The Belarus Election Crisis: One of the Best Analyses I found on YT

[Milos Uzelac]

Give this guys amazing, nicely edited and drawn work and mindbreaking analysis some à definite views (He's got less than 5000 views after 3 days, while analysing now this possibly extremely pivotal geopolitical moment and how it came to be!) and likes and maybe a subscribe (I would advise you regardless of ideological prédilections, because I think this just top-notch political analysis that he made, for anyone if you are interested in knowing the reasons how a crisis situation came to be in the country and how did the develop in that certain specific way). 

Here's the video, the beginning is historical analysis and (if you are not interested or don't have time for a detailed history class and analysis) the analysis of contemporary crisis situation starts at 19:37:

Here is the transcript from the 19:37 mark of the video if you can't follow his fast pace at this point (which I couldn't), to hammer home some of his points:

 

 

 

"The syncretism, contradictions and contrast between perspectives of Marxist Internationalism and Russian Imperialism contained within the political composition and aims of the former USSR at various periods in the 20th century:

1.) National sovereignty and self-determination v "Greater Russian Chauvinism". 

2.) Historical and materialist basis fir national identity v Ethnic/racial essentialism

3.) Social Progressivism v Social Traditionalism

4.) Abolition of class v Preservation of old social hierarchies

 

 

 

Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme, In Essential Writings of Karl Marx, St. Petersburg, 2010:,, The old realities did not die overnight nor did the new system appeared into the world entirely mature and categorically distinct from it's predecessor. On the contrary, the new system is stamped with birthmarks of the old order."

 

World Bank Report 1991:

"When Belarus became independent in 1991., it was the richest of the twelve republics of the Commonwealth of Idependent States (CIS), in terms of per capita income, a status reflecting the republics steady growth during the 1970's and early 1980's. It had developed an industrial sector that, in terms of the share of total GDP, made it one of most heavily industrialized countries in the world. The agricultural sector was modernized and came not only to depend on heavy equipment, much of which was manufactured in Belarus, but also imported fuel and fertilizers."

Even during the democratisation era, Belarusians were reluctant to rally around the nationalist banner. Without the nationalist wing of the Communist Party, Belarussia was the republic that most associated it's identity with sovietness. 

In the 1991. popular referendum, 81.97 % of the population voted to preserve the Soviet Union. Compared to the 76.4 % average across the republics. The period of 1965. to 1980. has came to be known as the Mashrao period. At this time the BSSR was headed by a popular leader and veteran of WWII Pyotr Mashrao. Mashrao's time in office is rembered as one of economic prosperity and political stability, especially in relation to the other soviet republics. Experts disagree on the nature of Mashrao's relationship with Moscow in that period, but there is a consensus that those relations cooled by the end of Mashrao's administration. Marples and many others label Mashrao was an ardent communist who probably adhered more to leninist ideas far more than the party itself had by the second half of the 20th century. Regardless of his position towards Moscow, Mashrao remains a widely popular historical figure even today, associated both with his military contributions during WWII and his personal leadership during Belaruses era of stability. 

The final years of the Soviet Union brought two major events for Belarussia. 

One was the Chernobyl disaster, which disproportionately affected Belarus, both in the context of the USSR and Europe. 

The other was Gorbachev's reformist policies which brought some cultural and linguistic freedom for the Belarusian people. Both events sparked considerable debate and drew some attention to the Belarusian national identity. Bids were made by marginal nationalist groups to denounce the party altogether for it's many shortcomings. However groups like the Belarusian Popular Front, we're presented by authorities as having clear connections to  nationalist entities, who collaborated to some degree or another with Nazi occupiers. Even the events at the end of the Soviet Union, were not enough to jolt awake a functioning nationalist movement that was analogous to the movements gaining traction in neighbouring republics. 

It could be argued that the dialectical process within the Soviet nationality policies in Belarus resolved itself definitevly in the camp of regression, the camp of Russian supremacy over the BSSR, and yet what has emerged from Belarussia's Soviet experience is a unique identity that withstood a major geopolitical orientation.

19:37 Mark in the video - Contemporary Belarussian crisis context:

Though the Soviet Union is now gone, many people describe Belarus and the Belarusian people as quintessentially Soviet. After 1994., statistical data from country wide polls shows that only 42% of Belarusians identified with the republic itself, while 33% of the people considered the core of their personal  identification as former Soviet Union and 17% considered themselves as citizens of European or the world community. The Bellarussian national identity seems far less developed, the question of Belarussian national identity brings us to the present day crisis. 

Following the August 2020. presidential elections the country erupted in unprecedented civil unrest. Alexander Lukashenko, Belarus's president, since the collapse of the USSR, secured another electoral victory, with the official incumbent reporting over 80% of the votes. There is no doubt that opposition in Belarus never stood a real chance in the electoral process. Indeed nothing about the outcome of the recent elections has been a surprise, but why then did the country became suddenly engulfed in the flames of civil resistance? The answer inevitablely brings us back to the question of Belarusian national identity. The identity that emerged from the Soviet era is demonstrating it's inherent instability and suggesting that, perhaps there was no resolutions in the contradictions that scarred Belarusian history. 

At the heart of the crisis is the unresolved question of where Belarus belongs and who the Belarusian people are? Though Belarus spent most of its post-Soviet years very closely tied to its large eastern neighbour who supplied country with critical natural resources. 

The question of how close Belarus should be to Russia is once again emerging. 

In the late 1990's Belarus signed the so-called the Union State Treaty with Russia. A document demonstrating intent for close political, economic and social integration. The basis of the Treaty rested on the assumption that both countries were entering an equal partnership. One in which Belarus and Russia, dictated the terms of the Union eye-to-eye. Unsurprisingly Moscow never saw it this way, the Kremlin continued to demand more political concessions from Minsk,in a fashion that revealed its imperialist aspirations. 

Belarus has been similarly hesitant, without also pushing forward it's own political objectives, but the power dynamic has always been dictated by Russia military preponderance and its umacthed subsidization of natural resources exports to Minsk. 

It is this dependence that has left an uneasy air in Belarus, expressed as well even by Lukashenko himself, in the past years. 

The solution to this dillema is far out of reach Belarus is standing at the crossroads, with many dangerous paths ahead:

1) The path of continuing warm relations with Russia is rife with dependency and capitulation to Moscow's demands. 

2) The path towards Europe and the West leaves a similiar complication and  leaves open a possibility of a serious civil conflict, as it is unlikely that Putin will allow Russia's last ally to turn towards NATO and the EU. 

Here we can encounter an outcome chillingly similiar to the ongoing war in Ukraine. The problem of course that in spite of being a stagnant and politically closed society, it is among the stable of the former Soviet republics, with low levels of inequality and high levels of economic development. 

The conflict on Russia's border would be the second most favorable situation for the West, the US and NATO have been working hard to destroy the vestiges of Russian political influence in Eastern Europe, enchroaching further and further on the part of the world, that Moscow has considered theirs for centuries. 

It geographic and geopolitical position makes Belarus an inviting target for both sides. 

On the other hand the decision will be largely insignificant, Belarus like its other Eastern European neighbours, is caught between the interests and influences of two massive nexuses of power. Much like Ukraine it can easily become victim of another imperialist proxy war. The double threat of foreign domination then opens the gate to a third threat, a less than adequate status quo that justifies it's existence by demonstrating the dangers of both the East and the West.

Caught between all three nightmares the Belarusian people will liberate themselves by freeing themselves of both domestic and foreign capital's entrenched and concentrated power. As we continue to observe the unfolding situation in Belarus, we should keep in mind the key theoretical structures to assist our analysis.

The Belarussian crisis is an overdetermined moment in which multiple contradictions have coalesced and escalated into an open antagonism.

These contradictions are spatially and temporally diverse, between the historical question of Belarusian national identity and geopolitical maneuverings of Russia and the West. The overdetermined moment can only be understood, by understanding social strands that produced it. Moreover the moment demonstrates how a smaller contradiction constitues and is constituéd by larger contradictions.

Only an analytical framework informed by materialist dialectic, can lay bear the realities that turned the unsurprising outcome of a predetermined election into a geopolitically pivotal moment."

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by Milos Uzelac