MONEY MUST NOT DIVIDE RUSSIA AND BELARUS

I just finished reading Adam Goodman's (Being Had) article "Isn't it Ironic...". I liked the beginning, but I don't like nor agree with his absolute stance on Putin and the Gazprom dilemma.

Of course I like and respect Chavez.

Whether or not you agree with management of the Belarusian gas subsidy, you must acknowledge the fact that Putin has prudently managed the difficult problem of Russian asset management quite nicely.

Putin is a great president, and I am sorry that he is not great enough to be able to assure and orchestrate continued Belarusian comfort via future gas subsidies.

If you are going to judge the credibility of a president, any president, you must first consider the condition of his people, consider the assets at his disposal for their welfare, and consider the foreign and domestic pressure he is facing.

I think you forget to enter the variable of Russian political stability into your equations when you chide president Putin. Is it possible that Putin could have done more for Belaurs, yes it is. It is very possible he could have worked to ensure energy subsidies. Of course ! But what is he doing with the extra money Belaurs must pay?

He invests in the Military, he invests in Russia becoming more and more a global power every day as the power of Gazprom grows. He invests a giant amount of money into Russian industry via the continued subsidy the Russian people enjoy.

Putin's most important administrative task as President of Russia must be to
ABSOLUTELY ENSURE that the oligarchs do not fulfill their socioeconomic destinies and become the deified robber barons in Russia for the next 200 years. He must do this in such a fashion that he retains some reasonable margin of error and some measure of insurance of success.

What I mean is that while Russia could possibly help Belarus with continued subsidies, the extra money they earn from not doing this is not shot into the veins of foreign financial interests. It is not likely wasted on projects that don't build the overall fitness of his country.

Putin must simultaneously reign in the oligarchs, strengthen the states power, increase military strength, and provide for as much social welfare at home as he can AND RETAIN a socioeconomic margin of error so that no matter what happens, his path with the engineering and reconstruction of a modern post soviet Russia can continue.

Putin is not the enemy of Belarus.

The bottom line is this, I have told you several times, and I will tell you again. The Soviet Union made a terrible mistake by disintegrating and not instead evolving.

Belarus managed to persevere through good character and work to her Soviet assets.

Russia and the other CIS countries just simply didn't enjoy the same degree of success in this area.

Now Russia must count on Belarus to be a loyal friend and Soviet and post Soviet family member in spite of the fact that the assets preserved by Belarus is going to be needed to help restore the whole of the CIS sphere even in areas where the population weren't as Soviet, or as diligent, or as industrious as were the Belarusians.

I say Belarusian assets must be utilized because her relative stability is a beacon for hope and homeostasis in the region. Belarus must continue to be a beacon to the region, and provide stability for others even if it will be at her own expense.

There is a metaphor between the Patriotic war and what is happening now in post soviet space. Errors were made by Stalin and his administration immediately preceding and during operation Barbarosa that were clearly injurious to the overall strength of the Soviet Union.

All parties of the Soviet Union were called upon to help pay for these mistakes by a few soviet leaders.

The Belarusians have not made the errors in character, and esprit de corps and in general economic engineering that the rest of the soviet union made a after the soviet breakup, but the Belarusians must continue to be good friends of Russia even if the Russians are not at this time reciprocating in the same fashion.

The relationship between Belarus and Russia should be judged on its average value over the past 80 years, and not upon the level of immediate injury and inconvenience that will be suffered in the next 3-10 years.

One should also imagine the continued positive cooperative benefits that will be had by all over the next 80 years in spite of the current differences in economic policy that will be injuring and hampering that Belarusians.

Mike