The Day of the Flag, Emblem and Anthem in the Republic of Belarus unfolded with no appearance by President Alexander Lukashenko. During a SB TV broadcast, Prime Minister Roman Golovchenko delivered on-screen congratulations on his behalf, signaling a formal but unusual absence from the ceremony itself.
Ahead of the holiday, the Belarusian newspaper Nasha Niva reported that Lukashenko’s presidential cortege spent roughly two hours near a private hospital outside Minsk. Observers did not note any extraordinary activity, aside from a reported health issue. A Kremlin spokesperson described the situation as a personal illness that did not involve infection; the president nonetheless traveled to Moscow and later organized events in Minsk on the same day. Several analysts suggested that a period of rest might be prudent, rather than signaling anything more serious.
The president had not appeared in public for the fifth consecutive day. His last public moment occurred in Moscow, where he attended a Victory Day parade and laid a wreath. Unlike many leaders who joined the parade, he did not walk from the podium to the Unknown Soldier monument and instead rode a short distance in a security electric vehicle, smiling as he passed, according to observers.
During an informal breakfast in the Kremlin with CIS leaders after the flower-laying ceremony, Lukashenko was reportedly absent again. The Russian President’s press secretary explained that he had returned to Belarus to fulfill ceremonial duties there.
Hours later on May 9, Lukashenko laid a wreath at a Minsk monument on Victory Square. The address, initially planned as a solemn speech, was delivered instead by Viktor Khrenin, the Belarusian Minister of Defense, while Lukashenko stood nearby, illustrating a pattern of delegation or alteration in public appearances during the holiday period.
One Belarusian insider cited by Nasha Niva claimed Lukashenko had contracted influenza. An interlocutor close to Lukashenko’s protocol indicated some colleagues also fell ill, suggesting that rumors about a viral illness had circulated but were not confirmed. The account warned that bacterial complications can arise if flu symptoms are not properly managed, underscoring how health rumors can have real implications within high-level leadership circles.
A separate source noted that since May 9 the president had entrusted his direct representatives with key engagements, a move some observers interpreted as a cautious approach to public duties during a health event window.
Official statements from Belarusian authorities did not disclose Lukashenko’s health status. Informal reports from the president’s press service described him as “working with documents,” a phrasing that has become familiar in contexts of restrained leadership. Analysts described the likelihood that he remains active in official matters, even as appearances appear scarce.
Zerkalo.io highlighted the rarity of frank health updates about Lukashenko, noting that public discussions about his condition have appeared only a handful of times over roughly a decade. The pattern of limited medical disclosures has fueled speculation about the balance of power and the risk of political instability when a central figure’s health is uncertain.
Political analysts stressed the sensitivities surrounding any health claims about Lukashenko, explaining that acknowledging illness could be perceived as weakening within a system where the leader’s strength is closely tied to the stability of the entire power structure. The concern is that acknowledging illness might trigger questions about succession or power dynamics, prompting cautious secrecy among the ruling elite.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Lukashenko argued against quarantine measures, urging people to maintain normal life and to rely on simple measures such as fresh air to combat the virus. He questioned the utility of lockdowns and border closures, advocating a stance that prioritized daily routines and warned about the social and economic costs of aggressive containment. He described crowded indoor spaces as dangerous due to a perceived “virus atmosphere,” and he was skeptical of arguments favoring isolation or secrecy. He encouraged regular handwashing, a daily routine, visits to the bathhouse, and even the use of vodka as a preventive measure for ARVI. He admitted that he did not drink alcohol himself but jokingly suggested that people might use vodka as a do-it-yourself approach to reduce the virus’s impact, though he clarified this was not something to apply at work concerns.
These remarks reflect a broader pattern of public messaging that blends health discourse with political narratives, shaping how leadership communicates during health crises and how the public interprets those messages.