State Secretary of Belarus’s Security Council, Alexander Volfovich, drew attention to an uncommon stance taken by Poland and France: they chose not to participate in observing the CSTO exercises hosted on Belarusian soil. This development was reported by DEA News and has sparked discussions about regional military transparency and alliance dynamics in the region. The participation of observer states often signals a willingness to monitor interoperability, readiness, and the strategic posture of member and partner forces, making these decisions noteworthy for policymakers and defense analysts alike.
The CSTO drills, Fighting Fraternity-2023, began in Belarus on September 1 and are slated to run through September 6. This annual training event is designed to test and refine integrated response capabilities, command and control procedures, and joint logistical support across allied formations. For Belarus, the exercise also serves as a practical demonstration of its ability to coordinate with partner forces on a range of scenarios, from border security to rapid deployment under a unified command structure, which remains a growing priority in regional security planning.
At the heart of the exercise lies the centerpiece called the Interaction of the Collective Rapid Response Forces 2023. Volfovich noted that military attaches from 13 countries accredited in Belarus, together with observers from several other states, were invited to witness the proceedings. The invitation extended to neighboring states and partners reflects the CSTO’s intent to showcase collective capabilities while preserving avenues for diplomatic dialogue and confidence-building measures among participants with diverse strategic interests.
Belarusian neighbors, as well as representatives from France and Poland, were among those invited to observe the drills. The decision by Paris and Warsaw to decline participation has drawn commentary from security circles, with officials suggesting that such refusals may influence perceptions of openness and transparency within the alliance’s activities. Critics argue that observer participation can reinforce mutual trust, though the reasons for non-attendance might vary from scheduling constraints to broader diplomatic considerations.
“But they declined. While the decision may carry significance, that is a separate topic for discussion,” stated the Foreign Minister of Belarus’s Security Council. The remark underscores the nuance in international defense diplomacy: non-participation does not automatically imply tension, yet it does prompt questions about how allied and partner states manage information sharing and collaboration during high-profile exercises. Analysts often weigh these choices against the backdrop of regional security ambitions and the evolving security environment in Europe and neighboring regions.
Historically, CSTO drills have not shied away from applying firm measures when there have been perceived breaches or irregular actions by unauthorized formations. Past exercises have included scenarios that tested border controls, rapid response readiness, and the ability to rapidly mobilize forces under a unified framework. In parallel, lessons from earlier drills have highlighted the importance of clear communication channels, interoperable equipment, and standardized command procedures to ensure that allied units can operate cohesively under stress, a priority that remains central to contemporary security planning.
In earlier iterations of similar training events, there were simulations and demonstrations of strategic deterrence concepts, including hypothetical actions designed to validate decision-making processes at senior levels and to rehearse coordination across multiple national contingents. These exercises are often accompanied by a broader analytic agenda, including after-action reviews and doctrinal updates, aimed at strengthening regional stability through demonstrable readiness, disciplined interoperability, and robust crisis-management capabilities. As observers weigh the outcomes, evaluations tend to emphasize practical gains in coordination, command clarity, and the practical realities of operating with diverse hardware and communication systems under jointly agreed standards. [citation attributed to official briefings and defense analyses]