The pro-democratic movement in Belarus is actually a tool the West is using to undermine the country’s independence. The method had already proved efficient when Western powers took over the Baltic States. These ideas are promoted by a pro-Russian politician in Belarus and are meant to reinforce narratives about pro-democratic and pro-Western forces in Belarus, which Moscow has been spreading for years.
NEWS: “The West would like to see a “submissive” Belarus, with a very different foreign policy, but Minsk, unlike the Baltic States, is not yet under foreign control, the President of the Liberal-Democratic Party in Belarus, Oleg Gaidukevich believes. Belarus wants to forge an independent foreign policy, something which the West won’t tolerate, Gaidukevich also claims”.
“We (Belarus – e.n.) have never been under the control of an external force. I must say, they don’t call us, like they do Ukraine, telling us who should be appointed minister. Unlike the Baltic States, we are not crawling on our knees, following every order that goes against our people. When Lithuania criticizes Belarus’s nuclear power plant and condemns the transit of goods on its territory, it is actually harming itself. But this is indicative of a foreign influence in that country. Belarus has so far kept clear of such influences, we are making our own decisions and governing our country on our own, irrespective of what anyone has to say about it. Will they will let this go? Absolutely not”, Gaidukevich went on to say.
NARRATIVES: 1. Western powers are behind the protests in Belarus, which it wants to embark on a different foreign policy trajectory. 2. Belarus remains a thorn in the West’s side for maintaining its independence. 3. (implied) Quelling anti-government street protests is in fact a means of upholding the country’s independence. 4. Lithuania and Poland, as well as other states, are interfering with the internal affairs of Belarus and are controlling the anti-Lukashenko opposition. 5. The Baltic States are not truly independent, and their policies are dictated by the West against their own people.
BACKGROUND: On August 10, the second round of the presidential race was held in Belarus. The incumbent president, Alexander Lukashenko, commonly seen as “Europe’s last dictator”, secured a sixth mandate with a landslide victory. Lukashenko had made sure to take out of the presidential race any opponent who might pose a minimum risk to his presidential bid. The opposition and Western powers, on the other hand, have denounced an extensive election fraud. After the results were made public later that evening, thousands of people took to the streets, and the rallies spread rapidly throughout the country, building up tremendous momentum. Although opposition leaders were forced to leave the country, people are protesting even today The authorities’ response was conflicting. Thousands of protesters were arrested and subjected to random acts of violence from the riot police. Tensions then appeared to somewhat settle, only to be followed by renewed actions targeting the protest movement. What is truly remarkable is that, apart from a number of isolated exceptions, the system continues to function as a monolith. No major official has defected Lukashenko’s camp. As regards international reactions, the West has so far refused to acknowledge the official result of the election. Russia, on the other hand, has expressed its support for Lukashenko, in addition to its willingness to dispatch security forces to help keep the situation under control. This follows a rather peculiar incident shortly before the election, when the authorities in Minsk announced they arrested Russian mercenaries who were purportedly plotting terrorist attacks.
The Lukashenko regime has often spoken about the interference of Western countries in the domestic affairs of Belarus. Just a week before the election, Lukashenko accused NATO of mobilizing troops outside the country’s borders.
Narratives accusing Western powers of meddling in “home affairs” and condemning the opposition’s alleged ties to external forces are not, however, specific to Belarus. Admittedly, there are older precedents in the region. Romania’s former dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu repeatedly referred to an alleged external interference, particularly as the Revolution played out, when he would eventually be removed from power and executed. But apart from that, “foreign interference” has been Russia’s favorite obsession in the Putin era, as well as the preferred topic of narratives and disinformation campaigns Russia has been pumping out for over a decade. The narrative roughly boils down to the following statement: the West is seeking to interfere in post-Soviet countries (Russia and former republics of the USSR), either by speaking to the opposition and offering its support, or via civil society and NGOs. The connections and financial channels are established in two ways: either directly by Western governments (by means of its embassies, or entities like the National Endowment for Democracy, etc.), or through philanthropists, businessmen, NGOs (the ‘Sorosists’). The concerted actions of the opposition and civil society often result in the so-called “color revolutions”, their main aim being to take control of the country, only to covertly hand it over to the West later.
In countries that have stepped outside the Kremlin’s influence, such as the Baltic States, which are now part of the EU and NATO, Russia is trying to legitimize the idea that their integration in the West has failed, all this has ever achieved being to turn these countries into vassals. Besides, Moscow has also been working closely with the Russian communities in these countries, seeking to set them at odds with the majority, both in order to gain more leverage, as well as in an attempt to sell the narrative of an oppressed minority (which would confirm just how hypocritical the West actually is when calling for the observance of fundamental rights and democratic principles).
When it comes down to Belarus, we are talking about the ex-Soviet state that is possibly the closest to Russia right now. A country with good chances of reverting the USSR’s dissolution process. Preparations for Belarussian integration with Russia started in 1996, when the Commonwealth of Belarus and Russia was set up. In 1999, the Union State of Belarus and Russia was established, paving the way for deeper political and economic integration and fostering closer cooperation of the two country’s secret services. The integration process was however slowed down by Lukashenko’s reluctance to renounce control over Belarus.
The Liberal-Democratic Party in Belarus is commonly perceived as the party with the closest ties to Russia. Oleg Gaidukevich, its current president, “inherited” the party from his father, Sergey, who had run against Lukashenko in the presidential election.
PURPOSE: To discredit pro-democratic movements in post-Soviet countries and present them as the design of foreign agents trying to undermine the sovereignty of those particular states. To promote narratives according to which Euro-Atlantic integration is virtually tantamount to sacrificing the country’s independence.
WHY THE NARRATIVES ARE FALSE:
1. The protests in Belarus came in response to Lukashenko rigging the election. The movement is not a conspiracy of Western countries, which were late to express their support for the protests. 2. International criticism targeting Belarus refers to violations of human rights and the rule of law, not to the country’s geopolitical orientation. Moreover, the country’s independence is questionable, considering its close ties and dependence on Russia. 3. Repressing the rallies will help Lukashenko cling to his seat. It is an internal matter altogether, not a response to a foreign military intervention. 4. Abiding by certain principles such as the rule of law or democracy doesn’t mean “interfering with a country’s internal affairs”. This type of argument is used by authoritarian regimes to oppress the population at will. 5. EU and NATO Member States are independent and can shape their own policies. They can always opt out of these international structures, which is what France did in 1966 when it left NATO’s integrated military structure, or Britain in 2020, when it withdrew from the European Union.
Check sources:
