Russian-Belarusian Integration: Playing Games Behind the Kremlin Walls by Alex Danilovich (review)

Abstract

608 Рецензии/Reviews Dmitry SHLAPENTOKH Alex Danilovich, Russian-Belarusian Integration: Playing Games Behind the Kremlin Walls (Basingstoke : Ashgate, 2006). 234 pp. ISBN: 978-075-464-630-3. Belarus is definitely not a superpower or a rising great power. Still, it has taken many visible and seemingly contradictory steps in the realm of foreign policy, at least from the external observer’s point of view. And quite a few of these steps could have broad and quite serious implications for the global community, even changing the balance of power on a grand scale. Indeed, Belarus recently increased contact with China and this could very well provide China a footstep into Europe. Belarus ’s relationship with Iran could provide Iran with diplomatic support and technological know-how at a time when Iran has become increasingly isolated. As a matter of fact, the role of Belarus as the provider of essential technology and even advanced weapons to Iran increased sharply after Russia’s recent (summer 2010) decision to join the West in imposing sanctions on Iran. According to rumors, it was Belarus that provided Iran with S-300 advanced antiballistic and antiaircraft missiles that could well complicate U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran. Together with Iran, Belarus is fully supported by leftist Venezuela and anti-Israeli and implicitly anti-American Syria, with whom President Lukashenko met. Lukashenko’s cooperation with anti-Western regimes does not mean that he is a devoted enemy of the West. As a matter of fact, he winked at Teheran and Brussels at the same time, and one can assume, Belarus’s flirtation with the European Union could change the balance of power in Europe. Belarus’s relationship with Russia has played quite an important role in the foreign relations of both countries. Indeed, Belarus was the only country in the post-Soviet era that expressed a desire to join Russia in some kind of union, and this was as early as the Yeltsin era. Still, not much has been written, at least in English, on the Russian/Belarusian relationship and Belarus in general, and only recently have books on the subject started to emerge.1 The book 1 Nelly Bekus. Struggle Over Identity: The Official and the Alternative “Belarussiannes”. Budapest and New York, 2010; Andrew Savchenko. Belarus: A Perpetual Borderland. Leiden and Boston, 2009. While Belarus is not of much interest to Western scholars, social science in Belarus continues to develop, despite Lukashenko’s authoritarian rule. The collection of articles, “Istoricheskii poisk Belarusi” (Historical Search for Belarus), could serve as an example here. It includes articles on a variety of subjects. Quite a few of them have nothing to do with Belarus. Still, some do and the most interesting one is based on archival materials (Istoricheskii poisk Belarusi: al’manakh / Red. A. Iu. Bundin. Minsk, 2006). 609 Ab Imperio, 4/2010 under review here is important not only because it covers this important subject but also because the author employs a fresh approach to the topic. There are, of course, different explanations as to why nations engage in war or join together in alliances. For some it is just an aspect of the biological drive – social Darwinist explanations regard aggressiveness as a part of human nature, which makes friendship fleeting. It can be manifestations of mysterious cosmic energy that provide nations with “passionarnost’” as Lev Gumilev put it, and drive them either together or apart. For others, the conflicts or unions are caused by ideological and cultural differences or similarities. One can clearly see this approach in works of the late Samuel Huntington or of Alexander Dugin. Finally, there are pragmatists, such as John J. Mersheimer , who see no reason for war or peace other than state interests. The problem with all of these grand schemes, at least in our view, is that their protagonists are attempting to find a universally applicable theory. Yet one can hardly find a theory that works for all countries, and at all times. This does not mean that each theory should be used only for a given country. It just implies that particular groups of countries and different circumstances require a unique approach. Danilovich provides his own theory of foreign policy, which...