Belarus: how it has come to date
by Luscino
Thucydides said, positively evaluating Pericles who managed to soothe the excitement of the Athenians and the complaints against his government: "in words it was a democracy, but in fact the government of the first citizen" (Stories, II, 65,10). Thus one could evaluate Lukashenko's work over the last abundant twenty years, at least up to the last protests carried out by the opposition, which managed to mobilize a significant number of Belarusians against the government.
In the most prosaic fora of Western propaganda Lukashenko has been defined for years as "the last dictator of Europe". And it does not matter if in the governments of the "first citizens" of the West in the anti-government protests the demonstrators are brutalized and crippled (as in the regime of the first citizen Macron), or in the USA the target practice of African American is now the national sport of policemen, if bloody repressions in pro-American Colombia indiscriminately strike the protesters in the total silence of the aforementioned Western media: all the eyes of these sincere democrats are on the last dictator of Europe. Aleksandr Lukashenko, in fact. But to understand how the first Belarusian citizen lost his talent as a mediator and his hold on the masses, it is good to make a brief excursus on the Belarusian political history of the last decades.
THE LIQUIDATION OF THE USSR AND THE GREAT LEAP BACKWARD
In 1988 the destructive attention of the liquidators of the Soviet Union, headed by the secretary of the CPSU Gorbachev, had turned to the institutional and political structure of the organs of the Republic. In December of that year, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR approved its formal suppression by giving a mandate to the newly created "Congress of People's Deputies" - a sort of general assembly elected by universal suffrage of 2250 members divided by categories (institutional bodies, trade unions, cooperatives, company representatives, scientists, etc.…) - to elect from among its members an assembly of 542 deputies similarly called the "Supreme Soviet" which was to act as a permanent parliament. This new Supreme Soviet, substantially different from the original one resulting from the constitution of 1936 which had 1500 members before its suppression, went to abolish that permanent collegial body (which also served as the "Head of State" of the Republic) it was the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, replacing it with the figure of the President of the Supreme Soviet, the head of the assembly with the function of Head of State.
It should be noted that in this new assembly, for the first time, the worker element was practically nil, while company managers, intellectuals and other categories, even the prelates, acquired more and more representation. Furthermore, for the first time, the independent candidates, present since the 1930s, no longer appeared as a coalition block with the CPSU. The nascent bourgeoisie of what had been the first socialist country in history got rid of the institutional snares of the Union, and if "after a thorough study of the experience of the two Russian revolutions, Lenin, inspired by the theory of Marxism, came to the conclusion that the the best political form of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not the democratic parliamentary republic, but the republic of the Soviets " (1) the deputies of the Gorbachevian Supreme Soviet made the coffin of the USSR the cradle of the bourgeois republic.
This brief digression on the institutional structure of the last years of the USSR has its importance in the economics of the discussion due to the fact that the individual Soviet republics adopted the same institutional body, on a scale, of the Union, since they too were replaced the old bodies with Supreme Soviets by way of national parliaments of which the figure of the head of the assembly will assume the role of Head of State in the governments of independent nations: he was president of the Russian Supreme Soviet Yeltsin, of the Ukrainian one Kravchuk and Shushkevich of the Belarusian, the three who, in December 1991, signed the dissolution of the USSR and were the first presidents of their independent nations.
In March 1990, the elections of the counter-reformed Belarusian Supreme Soviet gave rise to an assembly that saw in principle the prevalence of the liquidating Soviet bureaucracy, together with elements hostile to the counter-reforms, which we could define as the last representatives of the old power, and about a ten percent of deputies openly bourgeois and independent with respect to the Belarusian Communist Party who referred to the fierce, albeit minority among the masses, "Belarusian Popular Front, Adradzhennie" (BNF). The latter was a jumble of all anti-communist and ultra-nationalist elements similar to other civic movements, some later became real parties, which took hold in the Baltic republics (Sajudis in Lithuania, Tautas in Latvia, Rahvarinne in Estonia) and the Narodnyi Rukh in Ukraine,
The BNF - from the now well-known red and white banner of the Belarusian puppet states created by the Germans in the territories occupied in 1918 and subsequently during the Nazi aggression of the USSR - after the elections for the Belarusian Soviet it could count on about thirty deputies out of 360 and had independence from the Soviet Union and the classic "reforms" as a political agenda. In the political and economic field, the privatization of state enterprises, the implementation of wild capitalism and the total liquidation of Soviet institutions to replace them with a pure bourgeois parliament. In the cultural field, the equally classic “reforms” of abolition of the Russian language, of criminalization of the Soviet past and of glorification of the reactionary and ultra-nationalist elements of the country's history;
The stubborn action of this nationalist bloc, which naturally enjoyed enormous sympathies in Western fora, much more than at home, clashed with an assembly that proceeded by inertia, mostly following the twists and turns of the crackling neighbors (Yeltsin and Baltics in the lead) frustrating the efforts of the sincere democrats of the BNF, which however, in the wake of similar events in Russia, had managed to get the Belarusian Soviet to adopt a formal declaration of independence in July 1990. At the time, the president of that assembly was Nikolay Dementey, a communist hostile to the new liquidation course and elegantly defenestrated when he joined the famous attempted "coup d'etat" in the USSR in August 1991. This crucial event, how much useless, in reality it was not a real coup as narrated by sacred history. Rather, as the anti-communist liberal Sergio Romano honestly reports, it was an attempt by the major figures of the Soviet state, now increasingly deprived of authority, to react to the state of affairs and assert their legitimate prerogatives.(2) in the face of the real putschists - later transformed into democratic heroes together with their sober and combative captain Yeltsin - who, counting on the dualism of power that had formed thanks to the "progressive" Gorbachevian reforms, were pushing more and more towards disintegration total state.
Therefore the feats of the reformers, as the prevailing historiography calls the liquidators of the USSR, had given oxygen to the BNF which, despite the anti-Soviet zeal, was unable to dig a spider out of the hole at home: its "reformer" colleagues were hostile to it, but more moderates who did not allow him to advance politically in the assembly, and the masses who in March 1991 had voted 83% (the highest percentage among the European republics) for the maintenance of the Soviet Union were hostile to him. The failed attempt to stop the collapse of the USSR in August 1991 marked de factothe end of the Union, with the national governments that this time, not only formally, declared independence. In Belarus, Prime Minister Kebich noted the honor of this "heroic" act, simultaneously suspending the activity of the now dying Communist Party of government, after similar actions by Russians, Ukrainians, etc. Meanwhile, the defenestrated Dementey was succeeded by Shuschkevich at the head of the still Soviet (and therefore of the state). He was a scientist who had the task of signing the de jure passing of the USSR together with the Russian and Ukrainian counterparts in December 1991 and the birth of the useless initials CSI (Commonwealth of Independent States).
The efforts of the ultra-nationalists, despite these positive events to their cause, continued to be frustrated by the moderatism of the parliament (still nominally "Soviet") which, always proceeding by inertia, did not decide to embark on hasty electoral processes and maneuvers of economic brutalization of the new Belarusian Republic. This is also due to the fact that the lines that were emerging in neighboring countries imposed on the new parliament a caution that will prove to be providential: in Lithuania the former members of the Communist Party, recycled after the ban in the "Democratic Labor Party",
The new Belarusian bourgeoisie represented in various capacities in the Soviet, with the exception of the BNF hawks who pushed for total liquidation, continued to postpone the elections of the new bourgeois national assembly and the new government. Despite this, also thanks to the pressure of the nationalists, Parliament approved the privatization laws of state enterprises, albeit not in full, and the introduction of the bourgeois constitution which provided for the establishment of the office of President of the Republic as head of government instead of that of prime minister thus transforming Belarus into a presidential republic; they also succeeded in imposing the scheduling of presidential elections for the year 1994. These were held, therefore, as planned, in June 1994 and saw the blatant statement of the head of the anti-corruption commission of the Belarusian Soviet, Aleksandr Lukashenko, who collected 45% of the preferences in the first round, far exceeding the outgoing Prime Minister V. Kebich (17%), the leader of the BNF, the Christian ultranationalist Z. Pazniak (13%) and former President Shushkevich (10%), the communist heirs of the PCB, banned but reconstituted as the "Party of Belarusian Communists" collected 4.5% . In the second round even Lukashenko was elected with an overwhelming 80%. With this electoral affirmation, Lukashenko's government, which is now more than twenty years old, reconfirmed according to the deadline, began.
STRUCTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF POST-SOVIET BELARUS
Right from the start, Lukashenko's government distinguished itself from most of the post-Soviet regimes established in the other former socialist republics. First of all he restored all the historical emblems of Soviet Belarus (flag, emblem and national holidays: despite having appropriately "expunged" the communist symbols), he curbed the enthusiasm of the looters of state property and moved decisively towards open cooperation with Russia, much to be signed in 1996 basic agreements for a state union which, despite many contradictions, steps back and forth, was reinforced in 1999 - which led to a strong economic, political and military partnership between the two nations - and it still proceeds towards perspectives, still not fully clear, of further integration.
While in Russia and Ukraine the 90 'passed in the most atrocious social and human devastation, the state capitalist government of Lukashenko managed to spare the Belarusians the tragedies of countries where oligarchs, political bandits and real mafia thrived in the paradise of new Far West . Ukraine was consumed by a gang war for control of the national economy, with shady subjects like P. Lazarenko - a trait-d'union with the local underworld and high political circles - taking the lion's share of paving the way. to the looting and political power of fictional characters such as the well-known Timoshenko (3). Belarus was not subjected to such tearing forces, and it was equally spared the mafia, terrorist and war season that the Russian citizens had to suffer thanks to the new course inaugurated by Yeltsin.
Thus, in a condition of greater political stability, Belarus was able to take a substantially different socio-economic path from that of its neighbors. Russia in 1994 was in full liquidation and was transformed from one of the largest industrial countries in the world into an importer of low value goods and exporter of raw materials. Over 70% of the workers of medium and large state enterprises (and 100% of the small ones) had become salaried under private owners, new native and foreign sharks made their way by blowing up that fig leaf that were the farcical "distributions" and / or sales of shares of state-owned companies to employees - the government promptly legislated so that the new oligarchs (of any size) could gobble up everything without the slightest hindrance(4) .
Lukashenko for his part, introduced Belarus into capitalism at very slow steps, still, although the share is slowly decreasing, over 50% of the Belarusian economy is in the hands of the state, with large industrial complexes such as Minski Traktarny Zavod ( MTZ) - flagship of the Soviet tractor industry, and one of the most important companies in the world in the sector - which manages to guarantee its more than 30,000 workers even top-level corporate health care, company kindergartens, summer camps, cultural etc. (5) . The welfareBelarusian guaranteed by this mixed system, has generally allowed Belarusians to have living conditions far superior to their neighbors, to have, for example, a per capita income (at purchasing power parity; Bank data World) of 20 thousand dollars, compared to about half of Ukraine and Moldova. Furthermore, unlike all the others and even higher than in Western European countries, the rate of inequality in Belarus remained at very low levels, only 0.8% live in a situation of poverty (less than 5.50 $ per day) against an EU average of 2.9%, or for example 4% in Lithuania, 2.7% in Russia and Poland, 6% in Ukraine (not to mention Moldova, Armenia and Georgia, respectively 16%, 50% and 43%).
Of course this does not mean that the Belarusian economy is bursting with health, a large slice of the economy is in the hands of individuals, moreover the entry, albeit contingent, of foreign capital is becoming increasingly important, especially in the hi-tech sector: Belarus built a theme park, a kind of Silicon Valley to attract large private companies thanks to the low cost of a highly educated workforce (also praised by Pompeo in his last visit) (6). But if the latter sector could in some ways represent a driver of technological development for the country, the same cannot be said of the dependence on fuel exports, a sector of enormous importance for the Belarusian economy and at the center of long-standing questions of love and hate with Russia. In fact, Belarusian exports are based for more than 20% (about $ 8bn out of 33 total) on refined oil and other fuel products, imported from Russia (the remainder of imports are based on other chemicals, heavy machinery, agricultural products and textiles) (7). This relationship full of ups and downs, and the main reason for friction between the two countries, has tended to be marked by a privileged exchange of these products by Russia, which sold gas to Belarus - until the 2007 crisis (8) - for 46 $ per 1000 m / 3 against $ 290, for example in Germany. This is also due to the Customs Union between the two countries and a close relationship which also provides for strong military cooperation - although there are no bases, there are Russian military installations in Belarus, and on the other hand Belarus participates as a supplier. to the Russian military-industrial complex (9) .
The gas crisis of 2006-2007 was effectively smoothed out with an increase in tariffs for Belarus (up to $ 100 against the $ 200 requested by Gazprom) and a whole series of clauses that put a stop to the "subsidies" that Russia paid to Belarus thanks to the preferential lanes on the price of gas, and yet it was not completely resolved, so much so that it was repeated even more harshly with the so-called "fiscal maneuver" launched by the Russians, which full introduction should close in 2024. This maneuver provides for the gradual abolition of the duty on the export of gas for Russian companies and the simultaneous increase in the tax on extraction, a mechanism to subsidize their own oil refineries, to the obvious detriment of the Belarusian ones.
This great loss for the Belarusian economy, already underway but potentially even greater, is at the basis of the attitudes by some considered fuming, if not really schizophrenic, by Lukashenko. The latter actually, at great risk, tried to put pressure on the Russian counterpart by fearing openings to the West, which ultimately would not benefit either of them but would still have the function of prodding the older brother - a naturally strong part of the ongoing relationship - to have less dominant attitudes towards Belarus. In short, a reckless attempt to safeguard the independence of the country, also and precisely by virtue of that State Union which, although stranded, has been on the table for twenty years and although hoped for by both, could result in an annexation without indemnity for Belarus. . In this regard, last year Lukashenko himself reiterated in a meeting: “what to do with the Union? We need to sit down at a table and see what we can do together. Union can only be formed on an equal footing. It is a basic principle of any union: no fair basis - no union. Otherwise it would be an annexation of the weak by the stronger weak, or an incorporation. "(10)
This state of affairs also leads to clarifying many aspects of the current crisis. The economic crisis that would potentially hit Belarus from the loss of the "royalties" of oil refining would lead to a progressive unsustainability of the welfare that the Belarusian system was able to guarantee to its citizens and would undermine the position of Lukashenko who would find himself squeezed between two fires : the advance of the never subdued opposition of the internal liquidating bourgeoisie supported by Western imperialism, and the Russian interest in advancing its hegemonic claims on Belarus. The conditional, mandatory until a few months ago, is no longer such.
POLITICAL DIALECTIC : THE PRESIDENT, THE PROTESTS AND THE COMMUNISTS
Before describing the current situation and having outlined the main issues of Russian-Belarusian relations, it is good to do the same by outlining the appetites of the internal opposition and the state of the latter over the past two decades. In the years following the first election of Lukashenko (1994) and the referendum approval of the amendments to the Constitution (1996) the liberal-conservative oppositions grouped around the aforementioned Belarusian Popular Front (BNF), and which had played a large part (despite having a very low popular consensus) in the first years of independence, they experienced a moment of disorganization, also due to internal feuds, which led towards a split in the party towards the end of the decade. This also meant a relative calm from external pressures for Lukashenko and Belarus, pressures and interests that the BNF inevitably coagulated around itself, so much so that the 2001 elections took place without too many tensions, if not the usual accusations of irregularities by the imperialist powers that will become a constant from there on. Lukashenko won abundantly by overcoming the opponent Goncharik.
However, for the elections still subsequent, ie those of 2006, the situation changed decisively on the anti-government front. For a couple of years, in fact, an opposition movement had been regrouping, laden with the old ultra-nationalist tools, although once again cloaked in civic-democratic inspiration - then the trademark of that season of colored revolutions that will fall on the post- Soviet (and not only). The fuse that rekindled the opposition in Belarus was the 2004 referendum with which Lukashenko tried to secure an extension of his mandate by being able to run for the third consecutive time. The overwhelming victory in favor of Lukashenko, led to the first post-electoral protests, which later became rituals, and to the creation of "civic" movements such as "Popular Coalition 5 plus",* will be created in China in 2008 around the pro-American Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo). The popular consents that these movements received were very scarce, but sufficient to mobilize a few thousand people and establish themselves in the eyes of Western imperialism as a bridgehead for subsequent upheavals.
These materialized, as anticipated, at the end of the 2006 presidential elections which again saw Lukashenko largely triumphant against the ultra-nationalist opposition candidate Aleksander Milinkevich. The latter coagulated all the platforms, movements and parties mentioned above in the “United Democratic Front of Belarus”. After the elections, the opposition, led in the field by the newly born youth movement "Zubr", an outlet of the "Otpor!" by Gene Sharp, theorist of color revolutions, set up the first official revolution of this kind in Belarus, called - similarly to those carried out in neighboring countries, with the name of a color: denim- “Revolution of Jeans”. The lesson of the color revolutions of other countries and the lack of popular participation - at the peak they managed to mobilize barely 40 thousand demonstrators, ridiculous numbers if you think of those of the neighbors, or only those mobilized in Belarus itself in recent months (11) - resolved the attempted regime change in a fiasco. However, the die was cast, and from there on each election in Belarus became a laboratory of internal and external machinations that were repeated almost in carbon copies at each electoral round, more and more wearily (in 2010 and 2015) up to the elections of the current year, 2020.
The protests that began at the end of last May and are widely discounted (12), even before the elections themselves, are contemporary news. The economic crisis, the nature of which has been mentioned above, combined with that brought about by the coronavirus (and the criticisms of Lukashenko's reductionist attitude) provided the opening to the greatest recomposition of nationalist and liberal-conservative oppositions to attempt yet another "setback to the king". The ritual event for this sort of opposition Olympics was of course the presidential election. This time, in order not to be mistaken, the destabilization attempts began even before the results, obviously accusing the usual blind repressions that would have been carried out by Lukashenko against his political opponents, which is also partially true,maidan - which according to "authoritative" publications, would have constituted yet another civic movement: "The revolution of slippers" (13) .
Hand strikes carried out by unscrupulous characters such as the ultra-nationalist blogger Serghei Tsikhanouski (a sort of Belarusian Navalny), arrested by the authorities because he was found in possession of almost a million dollars in cash and for attacking the police. Other less farcical characters and also candidates for the presidency were the two ultra-liberal candidates: Viktor Babariko, former head of Gazprom Bank, viewed with sympathy by Moscow and Valery Tsepkalo, Washington's serious candidate. In any case, after the strong pre-electoral tensions, the opposition gathered around the wife of the imprisoned Tskikanouski, Svetlana Tsikhanouskaya, who, defeated by Lukashenko in the elections, played the part of Guaidò in Belarusian sauce, but with less persistence , so much so that he emigrated to the Baltic countries, and - more from pressure from one's side than from personal conviction - proclaim herself the winner, calling for general mobilization against Lukashenko. Appeals for mobilization that this time have hit the mark more, managing to leverage popular dissatisfaction with the government and more generally the formal criticism of President Lukashenko. Aesthetic criticism now carried out for a long time by Western imperialism that the "eternal" president, symbol of a national-paternalistic bourgeoisie, however, a guarantee of independence, would prefer figures such as the bloody servant of NATO Poroshenko or the young Zelenski puppet, who can guarantee euro imperialism -atlantic total enslavement of one of the last independent countries of Europe.
In this context it is not even necessary to refute how the vulgar propaganda on the terrible repressions of the regime are in large part false and exaggerated almost ridiculous when compared to the terrible, indeed real, repressions that take place in the USA, in France, in Colombia etc just to mention the latest cases; but it is nevertheless good to clarify how the Belarusian masses seem to be interpreting the protest. If a large part of the demonstrators is composed mainly of liberals, ultra-nationalists, people who more or less genuinely fall into the well-known rhetorical traps of abstract freedom, it is also true that the liquidating oppositions have managed to involve, albeit to a small extent, some strata of the proletariat.
Belarus is not a socialist country, Lukashenko is a leader , as already mentioned, representing the post-Soviet national bourgeoisie which nevertheless managed to curb the most disruptive and destructive impulses typical of the area. The comparison that the vast majority of Belarusians can easily make with their neighbors - first and foremost the Ukrainians, who live in a state of social and economic devastation that Belarusian citizens certainly do not wish for themselves - shows how a large slice of the population has remained. indifferent if not actively hostile to the calls of the aspiring Maidanists. The demonstrations in favor of the government and in general the stability of the latter show how the majority of society, although silent, is not ready for the total liquidation of the state, despite some criticalities of the regime itself. The communists themselves both at home and abroad, while highlighting the real bourgeois nature of the government, realize the need to prevent reactionary and liquidating forces from gaining the upper hand in Belarus, an excellent summary of the secretary of the Russian workers' communist party -PCUS, Melenchov, in describing the situation and tasks of the Communists:
These forces cannot forgive Lukashenko for not having taken the Gaydar path with the method of "shock therapy", for not having allowed a robbery privatization, nor for those anti-popular financial reforms that in an instant plunged the population into poverty of Russia. Furthermore, Lukashenko has guaranteed the safeguarding of large state industry and agriculture, state regulation, social guarantees, etc. That said, we have no illusions and we understand how the model built by Lukashenko is still a capitalist model. " and further on, "The PCOR calls on the workers of Belarus not to allow the start and development of the Belarusian Maidan according to the Kiev model, but at the same time to use the situation of dissatisfaction of part of society with the results of the elections to strengthen their class forces, to hold meetings in the factory and production departments to develop their own claims against the authorities. Now is the time for the workers to put forward the firm demand for a change in labor legislation in the interest of all workers and for the restoration of the Soviet retirement age, to organize strikes in support of these demands.. (14)
Avoid, therefore, the reactionary turn, and at the same time work for an accumulation of the forces of the working class. Underlining the limits of state capitalism in Belarus, and the political and economic contradictions with which it manifests itself, must be a progressive stimulus towards its overcoming in the direction of socialism, certainly not towards the ultra-capitalist reaction where they would like to throw the nation the crypto-fascists, the liberals and the fetishists of formal democracy. Paradigmatic in this regard are the appeals of those who know these situations very well, for having suffered them on their own skin, such as the Ukrainian workers and trade unions of Kharkov and Mariupol who appeal to the Belarusian workers:
“We appeal to the workers of Belarus not to give in to the false calls for a strike of the so-called opponents, who ask not to recognize the results of the presidential elections. Their goal is the destruction, in the interests of the transnational corporations behind the unrest, of labor collectives, the seizure and privatization of Belarusian companies in order to dominate the markets, their competitors and take over the country. " (15)
For these reasons, support for the independence of Belarus and its national government which, like it or not, objectively defends its prerogatives, cannot be questioned by "nénéiste" positions of sectarian or dogmatic indifference, if not hostile. . In the words of Mao: "support all that the enemy fights, and fight against all that the enemy supports." The enemy in this case is without a doubt imperialism which directs its claws and sordid appetites on Belarus and his people, for this reason supporting Lukashenko must not be a taboo for the Communists, while recognizing the objective limits and contradictions of his government. It is useful to quote the famous passage, perfect to describe the question, from Stalin's Principles of Leninism :
"The struggle of the Afghan emir for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchical character of the emir's and his followers' conceptions, since it weakens, disintegrates, undermines imperialism, while the struggle of certain "Ultra" democrats and "socialists", "revolutionaries" and republicans of the kind of, for example, Kerenski and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes during the imperialist war, was a reactionary struggle, because it resulted in to artificially embellish, to consolidate, to make imperialism triumph. The struggle of Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals for the independence of Egypt is, for the same reasons, an objectively revolutionary struggle, although the leaders of the Egyptian national movement are bourgeois by origin and social affiliation and although they are against socialism, while the struggle of the British workers' government to maintain the situation of dependence in Egypt is, for the same reasons, a reactionary struggle, although the members of this government are proletarians by origin and social affiliation and although they are "for" socialism. And I am not talking about the national movement of the other colonial and dependent countries, larger, such as India and China, every step of which on the path of their liberation, even if it contravenes the requirements of formal democracy, is a hammer blow aimed at the imperialism, and is therefore unquestionably a revolutionary step. " while the struggle of the British workers' government to maintain Egypt's dependency is, for the same reasons, a reactionary struggle, although the members of this government are proletarians by origin and social affiliation and although they are "for" socialism. And I am not talking about the national movement of the other colonial and dependent, larger countries, such as India and China, every step of which on the way to their liberation, even if it contravenes the requirements of formal democracy, is a hammer blow imperialism, and is therefore unquestionably a revolutionary step. " while the struggle of the British workers' government to maintain Egypt's dependency is, for the same reasons, a reactionary struggle, although the members of this government are proletarians by origin and social affiliation and although they are "for" socialism. And I am not talking about the national movement of the other colonial and dependent countries, larger, such as India and China, every step of which on the path of their liberation, even if it contravenes the requirements of formal democracy, is a hammer blow aimed at the imperialism, and is therefore unquestionably a revolutionary step. " although the members of this government are proletarians by origin and social affiliation and although they are "for" socialism. And I am not talking about the national movement of the other colonial and dependent, larger countries, such as India and China, every step of which on the way to their liberation, even if it contravenes the requirements of formal democracy, is a hammer blow imperialism, and is therefore unquestionably a revolutionary step. " although the members of this government are proletarians by origin and social affiliation and although they are "for" socialism. And I am not talking about the national movement of the other colonial and dependent, larger countries, such as India and China, every step of which on the way to their liberation, even if it contravenes the requirements of formal democracy, is a hammer blow imperialism, and is therefore unquestionably a revolutionary step. "(16)
And certainly the "first citizen" Lukashenko, is even better than the Afghan emir, as the most reactionary and chauvinist elements in the figures of the opposition leaders openly take sides against him, even masked by false and hypocritical libertarian phraseologies, of financial capitalism and imperialism.
(1) AAVV, History of the Bolshevik Communist Party of the USSR , Editions in Foreign Languages, Moscow, 1948 pp. 387
(2) S. Romano in History of Russia by Nicholas Riasanovsky, Bombiani, Milan, 2013, pp. 622
(3) To deepen the Ukrainian political history of that period up to Maidan's prodromes see Julija Timoshenko, the conquest of Ukraine , Teti Editore, Rome, 2016
(4)
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... MEMO_94_49
(5)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -you-think
(6)
https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/12 ... 02209?s=20
(7)
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/blr
(8)
https://www.repubblica.it/2006/12/sezio ... minsk.html
(9)
https://www.analisidifesa.it/2019/05/mo ... ergetiche/
(10)
https://contropiano.org/news/internazio ... sk-0111389
*
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... er-08.html
(11)
https://www.heddels.com/2014/08/remembe ... evolution/
(12) cf. the anti-imperialist site "Moon of Alabama" had largely predicted, not that there was much surprise, how the events would unfold:
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/06/b ... sponsored- color-revolution-is-underway.html
(13)
https://www.rferl.org/a/belarus-s-slipp ... 56256.html
(14)
https://www.lordinenuovo.it/2020/08/15/ ... ielorussi/
(15)
https://www.lantidiplomatico.it/dettnew ... 790_37067/
(16)
https://www.resistenze.org/sito/ma/di/cl/madcpl.htm#a06
https://ottobre.info/2020/10/08/bieloru ... ti-a-oggi/
Google Translator
