Belarus without Lukashenko?

[Michael Wittmann]

What if the neo-Communist Lukashenko lost the elections? Will this mean that Belarus will join NATO and EU or somewhat?

[elyski]

Originally Posted by Epic Stuka

What if the neo-Communist Lukashenko lost the elections? Will this mean that Belarus will join NATO and EU or somewhat?

Belarus would probably have joined NATO. Not sure they would've joined the EU, then again. I'm not an expert really on Belarus.

[Blackfox5]

Belarus would probably be very similar to Ukraine. It would be somewhat a working democracy, but one in constant danger of being subverted. There would be a Western oriented democratic party pushing for entry into the EU, and a Russian oriented party more prone to authoritarian tendencies.

I very much doubt Belarus would be in NATO or apply to NATO. Russia would see a Belarus desire to be in NATO with the same vehement hatred and paranoia as to Ukraine's bid under Yuschenko. So any Belarus bid would bring in some form of hostile Russian reaction in terms of economic and diplomatic suasion.

To be honest, if Lukashenko is not in power, I think the most likely scenario is for another Russian-oriented authoritarian to take power and act very similarly. If we want a more democratic Belarus, there is a slight chance of that in which case we get the Ukraine scenario.

[Michael Wittmann]

And also will Belarusian language superseed Russian or Russian will still be frequently used?

[Blackfox5]

In terms of language, I think we will see another scenario very similar to Ukraine. The Western democratic faction will be more likely to use Belarussian and support its use. The pro-Russian faction will not be supportive and continue to use Russian.

I think there would be more Belarussian friendly policies without Lukashenko, but that Russian will probably be accorded some sort of special status, perhaps even another official language.

[strangeland]

I think you're right that developments will very much parallel Ukraine. It definitely won't be in NATO and it probably won't be in the EU, though it might be in negotiations to join the latter. It will probably be a democracy, but somewhat shakier than Ukraine, probably more like Moldova or Georgia (though it will have better relations with Russia than either of those two). Belarussian and Russian will probably both be official languages.

[Hyperbolus]

With a more democratic, slightly less corrupt government system, Belarus might well have seen more economic development and foreign investment than OTL. Perhaps greater inequality and a currency pegged to the Euro as well though.

[Wendell]

Belarus would be a more eurosceptic, but pro-NATO Slovakia.

[Dementor]

Belarus would probably be a neutral state, but closer to Russia - though it might want to join the EU. Russian and Belorussian would still be the official languages, with Russian still dominant, but Belorussian more widespread.

[Urban fox]

Originally Posted by Blackfox5

Belarus would probably be very similar to Ukraine. It would be somewhat a working democracy, but one in constant danger of being subverted. There would be a Western oriented democratic party pushing for entry into the EU, and a Russian oriented party more prone to authoritarian tendencies.

I very much doubt Belarus would be in NATO or apply to NATO. Russia would see a Belarus desire to be in NATO with the same vehement hatred and paranoia as to Ukraine's bid under Yuschenko. So any Belarus bid would bring in some form of hostile Russian reaction in terms of economic and diplomatic suasion.

To be honest, if Lukashenko is not in power, I think the most likely scenario is for another Russian-oriented authoritarian to take power and act very similarly. If we want a more democratic Belarus, there is a slight chance of that in which case we get the Ukraine scenario.

A corrupt pro-western sham democracy, instead of a corrupt pro-Russian one?

The independence of Belarus is a fluke to begin with. Its national identity is very tenuous to the degree that they’re basically are just Russians by another name. In fact I’d go so far as to say Lukashenko's power-hungry ways are the main reason that Belarus isn’t part of the Russian Federation.

[Blackfox5]

Originally Posted by Urban fox

A corrupt pro-western sham democracy, instead of a corrupt pro-Russian one?

I think Ukraine is slightly better than a sham democracy, although it has gotten close to that and could turn into it. I think "flawed democracy" would be a better term. Unlike Belarus under Lukashenko, Ukraine has seen a turnover from Kravchuk to Kuchma to Yuschenko to Yanukovych. I think the current government is taking more steps backwards than forwards on it, but one can still have hope.

I also don't think pro-Western is accurate either except under Yuschenko. Ukraine, however, is a nation torn between the West and Russia. All of its Presidents, including Yanukovych, has shown an interest in stronger times with Europe, but except for Yuschenko, all have also had a desire for good relations with Russia. Belarus would be similar, but probably slightly more pro-Russian than Ukraine.

Originally Posted by Urban fox

The independence of Belarus is a fluke to begin with. Its national identity is very tenuous to the degree that they’re basically are just Russians by another name. In fact I’d go so far as to say Lukashenko's power-hungry ways are the main reason that Belarus isn’t part of the Russian Federation.

No more a fluke than the independence of any other Soviet Republic. It is true that it has a much weaker national identity than Ukraine, but they are considered to be different from the "Great Russians" or "Little Russians"; they do have a heritage from when their lands were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; and they do have a distinct set of national symbols different than Russia. It is certainly something that can be built on, and without Lukashenko they would have been. There certainly isn't any reason why Belarus "has" to be part of Russia than Austria "has" to be part of Germany or Slovakia "has" to be part of either a Cezch-slovak state or part of Hungary or any of the Nordic countries "have" to be part of one greater Scandinavian country or any of the South Slavs "have" to be part of a single South Slavic state. Identities do have a natural change and are not set in stone. Things that determine who is "us" depends on context and history. In 100 years time, Belarus could have a firm national identity, part of the Russian identity, or something still inbetween.

While Lukashenko has prized his independence from Moscow, it's also true that anyone in power in Minsk would want to retain independence as well. The perks of running your own show is substantial. And Lukashenko has done various moves that made it seem likely that Belarus was going to rejoin Russia (the various steps, however unimplements of the Russia-Belarus union would unlikely have been undertaken by any government made up of any of the western oriented political parties).

[Michael Wittmann]

So Belarus is the Taiwan of Europe in politics. Kuomintang are Russians and DPP are Belarusians. Chinese Reunification = Union with Russia