Official Minsk is stubbornly clinging to the role of “peacemaker” in the Russian-Ukrainian war.
The desire of the Belarusian authorities to become “Helsinki-2” and to maintain a monopoly in the “Minsk negotiations on Donbass” were expressed by Lukashenka at a meeting on foreign policy held in Minsk on July 11.
“Recently, many people wanted to get political dividends from participation in the process of resolving the situation in Ukraine. According to them, the Minsk format is outdated and you can do without it. But they are not offereing anything new. Thus the Minsk process should remain, but continue more vigorously,” Lukashenka said about the potential “candidates” for the negotiation platform on Donbas.
In the same vein, the Belarusian leader praised the Minsk initiative, already labelled “Helsinki-2” by pro-government experts. The initiative is called by analogy with the Helsinki Accords — a document signed by the heads of 35 states in Helsinki, Finland, on 30 July – 1 August 1975. Simply put, Lukashenka sees Belarus as a potential peacemaker on the regional scale:
“I expect from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs an in-depth analysis of global processes and specific initiatives aimed at strengthening security in the region and enhancing the image of Belarus in the international arena. We need to be seen, and the position of our country must be taken into account”.
What justifies the intention of the official Minsk to play the role of “regional peacekeeper”? Political commentator Raman Yakauleuski is convinced that the current situation will not allow the “peacekeeping” dreams of the President to come true.
– What changes are planned in the foreign policy, based on the yesterday’s meeting?
– In the existing political system, where literally all questions are decided by the head of state, Belarus’ foreign policy is also defined by him. And it is declared and remains multi-vector with an absolute priority in the direction of a strategic ally — Russia.
However, it seems that Minsk geostrategists even try to give an equal value to the Chinese and the Russian vectors, which is sometimes reminiscent of pluralism in one head. But it should be noted that currently the head of state allows to be active in the foreign police not only to his Foreign Ministry, but other structures of the ruling regime as well. For example, the two-chamber National Assembly, which is presented to Europe as a popularly elected parliament, but not perceived as such by evryone in the West. However, sometimes they do not take into account all the specificity of the Belarusian government and its trunk.
Leonid Brezhnev put his signature on the Helsinki Act of 1975, and Lukashenka is apparently dreaming of a similar signature under his Helsinki-2. After all, Minsk has its own understanding of the modern world, which is far from reality.
– Why is it important for Lukashenka to keep the peacekeeping status in the Russian-Ukrainian war?
– I need to correct you here — not status but a negotiation platform for other parties. Today, it has exhausted its possibilities, as the agreements were not fulfilled and Minsk signatories have accused each other of failing to implement the seemingly reached agreements. By the way, among the signatories there is no signature of Putin, who shows that he has no relation to this war whatsoever. Obviously, the intensification of the US role in the solving of the Ukrainian tragedy by no means justifies the need for peacekeeping role of Minsk which is a solid strategic ally of Moscow.
During the forthcoming visit of Lukashenka to Kyiv, he will perhaps be told how things with the use of peacekeepers have changed, especially due to the appearance of the new US special envoy to Ukraine, who is known for his harsh criticism of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
– Can Belarus claim the status of a regional peacemaker?
– No one can deny the claim for such status. But so far such claims have been only heard in Minsk. And a close military and political alliance with Russia with the relevant mutual responsibilities somehow does not allow one to be a peacemaker, and the other an aggressor.
Ivan Hrekau, belsat.eu
