Budget of the Mogilev region, first Quarter 2011
Revenues of the consolidated budget of the Mogilev region during the first quarter of 2011 amounted to Br 1034.7 billion, while the expenditure budget equaled to Br 998.3 billion.
65.8% or Br 656.7 billion of the consolidated regional budget was allocated to cover the priority expenses (wages with charges, medicines and medical products, food products, the current budget transfers to population, subsidies, housing organizations, utilities, debt service payments by local authorities and government).
In the first four months of the year the regional budget has minimal surplus. The ongoing financial crisis started in April and therefore it did not have a significant impact on the reported budget figures. At the same time the financial crisis will affect the second quarter of this year and significant deficit of the regional budget is expected. Indeed, it will also affect the decision of the Russian Federation to raise export duties on oil products. First of all, it will impact the chemical and textile cluster of Mogilev (Mogilevchimvolokno, Mogotex).
Over the past year, military-political relations between Minsk and Kyiv have become complicated. Due to their high inertia and peculiarities, this downward trend would be extremely difficult to overcome.
The root cause of the crisis is the absence of a common political agenda in the Belarusian-Ukrainian relations. Minsk is looking for a market for Belarusian exports in Ukraine and offers its services as a negotiation platform for the settlement of the Russo-Ukrainian war, thereby hoping to avoid political issues in the dialogue with Kiev. Meanwhile, Ukraine is hoping for political support from Minsk in the confrontation with Moscow. In addition, Ukraine’s integration with NATO presupposes her common position with the Alliance in relation to Belarus. The NATO leadership regards the Belarusian Armed Forces as an integral part of the Russian military machine in the western strategic front (the Baltic states and Poland). In addition, the ongoing military reform in Ukraine envisages a reduction in the number of generals and the domestic political struggle makes some Ukrainian top military leaders targets in politically motivated attacks.
Hence, the criticism of Belarus coming from Ukrainian military leadership is dictated primarily by internal and external political considerations, as well as by the need to protect the interests of generals, and only then by facts.
For instance, initially, the Ukrainian military leadership made statements about 100,000 Russian servicemen allegedly taking part in the Russo-Belarusian military drill West-2017. Then the exercises were labelled quazi-open and military observers from Ukraine refused to provide their assessment, which caused a negative reaction in Minsk. Further, without citing specific facts, it was stated that Russia was building up its military presence in Belarus.
Apparently, the Belarusian and Ukrainian Defence Ministries have entangled in a confrontational spiral (on the level of rhetoric). Moreover, only a small part of the overly hidden process has been disclosed. That said, third states are very likely to take advantage of the situation (or have already done so). This is not only about Russia.
The Belarusian Defence Ministry officials are restrained in assessing their Ukrainian counterparts. However, such a restraint is not enough. Current military-political relations between Belarus and Ukraine are unlikely to stabilise without the intervention of both presidents.