I thought it was an odd blip on the radar screen when I first started reading about the plan about two months ago, but as the summer dwindles away, reports of a proposed Belarus-Russia union state are slowly taking more substance, or at least not dying out. Meanwhile, stories of the proposed merger have ceased to cite any wariness by Russia of Belarus's human rights record. Last week, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko called such a state a geopolitical reality as he opened the first Belarus-Russia economic forum, a sign of even closer collaboration than splashy transgenic milk. It's step one in a plan that also includes talk of unified legal systems and organizations and of coordinated foreign policy. (File under the latter: the two countries just signed an agreement whereby Belarus will receive Russian anti-aircraft missile technology at a very good price.) Real integration is perhaps slowing down---a single currency will not be introduced at the new year. Nor does the idea seem fully funded: the union state budget stands at $110M USD, admittedly just shy of Belarus's stated gas debt to Russia, but the Kremlin is noted for using discounted gas prices as a tool when negotiating with CIS member states.

Beyond these scattered reports, I haven't found much more substantial coverage of the idea. Today, the Baltimore Sun mentioned in passing that when Putin's term expires in 2008 and he is constitutionally barred from a third term, he might become president of the proposed Belarus-Russia union state. (Putin has recently staunchly denied any intentions to seek a third term anyway). In particular, while coverage explaining Belarus's interest in such a deal abounds, there's been little talk, even in the Russian papers, of why precisely the Kremlin would be interested in the plan. A union state would be a fraction of the CIS Russia at one point wanted (though such a dream has grown significantly more distant) but one that Russia could well grab, netting it a fairly socioeconomically and ethnically homogenous nation that borders the two of the Baltics, Poland, and Ukraine. Albeit a nation with a lower standard of living than Russia, and its own politics to untangle.

It's hard also to tell from these reports of what precisely the union will consist: will it go further in integration than EU-style common borders and currencies? As a practical matter, it seems difficult to counter Moscow, particularly given the economic relationship between the two nations; loss of veto power could be loss of much of Belarus's independence. It's that last bit that, in the end, strikes me as the the strangest element of this scheme. Belarus's Lukashenko is, by the CIA's standards, a dictator. He's fairly secure, so far as these things go, in his power. Yet he is courting a much larger and more powerful country to offer to cut a deal that would lesson his power and prestige. It could, though the practicalities remain to be seen, even be good for Lukashenko's country (getting in on the Russia 2008 plan doesn't sound half bad). But my cynical and pragmatic side notes that joining the Kremlin's protectorate could be the most practical retirement scheme for a politician who has decided it's dacha time but would like someone else to watch his back.

I know that blogging has reached a rather tepid pace around here, for which I blame the start of school, the law journal, a lovely visit from co-blogger Sudeep, a nasty sickness, and a few other things. Contary to what some of you have suggested, though, this probably does not herald the one-fives of Crescat. There will be plenty more to come, especially once I find out what classes I am taking and can therefore stop attending the ones I am not.

In the meanwhile:

1: Judge John Roberts's confirmation hearing begins today. I will not be able to watch it during class, but will catch up later unless distracted by the arrival of more Buffy DVDs.

2: There is a rollicking debate at Prawfsblawg (in which I have participated) about whether or not good interdiscplinary work is done by those without Ph.D.s in the cognate discipline. Everybody involved seems to agree that the answer is "yes", although there is a great deal of debate about how much.

3: The Chicago Transit Authority is planning to crack down on eating-and-drinking on the trains. (Unlike the Washington Metro they will not only tolerate but encourage the consumption of consummables while waiting on the platforms). This could give rise to a whole new line of fascinating meritless lawsuits, although probably without John Roberts to hear them.