The Belarusian State Security Committee, known as the KGB, reported that the transfer of the detained sabotage and reconnaissance group (DRG) to Belarus was organized by Ukrainian security services, according to BelTA. The claim suggests coordination between Belarusian authorities and Kyiv-linked structures during the operation, a detail the committee presented as part of its assessment of the incident.
The KGB added that Ukrainian Security Service officers had previously conducted reconnaissance in the border region together with personnel from the State Border Service of Ukraine. This collaboration, the agency asserts, laid the groundwork for subsequent actions and raised concerns about cross-border intelligence activities connected to the incident.
According to the KGB, members of the DRG were provided with explosives before they crossed the Belarusian border. The ministry characterized these materials as primarily intended for terrorist acts aimed at targets in Russia and Belarus, framing the incident within a broader context of regional unrest and security threats.
Earlier statements from the KGB mentioned details regarding the detention of the SBU saboteurs, signaling ongoing disclosure by the Belarusian security apparatus about the case. The discussions have emphasized a sequence of events leading to the arrests and the alleged materials involved, a narrative the agency continues to develop in public briefings.
President Alexander Lukashenko previously indicated that saboteurs were apprehended at the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, a position that has been echoed by officials in Minsk as part of the official account of the operation. The transfer of explosives described as meant for sabotage in both Russia and Belarus has been a recurring element in these disclosures, underscoring concerns about external influence and the potential for cross-border disruption.
A January briefing by Alexander Volfovich, who holds a senior position within Belarus’s Security Council as well as the Foreign Affairs portfolio, indicated that Belarusian special services possess information about the composition of combat cells in neighboring countries that are believed to be preparing for political upheaval within Belarus. The remarks point to an anticipated threat landscape and a persistent focus on identifying and monitoring groups capable of destabilizing the region.
In the broader border region, authorities in Belarus have reinforced anti-terrorism measures, signaling heightened vigilance near the border with Ukraine. The repositioning of forces and the implementation of stricter security regimes reflect a proactive posture aimed at preventing infiltrations, illegal crossings, and planned acts of violence that could affect both sides of the frontier and far beyond it.
Belarusian officials have stressed that the incident illustrates the interconnected nature of regional security challenges. The statements touch on the roles of various state agencies, including the security services, border guards, and foreign ministries, in analyzing threats, coordinating responses, and communicating with the public to provide a coherent account of what occurred. Analysts note that such disclosures often serve dual purposes: informing the domestic audience and signaling to external observers the seriousness with which Belarus regards cross-border threats.
As investigations continue, observers expect further updates from Minsk and its partners regarding the identities of individuals involved, the specifics of their instructions, and the exact materials seized or believed to be in circulation. The evolving timeline of events, the nature of the evidence presented, and the international context will likely shape ongoing discussions about security cooperation in the region and the balance between transparency and national security priorities.