Europe’s Neutered ‘Neutrals’

 “Never break the neutrality of a place or port, but never consider as neutral any place from when an attack is allowed to be made”.

 Admiral the Lord Nelson

 Neutrality?

August 19, 2020. There are two kinds of neutrals in Europe, the self-deluding non-aligned and the maliciously undermined. The Finns, Irish and Swedes fall into the first category being just about as aligned as it is possible to be aligned, albeit comfortable in the political fantasy of their ‘neutrality’.  Then there are the maliciously undermined, such as Belarus and Ukraine, for which, through the twin accidents of geography and proximity to power, ‘neutrality’ is imposed through corrosively neutered sovereignty.

In the wake of Belarus’s predictably-rigged presidential election there is much excitement amongst Europe’s chattering classes.  Lukashenko’s Nikolai Ceausescu moment is either the vanguard of democracy or a prelude to a Russian military annexation, or both, as ever the truth lies somewhere in between.  Belarus is no Ukraine and the current tensions are as yet unlikely to be the source spring of some new Maidan. Indeed, not one of those challenging the dictator Lukashenko is particularly or at all pro-Western, all having made strong pro-Russian statements and all, in one way or another, supported by factions within Russia.

Russia attacks?

That is not to say Russia is not considering the use of military force to keep Belarus firmly in Russia’s orb of strategic influence.  If, by some ‘catastrophic’ sequence of events, a group were to emerge in Minsk that was decidedly pro-Western Moscow would act. That is why President Putin has offered ‘military assistance’ to Lukashenko. Russia would rather stop the protests early because for Moscow Belarus is the hinge around which its European grand strategy turns, and home to the vital 90 km long land link to its enclave Kaliningrad. The ground is certainly being prepared for a possible Russian intervention with the usual Soviet/post-Soviet narrative about ‘outside interference’ and Lukashenko claiming “NATO troops are at our gates”. Any such intervention would also invoke the 1997 “Treaty on the Union between Belarus and Russia” to create the so-called ‘Union State’. Where there could be parallels with Ukraine given the likely nature of any Russian intervention, especially in its early stages. Expect Little Green Men!

There are some reports of Russian troop movements in the area but the sources available to this Analysis suggest they are false or exaggerated and such an intervention remains unlikely for the moment. First, the Belarussian Army remains loyal to Lukashenko, as does the oppressive and repressive security apparatus. Second, much of the protest movement is more about emerging Belarussian nationalism than a popular demand for Western-style liberal democracy. Third, Russia can still exert control over Belarus without ever having to undertake an expensive and potentially dangerous invasion.

Some time ago I pioneered the concept of 5D warfare to describe Russian statecraft. 5D warfare is applied and continuous conflict designed to exploit the many seams in complex societies via deception, disinformation, destabilisation, disruption and applied coercion via implied or actual destruction.  All 5 ‘D’s were evident in Ukraine in 2014 and still are. At least three of the five are also evident in Belarus – deception, disinformation and destabilisation. Prior to the elections Lukashenko made a big nationalist play about Russia using mercenaries to destabilise Belarus. It was pure theatre. The Kremlin may have little regard for Lukashenko as Putin sees him as a buffoon but Lukashenko, and more importantly the cronies around him, are firmly in Moscow’s pocket. Few tears would be shed in Moscow if Lukashenko went, so long as the replacement was also Russian-leaning. Indeed, there are some domestic Russian reasons why Putin might wish to play the statesman and facilitate the peaceful departure of Lukashenko.

Corrosive neutrality

Which brings me to the essential point of this Analysis. A state may appear aligned with the EU or NATO but if its institutions and leaders have been corrupted then in fact, and in spite of appearances and obligations, it is corrosively ‘neutral’.  The real power Russia exerts in Belarus is through patronage and cronyism with corruption endemic. Sadly, such influence is not confined to Belarus and is evident in some countries along the entirety of Russia’s western border with the EU and NATO…and well beyond.

Where does Belarus fit into such Russian thinking? Moscow’s wet-dream is to create a ‘security buffer’ along its western border comprised of states effectively subservient to Moscow. The corrupting of political and other elites is a vital tool in Russia’s statecraft. Thankfully, the thirst for freedom in the Baltic States has limited Moscow’s ambitions therein, others have proven more vulnerable. If a strategically-placed state refuses to bow to such coercive influence Moscow then ups the stakes by exploiting divisions within it, as Russia did in Ukraine.

The extent to which Moscow can exert ‘corrosive neutrality’ is ultimately dependent on the political capital and hard defence Western powers are willing to invest in the eastern regions of both the EU and NATO. Moscow constantly tests the resolve of the West in this regard. The fear in the Baltic States is that the US and the major Western Europeans will over time simply get tired of the common effort required to maintain freedom, particularly in the wake of COVID-19. If so, expect Moscow to step up markedly what some call ‘grey zone warfare’.

Corrosive neutrality and the geopolitics of Belarus

The West cannot ignore the geopolitics of Belarus. The hard reality is that a conflict is underway from Finnmark in the north to the Mediterranean in the south to control what might be called the strategic land littoral along the eastern borders of the EU and NATO. Belarus sits slap bang in the middle of a geopolitical conflict in which China is also playing an ever more influential role in support of Russia. The plan to build the so-called Meridian Highway between Belarus and the Middle Kingdom is designed to merge the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).  Whilst ‘privately’ financed this mega-project has much to do with boosting President Putin’s legacy and driving the economic development of Russia’s vast interior. It is also power and strategic influence.

The current crisis? Any Western help in promoting a peaceful transfer of power in Belarus will require trade-offs. Dealing with Russia is always about trade-offs. Given the nature of the opposition in Belarus Moscow might, just might, accept new presidential elections overseen by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe or OSCE. The EU and US should use targeted sanctions that progressively isolate Lukashenko and make it hard for Moscow to prop him up. As for the wider struggle Moscow needs to be constantly reminded that its efforts to impose corrosive neutrality on EU and NATO members will fail and that their peace and freedom is non-negotiable, however many Roubles are passed under however many tables.

As for Belarus, as Nelson once intimated, the West can never consider truly neutral a place from which an attack might come.

Julian Lindley-French