Is Lukashenko a kind of east European Chávez?

[el_chavista]

http://images.eluniversal.com/2010/03/17/8038536_copia.jpg.320.235.thumb

"We see here [in Belarus] a model social state like the one we are beginning to create."

According to the former Bush administration Lukashenko is "the last European dictator" and his country Belarus is in the black list of "axis of evil countries" (along with North Korea, Zimbawe, Myanmar, Iran and Cuba). He has won 3 elections in a row against Washington supported candidates.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Lukashenko is a populist. Throughout his career he has campaigned against the privatization of most Belarusian enterprises -- and has thus avoided the worst effects of the Russian economic "shock therapy" of the 1990s -- but he doesn't have any platform to build socialism and is not an socialist ideologically. (The state still owns much of the economy, but there is also private sector: the worst of the Belarusian economic reforms were already implemented in 1992-1994, before Lukashenko's 1994 ascendance to power.)

The Belarusian people elected Lukashenko to fight corruption and to stop the economic reforms. He's done that much and has enjoyed support at the polls because of that. But he really does have an iron fist, and does crack down on the oppositon. (Although the opposition has been fairly small until now, that could very well change because the economic crisis hasn't left Belarus untouched.)

His relations with Russia have been deteriorating because of the gas disputes. (Russia wants Lukashenko to pay a lot more, and he enjoys using his good relations with Chavez's oil-rich Venezuela as a counterweight.)

Hugo Chavez is an incomparably better president: I am sure that he could take advantage of Belarus' expertise in certain areas, but Lukashenko isn't going to be able to teach him much about real 21st-century socialism.

[Comrade Gwydion]

I think Chavez' relations with Belarus are because of the single biggest thing I dislike about Chavez: foreign policy based on 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Chavez allies with anyone who opposes USA-dominance, Iran, Russia and Belarus are examples of this.
I much rather favour his initiatives for South American comradeship.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think Chavez' relations with Belarus are because of the single biggest thing I dislike about Chavez: foreign policy based on 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Chavez allies with anyone who opposes USA-dominance, Iran, Russia and Belarus are examples of this.
I much rather favour his initiatives for South American comradeship.

I agree with you to an extent, I really don't like seeing Chavez exercising diplomatic friendship with the likes of Iran.

However, we have to be realistic here and say that, at this time, Capitalism is the dominant world ideology, sadly, a situation which was obviously exacerbated by the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. Thus, whilst the mantra of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' is not something that i'd support during a period of balance (i.e., where Capitalistic and Socialistic world forces cancel each other out, as was the case pre-1991), it is perhaps a neccessary evil in order to support industry, trade and the overall economic situation of the leftist Latin American countries.

[Red Commissar]

I think Lukashenko was warm to the idea of having Belarus join Russia in a federal union before gas disputes put a hold to it.

[Nolan]

Yeah, and check out the proposed flag:





http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Flag_of_the_Union_State.svg/800px-Flag_of_the_Union_State.svg.png

[Kiev Communard]

Well, anyone who claim that Lukashenko is some sort of "Communist" or "Socialist" is obviously mistaken - or, in case of Western Neo-liberal media, politically biased. Lukashenko is not a friend of the left, his policies can be generally characterised as peculiar sort of Social Conservatism - encouraging - and, more often, enforcing - "traditional moral values" while maintaining (quite limited) welfare state, cynically using nostalgia for late Soviet Union times among the populace, especially the elderly. Though I am not a Trotskyist, I would recommend the following article from CWI web site about Lukashenko and his regime, though it is a bit outdated (published 04/07/2007):


Socialistworld.net
Neo-liberalism with populist slogans

"We need democracy, when a person can work and get some sort of wage, enough at least to buy bread, milk, yogurt and even sometimes meat to feed the children. Well at least as far as meat is concerned, let’s not eat too much meat in the summer!" Belarus president, Alexander Grigorievich Lukashenko.

The transition from a bureaucratically-mismanaged but state-owned economy to capitalism was a social and economic catastrophe for Belarus. A deep economic and social crisis at the beginning of the 1990s, was, in part, provoked by the outgoing ruling bureaucratic elite that believed they could use the transition to the market economy and, in particular, privatisation of the various industrial sectors, to grab the wealth of society for themselves. The crisis affected every part of society and left the demoralised and confused working class in a catastrophic situation.

President of the Republic of Belarus
Alexander Grigorievich Lukashenko

Alexander Grigorievich Lukashenko was elected as the first president of Belarus in 1994, after promising to re-establish "order" to the economy and, in particular, to fight corruption. His temporary suspension of the privatisation process severely annoyed not only the newly developing Belarus capitalist elite, but also international capitalism. Nevertheless, by the time Lukashenko came to power, 30% of industry was privatised already.

Immediately following the break-up of the former Soviet Union, and the declaration of Belarussian independence, a new national flag and state crest were adopted. These emblems are today used by Belarussian nationalists and by the capitalist ’democratic’ opposition to Lukashenko. President Lukashenko reversed the decision to get rid of the old Soviet emblems, used by the Stalinists by organising a referendum on national symbols. The result of which was to replace the new national flag and state crest with those of the former soviet regime, with some minor changes.

The controversial Belarus national flag,
adopted in the early 1990s and
later scrapped by Lukashenko

Lukashenko did this to curry favour with the Belarussian people, who, in general, did not want the break-up of the Soviet Union. Today, many people associate the early 1990s Belarussian flag (white-red-white colours) with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting capitalist ’shock therapy’ and desperate poverty of the early 1990s.

For several years, Lukashenko maintained a working relationship with Russia, based on the idea that a close union between the two countries would be formed, with maybe just one president. Until recently, this meant Russia was prepared to provide some economic support to the Belarussian economy. This, together with the maintenance of the bulk of the Belarussian economy in state hands, enabled Belarus to avoid the economic collapse and chaos that affected neighbouring former Stalinist countries.

Cheap energy from Russia meant Belarussian industry was relatively competitive, exports grew, and workers, at least, usually got a stable wage. Part of the income from state enterprises was put into maintaining social benefits and guarantees, which other countries in the region were unable to do. And while Russia was gripped by economic crises, by war in the south (Chechnya) and by growing oppositionist terrorism, Belarus remained relatively stable. This situation is still referred to in Lukashenko’s demagogy, by his use of the slogan, "For a stable Belarus".

Nevertheless, ’market reforms’ never completely stopped in Belarus and in different sectors continued, at different speeds. Even though the government promised the transition to the "regulated" market, the logic of capitalism is pushing towards privatisation, which may not be moving at full speed but is sufficiently quick to satisfy the appetites of those international capitalists interested in exploiting the resources and working class of Belarus. For workers, however, things are not good. Almost everyone now works on a temporary contract, making exploitation very easy.

The lack of real trade unions makes Belarus very attractive for capitalists, whether small or large. Those ’trade unions’ that exist on paper are inherited from the old soviet system; they see their role as defending the state and the employers and do nothing to defend workers. The small numbers of independent democratic trade unions operate under unbearable ’legal’ conditions, facing constant repression from the state, and face continuous obstacles from state bureaucratic structures.

As a result, the working class, not having a political force representing its interests, desperately hopes things "do not get worse". Many workers look to false hopes, even to the populism of Lukashenko. In the absence of a clear class opposition, many workers vote for Lukashenko, notwithstanding his openly anti-working class policies.
The 2006 election crisis

"What matters is not whether you elect me or not. What else can you do, elect me! And if that suits you, then I will carry on working," President Lukashenko.

The legitimacy of the current president has been questioned many times. The active opposition talks about fraudulent elections, the latest of which (the third presidential election since the founding of Belarus) took place on the 19 March 2006.

It was clear the opposition would not recognise the results of the 2006 ballot, even before the results were made public. The poll, in reality, was more a plebiscite on whether Lukashenko should stay in power. But the problem the ’liberal’ capitalist opposition faces is that it is feeble and impotent, weakened by years of repression and the flood of propaganda pouring down on it from the government-controlled media. The opposition is left with no other option but to feebly complain about the falsification of all elections and referendums.

Of course, state administrative resources and repressive state organs can be used to suppress whatever the president does not like. (Throughout the former Soviet Union, the civil service is not "independent" but is blatantly used in elections as part of the ruling party’s election machine). President Lukashenko has the country’s Constitutional Court, Electoral Commission and the parliament in his pocket. However, the president and the senior bureaucrats around him are permanently worried that the opposition will eventually get its act together. The ghost of the ’colour revolutions’, in neighbouring countries, haunts the Belarussian ruling elite.

At one stage, immediately after last March’s presidential election, it looked like another ’Maidan’ could occur. (Maidan Square, in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, was the main focus of the 2005 ’Orange revolution’ mass protests, led by pro-Western, capitalist opposition forces). The Belarussian opposition attempted to create a "denim" revolution, in 2006. On the night of 20 March 2006, when presidential election results were announced, the opposition held a demonstration at October Square, the main public space in Minsk, the country’s capital city. This was attended by between 10,000 and 30,000 people. Several dozen tents were set up to provide a round the clock protest, similar to the opposition’s protests in Kiev, a few months earlier.

Police clash with
anti-Lukashenko protesters

Many students and youth brought food to the protesters in October Square, notwithstanding the threats of arrest by the police and KGB. (Lukashenko did not bother to change the name of the former Soviet Union’s repressive political police). On the night of 24 March 2006, the tents were torn down by the police and the protesters arrested. They were all later tried, and each received between 10 and 15 days in prison.

Most of the protesters were students. They wanted to win democratic rights. But, during the so-called ’colour revolutions’ across the former Soviet Union, students were often cynically used by various pro-capitalist, pro-western opposition forces.

The intelligentsia in Belarus was another social layer that protested against the regime. Dissatisfied with the pro-Russian orientation of Lukashenko, at Belarus’ isolation, the lack of freedom of speech, cultural inactivity, and fired by their hatred of old symbols associated with Stalinism, a section of the intelligentsia, fed up with constant ’kitchen debates’, was prepared to come out onto the streets.

The protesters also gained support from other layers of the middle classes and from small businessmen, who supplied the October Square camp with food, water and even ’bio-toilets’, although the latter were confiscated by the KGB. The entrepreneurs supporting the October Square demonstrators did not actually participate in the protests, apart from providing material support, but preferred to watch from the sidelines.

This mish-mash of middle class people, students, intellectuals and marginalised youth did not get significant support from the pro-capitalist opposition and were not able to carry out their own ’colour revolution’ and to overthrow Lukashenko. If, on the other hand, there had been the active participation of the working class against Lukashenko, the nature of the protest would have been very different and, with a clear lead, victory could have been achieved.
The New Year energy crisis

"To maintain calm in the country I am prepared to sacrifice my own sanity!" President Lukashenko

For much of his presidency, Lukashenko played with the idea of establishing a ’Union Republic’ - in other words, merging Belarus and Russia into a federal state. Lukashenko advocated this idea when it was politically convenient, but held back from openly agreeing to it with Russia. But this political game was fated to end. When the time came at the end of 2006 to sign a new agreement on gas supplies between Russia and Belarus, Russia decided to pose the energy issue very sharply. If we are not one state, the Russian government rhetorically asked, then why should we continue to supply gas to Belarus at the same price as we supply to our Russian regions?

At literally two minutes to midnight, on 31 December 2006, the Belarus government was forced to concede to Russia’s demands and signed a new energy supply contract at a price that was catastrophic for the Belarus economy. At the press conference announcing the deal, Belarussian Prime Minister Sidorskii declared that even at the transitional price agreed for gas the "government and all who work in the real economy will now have to work extremely hard to make a profit". Under the agreement, by 2011 the price of gas to Belarus will rise to European levels, i.e. to $250 per 1000 cubic metres. If Belarus’ current economic conditions continue, this huge price rise could lead to the collapse of the Belarus economy.

The effect of the gas price increase has already been felt; social benefits were cut, a new wave of privatisation started, and the neo-liberal ’reform’ of education and housing was speeded up.

Alexander Lukashenko, in a speech to the Belarus national parliament earlier this year declared: "The strategy of the state should change from social support to social development; this means that from now on there will be no dependence". He proposed the ’reform’ of the social benefits system. What this means was recently spelt out by the Deputy Head of the President’s Administration, Natalia Petkevich, who, during a meeting with parliamentarians and social organisations, stated: "We have to find the strength to act radically, to cancel all social benefits to the very last!" This was against the background of the past couple of years, when there was a whittling away of social benefits. Now the system of social benefits is to be officially scrapped and replaced by a system of "directed help". The experience of Russia shows this means a disastrous drop in living standards for the majority of people. The Belarus regime even claims the benefits were to be abolished "at the request of the workers"!

And this is not just words. On 23rd May 2007, a law was proposed to implement these promises - it went through two readings, with just one vote against. (The old Stalinist-run USSR would have been proud of such unanimity!)

But not everyone agreed. On the same day, students gathered in Independence Square, opposite the national parliament, intending to organise a protest. As was to be expected, they were not allowed to do so by the police. Plain clothed cops warned the students that their protest was ’unsanctioned’ and the organisers faced arrest. The students went to the nearby Law Faculty of the University. There they unfurled a banner reading "No to the abolition of benefits". But the banner was seized by police. The students dispersed, and two were arrested on their way to a metro station. A female protester only managed to escape arrest after catching the attention of journalists.

From January 1, 2008, the new law abolishing benefits will be felt by wide sections of the population. For example, up until now students, pensioners and ’veterans of labour’ were entitled to half-price fares on public transport. Children under three years old got free medical care. Former inmates of German WW2 concentration camp were given free medical and dental treatment and free public transport. Victims of the 1980s Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster, which affected Belarus more than any other of the then republics in the USSR, were granted free medical care, 50% lower rents and cheap housing credit. Military and police personnel got free medical attention and annual holidays. All these benefits will be abolished in 2008. The only part of the population to maintain their benefits are the parliamentary deputies!

What is happening in Belarus is the natural result of the logic of the capitalist system. And if, until now, the working class in Belarus was relatively quiet, in the near future they are likely to start actively opposing the consequences of these vicious neo-liberal attacks, which are like a noose around the neck of an entire population.

[Proletarian Ultra]

A pro-Lukashenko piece from CPGB-ML:

http://cpgbml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=338



Belarus struggles to defend workers’ interests
Europe’s ‘last dictator’ faces vilification for the ‘crime’ of holding out against imperialist greed.

...

What drove the people of Belarus to give such overwhelming support to Lukashenko? Quite simply, he refuted the supposed advantages of market reforms, he advocated closer ties with Russia instead of the West, and he also refused to belittle the achievements of the Soviet Union...

The desire to protect the agrarian sector in Belarus against the machinations of the ‘free’ market is what led President Lukashenko into his first confrontation with the West. When the IMF demanded an end to subsidies for farmers, Lukashenko expelled their commission calling them “swindlers”...

Lukashenko also operates what he terms a ‘socially-orientated market economy’. Belarus has few natural resources and thus needs to trade with the world, but the proceeds of an economy that is still around 80 percent state owned results in a huge dividend in terms of social spending. Belarus not only has higher GDP spending on education than its neighbours, but also a higher spend than the USA or Britain.

The country also maintains a comprehensive public healthcare system despite the significant impact of the Chernobyl disaster of 1989. In fact, Belarus has more doctors per person than do the USA or Britain. The economic and social situation in Belarus has resulted in positive migration into the country.

This, of course, does not tally with the mass media and Western governments’ version of events. The myths of ‘human rights abuses’ and a ‘crumbling dictatorship’ help to justify the massive amount of aid being given to the Belarusian ‘democratic opposition’.

[Kiev Communard]

A pro-Lukashenko piece from CPGB-ML

Ah, these nice "ties with Russia", such a revolutionary state, without doubt...

[twenty percent tip]

I think Chavez' relations with Belarus are because of the single biggest thing I dislike about Chavez: foreign policy based on 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Chavez allies with anyone who opposes USA-dominance, Iran, Russia and Belarus are examples of this.
I much rather favour his initiatives for South American comradeship.

Isn't this a part of leading a capitalist state?

But beyond pragmatic needs I find it difficult to believe comrades are willing to write off as a simple mistake Chavez's embrace of Amidenijad, Lukashenko, Kirchner, Lula. He doesn't just trade with these countries. He hails these leaders are heros and models to emulate.

I think it must be a sign of a lack of anything coming from the working class that makes comrades see something that's not there in people like Chavez.

[Soviet dude]

The best book on the subject is Stewart Parker's The Last Soviet Republic: Alexander Lukashenko's Belarus. There is also the work of Stephen Gowans on him.

http://gowans.wordpress.com/category/belarus/

[el_chavista]

I think it must be a sign of a lack of anything coming from the working class that makes comrades see something that's not there in people like Chavez.
I'll tell you something that was in Chávez in 2005: he claimed the slogan "a closured factory is to be a seized factory!" and he informed the UNT (national workers union) that there were 800 closed factories plus 1,147 more under-run by their owners.
You may say it is a Bonapartist government harassed by the right wing, trying to be supported by the workers, but why the left in general did not see something of a revolutionary situation that was there in the Venezuelan society?
In that moment, Chávez was more of a revolutionary that all the trade unions and leftist movements we may possibly hear of being active in Venezuela.

[Proletarian Ultra]

But beyond pragmatic needs I find it difficult to believe comrades are willing to write off as a simple mistake Chavez's embrace of Amidenijad, Lukashenko, Kirchner, Lula. He doesn't just trade with these countries. He hails these leaders are heros and models to emulate. .

Lukashenko used to run Belarus in a way that directed significant resources toward the working class. We could argue about whether it was pro-worker or whatever, but there was clearly a lot of downward distribution. Then, he gets shut off by Russia and all sorts of cuts happen.

I don't know about you, but the lesson I draw is that a transnational bloc of anti-neoliberal states is an absolute necessity. So yes, I'm glad Chavez is hugging up with Ahmadi and Lukashenko and Kirchner etc. Even Lula, that neolib prick, is at least running a half-decent foreign policy, so why not?

[Kiev Communard]

Lukashenko used to run Belarus in a way that directed significant resources toward the working class. We could argue about whether it was pro-worker or whatever, but there was clearly a lot of downward distribution. Then, he gets shut off by Russia and all sorts of cuts happen.

I don't know about you, but the lesson I draw is that a transnational bloc of anti-neoliberal states is an absolute necessity. So yes, I'm glad Chavez is hugging up with Ahmadi and Lukashenko and Kirchner etc. Even Lula, that neolib prick, is at least running a half-decent foreign policy, so why not?

I don't think "downward distribution" is per se even remotely progressive or let alone socialist. Ancient Eastern Despots and Roman Emperors demagogically used such measure in their policies, does it mean they were socialist?

As to "transnational bloc of neo-liberal states", I think that is one of the grossest misconceptions some parts of the international Left now possess. Instead of building the genuine revolutionary movements, such people advise the Left to "assist" the "anti-imperialist (N.B.: not even "progressive" ever more!) governments" against "Yankee imperialism" (which is without doubt hegemonistic but not the only imperialist power some "anti-imperialists" would have us believe).

As to Ahmadinejad's "populism", this has more to do with a style than with a substance. Like Lukashenko, this right-wing traditionalist Conservative, who, had he been a U.S. politician,for instance, would be to the right of such infamous Tea Baggers as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, exploits his "man of the people" image while carrying out austerity measures policies and grinding workers' movements.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Lukashenko was very likely a model manager during his stint at a sovkhoz (as opposed to the earlier kolkhoz stint). Perhaps the likes of him can be emulated by those running the publicly owned vertical farms of the future.

Other than that, I don't have anything else to say about him.

[Lolshevik]

Does Lukashenko espouse any socialist rhetoric? Not just "things were better in the USSR", although for the proletariat this is broadly true, but in the sense of having another revolution there. Or even the vague '21st century socialism' schtick?

[Ismail]

Does Lukashenko espouse any socialist rhetoric? Not just "things were better in the USSR", although for the proletariat this is broadly true, but in the sense of having another revolution there. Or even the vague '21st century socialism' schtick?No. From my understanding the farthest Lukashenko goes is talking about how "progressive" Belarus is, and how Belarus supports "progressive forces" and such. Nothing about revolution or socialism, although there are a fair bit of things from the Soviet era (e.g. the approach towards national youth organizations) that still remain, only instead of "might Soviet Union" they're focused on "mighty Belarus."

[Proletarian Ultra]

I don't think "downward distribution" is per se even remotely progressive or let alone socialist. Ancient Eastern Despots and Roman Emperors demagogically used such measure in their policies, does it mean they were socialist?

No. But I hope you'd agree that socialists should fight cuts.


As to "transnational bloc of neo-liberal states", I think that is one of the grossest misconceptions some parts of the international Left now possess. Instead of building the genuine revolutionary movements, such people advise the Left to "assist" the "anti-imperialist (N.B.: not even "progressive" ever more!) governments" against "Yankee imperialism" (which is without doubt hegemonistic but not the only imperialist power some "anti-imperialists" would have us believe).

I'd like someone to explain how a genuine revolutionary movement can exercise state power under a creditors' strike and trade boycott. Which is what you get unless there is some kind of alternative network to the IMF etc. (BTW: I think an unstated premise in your posts is that Russia sucks as well as America. I'll happily agree with that.)


As to Ahmadinejad's "populism", this has more to do with a style than with a substance. Like Lukashenko, this right-wing traditionalist Conservative, who, had he been a U.S. politician,for instance, would be to the right of such infamous Tea Baggers as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, exploits his "man of the people" image while carrying out austerity measures policies and grinding workers' movements.

Ahmadinejad is not a socialist, but he is willing to do business with and give diplomatic support to states like Venezuela. I am not so much interested in his domestic policy as his geopolitics.

[Kiev Communard]

Well, you have mentioned "trade blockade" and "creditors' strike". But that exactly what is happening now in Russia - Belarus relations. Just one article from RIA Novosti dated June, 22:




Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said gas debt disputes between Russia's state-controlled gas monopoly Gazprom and Belarus have turned into a "gas war."

"Unfortunately this conflict has turned into a gas war between Gazprom and Belarus," Lukashenko said at a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Belarus refuses to pay the Russian gas price, set at $169 per 1,000 cubic meters for the first quarter of the year and $185 for the second quarter, and has been paying $150 since January 1 instead.

Gazprom decreased its gas supplies to Belarus by 15% on Monday over the $200 million debt Minsk has accumulated since the start of the year. Supplies were further cut by 30% on Tuesday.

Lukashenko offered to offset the country's gas debt with Gazprom on Tuesday.

"We do not owe Gazprom, Gazprom owes Belarus $70 million, if any debt is to be offset," Lukashenko said at the meeting Sergei Lavrov.

On Monday Lukashenko admitted to the debt and proposed to make payment in machinery, equipment and a variety of other goods. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev responded by saying Gazprom could not receive payment for the debt in "pies, butter, cheese or other means of payment," only in currency.

Lukashenko said Belarus was offended by Medvedev's remarks.

"We take it as an insult when we are lowered to the level of chops, sausages, butter and pancakes," Lukashenko said.

Lukashenko said during the meeting that he had found the money to pay Belarus's debts.

"I borrowed the money from my friends today and will pay as soon as possible."

Lukashenko said Belarus had been forced to place some electric power plants on reserve fuel supplies following the cuts.

"Following the 30% cut to gas supplies from Russia, gas supplies to some Belarusian consumers were limited," a spokeswoman for the republic's energy ministry, Lyudmila Zenkovich, said.

She added that full transit of Russian gas to Europe through Belarus had not stopped.

Lukashenko ordered earlier on Tuesday to cut off Russian natural gas transit to Europe until Gazprom paid for it.

"Until they pay for the last six months, there will be no gas transit," Lukashenko said.

Zenkovich, however, later said Belarus was not taking gas from the transit pipeline to Europe.

Russian gas supplies cuts to Belarus may affect 6.25% of Europe's consumption volumes, Reuters news agency quoted a Eurocommission official as saying on Tuesday.

On Monday, Eurocommission spokeswoman Marlene Holzner said the commission had received a letter from Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin informing it on the situation with Belarus transit.

She said that if Belarus cut gas pumping to the EU, Lithuania, which fully depended on gas deliveries via Belarus, would be most affected. Poland and Germany would be affected indirectly.

She said that if Lithuania did not receive Russian gas for a week, gas would be delivered from neighboring Latvia.

Holzner said on Tuesday the European Commission was calling an emergency meeting to discuss the gas row between Russia and Belarus.

Russia assured the Eurocomission it would fulfill the obligations with the EU on gas contracts.

And then some more: http://www.euronews.net/2010/06/25/lukashenko-russia-is-casting-covetous-eyes-on-our-public-sector/. In this interview Lukashenko is actually talking about what one could only describe as economic expansion of Russian capital into Belarus, which is clearly one of the features of Imperialism as defined by Lenin.

As for the question of "debt pressure" against Belarus, it is Russia, not the U.S. that engages in this, as the events of late June, which basically constituted Russia's act of blackmailing against Belarus, showed.

Russian regime is no better than any other Imperialist one. And currently the political landscape in Russia is much more reactionary than even in the U.S. I read several texts on Chavez written by several Russian scholars, and all of them state in no uncertain terms that Russian government views the Bolivarian Revolution as some sort of "childish eccentricity" and is interested only in selling armaments to Venezuela after the U.S. broke the commercial links with Caracas in this field. So much for "anti-neoliberal" front.

With regard to Ahmadinejad, I can't possibly see how a leftist may completely ignore a domestic policy of a specific regime only because of some geopolitic scheme which may be fallacious. It is road to capitulation to "Anti-Imperialist" National-Conservatism of the likes of Hizballa and Ahmadinejad, not to any kind of global revolution.

[Proletarian Ultra]

{lots of irrelevant shit about his neighbors to the north}

When, my friend, have I said anything positive about Russia? Go back and read my posts.


With regard to Ahmadinejad, I can't possibly see how a leftist may completely ignore a domestic policy of a specific regime only because of some geopolitic scheme which may be fallacious. It is road to capitulation to "Anti-Imperialist" National-Conservatism of the likes of Hizballa and Ahmadinejad, not to any kind of global revolution.

Oh, this is just idealism. What trading and diplomatic partners would you suggest for a socialist state?

[Kiev Communard]

Oh, this wasn't too polite. As to your "idealism" charges, I would answer in the following way: true, any state striving to achieve Socialism would have to forge certain tactical compromises with the Capitalist nations, but such compromises have to be short-lived and non-binding, being mainly consigned to the field of the foreign trade. Concerning political cooperation with Capitalist states, this has to be avoided lest the revolutionary state in question become their willing (or even unwilling) pawn and accomplice, as happened many times in the past (see, for instance, Mao's U.S. - PRC rapprochement and its disastrous consequences).

[Die Neue Zeit]

But isn't Chavez being chummy with Ahmadinejad purely for the purpose of foreign trade, in spite of all the rhetoric of closer relations?

[Kiev Communard]

But isn't Chavez being chummy with Ahmadinejad purely for the purpose of foreign trade, in spite of all the rhetoric of closer relations?

Ah, but his rhetoric may give an impression that Ahmadinejad or IRI itself are somehow "friends" of the Left because they are "supported" by Chavez - that's what is dangerous in this approach. All these "friendly" meetings or flamboyant declarations of support are normally not what is used in the purely economic relations between two rather ideologically opposite states.