Many Americans have come to understand the risks that the dismal human rights records and authoritarian repression in countries like Russia and China pose to the U.S. homeland. After all, those countries’ leaders are not content with confining their ambitions to within their borders. They like to project their strength onto other States as well, as we see with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, China’s threats against Taiwan, and regular cyberattacks against the United States and its allies. Other examples include the reported Russian assassination plot against German executives and China’s recent escalation against the Philippines.
But what about smaller countries run by authoritarian regimes? Why should Americans care about them? Belarus offers a good case for why they should.
With a population of some 9.2 million people, Belarus borders Russia and Ukraine, along with three NATO member States, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Alexander Lukashenka won election to the presidency in 1994 and has refused to relinquish power ever since, making him, at three decades, one of the longest-ruling leaders in the world. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice famously called him “Europe’s last dictator” (though a few other leaders in Europe have since added themselves to the list of those rigging their elections or suppressing any opposition).
And yet most Western governments don’t recognize Lukashenka as the country’s legitimate leader. This is because he stole the last presidential election four years ago this month, claiming – contrary to all available evidence — that he, and not opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, won the vote by a landslide. This claim was rejected by domestic election observers and Western capitals and organizations. Lukashenka responded to massive peaceful protests against his theft of the election with the harshest crackdown since the country regained independence in 1991. Thousands were arrested and many others forced into exile. More than 1,400 political prisoners are suffering in Belarusian jails, subject to inhumane conditions. A recent mass amnesty timed to the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Belarus from Nazi Germany involved only five political prisoners.
So, why should the United States care about Belarus? There is the obvious moral reason: American and universal values should not abide illegitimate rulers anywhere and instead should stand with Tsikhanouskaya and the people of Belarus. But there also are key national security reasons, not the least of which involve hybrid operations meant to destabilize U.S. partners in the region and the possible presence in Belarus of Russian nuclear weapons.
It’s also worth noting that Belarus was involved in the prisoner exchange that occurred August 1, having detained a German citizen and convicted him on spurious charges of terrorism. Lukashenka pardoned him earlier in the week, setting the stage for that element of the multi-country swap.
The Threat Posed by Lukashenka
In May 2021, Lukashenka reminded the world of the danger that he and his regime pose when he ordered his military to force a Ryanair civilian airliner traveling from Athens to Vilnius to land in Belarus instead. His security services had learned that a blogger who had been scathing in his criticism of Lukashenka was on board. Forcing the plane down to arrest Roman Protasevich was Lukashenka’s way of silencing such criticism.
In the process, Lukashenka endangered all 123 passengers on the plane and essentially engaged in air piracy. He sent a fighter jet to intimidate the pilots into making the unscheduled landing. What if they had decided to defy Belarusian authorities’ orders? It apparently didn’t matter to Lukashenka the danger he placed those on board — he was determined to silence the attacks against him and went to extraordinary lengths to do so. (Protasevich was later pardoned in 2023 after enduring considerable coercion.)
As if that wasn’t bad enough, several months later Lukashenka decided to retaliate against several of Belarus’ neighboring States for supporting sanctions against him and his regime. He lured refugees and asylum seekers from the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia and forced them to the borders with Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania. Several were killed in the process. And in a reminder that matters remain tense, just this past June, a Polish soldier was stabbed to death at the border with Belarus.
Lukashenka’s weaponization of refugees, likely with Russian complicity and support, revealed his utter disdain for human life other than his own. It caused a humanitarian nightmare and massive headaches for Poland and Lithuania, which was Lukashenka’s goal. Lukashenka knew that immigration and refugee flows were sensitive topics within many European Union countries, and he sought to tap into that sentiment for his own personal gain.
Lukashenka’s Complicity in the Invasion of Ukraine
Beyond the Ryanair incident and the weaponization of refugees, Lukashenka played a key role in the decision of Vladimir Putin, Russia’s like-minded dictator, to invade Ukraine. Indeed, had it not been for Lukashenka, Putin might well not have been able to launch his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Russia had provided invaluable assistance and even security forces for Lukashenka to pursue his 2020 crackdown on Belarusians, the worst such use of force since his coming to power three decades ago. Even before he stole that election, Lukashenka had been heavily dependent on Putin for support. In exchange, he surrendered much of Belarusian sovereignty and territorial integrity, permitting Russian forces to take control of more land for establishing bases, effectively establishing a launching pad for the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Those Russian forces stationed in Belarus were critical to the initial surge in February 2022. Indeed, had they not had Belarus from which to launch their attack on northern Ukraine and Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, it’s possible Putin would have had to rethink his whole gamble. When Ukrainian forces pushed back on the surge of Russian troops from Belarus, Putin pulled them back into Belarusian territory, and Lukashenka gave them sanctuary.
The Disconnect in Western Thinking on the Internal-External Nexus
Despite the central role that Belarus played in Russia’s February 2022 invasion, the West has largely ignored developments inside Belarus. And when it did pay attention, including before the 2020 presidential election, it did so counterproductively.
In the lead-up to Belarus’ 2020 election, the West engaged in efforts to lure Lukashenka away from Moscow. This included visits to Minsk from top U.S. officials in the fall of 2019 and early 2020 that included an offer to provide Belarus with all of its oil and gas needs. These efforts were utterly misguided from the outset given Lukashenka’s brutal human rights record, his total dependence on Putin for staying in power, and his tendency to play Russia and the West off each other. Such visits not only failed to warn Lukashenka against any election theft but gave him the impression that he could get away with such behavior.
More recently, the communique coming out of NATO’s 75th anniversary summit in Washington notes Belarus’ complicity in Russia’s invasion, saying Lukashenka “continues to enable this war by making available its territory and infrastructure. Russia’s deepening political and military integration of Belarus, including the deployment of advanced Russian military capabilities and personnel, has negative implications for regional stability and the defense of the Alliance.” Yet, the communique makes no reference to developments inside Belarus itself that are so inextricably linked to its foreign policy.
Include Belarus as Part of the Axis
Usually when analysts and officials discuss the Russia-China-North Korea-Iran axis, nowhere is there mention of Belarus, even though it deserves being listed in this disreputable group. Belarus’ foreign minister was recently in North Korea comparing notes with the dictatorial regime in Pyongyang. Chinese military personnel visited Belarus in early July for joint exercises designed to “exchange experience, coordinate Belarusian and Chinese units, and create a foundation for the further development of Belarusian-Chinese relations in the field of joint training of troops,” according to the Belarusian Defense Ministry. Those exercises came days after Belarus formally joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization led by Russia and China. Lukashenka and Putin, of course, meet regularly.
This collaboration among authoritarian States poses a threat to their own citizens first and foremost but also to those living elsewhere, including in Europe, and in the bigger picture, those in the United States. Belarus definitely should be included in this axis. After all, Lukashenka claims to have permitted the deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus, a clear step designed to threaten Ukraine and other countries in the region, including NATO member States. Pavel Muraveiko, Belarus’ chief of the general staff, even threatened to use these weapons “if the sovereignty and independence of our country is threatened.” “We’ve learned how to handle these weapons,” Muraveiko said, “We know how to apply them confidently. We are able to do it.”
There are still questions about the claims of such weapons in Belarus, and Belarus likely has no actual command and control over the tactical nukes, but Russia and Belarus still conducted drills in June on how to use such weapons, likely for theatrical effect. The irony, of course, is that the only country threatening Belarus’ sovereignty and independence is Russia.
The best way to help Belarus overcome the stifling grip of Lukashenka’s rein is to help Ukraine win the war against Russia. The reverberations of a Russian defeat would clearly and quickly be felt in neighboring Belarus. The people of Belarus would feel emboldened by a Ukrainian victory, and Putin would be distracted by having to recover from a forced withdrawal of his troops from Ukraine. Putin might decide that solidifying Lukashenka’s position would be vital to avoid a domino-like effect of falling regimes that could reach Moscow. But just as Putin’s forces never really understood why they were fighting Ukrainians, Russian soldiers similarly would be at a loss to figure out why they would fight to keep the unpopular Lukashenka in power.
Even before Ukraine emerges victorious, the West should turn its attention to Belarus and make clear to Belarusians inside the country and those in exile that a Western orientation in the post-Lukashenka period could be in that country’s future. As Richard Cashman, a British expert on the region with the Centre for Defense Strategies in Kyiv, argued in a recent analysis, such an approach “should involve acknowledging the possibility of removing sanctions, enhancing access to EU travel, education, and capital, and eventually embracing Belarus’s modest population of 9.2 million people under democratic leadership and after deep structural reforms.” All this would further incentivize Belarusians to seek change.
The United States, together with European allies, provides significant support for Belarusian civil society and media. Belarusian democratic forces depend on such assistance. Since 1992, U.S. assistance has totaled more than $1 billion. Focused principally on Ukraine, however, the State Department rarely comments on the situation in Belarus these days. The fourth anniversary of Lukashenka’s stolen election on August 9 would be a good opportunity to do so. Former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently co-authored a Washington Post op-ed with Tsikhanouskaya, while other members of Congress, including the U.S. Helsinki Commission, have kept attention focused on Belarus.
A Belarus liberated from Lukashenka’s grip and no longer under Russian control and influence would be a huge boost to security and prosperity as well as democracy in the region and beyond. It would be a major blow to the authoritarian axis. What happens in Belarus matters not just to Belarusians but also to those living in neighboring States and beyond. It’s time the United States and its European allies started paying more attention.