After Russia's attack on Ukraine, we and everywhere in the world began to think about how this "campaign" will end or should end.

The victory of Ukraine, the trial of Putin and his entourage, the collapse of Russia, the impossibility of democratic order in Russia, the Russian "trouble", the nuclear bomb... This is the second fact that we are "digesting" today.

But is everything right here?

And most importantly, what's next?

Lithuanian politician Andrus Kubilius wrote an article in which he questioned this fact.

Of course, the victory of Ukraine and the trial of Putin will benefit the whole world.

But will Russia collapse?

And would that "trouble" be for the benefit of the world, and first of all the neighbors?

The article was published by the Delfi portal, and translated into Belarusian by Nasha Niva.

Kubilius's conclusion is this: only democracies do not fight each other.

And only a democratic Russia would be a real guarantee of security for the world, and first of all for its neighbors.

And this is the third fact.

SEE ALSO: Member of the European Parliament: "Lukashenka is a slave of the Kremlin and a powerless servant of Putin"

Tyranny yesterday, today and... tomorrow?

Kubilius gives examples of countries that never had a democratic tradition and which, nevertheless, became fully democratic.

Today we strengthen our conviction that Russia cannot but be tyrannical.

Because she was never like that.

And such a discourse should be considered as a necessary step towards self-determination (Belarus is not Russia).

But, looking ahead, we thereby deny the possibility of a better future for Belarus, for our own children.

We say that in history no one has attacked us so often and tortured and enslaved us as much as Moscow.

And at the same time we prove that her character will not change, cannot change.

What does this proof give us?

Continuation of patience and survival, because no wall and no army can protect Belarus from its eastern neighbor.

And that neighbor will not go anywhere.

The only alternative is the third given.

Andrus Kubilyus writes:

"Putin is consistently trying to convince the West to believe in the same belief that Russia has no chance of becoming a democracy.

By his actions, he actually created and continues to create the image of a wild, Asian Russia that poisons its opponents, an aggressive state with a nuclear bomb in its hands.

And that's why the West should stop naively talking about the prospects of democracy in Russia, because it can irritate and provoke Putin and he will start threatening with nuclear weapons again.

According to Putin, the West simply has to adjust, adapt to Russia as it is now, which means that the West is simply obliged to maintain a dialogue with Putin, regardless of how he behaves.

Macron is an example of how Western leaders tend to accept and adapt to this doctrine imposed by Putin, because Macron does not believe that Russia can be different.

The consequence of this is that some Western leaders are still inclined to geopolitically "sacrifice" Ukraine in order to "align" themselves with Putin.

They say that there is no need to irritate and provoke Putin by supporting Ukraine.

Because Putin and Russia are wild, will never be different, and they still have a terrible nuclear bomb."

Thus, the idea of ​​the impossibility of democracy in Russia is primarily Putin's idea, not his critics'.

It is worth remembering Russia during "perestroika" and in the early 1990s.

It should be understood that the imperial consciousness of Russians (we are better than others) is based more on propaganda than on "genes".

Finally, it is worth comparing how we, Belarusians, have changed in our consciousness after 1994.

We were also infected with imperial consciousness, like "the same Russians".

Now we are "just Belarusians", one of many peoples.

SEE ALSO: The European Parliament offered to put Lukashenka before an international tribunal

Two plans for post-war Germany

Andrus Kubilius compares the situation with the experience of the West in relation to Germany after the Second World War.

Back in 1944, when the Allies were considering what to do with the economy of defeated Germany, a plan drawn up by US Treasury Secretary Henry Margentau was approved, known as the "Margentau Plan", which called for the destruction of Germany's heavy industry and the division of Germany into several independent states.

The basis of such a plan was the own main attitude of the Margents and their associates, that only in this way it will be possible to avoid the fact that after the war, economically enlarged Germany will start the Third World War ten years later.

But after the war, the Americans very quickly realized that such a plan was completely wrong, because it would have condemned the Germans to a long period of poverty, which would have opened the way to victory in the elections for various radicals, including communists, who would have supported Stalin.

Therefore, as early as 1946, the United States and President Harry Truman began to realize that the main goal of the United States in post-war Europe was to protect democracies from Stalin's attacks on them, and they quickly refused to implement the Margent doctrine and even hinted at the destruction of the German economy or its territorial division.

In 1947, the US announced the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, the implementation of which was aimed at the economic recovery of post-war Europe (including Germany), and behind all this there was a clear geopolitical goal - to protect European democracies from the radicalism of voters disillusioned with post-war hardships, and thus from Stalin's communist expansion.

Therefore, if we want greater security for ourselves, we must take care of democracy in Russia.

And for this, it is necessary for democratic Russia to have the opportunity to develop economically and become a strong economy.

Therefore, today, when we think about how the West will have to behave with Russia, which has lost the war, we should not consider the "Margent plans" for such a Russia, but something similar to the Marshall Plan for a democratic Russia.

Because only this will help to stabilize the Russian democracy revived after the lost war, if such a revival takes place."

SEE ALSO: Kazakevich: in 2022, the fate of Belarus will become less dependent on events inside Belarus

There is no other positive perspective

Discussions about the democratization of Russia may seem untimely, especially from the point of view of Belarus, which today itself is in the grip of tyranny.

It is more about changing the Belarusian discourse - from a complete denial of Russian democratic beginnings (the conditional Maxim Kats or the conditional "Rain" or Navalny) to talking with them and trying to convince them of the harm of atavistic imperial ideas.

As Nikita Melkozyorov recently did, for example, in a conversation with Maksim Kats.

"As soon as Russia loses the war," writes Andrus Kubilyus, "opportunities for change may appear in Russia."

It is necessary to be ready to use these opportunities.

The whole West should be ready for this, we should be ready for this, and the Russian opposition should be ready for this."

You can agree with Mr. Kubilius, you can disagree, but it seems that there is no other positive perspective for all of us, especially Russia's neighbors.

The opinions expressed in the blogs convey the views of the authors themselves and do not necessarily reflect the position of the editors

.

Secure communication

with our editors.

HERE

• Siarhei Dubovets

  dubaviecs@gmail.com

  Subscribe