Belarusan foreign policy remains an exclusively opportunistic action: using the moment instead of building long-term strategy.

The visit of Vladimir Makei, the head of the Belarus Foreign Ministry to Ukraine lasted four days, which has drawn close attention of media region and served as a reason for optimistic statements about the cooperation between Minsk and Kyiv. A short description of events: Makei met the President Petro Poroshenko and the governor of the Odessa Region Mikhail Saakashvili. Belarusan Minister assured his interlocutors that there is no threat from Belarus; said that for Minsk Donbas has been and remains a part of united Ukraine, as well as stated about the Belarus’ readiness to provide humanitarian help to Donbas. Besides, in Odessa Makei took part in trilateral meeting with the ministers of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine and Lithuania — Pavlo Klimkin and Linas Linkevičius. According to the information of Ukrainian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, situation in Donbas, Eastern Partnership project, and possibilities of trilateral regional cooperation were discussed. As to the economy, as the parties stated, Ukraine and Belarus are going to restore the former level of commodity turnover.

Andrei Yahorau, political scientist, the Director of the Center for European Transformation comments upon the visit of Vladimir Makei to Ukraine in the interview with the EuroBelarus Information Service:

— I believe that the visit of Vladimir Makei was of economic and pragmatic nature — commodity turnover between Belarus and Ukraine fell significantly, we need to restore it somehow, since it is quite considerable money for the Belarusan budget, especially in the current crisis circumstances. We shouldn’t also forget that elites have changed in Ukraine, with whom relations should be rebooted, also for the solution of the above-mentioned pragmatic issues. That is where the meeting with the governor of the Odessa Region Mikhail Saakashvili proceeds from. Odessa is a harbor that is important for restoration of economic turnover between the countries. Although I believe that there is nothing extraordinary in this visit, it can be viewed as an important step in general Belarus-Ukraine relations that should be built at a long-term strategic basis. But it is unknown yet what will become with it in result — either it is a momentary short-term result that Belarusan authorities are trying to get at different directions, or it will lead to some more serious results. The latter, unfortunately, usually isn’t happening in Belarus’ foreign policy, which is very opportunistic. For example, today we can buy a large consignment of oil at a good price from Azerbaijan — our relations with Baku will immediately get activated and an opportunity to sell something to Pakistan will appear; now Ukraine needs oil refining products — so Belarus Foreign Ministry actively starts contacting with Kyiv. In this case we can also talk about fishing for political opportunities: Belarus is trying to use rapprochement of Ukraine with the EU for negotiations and lobbying for interests of the Belarusan regime in the West. But we should note that as soon as the window of opportunities closes, relations come to naught and can be restored only when current situation appears again. Belarus has this kind of relations with all the countries expect for Russia, with which Minsk is has very close ties both politically and economically.

— It reminds of the business in the 1990s...

— Indeed, Belarusan foreign policy reminds of “shuttle” behaviour of a small post-Soviet entrepreneur, who catches momentary profit without perspectives for sustainable long-term development. I.e. it has the need to survive now and there, without serious consideration as to what comes next. And such moves are the direct result of Belarus’ political system. Opportunistic benefits of Belarusan regime are directed at one aim — to retain power, solve its problems, not orientate at long-term national interests of the country. And that is where the origin of such opportunistic behaviour lies.

— Just during the visit the initiative of a new Poland President Andrzej Duda about the Baltic — Black Sea — Adriatic axis was voiced. This initiative revives once popular idea about the union of countries in our region in contrast to the giant in the East. Can we consider trilateral meeting of Belarus, Lithuania, and Ukraine’s Foreign Ministers in this context?

— It is an open secret that Ukraine is interested in diversification of hydrocarbon supplies, such as gas supplies from Lithuania transit via Belarus to Ukraine. This topic might as well have been one of the items on the agenda at the meeting. Besides, the topic of power flows between Belarus and Lithuania and Belarus and Ukraine remains actual, too. In fact, I think there was enough to discuss even without long-term geopolitical plans. Since these geopolitical discussions have, to a large degree, impracticable nature and aim at populist goals of Polish or Ukrainian politicians.

— But elements of such impracticable plans are quite viable, considering the above-mentioned Baltic-Black Sea-Adriatic transit, aren’t they?

— Quite viable, since interdependency of countries in the region is quite high. Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine occupy high places in the list of each other’s trade partners. There are a lot of overlapping issues, including capacities of harbors, transit of commodities, and Belarus-Ukraine border (taking into account the forthcoming Europe-Ukraine liberalization). Belarus also cannot but consider certain pro-European vector of Ukraine’s development. Again, as for the complete change of elites in Ukraine, Belarusans don’t know what is it and how to work with it. There are a lot of fears related to the notorious fascists, junta, robberies, and other nonsense translated by the Russian media, which, of course, affects Belarusan businessmen and officials, which means that all the relations should be “rebooted” to make sure that they are working, normal, acceptable, etc. The problem of decreased commodity turnover remains and has to be solved, too. Minsk’s desire to earn money on the situation in the region is quite understandable. Belarus will be trying to use European integration processes in Ukraine for promoting its goods to the EU markets by means of creating common enterprises; or selling Belarusan brands with European components to the Russian market. I cannot say exactly what schemes were discussed, but I think they were similar.

— Can Makei’s words about Donbas that were met with enthusiasm by Ukrainian and other media cause Kremlin’s reaction? A number of Russian media have already presented the words and meetings of Belarusan minister in a negative light.

— These are mere ritual phrases that Makei needed to say in this situation. Ukrainians expected these words, and Belarusan minister voiced them for keeping the positive image of our country in this situation. However, Makei didn’t say anything that hasn’t been repeated by the Belarusan side during the last months. But yet again, he didn’t say anything about Crimea that is de-facto recognized as a part of Russia by Belarus and which is already, basically, a part of the Union State between Belarus and Russia. Naturally, some pro-Imperial Russian media make these words seem as they want to; but Moscow is well aware what and why Makei said; so none of the central Russian media won’t step against Minsk — there will certainly be no information war around it. Minsk can always explain Makei’s words with its part as the host for peaceful negotiations: the actions of the head of the Belarus Foreign Ministry in Kyiv were held within the frames of the Minsk general political line.