Choice of Belarus

The paths of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, which signed an agreement in Belovezhskaya Pushcha on the denunciation of the treaty on the formation of the USSR, parted. Ukraine has already turned  to the West, moving farther and farther from the Kremlin, and Belarus, neighboring with Poland and Lithuania, is turning to face civilized Europe, also striving to return to its fold, both in value and political meaning. Russia still faces a choice of the further vector of its destiny - to return to the European space or remain in the space of despotism.

The open refusal of the Belarusian society to live under despotism was formally provoked by the unacceptable results of the presidential elections on August 9. Confident and principled confrontation of the majority of the people with the authorities suggests that society was ready for such a manifestation of protest. We do not observe spontaneous indignation and cannot accept the arguments of the loser of the presidential election, Lukashenko, about outside manipulation.

Pay attention to the context in which the events started in Belarus. For the last 15 years the space of the former USSR has been shaken by cataclysms, the successor of the Union, the CIS, is disintegrating like a house of cards - Georgia and Ukraine are gone, internal ties are weakening and societies are seized by the aspirations of the need for change. Russia has also be shaken. The Khabarovsk call for the Kremlin is a serious warning about changes in public consciousness and moods - people are tired of despotism.

There is a crisis in relations between society and the state. The first strives for prosperity and freedom, while the second historically remains an instrument for limiting and suppressing such aspirations. Balance and harmony in the relationship between them can be useful for both only in the case of civil control over the state through elections, the media, political and civic participation in government.

The problem of the post-Soviet regimes is the absence of this consensus, and Belarusian disobedience to President Lukashenko stems from this contradiction. The tragedy of Lukashenko, like other  leaders of non-democratic countries,  is that they believe that only they know how relations between society and the state should be arranged, where the latter's word is a priori.

Lukashenko did a lot to preserve and develop the Belarus; for the self-awareness of Belarusians under the Russian pressure and the threat of being taken over by his elder brother. However, he did not understand one thing that today Belarusians, as a nation, express their readiness to ensure their development and determine their fate. This is not only the need of Belarusians, but also of Russians, who more and more consistently remind the authorities that we are not slaves.

Lukashenko's desperate attempts to get the Kremlin's military support is not at all a suitable path, not only for himself, but also for Putin, who feels the popular ferment from the Far East to Brest. It is no longer 2008 and 2014, when he, manipulating patriotism, invaded Georgia and Ukraine. The outbursts of freedom have already swept Russia, which is rising from its knees not thanks to Russian weapons, but to Russian freedom of spirit.

It is important also to take into account that the Georgian and Ukrainian societies were split in their aspirations between freedom and despotism; but the Belarusian society practically found itself in the unity of its choice for freedom. In Russian society, this struggle of contradictions is at the culmination stage and certainly not in favor of despotism. However, if the Kremlin tries to stop the Belarusians on their way to freedom, then this will be the same reason for the Russian people as on August 9 for the Belarusians.