Lukashenka chose the worst time to blackmail Lithuania in transit

December 14 2020 16

An interesting turning point has been outlined in the struggle for the Baltic transit flows. Lithuania, which we usually scare with the loss of Belarusian fertilizers and oil products, itself thought to deny Minsk access to its port infrastructure. What could be the reason for such a sharp change in position?

As you know, Belarusian exports reach 30% of the total transit volumes through the main Lithuanian port of Klaipeda. It is believed that Minsk can punish Vilnius for its active support of "President Sveta" by taking this cargo flow and redirecting it to Russian ports in the Baltic. There is some truth in this, but the spoon is good for dinner. Threatening with such things, you must first prepare well, otherwise it may be embarrassing. Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, who is positioned in Lithuania as “the leader elected by the people of Belarus,” herself asked Vilnius to deprive Minsk of Lithuanian transit as a punishment for political repressions against her like-minded people who are unjustifiably dismissed from their jobs:

We ask you not to buy products from Belaruskali, so that the money of these enterprises does not go to the Lukashenka regime. This is connected not only with Belaruskali, but also with Grodno Azot, Naftan and other companies that are important to the regime.

According to Svetlana Georgievna, these measures should be temporary until another person comes to power in Belarus instead of Alexander Lukashenko. We can talk about raising tariffs or stopping transit altogether. The most interesting thing is that earlier such ideas frightened the Lithuanian government, but now, in her own words, “opinions are divided”. Ausrine Armonaite, Minister economics, Tikhanovskaya promised to consider this proposal. But why did Vilnius suddenly become so bold?

Probably the reason is that several factors have developed at once:

At firstPresident Joe Biden is apparently coming to power in the US, and Democrats are known for their tough anti-Russian agenda. To "kill" Russia and its only ally in the person of Belarus will now be very important, and the Baltic states clearly intend to be among the first.

Secondlyif the calculations of the Lithuanian economists are to be believed, the losses of Vilnius will not be so great. 30% of transit through the port of Klaipeda sounds very significant, but in terms of money, everything looks much more modest. So, last year, from the bounty of Minsk, the Lithuanian budget received only 155 million euros for transshipment of Belarusian fertilizers. This is about 1,4% of the treasury receipts. Also money, but the loss, let's face it, is not great.

Thirdly, right now Russia is not ready to accept the export flow of fertilizers from Belarus to its ports. In particular, at the conference "Argus Mineral Fertilizers - 2020: Russia, the CIS and the Baltic States" held this year, Olga Gopkalo, a leading specialist at Morstroytechnology LLC, said that domestic bulk terminals are simply overloaded, and they are not enough even for their companies :

Russian port facilities for transshipment of fertilizers are fully loaded. Until new projects are introduced, for example, Ultramar in Ust-Luga, it is impossible to say that Russian mineral fertilizers, as well as Belarusian ones transshipped in the Baltic ports, will be switched to domestic terminals.

Let's just say that Alexander Lukashenko chose not the best time to threaten Lithuania with the loss of transit. If he had timely accepted Moscow's proposal to diversify its exports, then the conversation with Vilnius would now be different.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Bulanov

+2

14 December 2020 15: 51

This is about 1,4% of the treasury receipts.

- Quite a decent amount! The chicken pecks by the grain ...
Provided that subsidies from the EU are reduced, this is decent money.
123

+2

14 December 2020 17: 00

As you know, Belarusian exports reach 30% of the total transit volumes through the main Lithuanian port of Klaipeda.
according to the calculations of the Lithuanian economists, the losses of Vilnius will not be so great. 30% of transit through the port of Klaipeda

What interesting numbers, but ... I'm confused Not so long ago, one "notorious author" wrote the following:

On the one hand, the Lithuanian budget is really 30% dependent on the flow of goods from Belarus. If Klaipeda loses it, for famous Lithuanian pHorta it could be a swan song... (September 9, 2020)

So it will be "swan song" or "water off a duck's back"?

Now Lithuania is at risk of losing one third of its transit volumes... Of course after that neither Riga nor Klaipeda port will not come to complete desolation, but massive redundancies in workers there are ensured, and the budget will not receive a very significant share of revenues, which will be a big blow for small republics. (October 7, 2020)

That is, we are talking about a third of transit volumes and already two ports, Riga and Klaipeda. The ports will not come to desolation, but the "shortage" of the budget is significant.

Lithuania, which we usually scare with loss Belarusian fertilizers and oil products, herself thought to deny Minsk access to its port infrastructure.
.... if you believe the calculations of Lithuanian economists, the losses of Vilnius will not be so great. 30% of transit through the port of Klaipeda sounds very significant, but in terms of money, everything looks much more modest. So, for the last year from the bounty of Minsk the Lithuanian budget received only 155 million euros for the transshipment of Belarusian fertilizers. This is about 1,4% of the treasury receipts... Also money, but the loss, let's face it, is small.

So what are the consequences for Lithuania? 30% of the budget or 1,4% of the treasury receipts?
It is not clear what this is about About the complete cessation of transit? About stopping the transit of potash fertilizers through Klaipeda? If we are only talking about fertilizers, then what about the rest of the goods and why such selectivity? After all, transit is not limited to fertilizers and petroleum products, the same "well-known author" wrote:

Minsk annually sends about 30 million tons through the Baltic States, of which 8 million tons are oil products, 10 million tons are potash fertilizers. (November 14, 2020)

There are still 12 million tons left. What about them and what are the prospective losses for the Lithuanian budget?
Could you talk to the "notorious author" and work out a common position on this issue?
1. Marzhecki
  
  0
  
  15 December 2020 10: 59
  
  Quote: 123
  What interesting figures, but ... I'm confused. Not so long ago, one "well-known author" wrote the following:
  
  On the one hand, the Lithuanian budget really depends on the flow of goods from Belarus by 30%. If Klaipeda loses it, for the famous Lithuanian port it may become a “swan song”. (September 9, 2020)
  
  So it will be "swan song" or "water off a duck's back"?
  
  Don't juggle. The "notorious author" directly indicated that about 1,4% is the assessment of Lithuanian experts, and not his own.
  Okay though, jerk it if you like it that much.
  1. ODRAP
    
    -4
    
    15 December 2020 15: 25
    
    The comrade does not understand the worldwide trend and deviates from the party line.
  2. 123
    
    +2
    
    15 December 2020 17: 46
    
    Don't juggle. The "notorious author" directly indicated that about 1,4% is the assessment of Lithuanian experts, and not his own.
    Okay though, jerk it if you like it that much.
    
    Is there another assessment? If I am not mistaken, I quoted other data given by you earlier. And they, how to put it mildly, are poorly combined. Was your task in a primitive conveyance to readers of the opinion of strange Baltic "experts"? In my humble opinion, the creative act failed, it turned out to be jerky. Judging by the frequency of such manifestations, you are delighted with this activity.
    
    Unfortunately, journalism today, in my opinion, is not only Russian, but in general journalism in the world is mainly opinion journalism, not information journalism. For some reason, every journalist considers it important not to tell you about what is happening, that is, not to show you the widest and most balanced information, but wants to tell you what he thinks about this. - V. V. Pozner
    
    This way of informing violates the principle of objectivity, one of the main in journalism, people do not get a complete picture of the world, but see it through the eyes of a correspondent.
    The policy of major media companies like the BBC and The Times is to show readers the news from different angles, capture all aspects of it, and let people come to their own conclusions.
    
    It is regrettable that one has to explain such elementary things to a person who considers himself a journalist.
Sergey Latyshev

+2

15 December 2020 11: 51

And, with Lukashenka, Lithuania and transit everything is clear for a long time.
You can blah-blak as much as you like, but this is to divert your eyes

And in fact, money does not smell. And they have successfully survived the sanctions on Ukraine, and the Sanctions on apples / tangerines / wine, and everything else.

The old man has already announced a bunch of times about cooperation with everyone ...
1. ODRAP
  
  -5
  
  15 December 2020 15: 26
  
  Got a manners to threaten from Ligovskaya punks.
updidi

+1

15 December 2020 13: 46

The port of Kaliningrad is half empty. Can't be allowed through it?
1. ODRAP
  
  -3
  
  15 December 2020 15: 27
  
  Can. On the Lithuanian railroad. Or do you think Poland will miss?
  1. updidi
    
    +1
    
    15 December 2020 15: 42
    
    The Suwalki corridor has a real reason
    1. ODRAP
      
      -2
      
      16 December 2020 00: 26
      
      Get started! God is with you!
      1. Taras on Parnassus
        
        0
        
        16 December 2020 11: 25
        
        Quote: ODRAP
        Get started! God is with you!
        
        .... and a hammer drill.
ODRAP

-5

15 December 2020 15: 18

Dear Mr. Marzhetskiy forgot to mention such factor as logistics.
Extension of transshipment paths, = higher cost
In addition, there is simply no railway line to Russian ports.
And it is not known when they will be. IF there will be.
So the threat is completely untimely.
But, pomnitsa, like a People tossing caps ...
On Topvar, they rejoiced no less than a year ago, expecting a complete cessation of transit through the ukrotruba ...
bear040

+3

15 December 2020 22: 23

Not a large amount, it is not important, as long as you have money, and in Spratnyye Vymyrata not everything has gone smoothly with this for a long time, young people from there scatter for permanent residence abroad
1. ODRAP
  
  -3
  
  16 December 2020 00: 27
  
  Well, yes, the grapes are green.
  1. bear040
    
    +5
    
    16 December 2020 00: 57
    
    Sarcasm, this is all that remains for you after your army snatched it off in Chechnya, Ossetia, in the Crimea and regularly snatches it off in Donbass
    1. ODRAP
      
      -3
      
      16 December 2020 02: 58
      
      Libya forgotten.
BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine

0

17 December 2020 23: 53

dumping from bolts is always appropriate and correct!