Colonel Ray Wójcik, Director of the Warsaw office of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) and a former US military attache in Poland, has answered the questions of Belsat TV journalist Siarhiej Pieliasa about Russia’s feasible waging information warfare against Belarus, the independence of our country and Minsk’s new military doctrine of Minsk.
Part 1
S.P.:What is the role of Belarus in relations between Russia and the West? What defines these relations?
R.W.: We would like the role to be constructive and a sort of help to bridge the gap between Russia and West. Geographically, Belarus is in very important position in Europe. It is inextricably linked politically on the security front and on the energy front with Russia. Because of that dependence, that relationship makes it very difficult for Belarus to be definitely in the west cab, but there is a lot of energy in the people of Belarus for a different future.
S.P.: Do you consider Belarus as a fully independent player? Or Lukashenka should take Putin’s opinion into account?
R.W.: Belarus is not an independent player because politically, definitely on the security front and perhaps the most important at all – on the energy front – so much reminds of Russia for Belarus that makes it very difficult. Even if Lukashenka truly wanted to be an independent player, he cannot. So, for that reason the question of Belarus being costructive is a re-question to have right now. Belarus is very close in line with Russian policies on the security front. There are some differences which are even more pronounced in the last few years, but they are definitely dependent on Russia, therefore they cannot be independent right now.
S.P.: It’s been nearly two years since Belarus adopted the New Military doctrine. Curiously, it contained a new important message related to NATO: ‘partnering with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Republic of Belarus seeks to build an equal dialogue, increase openness and develop mutual understanding within the framework of strengthening regional security’. Have you noticed any real effect in politics with regard to the paragraph above?
I would say that’s a great idea to incorporate [these words] into the doctrine. Those are just words right now, but you know, from words come ideas, from ideas comes action. I have not noticed anything overtly politically different in those words, but you know that was encouraging to the West and NATO that Belarus made the statement that it would welcome closer relationship with NATO. Of course, on the security front that kind of cooperation is very difficult at the moment, because the way the Belarusian military and security apparatuses are so tightly linked to the Russian system. But it does give NATO something to work with. Of course, Belarus is part of the Partnership for Peace, which allows Belarus to participate in certain NATO activities with us, potentially observe exercises and even participate in exercises. So, those kinds of opportunities are there and I think that statement is actually very positive for the future of Belarus and NATO work.
S.P.: Recently there have been many reports and discussions about Belarus’ possible contribution to resolving the conflict in the east of Ukraine. Will Washington agree to send Belarusian peacekeepers to Donbas as part of an international mission?
R.W.: Ambassador Volker [Kurt Volker, U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine – Belsat] is very active on this front, this initiative to look at a United Nations peacekeeping mission, to get after the demarcation line, [to see if] the separational forces allow for movement, protection of the OSCE observers, which is not happening right now after Russian occupied Donbas. As the UN and West – primarily the European Nations – involved in the discussions of the Minsk-2 Accord, we need to consider the composition of the proposed Belarusian participation. Speaking from my perspective, I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing, it just depends on how much, what kind of authority the Belarusian troops would have inside the mission. But it could be a good way to do some combined activity with the Belarusian military forces I think again NATO, UN, European nations at the head of this initiative to install a peacekeeping force. We need to look carefully before making a decision.
Another Minsk initiative is called Helsinki 2. it is being actively discussed at the moment, it is about reshaping of understanding security in our region as the OSCE and Helsinki-1 are facing problems now. Is the OSCE achieving their goals in the region? Do Washington and the West see the need to redefine OSCE rules?
It is not working well because managers in Donbas region are barred from actually doing their mission. The Russian forces block the OSCE mission. I think it is a good time to look at the OSCE mandate in missions like this; at how you define the security of the OSCE observers before they actually go on a mission like this. From the US government perspective, I cannot speak for the policy debating on this front, but just as a think tank person involved in this region, I would say yeah, it should be definitely looked at how we assign a mission to the OSCE, define the mission, prepare the OSCE observers, protect them with the right authorities so that they can be successful.
I have a feeling that thanks to Minsk-2, the Minsk dialogue, Lukashenka regime stopped to be perceived as Europe’s last dictatorship. Another reason for it is Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. The initiative Helsinski-2 seems to be Lukashenka’s attempt to win more points, to become a mediator. Do you think Belarus is really advocating peace or just playing a game?
To answer this question, we need to understand what is Belarus’ interest in solving the problem in Donbas and Ukraine, what is Belarus’ concern about security, we need to get the motives why Belarus wants to facilitate this dialogue, why Belarus made negative comments on the invasion of Donbas, why it stepped out with a different political opinion [from Russia]. It is pretty unusual in some ways for Belarus. I think it is in some ways a pragmatic role; Belarus could see their sovereignty being next.
If things are successful for Russia and Ukraine, and Russia does not like, for example, Belarusian activities becoming more pro-West, whether it is economic concerns or a kind of a small opening to NATO, then Russia could use information warfare, the media to spin a story – like what they have done in Ukraine – about Russian-speaking people being oppressed and being not treated fairly in Belarus, and Russia needs to react.
So, for Belarus, in my view, it seems like a balancing act I think they are trying to win some credibility with the West and facilitate something positive in the security front, because in truth, economically Russia can provide or was providing before. So, Belarus is looking for more engagement with the West both in practical and economic sense.
I would like to ask about U.S. presence in Europe. A few years ago, the U.S. decided to move its troops to Poland and Baltic states, closer to Belarusian and Russian borders. What is the reason for this relocation? The answer may seem obvious, but some Belarusians do wonder why Americans are coming closer.
The US, the rest of NATO, EU, the rest of free Europe were shocked at what happened in Crimea and following in Donbas. The US took the position which is ‘we don’t know what is next, we don’t know if Vladimir Putin can do something surprising after he had illegally occupied Crimea and part of Eastern Ukraine; what if the Russian president also considered doing something in the NATO territory’. So, the response to that was the US moving forward our forces primarily into Poland as sort of the staging area and then also expanding it to other nations, to the Baltics, the Black Sea for exercises and training. That was a direct response to this sort of existential concern. We do not know what is on Putin’s mind in the future when it comes to NATO. In 2014, the Secretary of State said ‘not an inch of NATO territory is available for Russia’. That was the reason we put those forces forward we increase their presence, made them even more active; very close allies from NATO have joined this in the response in the Baltics and all over the eastern flank. We were both proud and happy that the rest of NATO was really with us on this end; the EU to a certain extent as well, of course, but we are also cautiously hopeful that president Putin can see our definite resolve; that’s why we called the operation that moves these troops here and deploys them Atlantic Resolve (AR). And our resolve is demonstrated by our military presence.
(To be continued)
The interview has been part of Belsat TV program Prasviet (World and Us) televised on March, 30
Belsat.eu
