There is not a Unionist party in Belarus? I mean a party which supports Reunification with the Russian Federation? After all both share a language and a History.

No, Enrique, there is not a single party to openly press ahead of Belarus becoming a part of the Russian Federation. Nor there should be one. Lukashenko was the last one who contemplated it during the first years of Belarus's independence when Belarus didn't know how to wean itself off dependency on Russia. Reunification is just a wishful thinking for some who persistently disregard the fact that Belarus is independent and sovereign state. Historically and hypothetically, Belarus is more united with Poland and Lithuania. You're mixing oranges and lemons because they are citrus genus, but you can't pass them as one fruit on the market. Your knowledge of the USSR is just dazzling!

"Democracy is not ruling a totalitarian state under the name of a Republic," is one of the lines from this award-winning short film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69Y0KovgY7Q

Thanks, Julie. Shouldn't you get full benefits of exposure elsewhere (we're very pro-democracy here)? Surely, the democratic oppositions around the world would appreciate your work. Was it in Serbian language? Good luck!

Enrique, I believe, Belarus, as all other Russia's Western neighbors (former Soviet Republics) -- Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova -- are not looking for any union with Russia. Today, Europe looks more attractive for them. Only when another political tornado start ravaging in Europe, then, all of them may recollect their historical connections with Russia... To be honest, the antagonism between mentioned nations and Russians existed all the time. Even during the Soviet time. It was not fundamental, though, and I don't remember it ever played any significant role in the society. Interestingly, enough, I myself have Ukrainian and Belorussian close relatives. For me, personally, Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians are not distinguishable in many ways. Though, they have some cultural differences. For example, I found that Russians are more tolerant and flexible (more adaptive) when it comes to other nations and cultures, while Ukrainians and Belorussians are more conservative (trying to maintain their traditions). Though, some others, may have different experiences and perceptions of those brotherly nations... I think for Russians, it is important to understand, that its Western former Soviet republics are not coming back and, therefore, any attempt (or hope) to do so, will drag Russia down. I think, at this point, Russia is better of without them. Because, interaction with them requires a lot of considerations and adjustments. And as I said, I would more likely expect compromises from Russians then from those nations. For Russians it is better to maintain its close connections with the Central Asia countries. May be even renew the union. Or just stay alone...

Bogdanov, I am a European Federalist, and precisely that is an important role of the European Union (E.U.), a $16 Tr. Pole of economic development, which can attract to the Core both North African and Eastern European states...even if after the Euro (with the Structural Funds and increasing integration) further Enlargement of the Union is not possible. The alternative is the European Economic Area (EEA) which is the one Norway belongs to, and which applies most of the European "acquis communitaire" (E.U. normative) As far as the E.U. keeps and increases its unity as a $16 Tr. Economy which spends over $300 bn. on Defense, the Pole will continue increasing its attraction. Curiosly, both the U.S. and Russia (and broadly the U.K. as an American branch, for now) share a common goal on preventing a European Federation to be created as it would mean a larger Economy than America and would make impossible to deal with individual member states about different objectivesTurkey and Morocco have applied to become member states of the European Union for decades, so Russia, Ukraine and Belarus can apply too without expecting to join in the foreseeble future, and probably never unless the Eurozone becomes a political Federation which would join a loose E.U. becoming just a F.T.A. and Customs Union... From a European perspective the differences between Russia, Belarus, Eastern Ukraine and Northern Kazakhstan look minimal, much smaller than between any member states of the European Union, and more taking into account the shared Orthodox past (while Poland and Lithuania are mainly Catholic) and the Russian language (bein language an essential part of a Nation) I think Belarus was more "russified" than Tuva and the 1991 separation was just an obligation imposed upon Russia for losing the Cold War. The USSR was defeated by NATO and to be accepted by the Western Community, as happened before to the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and German Empires...

The truth is that during the 80s neither in Belarus, nor in Ukraine, nor in Kazakhstan, nor in most Central Asian Republics there was a majority demand for Independence. It was evident in the Baltics, Georgia or Western Ukraine....but on the rest there was not such demand. It was imposed by the victorious Powers (the U.S., NATO) to Gorvachov if he wanted them to integrate in the Western Market Economy. That was the requiement. In fact, a minority of the Politburo was against and they were taken under assault by Boris Yeltsin bombing the Russian Parliament as we all remember. Those who tried to avoid the conditional surrender agreement with NATO started a rebelion as we remember and a great part of them were killed. The result is very similar to the end of the Ottoman Empire which lost WWI: Turkey was left but the rest of the Empire was left to the victorious Powers, so Syria and Lebanon became French colonies, Egypt, Palestine and Iraq became British colonies....The same way, the Baltics have been integrated by NATO and the E.U. (which is a U.S. Protectorate), and so the former Russian Protectorates in Eastern and Central Europe. The next step is Georgia (accepted by Rasmussen), Ukraine, Belarus...The truth is that the Russian Empire lost WWIII and had to pay a big price. After WWI and with the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the little Austrian state was born based just on its language and ethnicity (German) So they called themselves "German Austria" but the victorious Powers forced them to change their name to just "Austria" with teh Treaty of St. Germain and forbade them to join Germany, an obligation still in force.

Bogdanov no one in Europe is waiting for Belarus with open arms, most in Europe are pretty fed up with enlargement,...Belarus will always be a neighbor of Russia no one can take that away, Belarus CAN'T replace the Russian market with the EU,... ,....we are pro EU say some we are friendship with Russia say others, all that is politics, in the end of the day Belarus will be same place it was yesterday and that's a neighbor of Russia......

Enrique, Firtly, I look at the events differently. Being an eye-wittness and a part of the transformation of the USSR to Russia and collection of other counries, I don't remember that I ever felt any external pressure which drove the revolutionary turbulence in the country. We never thought about it. I never felt, that the USSR collapsed because of the Cold War. Yes, it pushed the Soviet very ineffective economy to the limit, but, would it break the System? I don't think so. That was almost completely internal matter -- well educated new generation which arrived on the political horizon and required more freedom and better quality of life, plus, very specific charesmatic leaders (Gorbachev, Yelsyn) which shook the communist party monopoly on everything... Though, at some point, the situation might be used by the Western politicians and, probably, there were some under-water games between Yelsyn (who badly wanted to get power) and Washington and some agreed actions between them. I may assume that, considering the fact that with all his previous rational and sanity, Yeltsyn's and Kravtchuk's step to break the Union was complete insanity and absolutely unnecessary and devastating for Soviet poeple thing. The USSR was sloppy, but, it was strong enough to withstand the NATO forces... Secondly, I do not believe in the strong EU and, therefore, I don't think it presents any danger neither for the US nor for Russia. And this is especially true considering the growth of China and India, who become big players as well. The EU might make life of Europeans better. But, all-in-all, Europe, in some different form, just repeats the experience of the Soviet Union. Remember? What was brought to Russia in 1917, meant to be implemented in Europe. So, Europeans are just catching up...

Bogdanov, As I was in the West I can tell you that the USSR (Russian Empire) lost the War against NATO, and that was the price to pay: conditional surrender. Some didn´t accept it and were crushed by Boris Yeltsin. And Boris Yeltsin was right because you had lost the War and the requierement for Peace and to become part of the Western Market Economy, part of Western institutions, was the dissolution of the Union. Reember that NATO is still in force, and increasing in side. Wasn´t NATO created to face the USSR? Well, the USSR dissapeared two decades ago...and NATO is still here and receiving new members from the former USSR (next will be Georgia) Probably there is no alternative for Russia but to integrate also in the military structure of NATO (if allowed) so both the US and Russia can project their force to the Pacific while keeping a peacful enviroment in Europe.

Enrique, I don't see how Russia could ever join NATO. They would be putting central asian, Armenian, Azeri, Iranian, Mongolian and Chinese lives at risk. We all know NATO needs very little excuse to attack another country, and America makes all the decisions in NATO. I don't see how Russia could ever agree to such a thing.

Bogdanov, You're definitely projecting unbiased sense here. 'Acquiring' Belarus by political and economical pressure so far didn't produce a desirable feedback from the West and Europe. The voices of "Russia's attempts in regaining its sphere of influence in the West and Central Asia" can be heard even from the Moscow Times.You're right in saying that some post-Soviet block republics, while maintaining close ties with Russia, are not looking back to the reunification. Belarus's position under Lukashenko is clear - they don't want to be a part of Russia and the EU. Belarusian economy is balanced by cooperation under the EU Eastern European Partnership and with Russia. The latest events of the gas war with Russia prompted Belarus to diversify from Russian oil and gas, now Belarus expressed its readiness to participate in the Lithuanian LNG project led by the EU. There are numerous projects with other European countries in science, technology, ecology, education. The German connection is as strong as it was after Chernobyl and had been transformed from the technical assistance aid into the business partnership in agriculture particularly. Lukashenko is fully aware that joining the EU de facto will not bring Belarus into the 'prosperity club' as an equal member- the same as any conjoint union with Russia. That is why he keeps saying "We want to stand on our own". As to the Belarus's historic ties with Russia we're both know they only existed amicably during the USSR. Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rzecz Pospolita, Russian Tsars Empire - these eras of Belarusian history are full of facts that Belarusians never belonged willfully to Russia. Tadeusz Kosciuszko isn't an international hero in Russia, but in Belarus, Poland and even America. Throughout the wars, annexations, re-annexations and revolts Belarus was made to be a part of the Russian Empire. Enrique, I hope you'll find useful this link without frills - www.belarusdigest.com/myths_about_belarus

correction "NATO is increasing in size" About the European Union remember any country which wants to join hs to present an application. Meanwhile, in the U.S., a dozen states which tried to leave the Union during the XIX Century were invaded and crushed...

Russia joining NATO or the EU? It doesn't make any sense from many perspectives. Starting from the fact that NATO was created and still operating as the anti-Russian military block, and including the fact that "hugging" with Europe would go in contradiction with that "multipolar world" policy which Russia is pursuing currently. Plus, Russian lifestyle and mentality is different from those of Europeans who live as compartmentalized nations on relatively small territory with limited resources. What benefits would Russians get from this close cooperation? It seems to me that many Europeans look at Russia and Russians, at the best, as "village people" -- culturally and technologically "deficient". So, Russia will be just used as a cheap resource base with all wealth going in one direction -- to the West. Americans are much closer to Russians spiritually, thus, Russians would rather turn their eyes on the American experience and partnership with them. Chinese and Indians have more respect to Russians, thus, the partnership with them would be more "two-path road" (benefit) for both Russians and Asians. So, my opinion -- Russia should stay away from the EU and maintain purely business relationships with them which benefit Russia.

Bogdanov, Precisely if NATO operates "de facto" as an anti-Russian military block, joining it would authomatically neutralize its anti-Russian agenda, as it wouldn´t make sense the nuclear missiles of one member states heading towards another member state...So that way, both the U.S. and Russia could save resources from the peaceful European Front and use them in the Pacific. About the E.U, with the Common Agricultural Policy., Euro (and all the insitutions which are being created as a consequence of it), Structural and Cohesion Funds is not possible neither the integration of Russia nor the integration of Turkey as funds are limited, and there are enough middle income countries inside the Union, with many problems that the better off states have to deal. What will take place is a Customs Union and F.T.A. similar to the one Turkey already enjoys (even if they want complete integration and sent their application four decades ago, being rejected by the European Union)

Svetlana, I have read in that blog about Belarus that a third of the population is Roman Catholic...is it really so high the proportion? As in Ukraine it is evident there are two sides: one more "russified" which has been part of the Russian Empire for centuries, and another "nationalist" (belarussian or ukrainian) in the West which was annexed by Stalin during WWII and which for centuries had a History (and religion) closer to Poland or Lithuania.... It looks both Ukraine and Belarus are divided by two: a Western half traditioanlly part of the West, and which wants to join the E.U., and an Eastern half traditionally part of the Russian Empire, and which wants a permanent Union with the Russian Federation.

Enrique, Why would Russia "use its military resources in the Pacific"? Asia is not a thread to Russia. In comparison with Europe or the US, of course. I see that the propaganda machine in the West never rests -- it was demonizing Russians for a half of the century, then it switched to Muslims, and now, seems, it is Chinese turn. I believe, when Putin will be elected as next Russian president, the machine will switch to Russia again... Why the Westerners always need an enemy (in form of ultimate Evil)? May be because they never really freed themselves from the imperialist mentality and, there pointing to something "bad" which needs to be "fixed"? Enrique, the multipolar world means that the countries which create poles do not send any applications to join other poles. And I would rather prefer to see Russia as a pole -- they country which determines its internal life on its own and not how, say, Europeans, Americans, or Chinese tell them to do. As I said, most of the problems for Russia coming from Europe, so Russia would better stay away from it. Also, one note -- in almost every your post you refer to Russia as Empire. I think, to be fair, you you apply the same definition to some European countries as well -- Germany, France, Britain, ... Russia was just following their example...

Bogdanov, When I use the term "Russian Empire" I am not talking about the present Russian Federation but about Tsarist Russia, in a historical context. And the former USSR territories were basically the same as the Russian Empire (with the exception of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, which were annexed by Stalin). I just mean those territories share a historical past and that is why so many people speak Russian and most population is Russian Orthodox, while in Western Ukraine and Western Belarus culture and religion is different and closer to Poland. Of course, I know the present Russian Federation is a national Democracy, not an Empire (a term which could be applied moer to the U.S. which hs dozens of military bases in the rest of the World, including Spain, Germany, Portugal, U.K., South Korea, Japan, Italy etc, etc) About Pacific Forces, I am not saying they are going to be used; they are persusassion forces, the same way as Australia´s, Singapore´s or Chile´´s. Why should Australia, Singapore or Chile have such strong Defense if they are not going to invade their neighbors? Just for cointainment, for self-defense. And

Enrique, The percentage of Roman Catholics in Belarus should have been even higher, but I wouldn't recap on tragic events of history. Masses of Roman Catholics left the Soviet Belarus for Poland and beyond, that was more than compensated by the arrival of new Russian Orthodox believers during the Belarus's industrialisation. The Soviet system was unfavourable to those young Belarusians who wanted practice their religion openly. Many became atheists against their own ancestry only to fit into society where any religion was proclaimed as " people's opium". It's only after 1991 the people of Belarus gradually 'returning' to their chosen religion.