By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a recent interview, President Zelensky revealed that Belarusian President Lukashenko called to apologize for missile launches from Belarusian territory, claiming that Russian President Putin was responsible. Lukashenko reportedly stated, “It’s not me, it’s Putin,” according to Zelensky. Zelensky expressed frustration with the international community’s inability to hold Lukashenko accountable for his actions. He firmly stated that forgiveness for Russia’s actions is impossible.
Read the original article here
Zelensky’s recent claim that Belarusian President Lukashenko apologized for missile strikes launched from Belarusian territory, blaming Putin, has sparked considerable discussion. The assertion, made during an interview, paints a picture of a desperate Lukashenko attempting to distance himself from the escalating conflict and its consequences. This alleged apology, however, is far from universally accepted.
The alleged phone call, according to Zelensky, occurred shortly after the first missile strikes. Lukashenko’s purported message, “It’s not me, it’s Putin,” suggests a calculated attempt to shift blame and mitigate potential repercussions. This aligns with observations of Lukashenko’s recent maneuvering, seemingly designed to lessen his reliance on Putin and potentially seek closer ties with the West. This strategic shift might be born from a growing awareness of Putin’s potential to turn on him, given Lukashenko’s continued dependence on Putin for his power.
However, Lukashenko’s spokesperson has vehemently denied any such apology, asserting that Belarus had nothing to apologize for. This denial immediately raises questions about the veracity of Zelensky’s claim. The lack of readily available recording evidence of the call further fuels this skepticism. While it’s standard practice to record high-level political conversations, the absence of this evidence weakens Zelensky’s narrative. This leaves us in a position where we must weigh the credibility of both claims, considering the inherent biases and motivations involved.
The timeline of events also warrants attention. The reported apology supposedly took place a few days after the initial missile strikes, suggesting that the reaction was not immediate. The delay itself could be interpreted in various ways. It could indicate a strategic calculation by Lukashenko, a period of internal deliberation, or even an attempt to assess the immediate fallout of the attacks. The lack of swift action could support the interpretation that this wasn’t a genuine expression of remorse, but instead a calculated attempt at damage control.
Several interpretations of this event are possible. It could be a genuine attempt by Lukashenko to distance himself from Putin, a desperate maneuver to secure his own survival, a carefully calculated strategic move, or simply a fabrication. Regardless of its truth, the very existence of this claim adds another layer of complexity to the already intricate geopolitical landscape. The claim is powerful in its potential to sow discord within the Russian-Belarusian alliance, and to further isolate Putin internationally.
The potential implications are significant. If accurate, the apology, however reluctant, represents a potential crack in the seemingly unbreakable alliance between Russia and Belarus. It could indicate a shift in Belarusian allegiances, raising the possibility of Belarus eventually distancing itself from Putin’s influence. While the likelihood of Belarus suddenly joining NATO or the EU might be slim, such a scenario cannot be completely ruled out. The Belarusian people’s desire for freedom and democracy adds a critical factor to this calculation, suggesting a potential for internal dissent that could be leveraged against Lukashenko and Russia.
Conversely, the claim could be a tool employed by Zelensky, a piece of psychological warfare intended to weaken Putin’s grip on Lukashenko and create fissures in the alliance. Even if the call never happened as described, the mere claim itself serves as a propaganda victory, highlighting the internal tensions within the Russian camp and potentially weakening their resolve.
Ultimately, the truth of Zelensky’s assertion remains shrouded in uncertainty. Without concrete evidence, the story remains a he-said, she-said situation, leaving room for various interpretations and fueled by skepticism. Yet, its impact is undeniable. The narrative itself, regardless of its accuracy, adds a layer of uncertainty and intrigue to the ongoing conflict, highlighting the complex relationships between nations and leaders involved in the war. The long-term effects and implications of this claim and its ensuing debate will undoubtedly shape the future trajectory of the conflict.