Klaskouski: If Potash Goes Through Klaipėda, It Will Reduce Belarus's Dependence on Russia

Donald Trump openly stated that a large-scale potash deal with Belarus is being prepared. As is known, the cheapest route for exporting Belarusian fertilizers is through Lithuanian Klaipėda. But since 2022, it has been closed due to sanctions. Now Americans are trying to convince the Lithuanian and Latvian authorities to agree to the transit of potash from Belarus.

The leader of the democratic forces, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, reacted to Trump's message in a comment to AFP as follows: "Our position is that now is not the time to trade with the regime, as long as all potash fertilizer revenues go to repression, go to support the Russian war machine."

As in the anecdote about the increase in vodka prices

First of all, the question arises: where does the conviction come from that all potash revenues go specifically to repression and the support of Russian militarism? They also go to workers' wages and the state budget, i.e., to social expenditures.

In general, even buying groceries in a Belarusian store indirectly feeds the regime. So, should its opponents switch to foraging?

If the regime's resources shrink, it will first economize on ordinary citizens, but in any case, it will try to satisfy the needs of the Family and the repressive apparatus. As in the old anecdote about the price increase of vodka: "Dad, will you drink less now?" — "No, son, now you will eat less."

Therefore, the hope that sanctions will force the autocrat to soften his policy seems not very well-founded. Rather, the opposite: to retain power under worse conditions, he will have to tighten the screws.

If someone believes that economic suppression can lead the people to hunger riots, then, firstly, this is an inhumane experiment, and secondly, in North Korea, with its deplorable standard of living, no one rebels against the authorities.

Should We Focus on Lukashenka?

And now specifically about potash transit through Klaipėda. Tsikhanouskaya's team is against such a scenario. For example, when US Presidential Special Envoy John Caule publicly raised this topic in March, advisor to the democratic leader Dzianis Kuchynski stated to BNS: "In our opinion, now is not the time for Lithuania to offer Lukashenka any political or economic concessions, such as political dialogue or potash fertilizer transit.

A complex behind-the-scenes game is currently underway regarding this transit, the outcome of which is difficult to predict. In any case, Washington has ways to interest Vilnius or Riga.

But here I am talking about the position of the democratic forces. Some of their representatives are convinced that if the Lithuanians agree to transship potash through Klaipėda again, it will be exclusively a triumph for Lukashenka. But do you not admit that Belarus will primarily benefit, as its logistical dependence on Russia will weaken?

By the way, I conducted a poll on this matter in my Telegram channel. So, 49% believe that the resumption of potash transit through Klaipėda or Ventspils will be a win only for the autocrat, and 51% believe that it will be a win for our country. As we can see, even among a predominantly opposition audience, the votes were almost equally divided.

Everything that weakens dependence on Russia is beneficial for our country

And now let's analyze the argument about feeding the Russian regime. In fact, it is now that it is skimming the cream off the transshipment of Belarusian fertilizers through its ports. Moreover, if the lion's share of Belarusian foreign trade goes through Russia, it allows the Kremlin to keep its ally on a tighter leash.

If we imagine that Belarusian potash goes through Klaipėda, then the Lithuanian railway and its port, and ultimately the budget of an EU country, will receive significant profits. The feeding of the Putin regime, in turn, will decrease. In addition, Belarusian potash producers will strengthen their positions in competition with Russian rivals (against whom, incidentally, Europe has not introduced such strict restrictions).

So sometimes Lukashenka's opponents should, perhaps, curb their sanction zeal and apply cold reason.

The restrictive measures of the West will not destroy Russia's independence — if only because it is a nuclear power. But Belarus's sovereignty is under attack. It's absurd to burn down the house to fry an egg.

And conversely — it is worth promoting all those measures that offer a chance to at least slightly weaken Belarus's dependence on the empire.

• 1
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0