The Good:
- Potential Peace Initiative: Lukashenko’s call for peace, despite being a close ally of Putin, could be seen as a positive development towards ending the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. If his plea gains traction, it may lead to a reduction in violence and a move towards diplomatic negotiations. This could potentially save lives and reduce the destruction that has plagued the region for over two years.
- Highlighting the Human Cost: By stating that neither Ukrainians, Russians, nor Belarusians need the war, Lukashenko brings attention to the human cost of the conflict. This narrative could foster empathy and support for peace among the general public in the involved countries, possibly putting pressure on their governments to seek a resolution.
- Focus on Diplomacy: The emphasis on diplomacy over continued warfare suggests a shift in tone from a key player in the conflict. If taken seriously, it could pave the way for international diplomatic efforts to mediate and resolve the situation, potentially involving neutral countries or international organizations to facilitate negotiations.
- International Attention: Lukashenko’s statement, especially as it is broadcasted on Russian state media, could draw significant international attention. This may open the door for other global leaders to advocate for peace and potentially lead to increased diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict.
The Bad:
- Skepticism and Motives: Given Lukashenko’s close ties to Putin and his support for Russia’s actions, there is likely to be significant skepticism about his call for peace. Critics may argue that this is a calculated move to deflect blame and paint Russia and its allies in a more favourable light, rather than a genuine effort to end the conflict.
- Limited Impact: Despite the call for peace, the power to end the conflict largely rests with Russia and Ukraine. Lukashenko’s influence may be limited, especially if Putin remains unwilling to engage in negotiations, as indicated by his recent statements. This could render Lukashenko’s plea ineffective, leaving the situation unchanged.
- Escalation Risks: The mention of deploying Belarusian troops to the border with Ukraine, while simultaneously calling for peace, presents a contradictory and potentially dangerous situation. It could lead to further escalation if tensions rise, particularly if there are misinterpretations or provocations at the border.
- Western Distrust: Lukashenko’s assertion that the West benefits from the ongoing conflict and his suggestion of Western intentions may further strain relations between Belarus and Western nations. This could lead to increased sanctions or other punitive measures, further isolating Belarus and potentially escalating the conflict.
The Gist:
Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko, a staunch ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, has publicly called for peace between Russia and Ukraine, urging both sides to sit down for negotiations. His statement, made as Ukraine’s military operation in Russia’s Kursk region enters its third week, emphasizes that the ongoing conflict is unnecessary for the peoples of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, and suggests that it is instead driven by Western interests. Lukashenko’s comments are set to be broadcast on Russian state media, potentially signaling a shift in tone or strategy. However, his actions, such as sending Belarusian troops to the border with Ukraine, complicate this message. While his call for peace may draw international attention and support for diplomatic efforts, there is skepticism regarding his motives, and the overall impact may be limited unless supported by significant actions from Russia and Ukraine. Meanwhile, Putin has dismissed the possibility of negotiations, citing recent Ukrainian actions in Kursk as unacceptable, thereby casting doubt on the likelihood of immediate peace talks.
The Take:
Aleksandr Lukashenko, often referred to as Europe’s last dictator and a key ally of Vladimir Putin, has made headlines by calling for peace in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. His statement, broadcast to Belarusian state media and set to air on Russian state television, comes at a critical juncture as Ukraine’s military has gained significant ground in the Russian Kursk region, marking one of the most substantial offensive actions since the conflict began over two years ago.
Lukashenko’s plea is a curious one, given Belarus’s role in the conflict thus far. Under his leadership, Belarus has served as a crucial staging ground for Russian forces, allowing them to launch attacks on Ukraine from Belarusian territory. Furthermore, the stationing of Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus has drawn sharp criticism from the European Union and heightened tensions in the region. Despite this, Lukashenko now appears to be positioning himself as a potential peacemaker, urging both sides to negotiate an end to what he dismissively refers to as a “scuffle.”
The timing of Lukashenko’s statement is significant. With Ukraine’s military operation in Kursk entering its third week, the conflict is at a point where both sides are suffering heavy losses, and the human cost is becoming increasingly apparent. By framing the conflict as something neither the Ukrainian, Russian, nor Belarusian people want, Lukashenko is attempting to shift the narrative away from nationalistic fervor and towards a more humanistic perspective. His assertion that the war is beneficial only to the West, which he claims wants to see Ukrainians, Russians, and Belarusians “beat each other” to death, plays into a broader narrative often pushed by Russian propaganda that the West is the true villain in this conflict.
However, Lukashenko’s call for peace is likely to be met with skepticism. His close ties to Putin and his role in facilitating the invasion of Ukraine make it difficult to view him as a neutral party or an honest broker in any potential peace talks. Moreover, his actions on the ground tell a different story. Just recently, Lukashenko deployed Belarusian troops to the border with Ukraine, ostensibly to prevent a Ukrainian breakthrough into Belarusian territory. This move, while framed as defensive, could easily be interpreted as a show of force or a preparation for further escalation, rather than a genuine attempt to de-escalate the situation.
Furthermore, Putin’s recent statements make it clear that Russia is not currently interested in peace talks. His response to Lukashenko’s call for negotiations was to point out the futility of talking to Kyiv after Ukraine’s actions in Kursk, which he described as indiscriminate attacks on civilians and critical infrastructure. This hardline stance suggests that, despite Lukashenko’s overtures, the Kremlin remains committed to its military objectives and is not yet ready to entertain diplomatic solutions.
Lukashenko’s position is a precarious one. On the one hand, he is deeply indebted to Putin, whose support has been crucial in maintaining his grip on power in Belarus. On the other hand, he seems increasingly aware of the potential risks of being too closely tied to a conflict that is becoming increasingly unpopular, both domestically and internationally. By calling for peace, Lukashenko may be trying to carve out a more independent role for himself, positioning Belarus as a mediator rather than a mere extension of Russian policy. However, this strategy carries significant risks. If perceived as disloyal or insincere, Lukashenko could find himself isolated, both within his own country and on the international stage.
In conclusion, while Lukashenko’s call for peace is a noteworthy development, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the course of the conflict in the near term. The power dynamics at play, particularly Putin’s control over the situation, mean that any meaningful move towards peace will require a shift in Moscow’s position. For now, Lukashenko’s words may serve more as a reflection of his own precarious situation than as a genuine step towards ending the conflict.
