By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amidst Ukraine’s pressure on Belarus over its hosting of Russian military infrastructure and potential missile guidance, Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. While publicly framed as routine discussions on economic cooperation and regional security, the timing of the talks, shortly after Ukrainian President Zelenskyy’s ultimatum to dismantle Russian signal relay stations on Belarusian territory, has fueled speculation about a deepening of Belarus’ involvement in the conflict. Despite claims that the stations are no longer functioning, Belarus continues to expand military infrastructure, suggesting a complex balancing act by Lukashenko to mitigate immediate concerns while potentially deepening military cooperation with Moscow.
Read the original article here
The recent two-day meeting between Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko, conspicuously lacking any public readout, has certainly sparked a great deal of speculation, especially as Ukraine continues to press Belarus to remain neutral in the ongoing conflict. This private summit between the leaders of Russia and its close ally comes at a critical juncture, where the pressure is mounting for Belarus to either deepen its involvement or find a way to extricate itself from the increasingly complex geopolitical situation.
It’s noteworthy that even at the outset of the war, there were reports of a Belarusian general advising against entering the conflict. This suggests that internal dissent or at least a cautious approach to direct military engagement has been present within Belarus for some time. One can only surmise that the Belarusian military’s enthusiasm for joining the war is likely even lower now, given the prolonged and brutal nature of the fighting in Ukraine.
My sense is that Belarus will ultimately refrain from actively participating in the war. From my perspective, and acknowledging that I’m not privy to their internal discussions, Belarus has been remarkably adept at navigating a very narrow path. They’ve managed to offer just enough support to Russia to avoid falling out of Putin’s favor, while simultaneously avoiding the kind of deep entanglement that would invite significant resentment from Ukraine and the West. Considering how heavily reliant Belarus is on Russia, this tightrope walk has been an impressive feat of diplomatic maneuvering.
Furthermore, the reality of Ukraine’s defensive capabilities cannot be ignored. It’s quite plausible that Ukraine could inflict considerable damage on Belarus through drone attacks, and it’s unclear how Lukashenko would effectively counter such a threat. This battlefield reality, rather than a sudden change of heart, is likely a primary driver of Belarusian caution. Entering the war would simply result in the tragic waste of Belarusian lives, a point that Lukashenko himself, despite his strong ties to Russia, would surely recognize.
The idea of Putin orchestrating Lukashenko’s downfall and then forcibly enlisting the Belarusian army into the war is a grim, albeit conceivable, scenario. However, this path isn’t necessarily a guaranteed win for Putin. Such a move could backfire in numerous ways, potentially destabilizing both Belarus and Russia’s position. The absence of any public statement following their meeting also fuels speculation about the nature of their discussions. Was it a cordial meeting over tea, or was it a tense negotiation where Lukashenko felt compelled to accept an offer he couldn’t refuse, perhaps delivering a message to Putin from Ukraine?
There’s a prevalent concern that if Lukashenko were to make the drastic decision to join the war, it could lead to severe internal repercussions. A massive popular uprising, potentially igniting a civil war within Belarus, is a strong possibility. In such a scenario, Russia might intervene to “restore order,” effectively absorbing Belarus into its territory and permanently disarming its military and police. This outcome would be a complete erosion of Belarusian sovereignty, a consequence that the populace, who are reportedly largely against Lukashenko and the war, would be unlikely to accept.
From Belarus’s standpoint, there appears to be very little to gain from joining the conflict, unlike Russia. The population’s resentment towards Lukashenko is well-documented, and they are unlikely to be motivated to fight and die for a leader they largely dislike. The question also arises about Russia’s communication and operational capabilities if Belarus were to withdraw its support, such as the alleged shutdown of relay stations. Would Russia have alternative systems in place, or would this genuinely hamper their operations? And what if other nations, like Poland, were to consider intervening if Belarus were to join the war?
The notion of Lukashenko being a cunning and tactical schemer, even more so than figures like Trump or Putin, is an interesting perspective, though it’s debatable. Putin certainly possesses the power to remove Lukashenko at any time, and past events, such as the alleged death of the Belarusian foreign minister, hint at the ruthlessness with which such decisions can be enacted. Lukashenko is undeniably a survivalist, but his continued hold on power is largely dependent on Putin’s backing.
The potential for Ukraine to advance rapidly into Minsk with minimal resistance, given the widespread disdain for Lukashenko among Belarusians, is a striking possibility. This could be seen as a prime opportunity for Belarusians to oust their leader while their military is occupied. Ukraine’s drone capabilities could also prove devastating to Belarus. Such a scenario would squarely place the blame on Lukashenko for surrendering Belarusian sovereignty to Russia.
If Belarus were to join the war, the swift and decisive response from NATO would be significant. NATO forces would likely engage and neutralize Belarusian forces, leading to Russian protests but limited direct retaliation from Moscow. Such an event could serve as a powerful demonstration of NATO’s overwhelming military superiority, potentially diminishing Russia’s perceived threat and perhaps fostering greater European acceptance of NATO troop presence in Ukraine, or even on the ground.
It’s a tantalizing thought that during their two-day meeting, Putin might have received some unbiased updates on the war’s progress, although it’s unlikely. Whether this meeting will lead to a shift in Lukashenko’s position remains to be seen, particularly concerning how much leverage Putin actually wields. It’s plausible that any military aid Belarus has provided thus far has been coerced. The possibility that this meeting is more about Belarus severing its communication links to aid Russian drone operations, rather than a direct military commitment, is also a consideration.
The Belarusian army’s loyalty is questionable, and it’s possible they would pose more of a hindrance than a help to Putin. Lukashenko’s avoidance of photo opportunities, like the iconic “tea” photos from earlier times, might symbolize a deliberate distancing from certain aspects of his past persona. This meeting occurred in a context where he is no longer perceived as just a peculiar strongman but as a leader deeply entangled in a major geopolitical conflict.
The hypothetical scenario of Belarus joining Ukraine’s side, leading to a revolutionary shift, is fascinating. However, the immediate concern is the pressure from Russia, and the question of how much leverage Putin holds over Lukashenko is crucial. The notion that Lukashenko is an incompetent leader whose grip on power stems from systemic issues, rather than genuine skill, is a perspective worth considering. Putin invests heavily in maintaining the loyalty of his allies, but this loyalty is fragile and dependent on Putin’s perceived strength.
The discussion about the Belarusian army potentially marching on Moscow and installing Lukashenko as leader is a speculative but intriguing idea, especially in light of events like the Wagner mutiny. However, it hinges on a significant power vacuum and a lack of Russian opposition, which, while not impossible, remains a complex proposition. Lukashenko’s personal ambitions and his willingness to engage in risky invasions are central to understanding his future actions.