By Elena Rakova

Geographic position of Belarus will always provoke politicians to make tough geopolitical choices. Of course, the ideal option is to “run with the hare and hunt with the hounds”, however, it is hardly viable in the long run. In the multipolar world of today the leader countries ought to have satellites in order to be “polars” on the geopolitical map. Russian politicians are starting to understand that. They also understand that having satellites is a privilege you have to pay for. Any ambitions are costly, especially political ones because they are financed not from politicians’ own pockets. Naturally, Russia’s current geopolitical ambitions outweigh, just as always, the country’s social and economical obligations to its own people.

That is especially evident today: despite tough current economic situation, Russia doesn’t abandon various integration projects, supporting its allies with loans, subsidies, cheap oil and gas, technologies, and human capital. There’s an important factor to mention here: such help is generally approved of by Russian people, be it support to Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, or South Ossetia.

Contrary to the United States that have long financed via various mechanisms certain countries and their politicians (sometimes official, sometimes oppositional) and that have a clear world outlook (we know who our friends and who our foes are), the United Europe doesn’t have commensurable ambitions, goals, or capabilities. Setting clear geopolitical priorities is a mission impossible for an entity comprised of 27 countries that have absolutely different national interests. Any important decision making process quickly turns into farce and vague, overly general resolutions.

More than that, joining the majority of Central and East European countries to the EU and trying to develop South European countries (Greece, Italy, Portugal) up to North European standards have been too costly for taxpayers from Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and other countries. Europe of today is willing to make friends with everyone while paying for it as little as possible. Who in Europe knows about the Eastern Partnership? There is a whole bunch of similar forums and initiatives established there every month. Brussels understands perfectly clear that its new integration initiatives and desire to help other countries financially (unless those countries had suffered from wars) causes voters’ irritation and apathy. And politicians have to reckon with public opinion, it’s the essence of a modern Western democracy.

Hence, pushing away Russia with the hope that Europe will grow fond of and support us is a very short-sighted and dangerous policy. On one hand, we have words and promises and need to compete with twenty more countries that are just as poor and just as desperate for financing from European structural funds (France, for instance, is much more interested in supporting the Mediterranean region countries). On the other hand, we have financial, technological, and human resources of Russia, let alone common language they share with Belarusians.
 
So, why Belarus needs to be friends with Russia?

At first, Belarus will need considerable external funds for years to come because of many factors: from economic system inherited from Soviet times to unsuccessful reforms and wrong choice of the country’s development model. We are not the only country to have a negative trade balance, more than that, many countries have been living with it for decades. However, a country needs to finance its trade deficit by attracting foreign investments (preferably FDI). And we, due to certain factors, have problems in this field as well. So, what do we have?

Russia has the power to affect our trade balance both negatively and positively (by buying / not buying our products, increasing / decreasing gas prices, oil duties, etc.) The situation is the same with capital transactions. By financing various transportation, logistical, and other infrastructural projects, Russia gives us a considerable increase in foreign direct investments (for instance, for a long period of time construction of the first line of Yamal – Europe gas pipeline had been providing Belarus with 80% of all its FDI). Europe, with its 600 million euros for five countries for five years in the framework of the Eastern Partnership is standing nowhere near.

At second, it is Russia that can save part of our industry, however paradoxical or sad it may sound. Why would European investors ever need our tractor plant, Minsk automobile plant, or other production facilities if they compete with European brands? Selling Belarusian industrial giants was profitable 10-15 years ago, when Belarus was a cheap country.

Today we are an expensive country with lazy and spoiled people who are not willing to work for less than USD 400 and pay more than USD 30 for their utility bills. Besides, most of industrial enterprises have been already relocated, if not to China, then to Slovakia or Montenegro. Selling our enterprises to European companies will mean a very tough restructuring process with production cutbacks and workers lay-offs. On the contrary, Russians have ideas of how to preserve and protect their own production, to create common market in the post-Soviet space, etc. Our brands are well-known in the Commonwealth of Independent States and some other countries; more than that, they are very dependent on Russian components.

Thus, with appropriate investments and competent owners our factories will be able to compete with European brands in the post-Soviet countries. Hence, it is necessary to sell our factories to a strategic investor. In my opinion, Russian investors can do well in increasing capitalization and competiveness of our production facilities, definitely not worse than Europeans can do.

Here we can talk about the third aspect of the issue. Russia can teach us capitalism, because in many respects it has more capitalism than Europe. One reason for that is that it can’t afford socialism and populism any longer.
 
Corporate governance in Russia is years ahead of ours; many top managers there have Western education. While possessing a similar mentality and culture, Russians can be strict and consistent, flexible and open to new and non-trivial solutions. These are qualities that our politicians and managers need both on macro and micro levels. I don’t want to draw heavy criticism here (besides, it’s a separate topic), but Russian are ahead of us in the field of transforming their political system as well.

And finally, we shouldn’t underestimate opportunities for transfer of technologies and knowledge. Yes, Russia has a lot of problems and many things have been lost. However, potential of Russian human capital is huge. Of course, Russian oligarchs are controversial figures but both they and their managers are dozens of times better potential-wise and managerial skills-wise than Belarusian top managers appointed by the state. More than that, we have construction of the nuclear power plant and other objects, establishment of joint enterprises in military-industrial complex and other science intensive areas. Cooperation with Russian specialists is easier and more functional. Once again, a common language plays here a big role too.

I have observed a kind of a humanitarian catastrophe in some ex-Soviet countries when the majority of the population, including young professionals, had already forgotten Russian language but had not yet learnt English. Inability to communicate, read, write – what scientific breakthroughs are we talking about here? It is naïve to believe that in next 10 or even 20 years the majority of Belarusians will be able to easily read or talk in English or German. There is nothing for our Russian in the EU either.

Opportunities for mutually beneficial cooperation are boundless. Let’s talk now about phobias though. Russophobia has become a kind of a geopolitical virus of the beginning of the XXI century. Again, we need to distinguish between hatred of everything connected with Stalinism and violent building of the Soviet State and world Socialist camp, and phobia of “the hand of Moscow”, antipathy towards Putin and his policy, etc.
In reality, a great deal of what Russian authorities are doing is quite understandable and in a way logical. We can agree or disagree with their system of values and their vision of how Russia is going to become a democratic country and how it is going to defend its interests, but we hardly should see everything in a negative. Again, very often aversion or disagreement with how some people had accumulated wealth in Russia outweighs a sober and rational look at things. There is also an idealization of Western politicians and policy-makers. These countries simply had more time for separation of business and politics, important political actors there are not direct members of boards of directors or shareholder of large companies and banks. However, it is naïve to deny the ability of Western business to influence Western politics.

In Russia everything is more transparent and clumsy so far. However, politicians’ goals are quite logical: progressive development of the country, preserving Russia in its current borders and struggle again separatist movements, supporting national capitalists, keeping strategic resources in their hands, defending Russia’s interests in international affairs, expansion of Russian capital to the West, mergers and acquisitions with Western companies (both for above mentioned expansion an transfer of technologies and knowledge). Russia’s policy is not territorial expansion or enriching its leaders.

That’s why we shouldn’t be afraid of Russia or demonize it. We need to define our own priorities, values, and goals and try to achieve them in a mutually beneficial manner with our closest and powerful neighbor. Obama’s America will try to make friends with Russia; Old Europe is trying to befriend Russia as well… it would be silly for such a small and poor country as ours that is still so much dependent on Russia economically, to turn up our nose at Russia or try to use Russia offering it only words instead. We need a compromise here.
 
There is an alternative way though. With focus on Europe only and quick modernization of what Europe will graciously agree to keep from our economy. Only in that case we will have to fire half of the working population of the country and send them to pick up strawberries in England (spud tulips in the Netherlands, build roads in Poland)… if they give us visas, of course. Otherwise we will again have to talk with Russia in order to support our guest workers.