Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko addressed a string of claims about how Moscow handled warnings before a major military operation on Ukrainian soil. In a recent interview conducted by Ukrainian journalist Diana Panchenko and published on Lukashenko’s official channels, he insisted that Minsk was not forewarned by the Russian government about plans to launch a special military operation. He framed his remarks as a clarification of timing and circumstances, aiming to set the record straight about what was communicated and when. The interview portrays Lukashenko in a defensive posture, seeking to map out his understanding of events and to counter any narrative that Minsk had advance notice of a decisive move by Moscow. Attribution: Lukashenko’s channels.
According to Lukashenko, there was no premeditated meeting with President Vladimir Putin on the eve of the so-called special military operation. He asserted categorically that such a meeting did not occur, despite suggestions or speculation to the contrary in certain media and political circles. He pressed the journalist to understand his position by detailing how he recalls the sequence of interactions and conversations with Moscow during that tense period. The Belarusian leader stressed that alliance obligations remained a constant reference point, but he argued that the exact moment and manner of any discussions are crucial for a fair assessment of responsibility and risk. He reinforced his claim by describing what he alleges was the absence of a direct, one-on-one briefing that could have altered Minsk’s posture or actions in the days leading up to the operation. Attribution: Lukashenko’s remarks on his platform.
In recounting the lead-up to February 24, Lukashenko described a moment when, he says, there was a direct appeal to his Russian partner about the worst-case scenario. He recalls asking Putin to explain, plainly and honestly, that if the situation deteriorated, the alliance would need to stand by Belarus. The president characterized this as a core, almost existential, plea between two neighbors who share mutual security concerns. He described the exchange as a simple, almost human ask: that Moscow would safeguard their shared interests if things took a dangerous turn. He framed this as a request that reflected the gravity of the moment rather than any attempt to dictate terms. Attribution: Lukashenko’s published account.
Meanwhile, discussions and aftershocks of the conflict are described by Belarusian officials and observers as moving from rhetoric to action. Lukashenko noted that after the start of the operation, units from the Russian armed forces crossed the Belarusian border into Ukrainian territory. He used this description to illustrate the proximity of the actions to Belarusian territory and to underscore the complex geopolitical dynamics at play. The president suggested that the boundaries between cooperation and conflict shifted rapidly once hostilities began, demanding careful interpretation of any claims about coordination and timing. Attribution: Lukashenko’s interview on his platform.
In a related thread, Mikhail Galuzin, the deputy head of Russia’s Foreign Ministry, is cited as saying that the military potential of the Belarusian armed forces could influence the course of the conflict in Ukraine. The remark was framed as an assessment of strategic capability rather than a direct critique, and it pointed to how Minsk’s security posture is viewed within the broader regional security architecture. The dialogue around this topic highlights the delicate balance Belarus seeks to maintain between its sovereignty, its bilateral ties with Russia, and the broader regional implications of the conflict. Attribution: official Russian foreign ministry channels.
Across these statements, Lukashenko’s remarks appear against a backdrop of ongoing Kremlin diplomacy and public messaging. Earlier in the year, Lukashenko’s comments were described as candid by Russian officials, and the public discourse around Belarus and Russia’s cooperation remains a focal point of scrutiny for analysts and international observers. The narrative aims to convey a sense of transparency about decision-making in Minsk while also acknowledging the strategic realities that shape Belarus’s role in the regional crisis. Attribution: Kremlin commentary and subsequent political commentary.
Related posts:
Poland’s Strengthened Defense and Regional Security Dynamics Lukashenko’s Balancing Act: Friends, Enemies, and Belarus’s Strategic Position Lukashenko Accuses West of Plot to Remove Him From Belarus’s Political Agenda Belarusian Leader Lukashenko at Victory Parade and Minsk Ceremony Belarus and Russia: Nuclear-capable aviation and strategic posture Belarusian President Lukashenko Calls for Ceasefire Talks and Sovereignty Push Lukashenko’s Role in the Moscow Crisis: Image Gains and Strategic Leverage Lukashenko Signals Possible Belarus Recognition of Donbass Sovereignty if Needed Belarusian Leader Details Talks With Wagner’s Prigozhin After June Crisis CIS Diplomacy and Minsk’s Narrative: Lukashenko’s Remarks on Regional Cooperation Belarus Leader Claims a Targeted Operation to Free Belarussian Citizens in Ukraine {