Kremlin Endgame Uncertain in Aftermath of Belarus Election
Protestors march in Minsk carrying the traditional flag of Belarus, which has become a symbol of their movement. Source.
Recent mass demonstrations in Belarus threaten to unseat “Europe’s last dictator,” Aleksandr Lukashenko, from a potential sixth term as president, drawing international attention to the former Soviet republic. The vast, diverse crowds took to the streets in protest of the August election results, accusing Lukashenko of rigging the vote to falsely claim an 80% majority. In subsequent weeks, Lukashenko’s popularity rapidly declined as he ordered police to suppress opposition through the violent treatment of peaceful protesters.
Although the protests possess no clearly defined leadership, the impressive turnout indicates a strong consensus against Lukashenko and in favor of fair elections. Many factory workers attended the demonstrations, risking their jobs in an economy mostly owned by the state. Clearly, the citizens remain dedicated to their cause despite the violence and adversity they face. However, their inability to mobilize through political institutions may stop their fight in its tracks.
The uprising itself exists in a “democratic vacuum,” as most of Lukashenko’s challengers were jailed or forced into exile, leaving citizens with no other candidates to rally behind. Despite their demand for a free election, the protesters do not call for a closer relationship with the West or other democratic reforms. Lukashenko refuses to relent or give up power, leaving the demonstrators with an unclear path forward.
Russia, the country’s main military and commercial ally, has yet to intervene in the situation beyond President Vladimir Putin’s affirmation of Lukashenko’s reelection. Lukashenko’s ties to the former Soviet Union, and the existing deep ties between Russia and Belarus, provide an incentive for Moscow to support his rule. In a response described as “uncharacteristically low key,” Russian officials continue to avoid detailed questions about Belarus. Unlike previous revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, a lack of influence from the West prevents Russian leadership from blaming the uprising on external agitators. Additionally, most Belarusians harbor pro-Russian sentiment, complicating Russia’s position even further: How can the Kremlin support an unpopular leader without stoking the same anger and opposition they saw in Ukraine?
The protests unexpectedly backed Russian leaders into a corner as they tried to prevent Western powers from capitalizing on the sudden revolution. President Putin does not welcome outside intervention in Belarus, warning France and Germany to abandon any plans for interference. Russian interest in preserving the 1997 economic and political union agreement with Belarus necessitates this aggressive approach, and Lukashenko’s rule may help maintain the relationship. However, Lukashenko’s devotion to Russia often wavers, leading some analysts to speculate that Putin actually intends to replace him.
Shortly before the election, Lukashenko accused 33 Russian mercenaries of plotting terrorist attacks to instigate internal conflict in Belarus and garner more support for his competitors. Moscow officials claim they were not involved, calling the accusations “nothing but insinuations.” Nonetheless, this incident exemplifies Lukashenko’s tendency to deflect blame elsewhere, even risking his country’s relationship with its main ally.
Since then, Lukashenko backtracked by inviting Russian journalists to Belarus, asking them to cover the protests after the state detained most of its native reporters. With their alliance in constant flux, Putin may plan a long-term strategy to oust Lukashenko, replacing him with someone more consistently in favor of Russia. In the midst of this instability, Russian leaders can take advantage of Lukashenko’s weakness, exploiting him should he ask for help putting down the demonstrations. From an international perspective, the chaos of the upcoming American election provides Putin cover to take control of the situation without the US involving itself to protect democratic interests. With Belarusian citizens in favor of a close relationship with their powerful ally, Putin retains the upper hand and must decide on a course of action.
Ultimately, this situation proves less clear-cut than other revolutions in former Soviet states. The lack of a central authority and political mobilization through established institutions threatens to harm the demonstrators’ cause. However, without a martyr for their revolution, the movement “can’t be beheaded.” Unlike Ukrainians and Georgians, the citizens of Belarus do not resent Russian influence, and the protests focus on fair elections without indicating a shift toward Western ideals. Instead, the dissatisfaction erupted solely as a result of the fraudulent election and ill handling of peaceful protests. In the face of oppression, the citizens of Belarus display bravery in their attempt to oust “Europe’s last dictator.” However, no matter the Russian response, their overall political orientation will remain unchanged.