the last word is Putin. In a week when the world wants to cheer on the valiant Belarusians struggling for liberty, this is painful to admit. But not doing so would be self-deception.
Putin has long been driven by two things: increasing his own personal power and reassembling the “Russian world” that was lost when the Soviet Union broke up, which he considers “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” From his point of view, the West — embodied in Nato and the EU — has been steadily encroaching on Russia’s sphere of influence and must be pushed back.
That’s why he’s been the enemy of all “colour revolutions” in post-Soviet states, starting with Georgia’s in 2003. He can’t afford to allow Eastern Europe or the South Caucasus to become ...
