Russia and Belarus: Two Steps to Reunification?
On September 9, Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko will meet in Moscow. As expected, the key issue on its agenda will be the signing of "road maps and maps for the development of deepening integration" between Russia and Belarus.
The unification of Russia and Belarus is a topic as vast as it is complex. The signing of the Treaty on the Union State took place back in the last century, but only twenty-two years later, the two countries finally stood on the verge of real unification.
Slow start
For the first fifteen years after the signing of the Union Treaty, both Russia and Belarus focused more on internal development. GDP grew, and sometimes at double-digit rates. The real incomes of the population, the profits of enterprises, and with them tax revenues and the general level of welfare grew. Political the elites of both countries did not particularly strive for deepening integration, being quite satisfied with the establishment of interaction on economic the line along which, by the way, there were frequent disagreements, as a rule, over the prices of energy carriers and the import of agricultural products.
For example, 2009, the year of the tenth anniversary of the signing of the Union Treaty, in bilateral relations was held under the auspices of the so-called "milk war", which arose as a result of the Rospotrebnadzor's imposition of an embargo on the import of a number of dairy products from Belarus due to the lack of the required documentation. And the number of disputes over the "fair" prices for oil and gas between Minsk and Moscow over those years is difficult to quantify.
The trigger that launched the process of changes in bilateral relations and gave the idea of the Union State a second wind was relations with the collective West, which sharply deteriorated in the mid-tenths. Economic and political sanctions, as well as unfriendly rhetoric on the part of the EU countries and the United States, led not only to the adoption of countermeasures on the part of Russia, but also to a change in the priorities of its foreign policy. Gradually, the understanding came that the West does not want to see Russia strong and that it is better to look for friends nearby.
Among the CIS countries it was difficult to find a people closer to the Russians than the brotherly Belarusian people. The overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of Belarus speak Russian and use it in daily communication. In addition, culturally and mentally, Belarusians and Russians are as close to each other as possible. Add to this the already existing agreement on the creation of the Union State, and it becomes clear that the idea of integration over time has again become very popular in the ruling circles of Russia.
In Belarus, however, the idea of starting negotiations again was reacted positively. In an economic sense, the Union State would be very beneficial for Minsk, especially considering that after the "fat", as in Russia, the XNUMXs, there was stagnation and economic problems were growing.
Event horizon
No sooner said than done. And the concept of actions to further deepen integration within the framework of the Union State was agreed upon by Minsk and Moscow in the summer of 2019. In the next two years, it is on its provisions that a package of road maps jointly developed by the Belarusian and Russian sides will be formed.
According to the Ambassador of the Republic of Belarus to the Russian Federation Vladimir Semashko, out of 28 developed integration maps, 27 have already been adopted. The latter is planned to be adopted on September 7, immediately before the meeting of the heads of the union states.
However, a number of provisions of economic integration are already known. So, by January 1, 2022, it is planned to fully unify tax and customs legislation, form a common energy market and a market for transport resources, as well as a transition to a unified policy in the field of industry and agriculture.
Nevertheless, even taking into account the solutions already disclosed, it is necessary to understand that all these integration solutions are not the last, but the penultimate step towards the final formation of a single state.
In this regard, the words of Alexander Lukashenko, who spoke about the need to develop a strategy of bilateral integration within the framework of the Union State for the period up to 2030, are very indicative, calling the union of Russia and Belarus a value that should be passed on to future generations.
Considering the rich experience of political rhetoric accumulated by Lukashenka during the twenty-seven years of his presidency, these words can be interpreted in different ways. However, in fact, there can be only one logical result of the implementation of such a strategy - the unification of the two countries. All the same, the Union State, even if it does not have official symbols of statehood, but by its nature has a much higher integration potential than other European supranational associations.
"Coat of arms, flag, anthem and other attributes of statehood"
As you know, the tenth article of the Treaty on the creation of the Union State, signed by Yeltsin and Lukashenko in December 1999, says: "The Union State has its own coat of arms, flag, anthem and other attributes of statehood."
Nevertheless, despite the legal consolidation of such a possibility, a single state symbolism of a single state of Russia and Belarus does not yet exist. It is difficult to say what caused this. Most likely, in the context of a sluggish bilateral dialogue between the Union State in previous years, the parties had no time for this, especially considering that fundamental integration issues were still very far from being resolved at that time.
Today, the understanding is gradually coming that the Union State, like any other legitimate state entity, should have its own official anthem, flag, coat of arms. So, in March 2021, the Ambassador of Russia to Belarus Dmitry Mezentsev already spoke about the need to form their own state symbols for the union of the two countries, noting that this could play an important role in the process of rallying the two countries.
At the same time, it is important to note that state symbols are important not only for rallying, but also for self-identification of the citizens of the new state. At the time of the signing of the last integration agreement, Belarusians and Russians should clearly understand that from now on they really live within the framework of a single union country, which have all the attributes of a real state, and not just a number of bilateral agreements that are more of interest to officials and statesmen than ordinary citizens.
Nevertheless, despite the obvious positive points, one cannot fail to note the complexity of creating such attributes. Taking the flag of one of the countries as a basis means almost guaranteed to cause an ambiguous reaction from the residents of the other. Taking or modifying the CIS flag is also illogical. He is not only unrecognizable, but also has a very indirect relationship to the Union of Russia and Belarus. As a result, Moscow and Minsk are faced with the need to develop new state symbols practically from scratch, which, taking into account the introductory notes, looks a very difficult task for only one reason - the absence of a clearly spelled out conceptual idea of the Union State.
Conceptual idea of the Union State
The attributes of statehood and a unified legal framework are, of course, good. But the unification of Russia and Belarus still needs a single conceptual idea capable of attracting citizens of both countries to its implementation. Integration for purely economic reasons can be fraught with problems in the event of economic downturns and crises, which are inevitable in the global economy.
Such a conceptual idea can be the construction of a country with an adequate attitude to traditional values, providing a European alternative to the ideas of the so-called “new ethics”. It is important to understand that between the countries of the former socialist bloc and the EU countries, there is now a huge cultural and ideological gap, which is becoming wider every year. The perception of the norms of public morality, family values, and spiritual bonds is so striking that it causes controversy even in the European Union itself.
For example, the position of Poland and Hungary on a number of fundamental issues for a "tolerant" Europe has been causing discontent in Brussels for several years now. And the further, the more it becomes obvious that these countries retain membership in an ideologically and culturally alien union only for economic reasons.
The union state of Russia and Belarus in this regard could be a good example of how countries can ensure sustainable joint development without the need to fall into the ultra-liberal agenda shown by the West.
In conclusion, I would like to note that the creation of a full-fledged Union State looks like a logical development of the current state of affairs in the post-Soviet space. The trend of decentralization and disintegration, set by the collapse of the USSR on the territory of the former Soviet republics, cannot and should not continue forever. Taking into account the sanctions attacks of the collective West and the continuous expansion of NATO to the east, unification may become the only way to preserve their own identity, which Western countries are trying hard to erode and erase, replacing the common values of the inhabitants of the countries of the former USSR with their own. In fact, this is cultural and civilizational absorption in its purest form. A kind of hybrid war, waged for the minds and hearts of our citizens.
The successful Union of Moscow and Minsk will help to prove to all doubters, including the “fifth column”, that the European model of development cannot be and is not the only correct way of development. After all, it’s always easier to deal with threats together. Both external and internal.
- Konstantin Kotlin
- http://kremlin.ru/
Information