Pavel Latushka: Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, Representative of the UTC for Power Transition. Head of the National Anti-Crisis Management, Leader of the "Team Latushka and the Movement for Freedom" fraction within the 3rd convocation of the Coordination Council
Well, perhaps only to The Hague. What am I talking about? About the obsessive idea of a Kremlin puppet to somehow secure a seat at the negotiating table on Ukraine.
Lukashenko is desperately trying to insert himself into these discussions. He repeats this idea at every opportunity, and it likely haunts his dreams every night. But… that’s the problem — it’s only a dream.
Let’s analyze why neither Ukraine nor the major Western players want, nor will they, talk to this Kremlin puppet. And why sitting at the same table with them, even though Lukashenko's masters are openly lobbying for him, is an almost impossible mission for the Kremlin’s pocket dictator.
First and unchanging point: Lukashenko is politically a nobody. Literally. He is not a president. His illegitimacy is not, and will not, be questioned by our Western partners, even after the farce Lukashenko has planned for the end of January. There is already a consensus: calling it an election is impossible.
Whatever result Lukashenko decides to fabricate this time — be it 85%, 95%, or even a surreal 105% — it will have no impact on how he is perceived in the West. He remains an illegitimate dictator and usurper. He was, he is, and he will continue to be so.
And at the same time, he is also a pocket usurper — unindependent, unsubstantial, and entirely dependent on the Kremlin. This is the second point, and it is, frankly, even more significant than the first.
Those who argue about the supposed necessity of negotiating with Lukashenko often like to use the argument that "even terrorists are negotiated with". And this is exactly where that argument falls apart.
Lukashenko has long been in a much worse status. He could have been called a terrorist back in 2020 and 2021, when he launched a campaign of state terror against the Belarusian people and then began committing openly terrorist acts against neighboring countries and international security as a whole.
This includes instrumentalizing illegal migration to carry out attacks and destabilize the borders of the European Union, as well as the hijacking of a Ryanair passenger plane by the Lukashenko regime.
At that time, Lukashenko could have simply been labeled a terrorist, in addition to his already well-known political status as an illegitimate usurper. Yet even in that status, he still retained a degree of agency, at least in terms of independently orchestrating these clearly terrorist actions. Let’s call this agency functional. And when someone says that even terrorists are negotiated with, it is important to understand that, purely theoretically, a terrorist acting independently could be considered an agent in their own right.
But in February 2022, everything changed radically. Although it should be noted here that any competent analyst would say the beginning of the end of even Lukashenko’s functional agency occurred much earlier. One of the most striking signs of this was in 2020, when instead of either transferring or at least sharing power with the Belarusian people — rather than crushing dissent, killing, torturing en masse, and imprisoning people — Lukashenko chose to share power with the Kremlin.
He made this deal, and thanks to it, he managed to remain in a seat that, in essence, was no longer his. He stayed in power not because of the Belarusian people, but because of the Kremlin’s permission.
At that time, unfortunately, not all of our Western partners fully grasped this reality. Perhaps there was a desire to overlook it, to avoid acknowledging something they ultimately had to recognize when the full-scale aggression against Ukraine began.
In this aggression, Belarus, against the will of its people, became one of the staging grounds for the war, and Lukashenko, occupying the position he usurped, became another Pusilin — a Kremlin puppet of the same caliber.
Since then, Lukashenko has only continued to prove his role as a co-aggressor, supplier, and assembly line for Russia's military-industrial complex. He has also become one of the top propagandists for Russian aggression, adopting all the anti-Ukrainian and anti-Western narratives of Kremlin propaganda.
This is also evident in his domestic policy of terror, where Belarusians’ anti-war stance has become an additional reason for repression. This is a critical aspect of the repressions in Belarus since 2022 — no longer limited to pro-democratic or anti-regime positions, but also anti-Russian, pro-Ukrainian, or even simply anti-war views have made Belarusians targets and victims of the regime’s repressions and crimes against humanity, committed on a massive scale.
This cannot be hidden. It cannot be concealed behind cheap manipulations or pseudo-peace rhetoric while simultaneously supporting aggression, producing weapons, committing war crimes such as the illegal deportation of Ukrainian children, and hosting (at least according to Lukashenko’s own statements) Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus. Furthermore, new military agreements are being signed with Russia, the so-called "integration" — in reality, the destruction of Belarus's remaining sovereignty under the guise of the Union State — is deepening. All of this cannot be hidden behind so-called "pardons", which are accompanied by intensified repressions, nor behind so-called "elections", which are not elections in any real sense.
Thus, Lukashenko's demands to be included in negotiations merely cries into the void. Empty noise. No one takes them seriously, least of all Ukraine. These demands look identical to those of his Kremlin master, who, under the guise of readiness for "peace negotiations", issues ultimatums and threats. The behavioral patterns are entirely identical, with one key difference: the master’s agency is at least recognized. Lukashenko’s agency, however, is not recognized by anyone relevant to future negotiations — not even by his master, who only needs him there as a yes-man.
In this grand scheme, Lukashenko's internal policies, which are already limited and strictly confined within specific boundaries, are not primary or even secondary concerns when it comes to granting him a seat at the table with actual politicians. Only political agents can sit at such a table. And when your "agency" consists solely of acting as a regional enforcer, repressing dissent, and imposing the "Russian world" in Belarus, there is nothing to talk about with you. It is worth noting that even for those so-called "pardons", Lukashenko had to justify himself to his Russian overlords. This shows that he lacks full independence of action even here.
The reason why Lukashenko is so desperate to get to the big table is obvious and needs no further explanation. For him, it is the shortest path to gaining some semblance of legitimacy. He knows that no "election" will restore it for him.
But this isn’t like going to the store with your mom, throwing a tantrum because she won’t buy you a toy. Lukashenko isn’t just throwing a tantrum — he’s trashing the store, attacking others, and thinking this will get him what he wants. But no, politics doesn’t work that way. In politics, the "moms" are strict, and instead of a toy, tantrum-throwing Lukashenko will face consequences unless he changes his behavior.
The tools of punishment — such as sanctions and the isolation of the Lukashenko regime — are aimed precisely at achieving this: a change in policy. The ball is not in the West's court, despite what regime advocates might claim. The ball is in Lukashenko's court. Until his tantrum ends, no one will lift the punishment or engage in dialogue with him. It’s time for everyone lobbying on his behalf to understand this.
But what does a change in policy mean? Stopping repressions and releasing political prisoners in the current context is, of course, a fundamental precondition. It’s the starting point for any conversation. This first step must be taken unconditionally by Lukashenko himself. Instead of proclaiming on TV that there are no political prisoners in Belarus, he must act.
Is he capable of taking this step — stopping repressions and freeing people? That’s a big question, especially since his "big brother" certainly won’t pat him on the head for it.
However, when we consider the level Lukashenko now aspires to — the chance to sit at the table of big politics — even this step is no longer enough. There’s a war going on. The geopolitical context is entirely different from what it was during previous crises between Lukashenko and the West. This time, Lukashenko has clearly made his geopolitical choice.
Thus, no one will play games with him again or believe his tales of wanting normal relations with the West.
Today, the West fundamentally won’t engage with a non-sovereign puppet whose words mean nothing. A figure who cannot provide any guarantees and who, clearly, does not act in the interests of Belarus as an independent and sovereign state but instead in the interests of Russia, upon which Lukashenko’s very survival depends.
What, then, must he do beyond the initial obligatory step we discussed earlier? He must demonstrate real agency and independence. Show genuine separation from the Kremlin — through action.
What does this mean? It means ending support for aggression and the aggressor. Exiting the "axis of evil". Taking a page from Nikol Pashinyan’s playbook, for example. The exact formula may vary, but the outcome must be the same: a clear demonstration of real agency and independence from Russia.
A fantastical scenario? Perhaps. But we have no better scenario for Lukashenko. All the others are far more disastrous — for him personally and, more importantly, for our country, which matters to us far more.
My personal assessment is that Lukashenko will never stop the repressions, and even more so, he will never break away from Russia or pursue genuine rapprochement with Europe and the West. However, these very steps are essential to ensure that Belarus's real interests — democracy, independence, peace, and security — are not only represented in potential negotiations but are genuinely safeguarded and realized.
What’s the conclusion? Is all hope lost? No, I don’t think so. I remain convinced that not only ordinary citizens but also the majority of officials in Belarus are just as interested as we are in ensuring that the real interests of Belarus are upheld.
The key problem lies with Lukashenko himself. He must go. There are paths to achieve this, and we are ready to discuss them with all interested parties.
Belarusians will come to an agreement with Belarusians. And these are the negotiations we must begin with if we want to preserve our country and protect its independence and real interests.
Comments