© REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov

On June 2, 2020 the Presidential Administration of Russian Federation published a new decree, titled “On the principles of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of nuclear deterrence.” Though the text itself claims to be a planning document, it is in fact not exact enough for military planning purposes; nor is it a strategy. It does not even contain any clear references to Russia’s existing security policy documents.

Instead, the decree, five-and-a-half pages long, is a declarative text, designed for consumption mostly by the outside world. Thus, the Kremlin is sending a message about its own thinking on the use of nuclear weapons; more concretely, it serves the informational support of Russia’s nuclear deterrence policy.

The Use of Nuclear Weapons

The text outlines four main cases, in which Russia may use nuclear weapons in retaliation for various forms of attacks. In the first case, Russia would use the nuclear option if it received confirmed information about ballistic missiles having been launched against the territory of Russia and/or its allies. Though the document does not specify it, Russian experts interpret the term “confirmed” as information provided by Russia’s own early-warning systems.

A remarkable detail is that the text does not specify whether this applies to an attack with ballistic missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction (WMD) only, or with any ballistic missiles. This part is often interpreted as a manifestation of Moscow’s long-standing concerns regarding a mass non-nuclear strike launched with high-precision weapons. At present only the US would be capable of launching such an attack and China might gain similar capabilities soon; however, the Russian document does not specify any country as a source of threat.

The second eventuality is an attack by nuclear weapons on the territory of Russia and/or its allies, or by any other weapons of mass destruction. This option is not new; it can be found in the current military doctrine too, published in 2014, as well as in previous doctrines.

In the third case, Moscow would launch a nuclear strike if enemy activities were to target those elements of Russia’s military infrastructure in a way that would endanger Russia’s nuclear second-strike capabilities. Again, it is noteworthy that it remains unclear whether the attack would need to be nuclear to trigger the retaliatory strike or not. Both Russian and Western experts interpret this as the Kremlin’s intention to deter cyber-attacks against Russia’s critical military infrastructure.

The fourth case would be reached if the Russian Federation falls under a type of conventional attack that would endanger the very existence of the state. This part is not new either. Nevertheless, it is important to note that in the vicinity of Russia there is only country that has sufficient conventional forces for an attack of such a scale: China.

The document emphasizes that the Russian government considers the use of nuclear weapons only as a means of defense. However, this is not fully equal to a “no first use policy,” as Moscow reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear/WMD attacks.

Purposeful Ambiguity

In some passages of the presidential decree, its authors have purposefully avoided clear-cut wording, leaving room for multiple interpretations. The most important ambiguity is that the document does not differentiate between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. Hence, it is unclear whether this decree applies to all nuclear weapons, or whether the use of tactical nuclear weapons is based on different considerations.

What makes this relevant is that while the possession, production, storage, and use of strategic nuclear weapons is a field that has been relatively well-regulated by arms control treaties, the state of Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons is absolutely non-transparent. Moscow has consistently resisted repeated US efforts to bring tactical nuclear weapons under the umbrella of arms control processes.

The document also leaves it unclear whether nuclear deterrence applies to conventional weapons of strategic effect as well, i.e. to hypersonic weapons, high-energy lasers, space-launched conventional weapons, etc. Nor does it mention cyber threats in particular. It is also remarkable that the third case for using nuclear weapons, i.e. enemy activities against Russia’s critical state and military infrastructure, does not specify which elements of infrastructure count as “critical.”

De-Escalation by Escalation

The decree reflects a well-known characteristic of Russian military theory, namely that when it comes to the de-escalation of conventional conflicts, there is no clear line between conventional and nuclear deterrence. It is important to note, however, that using nuclear deterrence is not equal to actually launching nuclear weapons. Instead, nuclear deterrence is composed of a complex, multi-layered set of measures, such as declarations, exercises, demonstrative deployments, and a number of other steps which fall short of actually firing a nuclear missile, but may already have the desired deterring effect.

This approach has been present in Russian military thinking for decades. Moreover, simulated nuclear strikes have been part of many major strategic military exercises since the late 1990s. Nevertheless, the decree constitutes the first case of the Kremlin co-opting the concept of de-escalating conventional conflicts by employing nuclear deterrence. Of course, this very declaration itself is an integral part of Moscow’s nuclear deterrence policy.

Sending a Message

The timing seems not to be coincidental. In approximately half a year, in February 2021, the START treaty—the last remaining strategic arms control treaty between the United States and Russia—expires. Hence, it is quite likely that the publication of the document is meant to serve the purpose of motivating the US to continue the negotiations about a new START treaty, and possibly also about the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The fact that nuclear disarmament negotiations between Washington and Moscow have re-started in Vienna on June 22 indicates that framing that meeting was also part of the idea.

The post Lower Thresholds, Greater Ambiguity appeared first on Berlin Policy Journal - Blog.

© REUTERS/Alexey Malgavko

As the coronavirus was ravaging northern parts of Italy in March, Russia was one of the first countries to come to Rome’s aid, with the delivery of military medical aid. The final details were agreed during a phone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte on March 21. The next day Russia’s Ministry of Defense began sending fifteen military transport airplanes to Italy, with 122 personnel and dozens of military vehicles on board. The Russian team consisted of military doctors, virologists, radiologists as well as disinfection experts, while the equipment included mobile disinfection and chemical defense units, and a mobile laboratory. 600 respirators were also delivered.

In Russia the military plays an important rolein handling all types of crises, including health-related ones, so it is not surprising that it was Russia’s Ministry of Defense that delivered the aid to Italy. As this was a military operation, Russian cargo airplanes landed in the Pratica di Maremilitary airport close to Rome, and from there they moved to the Bergamo region that was severely hit by the virus.

Russian aid was composed mostly of elements that could operate without constant cooperation with Italian medical personnel, such as disinfection units. Since they did not have to be integrated into the Italian health care system logistics were considerably easier than if Russia had sent surgeons or nurses, who would have had to work within Italian hospitals.

“From Russia With Love”

The Kremlin made sure to take the opportunity to make a witty gesture by labelling both the aid packages, as well as the military trucks sent to Italy, with “From Russia With Love” signs.

However, within days of the arrival of the first shipments the backlash started. Quoting Italian governmental sources, the influential newspaper La Stampa wrotethat 80 percent of the Russian equipment was useless, and the whole operation was aimed much more at gaining political influence than providing humanitarian aid. An expert at the Rome-based Gino Germani Institute said that some parts of the Russian deliveries could indeed be usefulbut voiced concerns about the possible presence of Russian intelligence operatives among members of the Russian team, who might have wanted to use the operation for intelligence purposes.

On April 1, a Russian medical aid shipment landed on New York’s John F. Kennedy airport. The giant Antonov An-124 cargo aircraft delivered large amounts of medical equipment, including masks, gloves, protective suits, and again respirators. Similar to the aid to Italy, this delivery also took place shortly after the countries’ leaders, Putin and US President Donald Trump, spoke. The Russian aid delivery created a sizeable scandal in the US, partially in the context of the upcoming presidential elections, and also due to the allegations about the role Moscow played in the election of Trump in 2016.

A Similar Pattern

Several problems have since arisen with the Russian aid delivery to the US. In May, the Russian government charged Washington $660,000 for the aid shipment. Furthermore, the Russian transport included equipment that was not of much use in a pandemic, such as military-type gas masks and household cleaning gloves. The 45 ventilators that were delivered also turned out to be essentially useless due to the electricity network voltage difference between Russia and the US.

To make things worse, it later surfaced that some of the ventilators Russia delivered were the Aventa-M brand, which earlier had caused a deadly fire at a St. Petersburg hospital, killing several COVID-19 patients.

From April 3 on Russia started to deliver military medical aid to Serbia, too, with similar equipment to that sent to Italy. Details were again coordinated between the countries’ two presidents. Eleven Russian military cargo planes delivered 87 military doctors and specialists, including infectologists and experts on chemical warfare and disinfection. (As there is an existing multi-layered security and military cooperation between Serbia and Russia, Moscow delivering military medical aid to Serbia is a lot less surprising than it sending such shipments to NATO countries.)

In all three cases, the deliveries followed a similar pattern: Putin made the offer directly to the leader of the given country in a phone conversation, thus partially circumventing traditional diplomatic channels. Once the agreement was reached, details were coordinated by lower level officials; though not always perfectly, as the problems with the shipment to the US revealed.

Hoping for Reciprocity

Concerning the United States in particular, Russia from the very beginning hoped for reciprocity. The Russian president’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, openly declared that the Kremlin hoped for the US would provide Russia with its own medical equipment should Russia need it.

Indeed, there is considerable evidence indicating that in all three cases the dominant motives were political. The primary objective was to get the sanctions against Russia suspended. The deliveries to Italy coincided with a Russian initiativevoiced first at the March 26, 2020 G20 summit. Russia suggested that due to the humanitarian crisis caused by the COVID-19 outbreak, all international economic sanctions should be suspended until the end of the pandemic.

While Russian diplomats referred only to the cases of Iran and Venezuela without mentioning their own country, it was still clear that Russian diplomacy’s intention was to get the sanctions against Russia suspended. On the same day Moscow submitted a similar initiative in the United Nations. Hence, it looks as if Russia tried to use the aid deliveries to get the sanctions lifted by using a humanitarian argument, and Moscow’s own humanitarian shipments were to demonstrate the Kremlin’s good will.  In fact, the way Russia has been employing a universalist, humanitarian-oriented narrative is a good example of how the Kremlin is using Western value-based arguments against Western sanctions. However, Russia’s initiatives at both the UN and G20 were rejected.

Not giving up easily, on April 27, 2020 Leonid Slutsky, Chairman of the Duma’s International Affairs Committee and President of the Russian Foundation for Peace NGO wrote a letter to his Italian counterpart, Vito Petrocelli, President of the Italian Senate’s Foreign Affairs Committee, and a member of the Five Star Movement. In his letterSlutsky asked for Petrocelli’s help in getting all international economic sanctions lifted by putting pressure on Western countries. Slutsky referred to the Russian aid delivered to Italy, and also mentioned the humanitarian situation in Iran and Venezuela.

Propaganda Campaign

Also, Russia apparently intended to demonstrate that it was able to act much faster and more decisively than the EU could. A recent report by the EU vs. Disinfo project pointed out that during and after the delivery of Russian military medical aid shipments to Italy, Russian propaganda accusing the EU of being incapable and helpless was a lot stronger than usual. Meanwhile, the same disinformation outlets portrayed Russia as a responsible power able to provide an efficient reaction to the COVID-19 crisis. Regarding Italy specifically, Russian disinformation outlets particularly emphasized the narrative that “The EU is not helping, but Russia does.” Similar, anti-EU messages were targeted also at the Serbian population, where there is already a certain receptivity for such messages.

While no great success, it is highly unlikely that Moscow will abandon this project and particularly the strategy of employing a humanitarian narrative. The next voting on the extension of the most important EU sanctions is due to take place in September 2020, during the German EU presidency. Until then Moscow is likely to continue its information campaign and other efforts to break up or weaken the European coherence behind the sanctions. The military medical aid shipments constituted a brief albeit spectacular element of this larger campaign.

The post The Political Motives Behind Russia’s Coronavirus Aid appeared first on Berlin Policy Journal - Blog.

© Sergei Chirikov/Pool via REUTERS

When the “family photo” was taken at the Berlin Libya conference on January 19, 2020, there he was standing confidentially in the front row, next to UN secretary general António Guterres and host Angela Merkel: Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. For the Kremlin, Libya is currently the most important African country when it comes to expanding Russia’s military influence as well as its influence on energy and migration policy—in a country that is of crucial importance to Europe’s security.

However, Libya is not an exception. All across Africa, Russia has expanded its presence recently, particularly as an arms exporter. The years 2018 and 2019 already saw a remarkable concentration of Russian diplomatic efforts to re-establish ties in Africa. In March 2018 Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov conducted a spectacular diplomatic trip across the continent, visiting Namibia, Zimbabwe, Angola, Mozambique, and Ethiopia. Three months later, in June 2018 he visited South Africa and Rwanda. Even Russian President Vladimir Putin visited the continent once, when he attended the BRICS summit in South Africa in 2018. At the same time, plenty of African leaders paid visits to Moscow.

A Summit in Sochi

So far, the largest and most spectacular diplomatic effort was the first Russia-Africa Summit, held in Sochi at the end of October 2019. All 54 African states took part, and a number of bilateral agreements or letters of intent were signed. The message was clear. Moscow is not only interested in re-warming ties the Soviet Union once enjoyed during the Cold War. The Kremlin aims to establish partnerships of a new quality.

Russia is also using the newly-forged ties for practical diplomatic purposes. Moscow utilizes its position on the UN Security Council to support its African allies, for example, by publicly endorsing the idea of granting Africa a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. In exchange, Moscow can count on the votes of its regional partners in the UN General Assembly, when issues important to Russia arise. For example, on December 18, 2020 the UN General Assembly voted on a resolution about the human rights situation in Crimea and Sevastopol. Although the resolution was adopted by 65 votes, none of Russia’s newly (re)forged African partner countries voted against Moscow; Algeria, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Sudan, South Sudan all either voted against the resolution, abstained, or decided not to vote.  Closer relations, of course, do not necessarily guarantee unconditional support. In other words, there are limits to the loyalty Russia can buy. The results, however, had been largely similar in an earlier vote, held on December 9, 2019, on a resolution that condemned Russia for the militarization of Crimea, and generally for violating Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Meager Economic Ties

Moscow has long been trying to bolster its foreign policy by economic means. However, Russia’s economic capabilities are much smaller than those of the Soviet Union. Despite its diplomatic efforts, Moscow at present remains a comparatively small player in the continent´s economy, although its trade with African countries is undoubtedly increasing. While in 2009 its total trade turnover with African states was $5.7 billion, by 2018 it had reached $20 billion. However, even this spectacular increase is dwarfed by China´s approximately $200 billion annual trade with African countries, or by the EU´s $300 billion. The main comparative leverage that Russia has, particularly over Western investors, is that Moscow can be a lot more flexible by posing no political conditionality. Furthermore, trading with Russia does not pose the danger of a debt trap , which might make it a more attractive partner than China.

The situation is similar in terms of aid, assistance, and investments. While the EU, Japan, China, and the United States all have aid, investment and assistance programs worth of tens of billions of dollars, Moscow has no resources for providing investments or any economic assistance on a comparable scale. Although during the Russia-Africa Summit President Putin spectacularly announced that Russia was going to write off ex-Soviet debts of African states in the accumulated value of $20 billion, this seemingly generous move was less a real investment and more a recognition of the fact that these debts were anyway impossible to collect.

Despite Russia´s comparably small share in the continent´s economy, certain Russian companies have been remarkably successful in establishing strong regional positions, often with the Kremlin´s active support. During the Russia-Africa summit the state-owned nuclear energy company Rosatom signed a contract with Ethiopia to build a nuclear power plant there, and another one with Rwanda to build a nuclear science and technology center. Meanwhile, the Rosgeo State Geological Company signed cooperation agreements with South Sudan, Equatorial Guinea and Rwanda, while the diamond mining company Alrosa has already been active in Angola and Zimbabwe. The Russian state oil company Rosneft has been working in Nigeria on developing more than 20 different oil production facilities, and there are a number of other Russian entities (including the state-owned VEB bank) looking for expansion opportunities.

The Biggest Export Goods: Arms

Certain African countries also represent an important market for Russia’s arms exports. It is well known that arms sales are an important source of income for the Russian economy. In addition, they also serve as a foreign and economic policy tool, due to the fact that by supplying a country with weapons Moscow can establish long-term dependences and keep existing Russia-friendly regimes in power.

Those African countries that were Soviet allies in the Cold War have armed forces that relied heavily on Soviet-made weapons, and Russia is building on those ties. Furthermore, in some cases arms sales also constitute a form of debt relief: in exchange for writing off debts that would anyway probably be difficult to collect, Russia often agrees that the given country can instead sign arms procurements contracts.

Algeria is a good example in this respect. Back in 2006 Russia wrote off Algeria’s entire $4,7 billion state debt and in exchange signed contracts for arms exports as well as for positions in the country’s agriculture and energy sectors. More recently, in 2017 Moscow agreed to supply Algiers with Iskander-E long-range tactical missiles.

After the Sochi summit Russia confirmed that it is currently supplying 20 African countries with weapons, including Uganda, Rwanda, Angola, and Mozambique. The overall value of arms exports was put at $4 billion—approximately one-fifth of Russia´s total trade turnover with Africa.

Big Buyer Algeria

Based on data compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), between 2009 and 2019 Algeria has been the largest purchaser of Russian weapons on the continent by some margin. In this period Russia supplied 75 percent of all the country’s arms imports. Algiers has been buying practically the fully spectrum of what Russia’s defense industry has to offer, ranging from diesel-electric submarines to tanks, from helicopters to air defense systems.

Uganda is another significant buyer, procuring a wide variety of Russia-made weapons, ranging from old T-55 tanks to modern T-90 tanks, as well as missiles for the also Russian-made Sukhoi Su-30 fighter-bombers. Egypt has also been a major buyer of Russia-made weapons, although Cairo concentrates mostly on air defense systems, including radars, missiles and other equipment.

Earlier, Libya under Muammar Gaddafi had been the largest buyer of Russian-made weapons. When Gaddafi fell in 2011, Russia lost already signed contracts worth approximately $4 billion, together with the potential for future deals. This particular case also illustrates that Russia’s well-known aversion vis-à-vis externally imposed regime changes is not only because the Kremlin is worried about a potential similar regime change at home, but also because it may lead to significant economic losses.

Across the continent, the most popular military equipment sold by Russia are helicopters, whether they be Mi-8/17 military transport helicopters or Mi-24/35 attack helicopters. Moscow apparently sells military helicopters to whoever can pay, including Zambia, Chad, Angola, and a dozen other countries. The latest helicopter delivery contract was the one signed with Nigeria at the Russia-Africa Summit for 12 Mi-35 attack helicopters.

In addition, Russia is also successfully selling African countries even older, long outdated weaponry, left over from the Cold War era. Low-tech conflicts on the continent are absorbing even those largely obsolete weapons, ranging from small arms to mortars, from armored cars to outdated tanks. Sudan constitutes one of the main “depos” for aged, ex-Soviet Russian weapons and spare parts. Engines supplied by Russia help the Sudanese government keep their old T-55 tanks and BTR-80 armored personnel carriers still operational.

Proxy Boots on the Ground

While Russia has no military base on the African continent, Russian private military companies and mercenary groups are actively present in many armed conflicts there. The infamous Wagner Group, a private military company with close ties to Russia´s military intelligence (the GU), has already seen action in the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Mozambique, and Libya. In fact, despite their de jure private status, the group functions more like a proxy, irregular Russian force than a real private entity.

In the Central African Republic, South Sudan and Mozambique, operatives of the Wagner Group provide security assistance, military training as well as reportedly combat operational support to the central governments. In exchange, the Russian oligarch who owns the Wagner Group, Yevgeny Prigozhin, usually gets mining or oil production concessions, as well as other economic benefits.

From Russia´s point of view using private military companies such as the Wagner Group (or any other of the more than a dozen PMCs Russia already has) offers several benefits. First, unlike deploying the regular military, only a very low level of domestic accountability is involved, as Wagner operatives do not count as military personnel, only as employees of a private company. The same applies to international responsibility: the nominally private status of Wagner enables Russia to consistently deny its official involvement, even though Wagner is so closely connected to the GU that they even share a training facility in Russia, and Wagner´s commander, Dmitry Utkin, was a career military intelligence officer.

At present the group’s biggest operation is probably in Libya. Estimates vary, but it seems that at present there are at least 1,500 Wagner operatives deployed there, who conduct not only their usual support tasks, but also high-intensity operations, i.e. fighting. In addition, according to US sources, there are also Russian regular troops deployed in Libya, though there is only very limited public information available on this. What makes Russia´s presence particularly interesting is that in Libya Moscow is not supporting the legitimate, UN-recognized government residing in Tripoli, but the forces of warlord General Khalifa Haftar, who is opposed to the central government.  Russia’s likely motivations for involvement in Libya include the opportunity to have another military base on the Mediterranean (it would be the third one after the harbor and military airport in Syria), to get concessions in oil production, and also to gain a leverage over the migration flow coming from Sub-Saharan Africa towards Europe. These factors make Libya an operational theatre of very high interest for Moscow.

Having boots on the ground in Africa is not without risks for Russia. The Wagner Group recently suffered significant losses in Libya, losing more than 30 of their operatives in September 2019 alone, and another five in Mozambique, who fell victim to an ambush by rebel forces. However, so far these losses remain tolerable for Russia, mostly due to the deniability Moscow employs both at home and abroad. So far, the profit achieved through Wagner´s involvement conveniently outweighs the losses; hence, there is no reason to believe that Russia would downscale the operations of its proxy forces in Africa in the foreseeable future.

The post African Comeback appeared first on Berlin Policy Journal - Blog.

© REUTERS/Vasily Fedosenko

When Belarusians went to the polls on November 17, 2019 to elect a new lower house of the bicameral National Assembly, they didn’t elect one single opposition politician among the 110 MPs—a step back compared to previous elections in 2016, when two opposition politicians, Hanna Konopatskaya and Alena Anisim, won seats. And according to the OSCE electoral observation mission, the elections yet again failed to meet several important international standards, just as they have failed to do over the past two decades.

Then again, the presence or otherwise of opposition MPs in the parliament has little real meaning as the parliament plays an extremely limited, largely symbolic role in Belarus. This dates back to 1996, when President Alexander Lukashenko pushed through, via a flawed referendum, a new constitution which effectively replaced the earlier functioning parliament after the Supreme Soviet of Belarus (as it was then called) had refused to extend his presidential powers.

Since then, the new National Assembly has been composed mostly of Lukashenko’s supporters, and has had very limited powers. The president can easily bypass the parliament, and oversight is also very weak, because the government is only accountable to the president. Also, the president can dissolve the parliament at any time, as Lukashenko did when he announced new elections on August 5, cutting the term of the previous parliament by a year.

No Mass Repression

In short: Nothing much has changed with the elections. Of course, the situation of democratic rights and fundamental freedoms must not be ignored, particularly while addressing the situation in Belarus from the European Union’s perspective. The sole, at least partially positive aspect is that election-related political violence remained minor and sporadic, with occasional arrests, but no mass repressions. One may argue, of course, that the Belarusian system has a unique feature of post-electoral repression, meaning that the real suppression of the opposition takes place only some time after the elections, when international attention has subsided. Nevertheless, if compared to the infamous scenes of 2006 and 2010, when security forces attacked opposition demonstrators with brutal force, there has been an improvement, or at least no backsliding since 2016 when things also remained calm.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Belarusian regime was divided on how to handle the opposition, i.e. whether to allow them to possibly win a few seats in the parliament or not. More liberal representatives of the elites argued that providing the opposition with some mandates would do no harm politically, given that the parliament is toothless, but would be highly welcomed by the West. Contrary to this, conservative elites, including the KGB pushed for not allowing the opposition to gain strength in any way, already having the upcoming presidential elections in mind. They argued that negative reactions from the West would remain limited given the overall geopolitical situation. Apparently, the hardline group won the upper hand.

Tough Choices for the EU

This has placed the EU in an inconvenient position. The careful political rapprochement that has been going on between Brussels and Minsk since 2014 has not been conditioned on democratic development at all. There is no valid Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) with Belarus, since its ratification was suspended in 1997 in reaction to the rapid anti-democratic backsliding of the regime.

As Belarusian Foreign Minister Uladzimir Makei stated during a talk at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) in Berlin on October 21, 2019, Minsk has long been looking for cooperation opportunities, that do not require a PCA to be in place, such as closer relations with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and visa facilitation. Under such circumstances, motivated also by the fundamentally changed geopolitical environment following Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, the EU has set no conditions for further developing relations with Belarus, implicit, of course, within the framework of the absent PCA.

Now, given the latest election result, the EU is facing a tough choice. Cutting back the ongoing, limited cooperation projects would harm the EU’s geopolitical interests, because curtailing Minsk’s slow, careful opening to the West would almost automatically result in Belarus turning even more firmly to China, to seek a counterbalance to Russia’s power.

Besides, from a legal perspective it would be somewhat odd to argue for such a move, since the 2019 parliamentary elections were no more anti-democratic than the previous ones. OSCE election observers reported several, and similarly serious concerns in both 2016 and 2019. Why punish Belarus now, if the EU did not do so after the elections three years ago?

Symbolic Cost of Inaction

The problem is the symbolic costs of inaction. Not reacting could be interpreted by some as an indication that the EU in fact cares very little about democratic rights and fundamental freedoms in Belarus. Creating such an impression should be avoided, because it would affect the credibility of the EU not only among the Belarusian population, but also in other Eastern Partnership countries.

However, it is realpolitik that shapes the actual choice. While not giving up on its values, Brussels can have no interest in pushing Minsk even more into China’s open arms, nor would it want to weaken Belarusian efforts to resist the pressure from Russian President Vladimir Putin who has tried to hug Lukashenko as close as possible in the past. Hence, the clearly disappointed, but otherwise mild post-election statement of the European External Action Service is most probably the toughest step the EU is going to take.

This has all proven those in Belarus right who see geopolitics as the all-deciding factor. Weakening the opposition by depriving them of their parliamentary representation will be important in the upcoming 2020 presidential elections. Lukashenko has already announced his candidacy; however, it is not yet known, what to expect from Russia.

What the Kremlin Wants

Full integration of Russia and Belarus—hinted at from time to time by both sides—is highly unlikely, for two reasons. The Kremlin can well do without the political, economic, financial, social, and military burdens that any real integration would entail, and the Belarusian elites will not agree to giving up the sovereignty of their own country.

Hence, the Kremlin will likely want to keep Lukashenko as president and guarantor of Belarus’ stability, but to weaken him to a considerable extent. If successful, this strategy would allow Moscow to further strengthen its political and economic influence over Minsk, but without putting extra strains on Russia’s already overstretched budget. The upcoming months will tell  how will Russia try to realize these objectives.

The post Geopolitics, As Usual appeared first on Berlin Policy Journal - Blog.