Russia 'shocked' at Czech FM's Belarus comments

[Flamming_Python]

Russia attacks Czech FM for 'shocking' Belarus remarks

27 February 2009, 23:24 CET

(MOSCOW) - Russia Friday attacked as "politically shocking" a Czech EU presidency warning to Belarus not to recognise the independence of Georgian breakaway regions, the Interfax news agency reported.

Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg said earlier this week in Brussels that if Belarus followed Russia by recognising pro-Moscow Abkhazia and South Ossetia it would face a "very, very difficult situation."

Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko has moved to improve relations with the European Union after years of isolation and the bloc's foreign policy chief Javier Solana last week made his first ever visit to the country.

"The comment by Schwarzenberg cannot be described as anything other than politically shocking," a high-ranking Russian foreign ministry source told Interfax.

"It cannot be seen as anything other than crude pressure by the EU presidency on the sovereignty of the state of Belarus," the source added.

Lukashenko has said that parliament would consider recognising the two regions' independence this year, in a move that would make Belarus only the third state to make such a move after Russia and Nicaragua.

But up to now no further steps on a recognition appear to have been taken.
Lukashenko has ruled the ex-Soviet republic of 10 million people in an authoritarian fashion since 1994.

But last October, EU foreign ministers suspended a travel ban on Lukashenko and several associates in a move designed to encourage democracy in the wake of disputed elections.
"It is natural that if Belarus or the parliament, if they would recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, it would create a very, very difficult situation for Belarus," Schwarzenberg, whose country holds the rotating presidency, told reporters on Monday.

"Belarus would be out of a European consensus. That must be clear to them."
If Belarus makes progress along the democratic road it could also become part of the EU's new 'Eastern Partnership' scheme which it plans to set up with other former Soviet states Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

The partnership is due to be launched in Prague in May, though no decision has yet been taken on the involvement on Belarus.

I mean WTF? Belarus was the only ex-Soviet European country not invited to the 'Eastern Partnership' (a plan by the initiative of Sweden and Poland AFAIK). The official reason was of course that it didn't meet the democratic requirements; while a petro-monarchy like Azerbaijan of course did. In reality, the EU was not keen on inviting a country so firmly in Russia's orbit; so they decided to try and steal it away first.

I remember that Vladimir Voronin (president of Moldova) described the Eastern Partnership as a noose designed to tighten around Russia. I very much question the wisdom of the EU threatening Belarus this way; Russia will most likely (at least I hope so) pay any sanctions imposed on Belarus back right back on them.

[ting]

"The comment by Schwarzenberg cannot be described as anything other than politically shocking," a high-ranking Russian foreign ministry source told Interfax.

"It cannot be seen as anything other than crude pressure by the EU presidency on the sovereignty of the state of Belarus," the source added.

I don`t know weather to laugh cry or just say . Usually when there are threats being made it`s some Russian official who makes them. And now they are shocked when someone else does this. Pleaaase

I have noticed that a lot of the ex warpac nations tend to be rough around the edges towards Russia, but that goes both ways. They have acquiered their diplomatic language culture from the same place so it will take time for them to learn to use the tough language in private and the soft language in public.

Now, on the specific threat:

"It is natural that if Belarus or the parliament, if they would recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, it would create a very, very difficult situation for Belarus," Schwarzenberg, whose country holds the rotating presidency, told reporters on Monday.

"Belarus would be out of a European consensus. That must be clear to them."

What is so terrible about this? It is a simple statement of fact. If Norway went against this European consensus in something as serious as the annexation of a sovereign states territory(some view this as an annexation) there would also be consequences.

I mean WTF? Belarus was the only ex-Soviet European country not invited to the 'Eastern Partnership' (a plan by the initiative of Sweden and Poland AFAIK). The official reason was of course that it didn't meet the democratic requirements; while a petro-monarchy like Azerbaijan of course did. In reality, the EU was not keen on inviting a country so firmly in Russia's orbit; so they decided to try and steal it away first.

I remember that Vladimir Voronin (president of Moldova) described the Eastern Partnership as a noose designed to tighten around Russia. I very much question the wisdom of the EU threatening Belarus this way; Russia will most likely (at least I hope so) pay any sanctions imposed on Belarus back right back on them.

What would Russia say if Belarus was invited but not Russia? Some Russians would scream evil Nato encroachment. Your damned if you do and damned if you don't.

And who cares what the President of Moldova says. He has problems with a Russian supported enclave. Of course he would love to have Russia "punished".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Partnership

I just read this, and I really don't see what the problem is.

I personally think that recognizing(silly fraze ) Abkasia and SO is against the long term interest of Belarus, however thay are so dependent on Russia in the short term that the pressure is to much for them. Perhaps now Belarus can say to Russia that the EU(Evil NATO) made me do it?

Hope I don`t step on your toes to much, I know you are not a member of the Russia strong crew, but you are Russian afterall. It`s not meant as an insult towards russia.

[Decadence]

I don`t know weather to laugh cry or just say . Usually when there are threats being made it`s some Russian official who makes them.And now they are shocked when someone else does this. Pleaaase

Any examples....?

[ting]

Any examples....?

http://www.buffalonews.com/nationalw...ry/419577.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...feed=worldnews
http://www.iht.com/articles/*******/...UROPE-RICE.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ifs_new...00/7241470.stm

This is about missile defence. I am sure there are other examples in other areas.

[Decadence]

http://www.buffalonews.com/nationalw...ry/419577.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...feed=worldnews
http://www.iht.com/articles/*******/...UROPE-RICE.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ifs_new...00/7241470.stm

This is about missile defence. I am sure there are other examples in other areas.

Last time I checked Russia objected missile defence as a possible threat to itself, besides Kaliningrad is Russian territory and not having missiles over there has been a favour to EU, which Europeans apparently took for granted. In that light I don't see what's the connection between Abkhazia/SO and Europe in general. But screw that - it's not Russia who started the recognition game, neither did Russia openly threaten anyone over Kosovo or aggressively acted against anyone specifically because of it. Now, these two out of the way - anything else you would like to mention as an example?

[Flamming_Python]

I don`t know weather to laugh cry or just say . Usually when there are threats being made it`s some Russian official who makes them. And now they are shocked when someone else does this. Pleaaase

Yes we threatened everyone who considered recognizing Kosovo

I have noticed that a lot of the ex warpac nations tend to be rough around the edges towards Russia, but that goes both ways. They have acquiered their diplomatic language culture from the same place so it will take time for them to learn to use the tough language in private and the soft language in public.

Doesn't matter what language they use, Russia will still judge their actions and not their words, and the consenquences will still be the same. If the EU thinks it can dress up it's policy of containing Russia and it's influence while agressively expanding right up to its borders with nice words and long speeches, it is mistaken.

Now, on the specific threat:

What is so terrible about this? It is a simple statement of fact. If Norway went against this European consensus in something as serious as the annexation of a sovereign states territory(some view this as an annexation) there would also be consequences.

The European consensus is one of complete hypocracy when it comes to these issues (Russia is also hypocritical in this respect, but this was forced upon it). On the one hand the consensus was fully in support of splitting Kosovo from Serbia even while many EU members refused to support this course of action. On the other hand it supports Georgian territorial integrity out of 'symphathy' to it's pro-European stance and 'democratic values', despite the fact that privately many European leaders have expressed disdain and dissapproval of Saakashvilli.

Essentially the EU is trying to force a common foreign policy and anti-Russian stance onto not only onto its sovereign member states, but also its neighbours who it views as potential candidates for future expansion.

What would Russia say if Belarus was invited but not Russia? Some Russians would scream evil Nato encroachment. Your damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Well if we take this Eastern Partnership programme as one of building economic links with potential future member states; then it would be quite understandable why Russia (and Turkey) were not invited; the EU doesn't want them in. That wouldn't make it any more acceptable for Russia though; I think it has had it up to the neck with NATO/EU expansion to its borders already. In this case though, it is clear that the purpose of this programme is not only to forge economic links, but also to build common politics in an attempt to isolate Russia; which of course is going to anger Russia even more than it would ordinarily.

And who cares what the President of Moldova says. He has problems with a Russian supported enclave. Of course he would love to have Russia "punished".

Voronin is not exactly an ally of Russia, nor even a friend as such. However, he was elected on a pro-Russian platform of increasing ties with Russia and restoring the territorial integrity of Moldova through negotiation. Despite his other faults, in terms of foreign policy after some meandering and experimentation he has mostly kept his word and is now focussing on what he promised initially.

In this context, Voronin was actually making a statement in favour of Russia and its position; expressing symphathy for its worries about Western expansionism. Voronin is quite keen to solve the question of Pridnestrovie with Russia's assistance, recently assuring Russia that Moldova will remain a neutral zone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Partnership

I just read this, and I really don't see what the problem is.

I suspected right from the start that this partnership would be nothing but trouble. This was due to 2 reasons the significance of which was apparent immediately. Firstly, it was on the initiative of Sweden and Poland that the partnership was pressed into action; 2 countries which have among the most russophobic foreign policies in Europe (Britain being the 3rd part of this troika). Secoundly, Belarus was not invited, while Azerbaijan was. This kills the reasoning that Belarus was not invited because it is a dictatorship; Azerbaijan is a stricter dictatorship with surging nationalist tendencies to boot. Therefore the only reason why Belarus wasn't invited, could only be because it was too close to Russia. Via this reasoning, it is possible to see that from the start the Eastern Partnership was meant to be an anti-Russian initiative aimed at damaging the interests and influence of Russia.

Now I have confirmation of this, and the first proper indicator that a sort of quiet Cold War is happening behind the scenes between Russia and the EU.

I personally think that recognizing(silly fraze ) Abkasia and SO is against the long term interest of Belarus, however thay are so dependent on Russia in the short term that the pressure is to much for them. Perhaps now Belarus can say to Russia that the EU(Evil NATO) made me do it?

You are missing the point - the only reason it wouldn't be in the long-term interests of Belarus to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia is because the EU threatened them not to do so and will punish them if they do. If the EU shut its mouth and left them alone, Belarus could make its own balanced decision as a sovereign country, and most probably benefit from the recognition if it meant it can get more benefits from Russia in return.

I suppose this is what 'soft power' means

Hope I don`t step on your toes to much, I know you are not a member of the Russia strong crew, but you are Russian afterall. It`s not meant as an insult towards russia.

I'll have you know that i'm actually in the Russia Strong!!!1 crew 'Western Partnership' program; due for full membership sometime around 2011

[gazell]

I don`t know weather to laugh cry or just say .
They have acquiered their diplomatic language culture from the same place so it will take time for them to learn to use the tough language in private and the soft language in public.

you have been following the Czech presidency in this respect, have you not?

[Flamming_Python]

As a side note I'm dissapointed that it was on the FM of the Czech Republic who made this statement. The Czech Republic has got quite an anti-Russian stance politically and has issues with Russia because of the ABM shield; however I remember how a few years ago the Czech President was invited to Russia, and decided to bring a large group of businessmen with him, whereupon he famously ordered them to only speak and negotiate in Russian while there. It was a simple gesture that had as much pragmatic and practical reasoning as any other, but it meant a lot to us

[ting]

Last time I checked Russia objected missile defence as a possible threat to itself, besides Kaliningrad is Russian territory and not having missiles over there has been a favour to EU, which Europeans apparently took for granted. In that light I don't see what's the connection between Abkhazia/SO and Europe in general. But screw that - it's not Russia who started the recognition game, neither did Russia openly threaten anyone over Kosovo or aggressively acted against anyone specifically because of it. Now, these two out of the way - anything else you would like to mention as an example?

Ok, how about these:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0504/estonia.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_II

[Ulytau]

But same time maybe he need to remember Russia is the biggest economical,military,political partner of the Belarus..

Honestly hard to understand first they leavin a country to their destiny than they wanting totally interest things from em..

[ting]

Yes we threatened everyone who considered recognizing Kosovo

My point s that this language of warnings and threats have been quite common with items of interest to Russian officials.

Doesn't matter what language they use, Russia will still judge their actions and not their words, and the consenquences will still be the same. If the EU thinks it can dress up it's policy of containing Russia and it's influence while agressively expanding right up to its borders with nice words and long speeches, it is mistaken.

The point is that if you scream bloody murder every time you don`t get your way you create an atmosphere were getting something your way becomes more difficult. By making threats you make it more difficult for the other side to back down.

Also the notion of Russia having the right to dictate the political positions of it`s neighbors is outdated. I personally see the intent to dominate your neighbors as an aggressive policy. It`s not so strange that your neighbors look west to protect their interests(sovereign rights).

The European consensus is one of complete hypocracy when it comes to these issues (Russia is also hypocritical in this respect, but this was forced upon it). On the one hand the consensus was fully in support of splitting Kosovo from Serbia even while many EU members refused to support this course of action. On the other hand it supports Georgian territorial integrity out of 'symphathy' to it's pro-European stance and 'democratic values', despite the fact that privately many European leaders have expressed disdain and dissapproval of Saakashvilli.

The world is hypocritical, however I think your overplaying it by saying that Russia was forced to this. Think about Chechnya. They got no/little support from the west despite Russia being at it`s weakest. As for Kosovo, I personally hope that the ICJ overturns their recognition.

Essentially the EU is trying to force a common foreign policy and anti-Russian stance onto not only onto its sovereign member states, but also its neighbours who it views as potential candidates for future expansion.

The EU is the sum of it`s members. A lot of the eastern EU states are anti-Russian. I don`t think this stance is being forced upon anybody. I think a lot of the ex republics are quite capable of that on their own. Perhaps they feel they can express themselves better when they are no longer at the mercy of Russia.

Well if we take this Eastern Partnership programme as one of building economic links with potential future member states; then it would be quite understandable why Russia (and Turkey) were not invited; the EU doesn't want them in. That wouldn't make it any more acceptable for Russia though; I think it has had it up to the neck with NATO/EU expansion to its borders already. In this case though, it is clear that the purpose of this programme is not only to forge economic links, but also to build common politics in an attempt to isolate Russia; which of course is going to anger Russia even more than it would ordinarily.

I really don`t know that much about this program, but I think if you view everything as an attack on Russia, everybody will encroach you. And I think Turkey will be in the EU, and I hope Russia too.

Voronin is not exactly an ally of Russia, nor even a friend as such. However, he was elected on a pro-Russian platform of increasing ties with Russia and restoring the territorial integrity of Moldova through negotiation. Despite his other faults, in terms of foreign policy after some meandering and experimentation he has mostly kept his word and is now focussing on what he promised initially.

In this context, Voronin was actually making a statement in favour of Russia and its position; expressing symphathy for its worries about Western expansionism. Voronin is quite keen to solve the question of Pridnestrovie with Russia's assistance, recently assuring Russia that Moldova will remain a neutral zone.

Ah, I see, sorry for misinterpreting. Anyway I don`t view him as that important. But "neutral zone". Your scaring me with that kinda language

I suspected right from the start that this partnership would be nothing but trouble. This was due to 2 reasons the significance of which was apparent immediately. Firstly, it was on the initiative of Sweden and Poland that the partnership was pressed into action; 2 countries which have among the most russophobic foreign policies in Europe (Britain being the 3rd part of this troika). Secoundly, Belarus was not invited, while Azerbaijan was. This kills the reasoning that Belarus was not invited because it is a dictatorship; Azerbaijan is a stricter dictatorship with surging nationalist tendencies to boot. Therefore the only reason why Belarus wasn't invited, could only be because it was too close to Russia. Via this reasoning, it is possible to see that from the start the Eastern Partnership was meant to be an anti-Russian initiative aimed at damaging the interests and influence of Russia.

As stated above, I am only guessing, but it could also be that you don`t ask someone unless you know they will say yes.

Now I have confirmation of this, and the first proper indicator that a sort of quiet Cold War is happening behind the scenes between Russia and the EU.

oh come on, don`t take it like that. No one want`s a new cold war.

You are missing the point - the only reason it wouldn't be in the long-term interests of Belarus to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia is because the EU threatened them not to do so and will punish them if they do. If the EU shut its mouth and left them alone, Belarus could make its own balanced decision as a sovereign country, and most probably benefit from the recognition if it meant it can get more benefits from Russia in return.

Afaik there is a Russian minority in Belarus. What if Russia decides that these should be a part of Russia? If the precedent that Russias post USSR borders are final is broken, then a lot of countries will have a reason to be concerned.

Also if Belarus is totally dependent on Russia what kind of balanced decision will it be able to make?

I suppose this is what 'soft power' means

Yep thats some of it

I'll have you know that i'm actually in the Russia Strong!!!1 crew 'Western Partnership' program; due for full membership sometime around 2011

[daily666]

Basically, a country of Belarus is so dependant on Russia it sometimes looks like Europe would be better off without it. Should be a part of Russian Federation.

Didn't Czech Republic recognize Kosovo?

I agree with Python, Belarus should have been invited into the Eastern Partnership.

[Kaapeli]

I mean WTF? Belarus was the only ex-Soviet European country not invited to the 'Eastern Partnership' (a plan by the initiative of Sweden and Poland AFAIK). The official reason was of course that it didn't meet the democratic requirements; while a petro-monarchy like Azerbaijan of course did. In reality, the EU was not keen on inviting a country so firmly in Russia's orbit; so they decided to try and steal it away first.

I remember that Vladimir Voronin (president of Moldova) described the Eastern Partnership as a noose designed to tighten around Russia. I very much question the wisdom of the EU threatening Belarus this way; Russia will most likely (at least I hope so) pay any sanctions imposed on Belarus back right back on them.

You're complaining that Belarussia wasn't invited to this partnership but then again it's a bad anti-Russia deal anyway? So what's the problem here? Either you're in or you're out, but don't complain if you can't have both.

[Karaahmetoglu]

And what is the Czechs going to do if Belarus does recognize the Breakaway regions? Cut EU out from them? EU would do that regardless if Czechs warned about it or not.

[Decadence]

Afaik there is a Russian minority in Belarus. What if Russia decides that these should be a part of Russia? If the precedent that Russias post USSR borders are final is broken, then a lot of countries will have a reason to be concerned.

The absurdity level of the statement above is just staggering. Its like saying Norway is about to chop the peace out of Sweden...what are you people smoking?