Exit polls indicate Alexander Lukashenko secured a seventh term as Belarusian president with 87.6% of the vote, a result widely condemned by the US and EU as neither free nor fair due to the suppression of opposition and independent media. Lukashenko, in power since 1994, has overseen a crackdown on dissent following the 2020 protests and allowed Russia to utilize Belarusian territory for its invasion of Ukraine. The election, featuring largely unknown opposition candidates, saw an 81.5% turnout, although an estimated 300,000 Belarusians in exile were unable to vote. International observers and exiled opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya dismissed the election as a sham.
Read More
The European Union deemed Belarus’s presidential election illegitimate, citing widespread human rights abuses, restrictions on political participation and the media, and the Belarusian regime’s complicity in Russia’s war against Ukraine. Consequently, the EU announced further targeted sanctions against the Belarusian government, though specifics remain undisclosed. The EU’s criticism highlights the lack of free and fair processes, including the late invitation of OSCE observers, and the imprisonment of over 1,000 political prisoners. A meeting between EU officials and Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya followed the announcement.
Read More
The West’s condemnation of Belarus’s recent election, which secured Alexander Lukashenko a seventh term, is loud and clear. It’s difficult to ignore the overwhelming evidence suggesting the election was anything but free and fair. The sheer scale of the suppression of political opponents, with many jailed or forced into exile, casts a long shadow over the proceedings.
The Belarusian leader himself, in a press conference, offered a chilling justification for his opponents’ imprisonment. He claimed they had “chosen” their fate, painting a picture of individuals who willingly subjected themselves to confinement for their actions. His claim that no one is prevented from speaking out rings hollow in light of the numerous reports of political prisoners and a heavily restricted media landscape.… Continue reading
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 More
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 More
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko announced the deployment of undisclosed numbers of tactical nuclear warheads in Belarus, emphasizing their deterrent effect against border incursions. He further revealed plans for the joint deployment of Russian “Oreshnik” medium-range ballistic missiles in Belarus by mid-2025, with Belarusian control over targeting decisions. These deployments are ostensibly a response to perceived threats from neighboring countries. Lukashenko stressed that while Belarus will use the missiles jointly with Russia, target selection will remain solely under Belarusian control.
Read More
Belarusian President Lukashenko announced the deployment of over a dozen Russian nuclear warheads to Belarus, a move seemingly confirming previous reports. This action follows a newly signed treaty between Russia and Belarus strengthening their defense alliance, granting both countries access to all available forces and means for mutual defense. While Russia maintains control over the weapons, the deployment raises concerns about nuclear safety and escalates regional tensions. The move has been condemned by Belarusian opposition figures as a further subjugation of Belarusian independence to Russian interests.
Read More
Lukashenko’s latest statements concerning the potential Russian annexation of Belarus resonate with a chilling urgency. The implications of his words cannot be overstated; they suggest the very real possibility of conflict and escalation in an already tense geopolitical climate. As I reflect on his complex relationship with the Kremlin, it’s hard not to see Belarus as a precarious pawn on a chessboard dominated by Russian interests.
The idea that Russia might formally annex Belarus appears to be less about necessity and more about ambition, creating a sense of unease. Russia maintains a foothold in the region, effectively using Belarus as a buffer against NATO expansion.… Continue reading
Lukashenko’s warning of potential war if Russia attempts to annex Belarus has ignited a whirlwind of speculation and interpretations. This declaration feels like a courageous stand of independence, but I can’t help but see it as a strategic maneuver steeped in the complexities of his relationship with Putin. It raises questions about the dynamics of power, loyalty, and survival in the face of external threats. At first glance, it seems perplexing that Lukashenko would warn of war, given that he has acted as a staunch ally of Russia thus far. Yet, his statement suggests a deep-seated apprehension about his own position—perhaps he senses the tide of allegiance might be turning.… Continue reading
Lukashenko’s remarks about the potential involvement of North Korean troops in the Ukraine conflict present a stark insight into the tangled web of international alliances and the precarious balance of power in Eastern Europe. Describing the idea as “rubbish” while simultaneously recognizing it as a significant escalation of the war reflects a deeper underlying anxiety that pervades his regime. I find it fascinating, albeit disturbing, how self-preservation is the driving motive behind these comments, as if he is attempting to navigate a chaotic landscape without stepping on too many toes—especially his own.
The notion that North Korean soldiers may fight on behalf of Russia does not seem far-fetched when considering the desperation both nations share in the face of mounting challenges.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood