Why the U.S. Should Supply Belarus With Oil

Belarus—a country that’s not quite Russia and not quite the European Union (EU). Often dubbed “Europe’s last dictatorship” under the 26-year rule of its president, Alexander Lukashenko, Belarus has made notable media headlines. In recent years, attention has been drawn to the country’s human rights violations against political protesters, its decision to maintain open borders amidst the coronavirus, and recently, the nation’s refusal to abide by newly imposed Russian trade regulations.

The new regulations were presented by Russian President Vladimir Putin at the end of 2019, with the intention of fostering greater economic cooperation between the two nations. In exchange for reduced oil prices from Russia, Belarus would have to agree to become “integrated deeper into the Russian trade network,” likely losing some of its own export autonomy. In the words of Lukashenko, “the changes were not only deliberate, but meant to put the country further into Moscow’s embrace.” After Belarus refused to abide by the propositions, Russia retaliated by freezing all oil shipments to the nation in three day increments, eventually resuming shipments at unrealistic prices.

Prior to the present oil price dispute, Russia was the provider of nearly 80 percent of Belarus’ oil needs, offering heavily reduced prices. After signing a “sister-state” agreement in 1996—a pact that encouraged travel, economic aid, and a military alliance—Belarus became the protégé of its Eurasian neighbor. As one of the poorest nations recovering from 70 years of Soviet rule, Belarus was in need of Russian aid at the time. Nearly 25 years later, the Belorussian economy has become a reflection of the Russian market, with its own currency mirroring the value of the Russian ruble. Now, as the nation has become Russia’s next political target, Belarus is left with relatively few options. If it caves into Russian foreign policy demands, Belarus would lose the remainder of its financial sovereignty and ultimately be coerced into joining the Russian state. Present attempts to bypass Russian oil prices through the purchase of Norwegian oil is a temporary fix: as the 14th largest exporter of oil in the world, Norway also happens to be geographically close to Belarus and can thus provide modest shipping costs for its oil. Unfortunately, decreased shipment costs are not enough to provide oil at accessible prices and leave rates that are still too demanding of the crippled Belorussian economy.

Fortunately, global leaders have taken notice of the oil crisis happening in Eastern Europe. The EU has already begun talks of removing scrutinized trade regulations on the nation in hopes of leveling Belarus’s economic dependency on Russia. In a visit to the former Soviet Republic earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed that “the U.S. can supply 100 percent of Belarus’s oil needs.” But, the U.S. has yet to act on such bold promises.

In light of the U.S. searching for methods to curb Russian aggression—by backing Ukrainian nationalists in Maidan, condemning Russian involvement in Syria, and accusing Russia of involvement in domestic elections—supporting Belarus in a recurring oil dispute may seem like merely another counterattack on a U.S. rival. But by bolstering the Belorussian economy through oil shipments and lifted trade sanctions, the U.S. will develop Belorussian neutrality. During recurring conflicts between Russia, NATO, and the U.S., Belarus can serve as a valuable buffer zone independent of influence from either party. In the case of future trade ultimatums from Russia, Belarus will be able to protect itself and its neighbors, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—NATO’s weakest members. In light of growing tensions over alleged Russian meddling in U.S. elections, securing Belorussian neutrality should be prioritized—balancing the scales of the Belorussian economy through reduced-cost oil shipments is an important start.

Aside from political motives, U.S. economic assistance in Belarus will provide crucial humanitarian aid. Though less than six percent of Belarus’s 10 million inhabitants are considered to be living in poverty, it is important to recognize the true nature of Belorussian living standards. The infrastructure of the nation has remained virtually unchanged since the Soviet era, while an institutionalized wealth gap places one-third of the nation’s wealth in the hands of the top 20 percent. The average Belorussian citizen lives in the lower middle class, a condition that contributes to high rates of emigration. And U.S. oil provisions do more than stimulate Belorussian economic independence: they legitimize Belarus in the eyes of European nations and incentivize them to provide immigration pathways and increase employment opportunities by lifting trade barriers that are otherwise in place.

While the U.S. supplies Belarus with oil, the Belorussian government will concentrate on the emerging nuclear industry in the nation: an energy source that President Lukashenko hopes will reduce dependency on oil by 50 percent. Meanwhile, by supplying Belarus with oil, the U.S. will secure a neutral territory on the Russian border, gain a buffer zone for NATO and EU members, and indirectly provide humanitarian aid to the nation. Though providing oil at reduced costs may come at a short-term economic disadvantage, it is clear that the long-term benefits outweigh the losses. In the meantime, we should watch how this small Eastern European nation can become a crucial player in global relations.