By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent interview, President Zelensky revealed that Belarusian President Lukashenko apologized for Belarus’ involvement in the war, claiming he was not responsible for Russian missile launches from Belarusian territory. Zelensky rejected this apology, calling Lukashenko a murderer for allowing such attacks. Despite this apology and lack of direct military involvement in the full-scale invasion, Belarus continues to allow Russia to station troops and missiles on its soil, including the recently deployed Oreshnik missile systems. This complicity comes as Lukashenko faces an upcoming presidential election, expected to secure him a seventh term.
Read the original article here
Lukashenko’s apology to Zelensky, revealed in a recent interview, presents a complex and intriguing picture of the Belarusian dictator’s actions during the early stages of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It seems he attempted to distance himself from direct responsibility, claiming that while missiles were launched from Belarusian territory, the decision wasn’t his, but Putin’s. This statement, coming “a few days into the war,” according to Zelensky, paints a picture of a leader caught in a difficult position, trying to placate both sides while preserving his own power.
The apology itself is peculiar. It’s not a full admission of guilt, more of a regretful acknowledgment of the consequences of his actions or, more accurately, his inaction. Lukashenko essentially argued that he was a passive participant, a victim of circumstance, forced to allow the use of Belarusian territory by a more powerful neighbor. Zelensky’s reaction, calling Lukashenko a “murderer,” highlights the stark contrast between the Belarusian leader’s claim of innocence and the devastating impact of the missile strikes launched from his country.
This incident underscores Lukashenko’s long-standing dependence on Russia. His regime, already isolated from the West after the disputed 2020 election and subsequent crackdown on dissent, became increasingly reliant on Russian support to maintain power. This dependence created a precarious situation where Lukashenko’s own survival was inextricably linked to Putin’s agenda. His actions throughout the war, including requests to deploy the Oreshnik missile system, demonstrate the ongoing cooperation, whether willing or coerced, between Belarus and Russia in the conflict.
The timing of Zelensky’s revelation is also significant. The interview was conducted months, even a year and a half after the event occurred, raising questions about why Zelensky chose to share this information at this particular time. Perhaps the recent escalation of the war or Lukashenko’s attempts to portray a more neutral stance have prompted Zelensky to release this anecdote, providing a counter-narrative to Lukashenko’s attempts at self-preservation.
One compelling aspect of this situation is the apparent internal conflict within Lukashenko’s position. While he has consistently aided Russia through the provision of territory and resources, his actions suggest a deeper desire for self-preservation and avoidance of direct, forceful involvement. The apology itself could be interpreted as an attempt to mitigate the long-term consequences of his choices and lessen the potential for future reprisals. The potential for a fall-out with Putin, a risk inherent in his current position, seems to be an underlying driver of his behavior.
However, this interpretation doesn’t absolve Lukashenko of his responsibility. His actions, even if born out of a fear of Putin, directly contributed to the suffering in Ukraine. The use of Belarusian territory for missile launches, the hosting of Russian troops, and continued support of Russia’s war effort are acts that will be judged harshly by history. The question of whether he had an alternative, a possibility of opposing Putin, remains largely unanswered. The constraints on his power, the potential for retaliation by Russia and internal coups, are all part of the complexities that shaped his decision-making.
Ultimately, Lukashenko’s situation highlights the difficult choices faced by leaders operating under pressure. The apology, however unconvincing, reveals a degree of pragmatism and self-preservation amidst the chaos of the war. It’s a testament to the complicated relationship between Belarus and Russia, where Lukashenko treads a delicate line between cooperation and self-preservation, seeking to maintain his own grip on power while navigating the complex web of alliances and geopolitical realities. This episode underscores the multifaceted nature of the conflict and the various motivations, some explicit, some implied, driving the actions of those involved. It’s a story far from over, with implications that continue to unfold.