By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stated that equipment used to guide Shahed drones towards targets in Ukraine is being installed near the Belarusian border, even on residential buildings. This equipment is reportedly assisting in directing the drones towards Ukraine’s western regions. According to military communications expert Serhii “Flash” Beskrestnov, the drones are guided from Belarusian territory, and attacks are focused on disrupting the Kyiv-Kovel railway line. Zelenskyy also announced plans to modernize drone distribution to Ukrainian military units following criticism regarding their supply.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy: Antennas are installed on rooftops in Belarus to guide Shahed drones. It’s a chilling thought, isn’t it? The idea that Belarus, already a party to this conflict from day one, might be escalating its involvement. The news that antennas are allegedly being installed on Belarusian rooftops to guide Shahed drones, well, it certainly raises the stakes. We’re talking about a country that has, from the outset, allowed Russia to use its territory as a staging ground, provided logistical support, and even hosted Russian forces. They’ve been complicit in the attacks, and now, potentially, they’re actively assisting in them.
This situation places Ukraine in a really tough spot. It’s a strategic dilemma, a difficult choice between two potentially bad outcomes. They can’t simply ignore it. Given the circumstances, it makes these installations legitimate military targets. While the role Belarus plays is highly frustrating, Ukraine has no reason to expand the front by that much. Adding Belarus to the conflict wouldn’t benefit them, as it would require more resources that they can’t afford. It really suits Ukraine to keep the border with Belarus quiet. This allows them to concentrate most of their forces on the active frontline with Russia.
The implications are serious. It’s almost like Belarus is trying to have its cake and eat it too. They’re helping Russia but not fully committing their military. If proven, they’ll deny the proof. This is exactly what they want. You attack them, now they are actively at war with “aggressors” and can fully commit their army to war. Then Putin can say “Ukraine attacked a peaceful nation!” The question arises, what’s the end game here? Are they trying to provoke Ukraine into a wider conflict? To draw more Western condemnation? Is this a carefully orchestrated plan to shift the blame and potentially gain more international sympathy?
Let’s not forget the bigger picture. Belarus is, to all intents and purposes, a vassal state of Russia. They’re effectively part of Russia, either formally or informally. This has been the case for a while, and the situation is unlikely to change without a significant shift in power dynamics. Belarus is the staging ground. This is like a “return to sender” situation.
However, there’s another side to this coin. Ukraine knows the potential consequences of direct action. A full-blown confrontation with Belarus could be a dangerous gamble. It could lead to widespread protest and civil unrest that could quickly overwhelm the Belarusian military, which already has low morale. The moment Ukraine conducts an overt attack on Belarusian soil, Trump/MAGA, Orban, PiS and all other Russian stooges will throw a giant fit and use it as an excuse to withhold support again or even threaten to abandon Ukraine completely…Lukashenko knows that direct military involvement would likely create dissident factions in the Belarussian military.
So, where does that leave Ukraine? They’re in a bind. They can’t ignore the threat, but they can’t afford to escalate the conflict either. The best they can do is try to get NATO to put pressure on Belarus. It’s a delicate dance, a constant calculation of risk and reward. It is a dilemma indeed. The situation is a classic example of asymmetric warfare, where smaller powers use the constraints of a larger one to their advantage. Ukraine will have to continue to carefully balance its strategic objectives with the political realities of the situation, hoping for the best possible outcome in a truly difficult circumstance.