Site search

We share the report and announce discussion No. 4 in an online format — What topic did the experts discuss? Discussion topic No. 3: “Prospects for building partnerships with the EU in the short and long term.” — Who took part? Vladzimir Astapenka, responsible for multilateral diplomacy at NAM Dmitry Mitskevich, analyst of the Belarus Security Blog project, journalist of the Belsat TV channel Valery Karbalevich, Belarusian political scientist and journalist Vadim Mozheiko, analyst at the Belarusian Institute for Strategic Studies (BISS) Alena Kudzko, Director of GLOBSEC Policy Institute Dmitry Bolkunets, political scientist and expert in the field of Russian-Belarusian relations Pavel Usov, Political analyst and commentator, Head of the Center for Political Analysis and Forecast Kamil Klysiński, senior researcher at the Center for Eastern Studies Andrei Vardomatsky, Belarusian sociologist, Scientific director of the Belarusian Analytical Workshop Moderator: Valery Matskevich, Representative of the Constitutional Court on the Eastern Partnership, as well as NAM Advisor on political issues and strategic development. — What issues were discussed? The EU's view on the Belarusian issue almost 17 months after the start of the protests. Will there be a third thaw? Does the EU have a clear vision for Belarus in the long term? Turn the page? Does the Lukashenko regime have potential opportunities for geopolitical maneuver? What is the optimal model of interaction between Belarus and the EU from the point of view of the national interests of Belarus? Full content — here ‼️IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT Discussion No. 4 on the topic “Foreign Policy of New Belarus. From the transition period to sustainable democracy” will be held on January 19 in an open online format. Registration for the broadcast. The participants in the discussion are former employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belarus. More details about the participants will be found in the next post. — Ask the experts questions in the comments! We will definitely study all your questions and try to answer them as part of online discussion No. 4.

"Prospects for Partnership with the EU in the Short and Long Term" in the framework of the "Expert Environment" discussion series "Expert Environment" is a series of discussions involving Belarusians and foreign experts, analysts and experts in the field of foreign policy, organized by the National Anti-Crisis Management to discuss the geopolitical choice of the Belarusian people. Two previous debates touched upon the following topics: "Belarus in Interaction with European Subregional Unions, Groups and Neighborhood Programmes" and "Integration Processes within the Eurasian Union and CIS. Development of a new policy towards Russia". In the third debate, the following issues were discussed: The EU’s view on the Belarus issue 17 months after the start of the protests. Will there be no third thaw? Does the EU have a clear vision of Belarus in the long term? Turning the page? Does the Lukashenka regime have the potential for geopolitical manoeuvring? What is the optimal model of interaction between Belarus and the EU in terms of Belarus' national interests? Briefly: So far, the Republic of Belarus has formally interacted with the EU in the framework of the 1988 treaty concluded between the EC and the USSR. The period since 1996 is the time of missed opportunities for the Republic of Belarus. The EU does not have a clear and firm existential approach to the issue of Belarus, otherwise European politicians would have long ago declared that Ukraine and Belarus are part of the European world and not part of the Russian world. It is extremely important for the democratic forces to maintain a rigid and principled united position and not to allow for deconsolidation. It is logical that in democratic countries, politicians are oriented on the demand that society puts forward to them. This is how democracy works. The scheme of unfreezing relations will not work — because it is obvious that Lukashenka lost the election and the problem has become not only an intra-Belarusian one. There are no simple guaranteed mechanisms for the change of authoritarian regimes, while ensuring that it is peaceful and safe. The level of expertise in some EU countries on Belarus is extremely low. The issue of Belarus is far from being of paramount importance. The EU needs to learn the sanctions experience from Washington. The key condition for the survival of the Lukashenka regime is the support of the Kremlin, so Minsk will not sacrifice this support in order to return to multi-vectorism. A nation’s geopolitical orientations (clear positioning of itself) manifest the formation of the national identity. The transition from a pro-Russian geopolitical orientation to a pro-European orientation does not happen overnight. Read more: The EU’s view on the Belarus issue 17 months after the protests began. There won’t be a third thaw? Vladzimir Astapenka, responsible for multilateral diplomacy at the NAM: To understand the future we have to go back to the past. I will try to start from the fact that nothing was known about European communities during Soviet times. It was a terra incognita. It was only in 1988 that the USSR signed its first basic agreement on cooperation with the European Communities and established diplomatic relations. The Soviet establishment at that time did not quite understand what it was. Independent Belarus was confronted with the question of Europe on the very first day of its emergence on the map of independent states. It had to do with the export of textile products — there were quotas for the USSR, but none for Belarus. The first thing we started with — we concluded a separate agreement on quotas for imports and exports of textile products for the EU. After that an active and fruitful dialogue began. The EU was open to any formulas of cooperation. In March 1995 there was Lukashenka’s first and only visit to Brussels. Partnership and Cooperation Agreement was signed, which was later was supplemented by a temporary trade agreement, providing new opportunities for Belarus. At that time, the dynamics of the relations with the EU were developing more than satisfactorily — prospects and opportunities were opening up, and it was all tied up with the creation of a new legal and contractual framework. After 1996, it was decided to suspend the ratification of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, it never came into force, and in fact, Belarus remained the only country in Europe which did not have a normal legal framework with the EU. Up to now, the Republic of Belarus still formally interacts with the EU within the framework of the above mentioned 1988 Treaty, concluded back in the USSR. As a matter of fact, the development of relations with the EU was put on hold in 1996. Now we can look at the experience of other countries — Moldova, Ukraine, Armenia — which came out to sign an association and trade agreement. Armenia has found a particular track for developing relations with the EAEU and the EU. These examples can facilitate the task of building relations with the EU at a new stage. Now there is a significant reduction in diplomatic relations with the EU, a decision of the regime that is, to some extent, unprecedented. No other country in the world is reducing its diplomatic presence in Europe. Belarus has chosen a path to nowhere. The Belarusian regime has signed on the fact that its foreign policy in the westward direction has failed completely. The period since 1996 is the time of missed opportunities for Belarus. Alena Kudzko, Director of GLOBSEC Policy Institute: The EU is always ready for any negotiations — it is a principle of the EU itself, always to find a consensus. The regime cannot give now what the EU expects from Belarus — the release of political prisoners, the return to Belarus of those who had to leave. It does not make sense for the EU to make any steps for a dialogue now, but such attempts may be made within a few years. Whereas before 2020, the EU was prepared to go in the direction of a thaw, the situation is now fundamentally different. The EU sees that there is a critical mass of the Belarusan society which shows by its actions that it is ready to change. This is supplemented by existential worries inside the EU — how will Europe solve the problem with Belarus and whether the EU plays a role in the world politics on par with the USA, China, and Russia. The EU wants to influence world politics, but using its own methods and principles which are different from those of Russia or the United States. Does the EU have a clear vision of Belarus in the long term? Valery Matskevich, Moderator, CC Representative for the Eastern Partnership, the NAM Adviser on Political Affairs and Strategic Development: The key question in the context of "existential anguish" is whether the EU sees the Republic of Belarus as part of the European space (not abstractly "part of the family of European nations", but in a political sense). And whether the EU is ready to declare it by contrasting this paradigm with the Kremlin’s aggressive rhetoric of Belarus as part of the "Russian world". Pavel Usov, Political Analyst and Observer, Head of the Centre for Political Analysis and Forecasting: The EU has repeatedly failed stress tests (Libya, Syria, Egypt) and will continue to form as a kind of existential commonality for a long time to come. There are many internal problems there, and Belarus will always be a secondary issue. When does the West seem to go for dialogue with dictatorships: 1. Internal political changes have never been factors in starting a dialogue, rather geopolitical factors. (Georgia — 2010, Ukraine — 2014). It is worth noting that from election to election, with the exception of 2015 — the brutality of suppression of protests increased. The only thaw in this regard was caused by the escalation of tensions in Ukraine. 2. There has always been a downside — the lack of a clear and explicit position of the democratic community. Now there must be a principled approach to the Lukashenka regime. We do not eradicate the cause of evil. Sooner or later it will come out. The voice of traditional lobbying will grow stronger. Behind-the-scenes negotiations may begin. It is extremely important for the democratic forces in Belarus to remain united and principled in a united position, to prevent deconsolidation. The EU did not have a clear cut existential approach to the question of Belarus — if it were opposite, European politicians would have stated long ago that Ukraine and Belarus are part of the European world, and not of the Russian world. In the minds of most European politicians, Belarus and Ukraine are at least a buffer zone between Europe and Russia, and at most part of the Russian sphere of influence. Dmitry Mitskevich, analyst of the Belarus Security Blog project, journalist of Belsat TV channel: There are factors that could lead to a third unfreezing of Belarus-EU relations. The level of expertise in Europe on Belarus is extremely low. The issue of Belarus is far from being of paramount importance. There are countries that are interested in doing well in Belarus. But the EU has to react and it will be hard for it to backtrack because of the difficulty to explain it to the electorate. On the plus side, this is a signal to those countries who are thinking about the best way to conduct a dialogue with the EU. If Lukashenka’s blackmailing were to work, it would have created preconditions for a dialogue. And it is very important that on the issues of Belarus Europe began to listen to the Belarusans. Kamil Klysinski, Senior Researcher at the Centre for Eastern Studies: The expertise on Belarus in the EU is not all bad. There is a group of countries where it is at quite a high level because those are the countries concerned. In general terms, understanding of the Belarusian issue is improving. It is important to note that the last two sanctions packages have references to the first sanctions packages, i.e. human rights remain on the agenda. But the EU needs to learn from Washington’s experience with sanctions. The important fact is that sanctions work and will continue to work. Even propaganda suggests that the sanctions are working. But we should not expect instant effect from them. Dmitry Bolkunets, political scientist and expert in Russian-Belarusian relations: Globally for Russia, the fact that Belarus falls under sanctions does not cause problems, as Belarus becomes more dependent on Russia. Cuba has been under sanctions for decades, leading to the impoverishment of the people, and Lukashenka has plenty of lobbyists in Europe. The most effective solution during the migration crisis was when Poland declared that it could block transit routes. Turn the page? Does Lukashenka’s regime have a potential for geopolitical maneuvering? Valery Karbalevich, Belarusian political scientist and journalist: The difference between today’s situation and previous periods is that there is a major internal political crisis within Belarus, which has spilled over to the outside and become a regional crisis. The key condition for the survival of the Lukashenka regime is the support of the Kremlin, so Minsk will not sacrifice this support in order to return to a multi-vector foreign policy. Especially in view of the escalation of Russia’s conflict with the West. Belarus remains Russia’s only ally in this conflict. It is being used as a tool to troll the West. The recognition of Crimea, the threat to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus, is a payment to Moscow for support. Lukashenka has effectively abandoned the idea of holding early presidential elections. This happened because Russia stopped putting pressure on him. Russia is going through a cycle of deterioration of relations with the West, and Lukashenka is a necessary element in this project for Russia. At the same time, Lukashenka believes that all European politicians are "weak" and are unable to fight with him on an equal footing. What is the optimal model of interaction between Belarus and the EU from the perspective of Belarus' national interests? Andrei Vardomacki, Belarusian sociologist, Scientific Director of the Belarusian Analytical Workshop: The motivation of the protesters in 2020 was not geopolitical in nature, which is confirmed by empirical methods. A basic characteristic of the geopolitical orientation of the Belarusans is its fluctuating character. This character testifies to the process of identity formation. Geopolitical orientations (clear positioning) are one of the manifestations of identity formation. In countries with a stronger identity, such ups and downs are not fixed. The $ 1.5 billion loan from Russia in 2020 was perceived by much of society as aid to the country, not as support for the Lukashenka regime. The transition from a pro-Russian geopolitical orientation to a pro-European orientation does not happen overnight, passing through a phase of uncertainty for quite a long time. The turning point was in May 2004 with the admission of the new members to the EU. The reaction to this event consisted in the reconfiguration of the Belarusan media field. The formula for engagement with the Russian Federation: cooperation — YES, entry — NO. It is important to note the non-economic nature of the reasons and motivation of the pro-Russian geopolitical orientation. In contrast, the pro-European orientation of a part of Belarusan society is based on economic reasons.

The Head of the NAM Pavel Latushka — on the hypocrisy of the Yara management on the issue of stopping the purchase of potash fertilizers from Belaruskali from April, 1 — Yara's speculations on the "protection of workers' rights" have all along served as a cover for its financial relations with Lukashenka’s regime. Yara’s leadership obstinately ignores the fact that the sanctions are imposed precisely because of flagrant human rights violations in Belarus, including workers' rights. — Almost a hundred and fifty people, about a thousand days of cumulative arrests, dozens of criminal and administrative cases, lists of "unreliable" employees, involved in protests and disloyal to the regime. What protection of workers' rights is Mr Svein Tore Holzeter talking about? — The NAM has always taken a principled stance on Yara. Every Norwegian MP, Norwegian Foreign Minister, Trade Minister and Yara management have repeatedly been told by us that protecting human rights in Belarus takes precedence over financial interests. Nevertheless, the business relationship between Yara and the Lukashenka regime continued no matter what. — It is a shame that the deadline set by US sanctions to end the relationship with the BPC was the only and necessary reason for Yara to refuse to cooperate with the regime. — Yara has proved its unscrupulousness, we are under no illusions about the integrity of this company. But its leadership should understand that for us, fighting the regime and its associates is a matter of principle. We will be vigilant and will definitely monitor the use of sanctions evasion schemes to counter them.

More than 100 professional diplomats fired for political reasons from the Belarusian Foreign Ministry system since August 2020 Why does Belarus need the Ministry of Foreign Affairs if it has no foreign policy? Makei is the brightest representative of the dictator’s repressive machine. The Belarusian Foreign Ministry has been destroyed before our very eyes. Why should Makei be criminally liable?

A lot from the charity Christmas auction of the Belarusian Council of Culture — Olga Yakubovskaya's painting "At Christmas..." — was transferred to the Museum of Free Belarus for storage. The main characters of Olga Yakubovskaya’s works are the well-known white-red-white cats, in which the talented artist embodies the image of Belarusians. A series of Olga’s paintings is a striking example of protest art, with the help of which the author, starting in the summer of 2020, records and depicts every important phenomenon and famous heroes of Belarusian events. The winner of the charity auction who bought the painting was Ivan, a Belarusian programmer living in Georgia. This is not his first participation in charity auctions organized by the Belarusian Council of Culture, the proceeds of which are directed to support repressed figures of Belarusian culture. The People's Anti-Crisis Management expresses sincere gratitude to Olga Yakubovskaya, Ivan and the Belarusian Council of Culture for supporting the project to create the Museum of Free Belarus. We continue to collect suggestions and information about objects of museum value related to the Belarusian protests through the @NAUsupport chatbot. All information about the owners of items donated to the museum will remain anonymous if they so wish. Together we will preserve our history! Painting by Olga Yakubovskaya "At Christmas..."

Joint Statement of the Office of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, the Coordination Council and the National Anti-Crisis Management on the inadmissibility of sending the Belarusian military to operations abroad The events in Kazakhstan are an internal political conflict. There is no evidence that the crisis is caused by external aggression or is connected with external terrorist threats. Street protests are one of the few available means of expressing civic will under authoritarian regimes. We understand the desire to resist dictatorship and respect the right of the people of Kazakhstan to determine the destiny of their country. The Collective Security Treaty was created to repel external aggression, not to solve internal political problems of participating countries. Sending troops as well as any other military assistance to the incumbent government of Kazakhstan sets a dangerous precedent of foreign armed interference in internal political conflicts. In this connection we declare: the introduction of troops may complicate friendly relations between the Belarusian and Kazakh peoples for many years. Military intervention in the internal conflict in Kazakhstan runs counter to the national interests of Belarus and can lead to significant human and material losses and damage the international reputation of our country. We do not accept the use of Belarusian troops to resolve political conflicts both in Belarus and outside the country. Their task is to protect the sovereignty and security of Belarus. We do not accept the adoption of such decisions on behalf of the person, deprived of legitimacy by the results of the elections in 2020, who has forcibly seized and held power in Belarus. We express our confidence that the current crisis can be solved by the people of Kazakhstan independently through a broad internal dialogue and democratic procedures. Foreign military intervention in an internal political conflict would have negative consequences both for the sovereignty of Kazakhstan and for the security of the entire region.

"A seemingly insignificant economic trigger would be enough for people to take to the streets again with political demands". The NAM lawyer Artsiom Praskalovich — about the protests in Kazakhstan and the plans of the Belarusian dictatorship What should the dictator and his entourage think about against the background of the events in Kazakhstan? That the trick with the imitation of democracy and the All-Belarusian People’s Assembly will not work. People will not be fooled by a formal change of position. The Belarusian people will not like Lukashenka if he is called by a different name. The new Constitution, which the dictator is going to submit to a "referendum", does not at all meet the demands of the Belarusians. What thoughts do the events in Kazakhstan suggest to the Belarusian majority who want changes? The collapse of the system is inevitable: in the current configuration or with Lukashenka at the helm of the National Assembly and the president under his control. But do we want to sit and wait for it to collapse itself? Of course not. Therefore, we will prevent citizen Lukashenka’s plans from coming to fruition at an early stage. We will come to the "referendum" and express our dissent. It will be our vote of no confidence in Lukashenka and his system. We will invalidate the ballots with X’s in all the proposed answers. We, Belarusians, want new elections, we want to determine the future of our country ourselves — and be responsible for it. 🌐 Website of United strategy of democratic forces The "Voice" platform for the "referendum" Telegram Viber *if the referendum poll does not start in the bot, enter the command /referendum

New Year’s address of Sviatlana Tsihanouskaya and democratic forces 2022 Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya: "In 2021, everyone understood for himself what it means to be a Belarusian. Even when we were plucked out of the crowd and left alone with this choice, we have not abandoned it. That’s why the regime still behaves as if there are hundreds of thousands of people standing under the windows of the Palace of Independence. And now our victory is no longer a question of chance or luck. It is a question of our determination. Willingness to take the fate of the Fatherland into our own hands and walk every day towards the new Belarus of which we all dream so much". Pavel Latushka: "A democratic Belarus, where, as the national hero of Belarus Kastus Kalinouski said, "not the people for the government, but the government for the people". And I believe that very soon we will elect a new government for a new democratic Belarus". The "referendum" scheduled for February 27 is an opportunity to show our determination together. For the sake of it, we will come to the "referendum" and act according to the plan of the democratic forces: we will make the ballot papers invalid by putting crosses against all the suggested variants. 🌐 Website of a united strategy of democratic forces The "Voice" platform to the "referendum" Telegram Viber *if the referendum poll does not start in the bot, enter the command /referendum

On New Year's Eve we do not build hopes and do not sum up results - we build an action plan Want to know what our plans are for 2022? Watch the New Year's message from the Natonal's Anti-Crisis Management team. During 2020−21, Belarusians have matured as a nation, we have experienced a lot. But the main thing is that we realized that miracles do not happen by themselves. And that's why we don't expect miracles. After all, only we ourselves, together, through our actions, are able to create them. The NAM team will definitely congratulate all Belarusians on the New Year - in New Belarus. In the meantime, it’s time to act!

Pavel Latushka commented on the published draft amendments to the Constitution What kind of «referendum» are we talking about if Lukashenka appoints it, if there are thousands of political prisoners in Belarus, tens of thousands of repressed, independent media are blocked, when signatures in support of independent candidates are dismissed? The so-called All-Belarusian People's Assembly is a fifth leg in the system of state administration. The draft Constitution is a failure of the people's demands. Lukashenka introduces a triple cordon of protection to nullify his term and rule for another 13.5 years. One single law needs to be passed in Belarus - to schedule a new presidential election. Democratic forces are urging Belarusians to come to the polls during the «referendum» and show their opposition to Lukashenka's crime of placing crosses against all options on the ballot, making it invalid. 🌐 United Democratic Forces Strategy website The Voice platform for the «referendum» Telegram Viber *If the referendum poll in the bot doesn't start, enter the command /referendum

We no longer want to live under a dictatorship In 2020, the illegitimate authorities received a clear signal from the Belarusians: we no longer want to live under a dictatorship. With the new draft of the Constitution, the regime is trying to prolong the period of "no laws" for many years. And the citizen Lukashenka himself wants guarantees of immunity: that he cannot be prosecuted for all his crimes. The dictator wants public servants and law enforcement officers to commit crimes thoughtlessly in order to prolong his power. He wants apathy and acquiescence from all the other Belarusians. To invalidate the ballot, to put crosses in front of all the proposed options — this step may seem small. But it will be huge if the majority of Belarusians do it. We will cross out not only the criminal "referendum" and the dictatorial Constitution, but also all the attempts of the regime to intimidate the Belarusian people. Our common action in the "referendum" will not lead us to an instant victory, but it will be an important step towards it, which cannot be missed. Invalid ballots will be our common "no" to the lawlessness that Lukashenka wants to continue. And our common "yes" to the return of law and law as the only way to build the country we deserve. — Citizen Lukashenka has added Article 89 to his Constitution, with which he wants to save himself from justice for the crimes he has committed. But will it help? Of course it won’t. The dictator will face justice: both Belarusian and international. For all the crimes against the Belarusian people and acts of international terrorism, — said the Head of the NAM Pavel Latushka. What is important to understand? It is impossible to discuss the Constitution in repression, as well as to hold a "referendum"; Lukashenka will now create the appearance that people support the draft, forcing his cronies to speak in his favor; with the new Constitution, the dictator will further usurp power through the All-Belarusian People’s Assembly. The Constitution does not respond to the public’s demand for change. Even now, before the appointment of the "referendum", we must prepare for it and tell our trusted friends, colleagues, relatives, and neighbors about the common strategy of the democratic forces. It is important to tell and show that we are together. A common hand gesture can be such a signal, saying that you share the position of the democratic forces on the "referendum". 🌐 United Democratic Forces Strategy website The "Voice" platform for the "referendum" Telegram Viber *if the referendum poll does not start in the bot, enter the command /referendum

"Integration processes within the EAEU and CIS. Development of a new policy towards Russia" "Expert Environment" is a series of discussions with the participation of Belarusian and foreign experts, analysts, authors of researches and specialists in the sphere of foreign policy, organized by the National Anti-Crisis Management to discuss the geopolitical choice of the Belarusian people. As part of the first discussion "Belarus in Interaction with European Subregional Unions, Groups and Neighborhood Programs", experts and analysts, authors of researches and foreign policy specialists discussed first of all the topic of the Eastern Partnership. In the second discussion the following questions were discussed: What is the Commonwealth of Independent States? How does this format function? What is its relationship to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and other integration formats? What are the results of the functioning of the EAEU? What are the prospects for the Union State of Belarus and Russia? Briefly: Chances for CSTO expansion are not visible. There are no Russian interests in financing military expenditures of other countries at the moment. Unsatisfactory results of the implementation of the EAEU project. Belarusian society does not fully understand what is going on in these integration associations. The principle of all post-Soviet integration processes is not quite usual: "Not to make things better, but worse". Moscow should understand that "arrogance is a poor substitute for expertise". Anyway, we all agree about the existence of the hyper dependence, where Belarus is dependent on Russia in economic, military and other aspects. The CIS closes a layer of humanitarian and cultural cooperation and helps to maintain social and humanitarian interaction within the framework of this association. The situation in which Belarus finds itself is a chance for Moscow to tie it down for good. Lukashenka is not interested in really building the Union State; his dream is to leave everything as it is. Belarusians are ready to build relations without acute conflicts with all their neighbors. Read more: What is the Commonwealth of Independent States? What is its connection with the CSTO and other integration formats? Dmitry Mitskevich, analyst of the Belarus Security Blog project, journalist of Belsat TV channel: I propose to first consider the format of military cooperation using the example of the CSTO. I note that they try to compare the CSTO to NATO, which is not quite correct. The CSTO budget as an organization is $ 4 million, and it includes six states. NATO has 30 states and its budget is $ 225 million, and the member-states must allocate 2% of the GDP to finance the military alliance. The CSTO is not even talking about this. If you look geographically, the CSTO includes Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. Russia is present in all these regions. If we analyze protocols of CSTO meetings, we will find that 80 percent of the agenda consists of issues in the Central Asian region, where there is a real military threat. At the same time, two CSTO members are trying to use the organization to present their political messages — Belarus and Armenia. But no one in the CSTO listens to these messages, because their membership in this structure is rather symbolic, as evidenced by the assistance provided to Armenia by "allies" during the Karabakh conflict. The chances of CSTO enlargement are not visible. At the moment there is no Russian interest in financing military expenditures of other countries. The CSTO is a reincarnation of the Holy Alliance from the 19th century to support dictatorial regimes. Therefore, Belarus should not worry about clearly stating its position in terms of withdrawal from the CSTO, as this union is moving towards the fate of the CIS. Without filling bilateral relations between CSTO member countries, the organization will in fact start turning into a kind of CIS. Everyone has seen what are the results of the CSTO work in stressful situations — nothing. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure own security for everyone. And here a certain problem arises. In 2015 during the active phase of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict a survey was conducted by the most popular Internet resource in Belarus. The question "What spheres require reduction of funding?" was answered by 56% of Belarusians: "Defense and national security". It shows what place defense and security issues occupy in the perception of the Belarusian society. Two neighboring countries are at war, and we believe that it is necessary to cut the budget for the army. We have to explain to people why it is necessary to strengthen the defense capability and increase the financing of this sphere. We can give the example of Armenia. This state is also a member of the CSTO, but it cooperates quite closely with NATO, which offers partnership programs of cooperation. What are the results of the EAEU activities? Valery Karbalevich, Belarusian political scientist and journalist: The EAEU Treaty was signed in 2014, which means that we can already sum up certain results. And these results are disappointing: the process of successful implementation of this project has stalled. There are 12 reasons why this happened: 1. The economic ties between the member countries are very weak. The share of total trade is about 14% and it is not growing. For comparison, in the EU this figure is 65%, in NATO it is 40%. 2. Integration of different scale countries. The successes and failures of projects depend largely on one state. 3. Different economic structures: raw-materials states and energy consumers. Totally different interests. 4. Different types of economy: market and non-market. 5. Most of the member states' industries are not competitive on the global market. Systems of protective measures are instinctively created. 6. For Russia, the EAEU is a geopolitical project, not an economic one. 7. Accelerated transition to the next stages of integration without completing the initial one. 8. Integration of authoritarian regimes — history does not know of any successful examples. 9. After Crimea and Donbass, member states have concerns about Russia. 10. Impossibility of a consolidated approach to the issue of sanctions. 11. Russia has not calculated its forces, primarily in the sphere of economic expenditures. 12. The process has stalled, so there is a return of relations to the bilateral level, and the possibility of expanding the Union at the expense of Asian countries is being considered, but this is impossible. How does the Commonwealth of Independent States function? Kamil Klysinski, Senior Fellow, Center for Eastern Studies (OSW): I would like to add the context of Russian foreign policy and the Kremlin’s understanding of it. Russia sees only one way — gathering of lands. Russia presses various buttons, and various initiatives and projects are created: the CIS, the Union State, the EAEU, etc. The CIS is the most failed project. How did the CIS summit end? Nothing. The EAEU is more successful, but it limps on two legs. In fact, we overestimate the quality of Russian experts and analysts, and do not take into account the "arrogant" approach to foreign policy issues. Because Russia believes that, for example, Belarus will not go anywhere, the attractiveness of integration proposals is reduced. How does Belarusian society assess integration processes in relation to Russia? Peter Rudkovsky, Philosopher, Academic Director of BISS: Belarusian society does not fully understand what is going on in these integration associations. Nevertheless, for a number of reasons, first of all psychological and value-based, there are fears about the integration aspirations associated with the EU. During the first years of independence, the Belarusans had a more positive attitude to the format of the Eurasian integration, but recently there has been a shift towards the EU. This is, incidentally, the second time (the first one was in 2010−2011). There is a chance that in the near future the idea of aspiring to have a closer cooperation with the EU will prevail, despite the contradictions in the issues of minorities, etc. But there is still wariness about the West. What is the main problem of all associations in post-Soviet space? Anatoly Kotov, political analyst, former worker of the Belarus President Administration: The problem of all associations in the post-Soviet space is that for Russia these are political projects, an attempt to keep in the sphere of its influence those countries that Russia considers "its own": Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. And the principle of all these integration processes is not quite usual: "Not to make it better, but not to make it worse". "If you do not join our associations, you lose access to the Russian market on privileged terms". Countries are forced to agree to some restrictions now in order to get some benefits in the future. And the perspective is not always tangible and clear. What do these integration processes look like at this stage? Vadim Mozheiko, Analyst, Belarusian Institute for Strategic Studies (BISS): Moscow should understand that "arrogance is a poor substitute for expertise". The relations between Belarus and Russia resemble those between some states in the Middle Ages, the so-called payment of symbolic tribute. On the one hand, one state sells to the other the idea that it is in the orbit of its interests — something Lukashenka is now actively promoting. On the other hand, there is an understanding that there cannot be a real takeover, even if someone in Moscow has such dreams. An example of such a symbolic tribute is Belarus' support for Russian resolutions at the UN. Such symbolic relations suit both Putin and Lukashenka. The situation looks more and more like the CIS, which in fact has no serious results, but still exists. And in this form, "nothing" is still "something". How should Belarus act in conditions of dependence on Russia? Grigory Astapenia, Chatham House Expert, Director of Research at the Center for New Ideas: One way or another, we all agree that Belarus is hyper dependent on Russia in economic, military and other aspects. We are in a situation where we recognize that it is impossible to sail away. And if we state publicly that Belarus wants to change course, it may, on the contrary, lead to an inadequate response and the opposite result. But we also understand that we can’t increase the level of dependence, because it is already so high that it threatens the sovereignty of the state. Right now, this dependence continues to increase. One does not choose one’s neighbors? Dmitry Bolkunets, political scientist, expert in the sphere of Russian-Belarusian relations: The CIS closes a layer of humanitarian and cultural cooperation and helps maintain social and humanitarian interaction within this association. The EAEU at the moment concerns only the economy, despite the fact that the very idea was certainly a political one. So far, the Kazakhs have managed to keep this union in a truly economic framework. And there are opportunities for this, because the Eurasian Union has no decisions that are mandatory for all participants, unlike the EU. Each of the five countries of the Eurasian Economic Union sees its own benefit in this union in the form of economic preferences, including the energy sector. Belarus must have better relations both with Moscow and Europe; no need to build walls. One does not choose one’s neighbors. What are the prospects for the Union State of Russia and Belarus? Dmitry Bolkunets The situation in which Belarus finds itself is a chance for Moscow to bind it finally. It is worth noting that in matters of economic integration the EAEU has gone much further than the Union State, so now there is an attempt to catch up with this process in the bilateral format. Hence the programs aimed at harmonizing legislation, but their implementation requires time, even if the parliament is manual. In general, it’s worth noting that in the Russian expert community there was a question about the Union State: what to do about it? Different opinions were voiced, but in essence this Union State is considered as an attempt of Russia’s politicians to demonstrate an example of positive cooperation. And the main enemy of the Union State at that time was Lukashenka. Now he was put before a choice: either to go to the Hague, or do something historical, good just for Russia. The Kremlin’s plans to complete this process by 2024 are, in my opinion, utopia. Kamil Klysinski: Yes, Lukashenka is really not interested in the real construction of the Union State, his dream is to leave everything as it is. But now he has little room for maneuvering. To this is added the cooling of relations with China. And we can observe a situation in which the language of the CIS is beginning to be used in the Union State as well. But there is a real threat: Russia is betting on military presence, and this is a real lever of control. How can Belarus build up relations with its neighbors? Peter Rudkovsky, Philosopher, Academic Director of BISS: Sociology suggests that for Belarusians there is no contradiction in the fact that it is possible to get closer to both the EU and Russia. Belarusians are ready to build relations without acute conflicts. And the possible option now can be the denunciation of the Union State and the development of relations within the framework of the EAEU. But initial conditions are necessary: change of the situation in Belarus and reforming Russia in the future. The next discussion of the "Expert Environment": "Prospects for building partnership relations with the EU in the short and long term"