It's a double-sided coin.

On the one hand, Belarusians from this resource will confirm that for Lukashenko the departure of Ukraine is a "dream come true". He has always been hostile to any Ukraine's movement towards the Customs Union (RU, BY, KZ), and on the opposite - very welcoming to Ukraine's pro-EU aspirations. These trends made him very valuable and sole ally to Moscow, and made Kremlin spend even more money on Belarus to lure Ukraine.

On the other hand, now that Ukraine will be gone completely, Moscow might not need any more luring. It will a) stop spending that much money on impire-building, and b) want to close the Belarusian question fast and cheap. They could redirect all their propaganda resources from Ukraine to Belarus. But what for? Annexation of just Belarus doesn't solve any issues for Russia, while Kazakhstan will never agree to any deer political union within the Customs Union.

Paradoxically, those are dictatorial Lukashenko and authoritarian Yanukovich who managed to keep Russia at bay, and establish foundation for independent existence of their countries.

That was the main mistake in Poland and other CEE countries - to bet on nationalists within Ukraine and Belarus. In reality, they should have provided behind-the-curtain backing to "Eastern dictators" who appeared to be the only ones capable of resisting Russia effectively.

_________________

Of course. Brave attack the embassy- it is real by european style.
I hope Russian barbarians do not "otherachat" (to cripple on russian ) polish diplomats back by. As I remember , the similar events were in 2005,isn't it?
Free lesson is not a lesson.

Confederation Belarus-Poland:

Main feelings - hate and resentment towards Russia.

Main enemy - Russia.

Main (unifying) idea - to repeat this and this one more, last time.

To finally decide Russian question.

_________________
Все хотят добра. Не отдавайте его.(с)

As I have written before, I do not support such behavior. I don’t know how many people took part in march but for sure that there was tens which were looking for fight for the fight only as usually. Russia is not unique in this aspect. In every country you can find such people. Another question is who did it? At the moment in Poland we have discussion regarding our direction and legal authority try to play off opposition in every form. It could be provocation as well in my opinion.

Of course confederation is created for some reason. I wouldn’t say ‘hate and resentment’, ‘Main enemy – Russia’. For me confederation is to create stronger player on this part of Europe. And what is wrong with it? You call us enemy because we want to be independent and sovereign. In other words Russia tolerate around only dependent countries. So please describe Russia as you did to us. What words will you use?
Parenthetically in 1572 first time Poland tries to make confederation with Russia. As we see now without success.

Probably you are right. Not sure but EU was trying to pull Lukashenko on their side in past already. Problem is that EU wants to let change Belarus (free market, free election etc.) and Lukashenko wants to hold the status quo with him as a president till he die and after him maybe his son (Azerbaijan sample)

Exactly!

The EU is not designed to deal with it. Eurocrats are preoccupied exclusively with a short-term gain: run one free election, and they are happy as a monkey with a banana. But the fact that in the result of this "free elections" (read "money driven elections") Russia will put its new person as a president in Belarus, while ideally dragging Belarus into a prolonged political crisis (like they did it in Ukraine during Yuschenko) - that doesn't bother Brussels at all.

We need someone with a long-term view. Someone who is not snobbish to think that you can give one-two quick cheap carrots to Luka/Yanyk and they will run after you. Someone who is smart enough to look for unorthodox solutions, and play as a real master of diplomacy.

I am not saying they should support Luka. He is a criminal moron - no question about that. All I'm saying - they need to understand how much amateurish they were with all their previous approaches, and that the situation is much much much more complicated (in both bad and good way). There are a lot of underwater problems they in Brussels do not understand, but similarly - there are a lot of opportunities they are unable yet to see.

_________________

Rysio

Here is a russian article in russian about Poland and polish nationalists.

http://svpressa.ru/politic/article/77394/

I have read article. What to say. During reading I smiled. Typical manner of the perception of the history and not only history in the realization of Russian.
And this is also clear “Если нам много дано, то с нас много и спросится. Русским даны и Якутия, и Кубань, потому что русские могут всё держать в руках, всех обустроить и научить. Нельзя отрекаться от миссии.”
Russia is not going to change, they have mission.

Rysio hi!
Write what you see best (perfect) version of the Union for Poland.
(only interests from Poland)
Within`t blah-blah-blah.

_________________
Novusus Ordo Seclorumcheg

Rysio, you attract the critics first . But that's a good thing, you'll have a better feeling of the spread of opinions. That's a healthy start.

FYI, Asgard and Mog are not Russians (at least not legally), they both live in Belarus. Although Asgard would argue that Belarus shouldn't exist . On the other hand, you'll also get to know opinions of those who fear closer ties with Poland - for this, or that reason (from nationalists till pro-Russian eurasists).

_________________

Rysio, I have a proposition to you.

Why don't you help us bring more Polish users into this thread? We need to start communicating, and need to learn more about each other's opinions to make the ball rolling.

Don't worry if those are Poles who oppose such a union, or who have any prejudices against Belarusians, or scared of the need to feed Belarus, etc, etc - any opinions are welcomed. As a matter of fact, it would be even better to bring more negative opinions in the beginning, so we could start digesting them earlier.

Let people know that they can write in Polish if they want to, but of course English would be preferred.

_________________

Hi Alef,
If you ask me for model of the our future confederation , I think that something like Respublica of Two Nations would be acceptable but US model would be better. Our integration must be passed gradually otherwise it would be hard to convince skeptics. Model of the confederacy is open and a theme to the co-ordination. Best result would be if one day we will stop speak about Poles, Belarusian or Ukrainians and we will start talk about Polish spoken, Belarusian spoken and Ukrainian spoken citizens of the confederacy. Something like in Switzerland now – German-, French-, Italian- spoken Swiss.
Regarding our interests I think Woloh already describe profits from the rising of the confederation. For me the most important are human resources and their capabilities to achieve high level development to build strong confederation which will be independent and sovereign.

Hi Woloh,

Believe me that I try to pull Poles to Brama. Discussion would become more interested and more popular in Poland.

Hi guys,
I think I am the one who asked Rysio for the details of the Belarusian proposal of restoring RP.
I asked that question in order to determine if you really mean business.

Woloh,
I do not mind the union, I do not regard Belarusians as mentally disabled people, I do not think Poland would have to feed Belarus but I just wonder if you are not day-dreaming, far away from the political reality.
What do you mean by ‘RP’ then?
Yes, its purpose is to set an example of the new quality of the international coexistence.
I doubt it is necessary or possible. A key issue would be for me the PL-UA cooperation but the disintegration of the latter state is also to be taken into account.
We can set an example but we cannot force anybody to join us!
If the confederation works I cannot see any reason for it to fail.
As far as I know the first Rzeczpospolita was a network. (Unfortunately, we did not manage to introduce its third center in Kiev by the union of Hadziacz 1658. Maybe next time;)?)
But I have to admit I am good neither at the history nor at the law. And from those two disciplines I would start any discussion on the new RP.
It is the great utopia. To sum up: all we (PL+BY) can try to do is to work out a new model of the international coexistence and then attract other important players in the region (UA, H). I would distinguish between The [political] Union (let’s say: PL+BY+UA) and the free trade area around it (as many neighbouring countries as possible).
I regard the Visegrad group as a part of the free trade area I have mentioned above. Nothing more.

Thanks for the answer. And one additional question, which global problems will be able to solve our future Union?
Then I'll explain what i think.

_________________
Novusus Ordo Seclorumcheg

Not sure we will be a global player. We will be player between Russia and Germany. In case of another German-Russian agreement concerning the partition of nobody’s land and authority zones. We will be enough strong to express our own opinion and to make our own needs. We will be strong player in Europe for sure but not a global player. Frankly I haven’t such ambitions. In my opinion US never let us become a global player but maybe they let us to become a stronger player in Europe to balance Germany, Russia or future agreement between Russia and Germany. Russia most probably will try to rebuild their power in Soviet Union borders what is not in American’s business.
We will be comparable to UK, France and Germany( if in our confederacy will be Poland, Belarus and Ukraine).

Hi Heliofor,

Thanks a lot for your comments and opinions, and welcome to Brama!


The current political reality of Intermarium is a lunatic criminal Lukashenko, trolling isolationist Viktor Orban, power hungry Miloš Zeman who doesn't lose an opportunity to bite off more powers for himself, the never ending Băsescu-Ponta tug-of-war in Romania, and a gang leader Yanukovich in the Cossackland.

Of course I am far away from the political reality. The political reality will never be perfect. Not now, not ever. What we need is the ability to look through the political reality, and understand that there is a common logic to why all of this is happening in our region. That Intermarium has painfully shaped nation-states for a reason. Our task is not to abolish them, nor to fight with them (we already have the EU, and Russia for that), but to bring them to the next level - unite them into a joint powerful network.


Agreed.


Absolutely true.

My point was not to drag anyone into the union, but design it from Day One with an idea of attracting the most of Central-Easter Europe into it.

Just PL-BY, or PL-BY-UA doesn't have enough civilizational charge to be worth the effort. But indeed, they could provide a good start.


It is indeed necessary, and totally possible.

The key countries are four: UA-PL-RO-HU. Whatever satisfies them, and brings them behind one table - is going to benefit the entire region.

In the modern globalized world the block can survive only if it commands no less than 300 million people. Which means we don't just need a small regional union, but a structure capable of leading behind itself ALL of Europe and Russia. And yes, that includes leading countries like Germany, or France. Become the European hegemon. Yes, I know that many central-eastern europeans are scared to think of themselves from such a perspective.


Rzeczpospolita was rather a confederation. It was a worthy attempt, but not what we need now. Not a country with a center. But rather what Nassim Taleb called in his bestseller an "anti-fragile" structure. Think of an Internet. Does it have a center? No. That's why it's very very difficult to shut it down.

In my view, what we need to start with is creation of super-nods - transborder transnational cities that will act as connecting points between nation-states of our region. What we eventually are trying to create is something akin a molecule grid, where transborder cities perform the role of super-connectors between nation states.



The first areas for such connectors could be there:




I don't think we need a full political union.

But there should be several areas where cooperation should be at its maximum: foreign policy, military, some infrastructural projects.

The general formula could be pretty straightforward: "we are diverse and largely independent from within, but we are united as one from the outside" - be it at the UN table, or in a military operation. Not wishy-washy like NATO today (see Afghanistan) .

I'd say our role-model should be the USA at its early days - but go few steps further, take into account modern achievements is social networking and computer science. The United States of Intermarium!

_________________

Woloh,
That is why I have an impression you are day-dreaming if thinking you can make all these figures, or their descendents, work together. Forget it. The best we can do is to try to invent a theoretical project of the coexistence of two states, if given a chance bring it into reality and then encourage the biggest regional player (UA, H?) to join us. Even such a modest program is going to take decades, I am afraid.
I would not like to enter a pure historical debate on the I RP but I think it was a network, it secured national (and other) identities and it proved that a union is a good remedy against predators.
I disagree, completely.
1,000,000 sq km and 90mln people are enough for a start. The key issue are not a territory nor a population but the law, i.e. the civilization that structure would be founded on. And listing those basic principles seems to me the essence of our discussion here.
Do you know the notion of ‘optimal currency area’? I would introduce an analogous notion of ‘optimal state area’. PL-UA on the one side [of the mountains], and RO-H on the other, do not consist on the optimal state area. At least in the current situation of small nation-states.
My feeling is quite different. We have too many Napoleons in the neighbourhood. UA dreams of her own empire from Vistula to Kazakhstan, Chechs do not recognize their Slavic neighbours civilized enough to go with them hand in hand, and H does not want anybody to tell them what to do.
And why is a simple traditional free trade agreement not enough?
Meaning? I just wanted to distinguish between that dreamt off ‘new quality in the international coexistence’ I called ‘the union’ and a simple free trade association that seems to me much easier to achieve. The latter can be a halfway to the former.
All you need for infrastructural projects is just the cooperation of several countries. Nothing special and extraordinary. Whereas the foreign policy and military actions require, I think, some deeper vision of common interests and future or even of identity.
It is absolutely beyond me how you are going to achieve that state of mind in so many different nations.
A fascinating label. But what is behind? This is a question.

Hey Heliofor, see my comments below.

1) I think that all of those "questionable" politicians and political events across Intermarium - Yanukovich, Lukashenko, Orban, Polish "Independence March", and Romanian unrests - have a common underlying root. It is as if these nations are trying to tell outsiders: "don't tell us how to live". Quite often it looks like a childish prank: we would rather hurt ourselves, but do what we want to do.

Having said that, the real driving forces within Intermarium are not individual politicians. There is a greater common force. For this reason it doesn't matter who keeps the office. If you focus too much on making a deal between Lukashenko and Komorowski - that's a road to nowhere, imo. You need to focus on things that are agnostic of current rulers and their political agendas.

For example, creation of transborder hubs has absolutely nothing to do with politics and can be done already now. USA and China created Shanghai in the times when political and economic systems in those two countries couldn't be more different.

2) "1,000,000 sq km and 90mln people are enough for a start."
Well, compare it to Russia or Brazil and it's nothing impressive.
However, a much more important question is what exactly you are trying to achieve with that.
For example, one very tangible goal for Intermarium could be a joint energy security. From this perspective your key countries (in addition to UA and PL) become Hungary and Croatia. You have to have them, if you are a smart ruler. This way you cut off many attempts to by-pass UA-PL from the South for the Russian oil and gas pipes. And in addition gain access to the Adriatic as a source of LNG.

3) "PL-UA on the one side [of the mountains], and RO-H on the other, do not consist on the optimal state area."
I wouldn't worry about that. Russia is divided in half by the Ural Mountains, America has the entire West completely cut off by the Rockies, and the EU not only has the Alps right in the middle, but they also constitute an independent country of Switzerland. You can always deal with that.

Moreover, mountains are the seas of the future. Same as during the early industrial era key civilizational hubs appeared in the biggest sea ports, the future hubs will eventually have proximity to sub-orbital launch pads. And it is quite likely that maglev launch systems will over time outcompete current massive and inefficient gasoline cosmodromes. Maglev launch pads require a mountain nearby. And not just any mountain, but an old one, the one that doesn't grow any more. If you ask me - that's a civilizational chance for Tatras and Carpathians. Consider it a vindication for poor access to seas in the times of RP1.

Sure, that's a distant future from the perspective of a human. But not from the perspective of a country.

4) "Chechs do not recognize their Slavic neighbours civilized enough to go with them hand in hand"
Czechs are, by the way, not instrumental to such a union (as are Bulgarians, or Lithuanians). They can constitute a perfect buffer/transition zone between Intermarium and Germany/Brusselsland. Slovaks are much more important - although I'm aware of their skepticism.

In my view, as I have mentioned, there are 7 countries in total that are critical to the union. They include three categories:
- The Core (UA, PL, RO, HU). These guys should be driving the whole thing.
- The Essential Connectors. Without them nothing happens. They are the "Achilles heels" of the union: Belarus and Slovakia. They not only connect the big ones, but also balance everything together.
- The maritime hub, and the tiny key to the full regional domination - Croatia.

5) Intermarium has two main pillars in its foundation: mostly RP1, but also the Austria-Hungarian monarchy. Both were evolving as networks, both got a marginalized nation that stalled the whole system (Ukrainians in RP1, Hungarians in A/H), both had a similar end. We need to learn from their mistakes, and re-do everything in the right way.

6) Lastly, I want to remind to you that the EU itself started not from a political union between Germany and the Netherlands, but from a very practical "Coal and Steel Community" of six countries that together comprised the core of Western Europe.

It is always better to have something easy-to-establish but more practical with a bigger number of founders, than a tight hard-core union where the majority comes as second and third tire "enlargements". You in Poland would know it better than anyone else.

_________________

Hi Woloh,
And you are going to waste your life on trying to convince them that you ‘know better’.
Both yes and no. Yes, because we do talk about long-term processes. And no, because there are some BY-PL deals already. The reason is Luka’s dilemma: to choose his own state or his Russian identity? Luckily, he is turning out a greater egoist than a Russian. And hence he does sometimes something for the West (restores Nieśwież or even says something good on the catholics). So, if he tries to show his country is not Russia, Poland can try to keep the window of opportunity open.
I do not know why you are insisting so much on those hubs. Free trade agreement is more important.
BTW right now we construct all the possible connectors (transport, gas/electricity lines) with all our neighbours. (With a sad exception for a highway to Brześć.)
RU is a perfect evidence that a territory, natural recourses and a population are nothing. What is everything is the right political culture.
We are going to have our own LNG next year. And our oil security I see in the Northern Europe rather than in the remote Croatia. We have also transmitted gas back to UA (from Germany). It means we could supply BY with oil in emergency.
I think that when forced to make a choice CZ is going to opt for Germany. This is my private understanding of that nation.
You are quite optimistic about nation-states of our region. And I am quite skeptical about their political maturity. Common businesses? Yes, of course. Acceptance if they apply for the membership in the RP? Why not? But to involve in their neverending Balkan disputes? No, thanks.
Once again: do you really believe that the countries in Central Europe have elites with clear vision of their values and future?
Sorry, I do not understand that point.

As long as there is EU on the one side and Moscovia on the other, Poland will not turn politically to the East. The idea of a new RP will not appear on the agenda of Polish politicians. Do not expect it!
The point is not that the idea is crazy but that it can come true only when Moscovia is down.
Before that moment it is hard to imagine to struggle against RU on behalf of many BYs or UAs that feel in russkij mir at home.
Another problem for those countries is that any irritating pressure from the West can result in their disintegration.
I think the best option for the pro-Western Bys and UAs is an effort to convert their pro-Russian co-patriots.

And what can Poland do in the meantime?
To keep the borders open for people and goods. And to build all the infrastructure that make any kind of cooperation easier.

"I do not know why you are insisting so much on those hubs. Free trade agreement is more important."

Well, to begin with - this is simply impossible. I'm telling it to you as an economist who used to work with the topic of foreign tariffs.

As you might know, Belarus is in the customs union with Russia (that takes about 55% of its trade turnover). A CU and an FTZ cannot co-exist on the same territory. Long explanation, but take it as a fact of life. You cannot kill a patient now only to start him slowly and maybe revive later. This solution doesn't work, you need a different remedy. That's why America never made a free trade zone with China, even though it's their second largest trade partner (after Canada). Instead, they created a "special economic zone Shanghai" to boost economic ties. I suggest we learn from them.

Second - an FTZ is a very complex and bulky organization, full effects of which are not yet entirely known. Yes, it helps to boost certain productions, attract some investments, and achieve economic growth in a short term. But on the downside it drains human resources from a weaker partner in the long run, it reallocates lower-skills and harmful productions to a weaker country, and in general preserves a lower level of human development in the follower-partner comparing to the lead-partner. That's why I said that you in Poland, and especially people in the Baltic countries would know it quite well what means to be a second-tire player in a union with much stronger partners. Economic benefits in the short run, but increasing gap with lead players in the long run.

Economics is a very complex topic, that's why I strongly suggest not to mess with it based on political preferences. For example, one of the key current advantages of the Central-Eastern part of the EU is that it's countries are luckily not part of the euro-area. The euro-crisis has shown them pretty well that it will be very unwise to loose their currencies (and the ability to conduct an independent monetary policy). This logic applies to the EU, but exactly the same logic applies to Intermarium - not to mess with economics for political projects.

"RU is a perfect evidence that a territory, natural resources and a population are nothing. What is everything is the right political culture."

Yes and No. Imagine there was no America, thus no NATO, no free-of-charge nuclear umbrella over Europe, no American military bases in Germany - where would be Europe today? The EU simply wouldn't exist.

And the reason America is so powerful is not that much because of its political culture (which is significantly less democratic than in most of countries in Europe), but because of 300 million rich American consumers/taxpayers who pay for the Europe's free ride, and two oceans on both sides that shield those consumers/taxpayers from big wars.

"As long as there is EU on the one side and Moscovia on the other, Poland will not turn politically to the East."

If you think that Russia will disappear, or dive under water, or a black hole opens in its place - this time I should say that you are probably day dreaming. In the best case scenario Russia evolves in a balanced federation. In the worst case - turns into a rigid religiously-fanatical dictatorship. Either way we'll have to deal with it.

Otherwise, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Belarus, etc forever continue to remain - as a Slovak prime-minister said - countries whose opinion could be ignored.

Again - Intermarium should not be a Polish project. That's wrong for Intermarium, that's wrong for Poland, that's wrong for everyone. Intermarium needs to be a bigger network project of several players from its start - like 6-7 - that would make it much more flexible within, with a better resource base, and a lesser dependence on individual fears - Polish, Belarusian, Hungarian, etc.

"many BYs or UAs that feel in russkij mir at home".

Well, you cannot separate Poland from the Latin world and the Catholic world either, right? Or can you?
"Russkij Mir" is not something that belongs to Russia. Rus is Ukraine. And Belarus is oddly the only country that keeps it in its name - not Russia. As you know in Russian the word "Russia" is "Россия", not "Руссия".

"Russkij Mir" much rather belongs to the Kievan Rus (and through it even to RP1). Kievan Rus is one of early democratic confederations/networks in Intermarium. This is something the public in the Western Intermarium is yet to recon and remember.

(Btw, paradoxically - chances are Poland will find a much easier connection with the Ukrainian East (that's more pro-russkij) than with a nationalist West)

_________________

Confederation Belarus-Poland:

Main enemy - Russia.

Main unifying idea - Moscovia delenda est


P.S.Woloh, aren't you tired yet?

_________________
Все хотят добра. Не отдавайте его.(с)

Intermarium should not be anti-Russian, or anti-German (which doesn't exclude competition). Intermarium should be pro-pan-European. It is much more about re-organizing European legacy into four clusters that together control the entire "Big Island": Mediterranean, Nordic, Intermarian, and Russian. Each is about 150 million people, and representing four key civilization legacies of Europe.



Just because Intermarium couldn't finish forming, Europe couldn't find its working structure. This asteroid belt of mini-countries has been a constant source of troubles which no-one was able to control. I'm saying it's time to let it self-organize, and become the new driver of Europe.

_________________

To Rysio and other our Polish and Belarussian friends.
1 I think idea of the state union Sławia/Słowiania/Narodowa Republika Słowiańska - very good idea.
I like this idea (realy).

2 But we have little troubles. Poles - are West Slavic group, Belarussian and Ukrainian - are East Slavic group with Russian, and break East Slavic group, equality break Belarussian, Ukrainian, Russian - is bad idea.
I think has no future.

3 But we have next troubles. In history, when Belarus (VKL) was leading European countries, had experience partnership union with Poland, Poland sabotaged Belarus, that led to the collapse Belarus (VKL). In nowadays, Poland within the European Union, was leading European countries, we see as Poland sabotaged European Union, that maybe led to the collapse EU. In future, when Belarus and Poland create a union Narodowa Republika Słowiańska, all will over as before.
People who do not remember the history - no haven`t future.

4 Is not trouble, but is it. Germany - have global mission, Russia - have global mission, USA, China, India - all have global mission, and even Belarus in ancient times - have global mission. I may be mistaken, but Poland never haven`t global mission, Poland always purposed to increase their personal status.
I think when civilization together solves problems - conquest of the Arctica, Antarctica, Luna, Mars, at this time to engage personalize union Poland with Belarus - it is get underfoot from global players - it is not good.
All countries must know their place in the ranks, Poland to European Union, Belarus+UA+RU - are East Slavic group to Russia, as center East Slavic group.
It should be, and another variation is sabotage of civilization, and why?!

_________________
Novusus Ordo Seclorumcheg

Woloh,
A CU presupposes there is Moscovia. If Moscovia is there, Poland will not get engaged deeper behind its Eastern border. It does not make sense.
Wrong analogy. A ‘special zone’ was an invention, of the closed country that China was, established to cooperate with the world. Poland keeps its border open and therefore does not need any special place of exchange anything with the world. If BY is a closed country and needs this kind of gates, it is its cup of tea only.
I see you feel sorry for Poland. I do not. And I invite all the developed countries to come to us and make (ab???)use of any potential they can find here. You are welcome!
ARE YOU AN ECONOMIST? REALLY? UN-BE-LIE-VI-BLE.
BTW, this is a real obstacle on the way to our confederation – we present two different vision of what is normal in the international relations.
It is true. We have been lucky to have preserved our own currency. But the lesson I have learnt from that is different: be cautious about a union with different mentalities and cultures – they can easily spoil your efforts.
What it actually means is: if PL and BY keep staying on the opposite sides of geopolitical border, the gap between them is going to get deeper and deeper. In 20 years a union between us will be hardly imaginable for the economic reasons.
I think I could not disagree much. The only reason why the country of poor immigrants created a global superpower within 2 centuries is precisely that: political culture. (BTW, their electoral system have benefited a bit from the experiences of RP1.)
If Moscovia is there, BY is over for good and Poland becomes the kresy of the West. The only reason I write here is my conviction that Moscovia will face another smuta period. And this time we have to change our part of the world for (our) good.
This is a common project of some of the former members of RP1. How about the rest? I have no idea.
This is not my point. I know the history and realize that ‘russkij mir’ (with a capital in Moscow) or ‘panslavism’ are myths of Moscovian propaganda. Konstanty Ostrogski was a perfect Orthodox and a perfect RPian. There was no difficulty for the Orthodox to belong to the Western world. But try to explain it to today’s supporters of the ‘russkij mir’ with their dogma that a Ruthenian Orthodox must be Moscovian (The nick ‘Alef’ seems to be one of them.). Their hearts beat for Moscow as if it were Jerusalem. (“the third Rome & other fairy tales”) I know it means they do not know history but this is the way many BYs and UAs think and feel.

Alef,
I do think the best addressee of your remarks below is Woloh. Because these remarks treat on BY national identity and thereby are the topic for BYs, not for foreigners.
And I do not. Completely. An ethnic background as the only base of any political project is a perfect stupidity. Keep this panslavic zombie away from me and my country.
You have got my full support. No mixture of civilizations! I do not want to have anything to do with that one centered in Moscow.
What have I just written on an ethnicity as the only base of any political community? Let’s put it this way: try to imagine a PL or CZ or SVK politician saying ‘we are all Western Slavs, so we should establish one common state!’. It would be a total absurd!
But in Ruthenia it is no absurd. Many do think this way.
Could you list, please, the authors you read on Poland and Polish history?

Look, Woloh, this is your main challenge: many of your co-patriots think this way – they love Moscow because it is East Slavic, because it is Orthodox, because it is a powerful global player. They do not need not only Poland, but they do not need Belarus either. What for?
It is strange but your greatest hope is Luka. Without the egoistic ambition of that guy to possess his own state BY could have been gone already.

Hi mogdmb,
Actually, you cited my words, not Woloh’s.

You are absolutely right, but not the way you mean. RU can declare herself as the greatest opposition to the PL-BY union, because she fought with it for centuries. For sure, it is not something they would like to see again. RU will never let BY walk away.

Do not waste anybody’s time and recourses for destroying Moscovia. She is going to collapse by herself. Just as the USSR did some time ago. All we have to do is to support Kremlin’s cleptocracy.

Samuel P. Huntington - was an influential conservative political scientist from the United States of America whose works covered multiple sub-fields of political science. In 1973 he was deputy director of the Center for International Relations, and in 1977-1978 - Coordinator of planning in U.S. National Security Council, and in the years 1978-1989 - Director of the Centre of International Relations, in 1984-1985 vic-president, and in 1986-1987 years - president of the American political Science Association.

Huntington introduced the concept of "wave of democratization" that is, "a group of transitions from non-democratic to democratic regimes that occur within a certain period of time, the number is significantly higher than the number of transitions in the opposite direction in this period" and showed that each wave is accompanied by such a "rollback" - in some part of the restoration of non-democratic regimes. Huntington identified three such wave of democratization in the last of which, begun in 1974, has entered including the fall of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe and Russia. Now, however, we can say that "authoritarian transit", ie a return to authoritarian rule, in varying degrees, occurred in most former Soviet republics.

Similarly, "waves of democratization" Huntington exists the concept of "wave of globalization". From what we assume the formation of the EU - the first "wave of globalization". Accordingly, we are now seeing a "rollback" - attempts to create unions obscure , semi associations and the like, which have no future.


Map of ethnic and cultural separation of civilizations built on the concept of Huntington. But I think Huntington is too small figure compared to the knowledge of Polish scientists and therefore Huntington probably mistaken.


Belarus (VKL) was an independent power, then after the first union with Poland, second, third and so on... Belarus(VKL) degrades and there Rzeczpospolita:
[url]http://be-x-old.wikipedia.org/wiki/Януш_Радзівіл[/url]
/"Прыйдзе час, — паны-палякі да дзьвярэй не патрапяць: праз вокны іх выкідваць будзем" - Belarusian version

[url]http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janusz_Radziwiłł_(hetman_wielki_litewski)[/url]
/Janusz Radziwiłł (hetman wielki litewski) - Polish version

History it is History.

_________________
Novusus Ordo Seclorumcheg

We know who was Janusz Radziwiłł. You are right, he tried to break union between us. But I am not sure it proves anything. Even in your link to polish Wikipedia there is information that Janusz was defeated by another line of Radziwiłł family.

So in history we can find characters promote and do not promote RON. My question is which Lithuanian line families dominated during durations of our union?

End to the end, how we sabotaged VKL?

You are absolutely correctly identifying the cause, but I don't agree with your conclusions.

1) Yes, many people are pro-Moscow. Although not the majority. But why the are pro-Moscow? You think it's because of affiliation with Orthodoxy? No - Belarus is the least religious country in all of Intermarium, spare the Czechs. For Belarusians religion is an old bullshit and it doesn't matter.

You gave the right answer - it is because Moscow is capable of talking as equal with Washington and Brussels. They miss the times when they were big, important, and could make others listen to them. And even though the Moscow power is waning out, there is still no equivalent substitution.

That's exactly why a union only with Poland will not satisfy them - it is too small to matter. Give them a big enough equivalent where their voice will be heard (not like in the EU), and they will gladly consider it.

2) The pro-Moscow feelings have been long in a steady decline. The pro-EU grew slightly. But the most dominant feeling is to go with neither one. Here is a data from NISEPI:



3) The key political divide in Belarus is not East-West (like in Ukraine or Poland), but rural-urban. And long-term demographics changes make it a hopeless battle for the rural.

4) Don't forget about a significant disillusionment with the West that happened in the last 20 years after the opening of the wall. But as more information flows this will largely go away.

_________________

It`s Polish interpretation, I'm not sure that it is true.

This subject is quite large and I have no desire to engage in translation sources, so this post I completely close the issue.

During the creating and formation of VKL, even though at that time there were many wars, I think this period a golden age for Belarusians and Belarus. But then begins the unia with Poland, the first unia, second, third and so on without end... our local boyars seduced by the "charms" to be closer to the European courts and begun to adopt a notable Polish tradition, and thus gradually Polonized of Belarusian nobility converted into Polonized gentry. Next worse, Polonized nobility itself, our Belarussian gentry became Polonized people. So break an alliance with Poland Janusz Radyvyliv - it is not random and not a political nod, it is final chord of patience as a reaction to the slow polonization of Belarus. (Remember, polonization - belarusians homonym bel.полон (eng.captivity), it not casual).

Collapse Belarus (VKL) should be considered that in the late period of the VKL part of the population under the influence of Poland can not be accurately identified himself and calls himself "not Litvins" and "not Belarusians", they are calls himself "tuteyshymi", ie do not understand who they are. Therefore, I sincerely thank Moscow for tough intervention in this situation and strong guidance about our people, to remove it from the Polish influence and status of the herd calling himself "tuteyshymi" lead people into a state - called Belarusians. Thank Orthodox God for the Moscow's interference also because then already in Moscow the descendants of our Gedeminovichi + Rurikovichi, so hard to bring in a sense there's no hard feelings, only to thank his.

About a similar situation can be observed now that Germany is the powerhouse of the EU and thus sacrifices himself and Poland sabotaging the EU, which could lead to the same result that befell Belarus (VKL), just with a different motivation and otherwise methods. We should correctly understand each other, I have no complaints Belarusians and resentment against Poland, but we have more of this historical experience for never repeated it again.

PS At the end, we also need to understand that we believe our brothers Poles West Slavic group, but after the native brothers of the East Slavic group of Belarusians, Ukrainians, Russian. Therefore, Poland with Belarusians and Ukrainians, we can be united into a single union with Russia, why not?

_________________
Novusus Ordo Seclorumcheg

Alef,
I am not sure I get your point. I understand Huntington, all those waves and rollbacks, OK. But do you mean that PL-BY union would be such a rollback?
The same map, if drawn for the XV-XVIII century, would look quite different. But you have not answer my question: can you imagine that Western Slavs create a common state, or even just a union, only because of common ancestors?
I agree with Woloh. If it were not for the union with The Crown, GDL would not have survived the XVI century. Just as any other post-Ruthenian principality it would have lost to Moscow.
BTW, I asked who is the author of that interpretation of history.
Oh, Janusz, you idiot, and where is your country now?
It is dead. For over 2 centuries now.
And where is your language?
Regarded as the jargon of uneducated rednecks. (Can you imagine that, Janusz?)
And where is your family?
Emigrants in Poland or even further.
And where is your confession?
Regarded as a betrayal of the sacred issue of Orthodoxy.
And how about your possessions?
Being restored by a former Kremlin’s follower in order to gain the support of the Crown.
(BTW, yes, your country is gone but The Crown is still there.)
Was it worth it, Janusz?
Because the mixture of civilizations is not possible. Haven’t you read it in Huntington?

Attempt to create alliance PL-BY or otherwise - it is rollback before the second "wave of globalization".


If short, I think - yes, it's advantage.


Believe me, we are proud history of Belarus and Belarusians, great victories and subsidence, as experience, and Janusz Radziwiłł also too. By the way, after Luka we reclaim our Belarusian language sample Skarina before polonization. Everything will be fine.


It's possible, when it comes next "wave of globalization" - unite in Northern Continental Union (from Spain to Vladivostok).
We are already working on it.)

_________________
Novusus Ordo Seclorumcheg

Seems to me, you blame Poles for creating of the Unia. Maybe I am wrong but to create Unia we need acceptance of both nations. You blame us for this that boyars start to adapt to our Polish tradition. In my opinion you should address the reproach not to us.

Yes Russians removed our Polish influence from every aspect of Ruthenia life; tell me what they give you in return. Massacre in Oshamiana, obsolescent Belorussian language … etc.

Problem is that Russia doesn’t want let us to confederate first. Such confederation will change our interrelation. Russia is not going to accept relation on the rule equal with equal. I am pretty sure it will never change. Ukrainian example today is enough good.

Russia is on the decline. It's a fact of life.

Nothing anyone can do with that. They may still have few ups, and even some periods of a perceived balance, but that doesn't change the general trend.

Same as many empires before it Russia has outlived itself. Moreover, the whole concept of an "empire" as a sate organization is phasing out. Russia is one of few dying dinosaurs.

_________________

Woloh,
Your stats look interesting. But I think people like Alef are pro-Moscow, too. (Although they declare they are pro-BY in the first place.)
No dispute on that. I think the Orthodoxy in Ruthenia is much more a matter of politics, symbols or even landscape than of spirituality. This confession has always been kind of ideological vaccination against Western thought.
Sometimes you write people want to dictate others what to do, sometimes that people just want to be listened to. Those are 2 different attitudes and expectations. Which one is (more) true about BYs?
Tell them the project is open. And secondly, to make it come true is the best (= most convincing) argument for the others to encourage them to join us.

Some earlier points:
I would suggest a president being elected indirectly, i.e. by parliaments, not by people. Let’s say 3 electoral votes for PL and UA, 1 for BY. PL is going to lose? No problem. A president should be BY. (A person from the weakest link of the union would balance the natural advantage of the bigger members.)
You know my opinion: CZ and SVK are not interested in any union.
An alphabet as a criterion of distinction looks quite funny. What do you exactly mean?

I do not disagree with you

I don't think it's about a dictate. I think it's about the ability to not be dictated to. The dominant majority of complains from those who miss the soviet times are not at all about "living with brother nations", but about "wooh, we had a big country, it pioneered space, and had a powerful fleet". Funny, the recent disillusionment with the EU also comes from the fact that it just doesn't have a strong voice, or an ability to "do things".

I cannot speak for the Ukrainians, but for Belarusians it's quite easy - give them a big enough idea, and they are yours.

That's a good idea, we discussed something like this before. (the problem was - what if, for a sake of an example, Slovakia joins, what do you give them? 0.5 votes? It cannot be equivalent to, say, Czechs or Hungarians (potentially)). Although it does remind the American system.

Another option was to elect a joint Parliament, and make it appoint the confederation's cabinet. But only those parties could qualify for the parliament that collect at least 10% of votes in each individual country.

A constitutional monarchy could also be a good idea. But finding a proper monarch/royal family would be one pain in a butt.

Oh, no , then we repeat mistakes of the EU where the key country is Belgium, while the most underrepresented voters are Germans - who are de-facto the key decision makers. In this situation the union's governing institutions will never have a real power.

That's exactly right. That's why a constitutional monarchy sometimes looks like a good idea. Take as a monarch, say it, the Bulgarian king Simeon, and you get yourself a lot of Orthodox supporters.

On the other hand, I don't like the concept that was in the Austria-Hungary when the whole national idea was brought down to a royal family. It is always so easy to kill (both literally, and figuratively). The national idea needs to be about values, principles, new forms of governance.

Couldn't agree more with you. Any pan-Slavic ideology is always a code name, a smoke-n-mirrors for one Slavic nation's subjugation of others Slavic nations. We saw it in the Russian Empire, we saw it in Yugoslavia, in the Warsaw Pact, etc.

_________________