“Window of Opportunity” Between Washington and Minsk: Are Changes Possible?
This question has become particularly relevant after the recent visit of US President’s Special Representative Keith Kellogg, who met with Aleksandr Lukashenko. The Belarusian authorities’ hopes for renewed cooperation with the United States have intensified discussions of the country’s development prospects, especially regarding the possible threats of its absorption by Russia.
Please, be reminded that following the fraudulent 2020 presidential election, the United States imposed additional sanctions and visa restrictions on individuals involved in the so-called “elections” and repression of civil society.
In 2021, Belarus decided to suspend the activities of the USA’s Embassy in Minsk and recalled Ambassador-at-Large G. Fisher, who was later appointed Special Envoy to Belarus (based in Vilnius, Lithuania). The USA suspended the activity of its Embassy in Minsk in February 2022 after Belarus provided its territory and airspace for Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Since then, the chilly Belarusian-American relations have not reached the level of high-level bilateral contacts. The last such visit took place in 2020, when US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived in Minsk to establish relations with Lukashenko amid the cooling of his contacts with Moscow.
The United States has repeatedly criticized Lukashenko’s regime for human rights violations, suppression of the opposition and lack of democratic freedoms, persecution of human rights defenders, journalists and activists, and the conditions of detention of political prisoners. The US administration has imposed sanctions on Belarusian officials, companies, and certain sectors of the economy, in particular for supporting Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
Despite the fact that Belarus today is a full-fledged rear and logistics base for Russian troops in the war against Ukraine, this has not prevented the United States from engaging with the “last dictatorship in Europe”. Belarus is not a priority for the United States, but in terms of promoting American interests in Eastern Europe, this region is of strategic importance. The “Belarusian balcony” is a key bridgehead between NATO and Russia, which makes it an important security factor, especially in the context of conventional and nuclear weapons. Besides, the country’s geographical location is seen as an important economic center between the East and the West.
It is quite understandable that the US side wants to discuss with the Belarusian leadership the issues of international security in the Eastern European region, assessing the risks of possible military and political escalation in the near future, as well as Minsk’s ability and willingness to guarantee neutrality in case of an escalation of Russian aggression.
For Minsk, the very fact of negotiations with the USA’s representative is important, as it strengthens the country’s international subjectivity to some extent and is a step towards breaking out of international isolation. Of course, Washington’s positive decisions could facilitate international payments for Belarusian companies, but real diversification of exports, logistics, and foreign economic relations critically depends on the quality of Minsk’s relations with the EU and the dynamics of relations with Russia. In particular, lifting only US sanctions without lifting European restrictions would hypothetically simplify access to markets in the Global South, but would still leave Belarus dependent on potash export logistics through Russia.
The United States has not yet taken steps to change its sanctions policy toward Belarus. The strong stance of Lithuania and Latvia on sanctions against Belarusian potash fertilizers indicates that Washington is not willing to help resolve this issue in favor of Minsk.
Official Minsk is trying to establish a dialog with the West, avoiding political reforms, continuing repression, and failing to resolve the migration crisis at the borders. However, the amount of concessions demonstrated by the Belarusian leadership seems insufficient to change the situation, given the upcoming challenges, in particular in connection with the strategic exercise “Zapad – 2025” and the uncertainty associated with it (Belarus has announced that it does not rule out a partial change of the location of the “Zapad – 2025” exercise, which was promised to be moved inland).
Belarus’ military and political leadership continues to ignore the regional context when assessing the actions of Western countries, thus demonstrating an unwillingness to seek solutions to the “security dilemma”. Instead, it continues to follow the main line of loyalty to the Kremlin and its foreign and defense policy. Such a policy in the defense and other spheres devalues the efforts made in parallel with the “normalization” of relations with the West, as it confirms Minsk’s unwillingness and/or inability to lose its status as Russia’s military ally.
The territory of Belarus objectively remains a source of threats to Ukraine and NATO countries. Construction of a Belarusian-Russian UAV production facility has already begun in Belarus. Russia continues to use the country’s airspace to strike Ukraine, despite the fact that Belarusian officials are trying to distance themselves from the role of a “corridor” for Russian shelling of Ukraine’s territory.
The evolution of the US administration’s rhetoric and understanding of the dynamics of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict could significantly change the context of Belarusian-American negotiations. Currently, the process of “normalization” of relations between Belarus and the United States is unfolding against the backdrop of tensions between Russia and the United States, which increases the risks for official Minsk in connection with its support for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. These are, first of all, the risks of increased sanctions pressure from the EU and the USA and the possible risks of Belarus being drawn into the war against Ukraine, which the Kremlin intends to continue.
At present, the prospects for improving the situation for the Belarusian side in the current environment look extremely weak, mainly due to Minsk’s lack of ability to significantly distance itself from Moscow. The peak of the negotiation track with the US occurred at the time of the release of political prisoners, after which the intensity of contacts decreased. At the same time, the logic of the Belarusian-American diplomatic process requires that the next steps in the development of cooperation be more significant than the previous ones. While during the Minsk peace talks Belarus played the role of a negotiating platform for the settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, now its role has been reduced to the level of a corridor for the exchange of prisoners of war between Ukraine and Russia. Lukashenko has no other options to influence the course of the negotiations, and there are no opportunities for Belarus to participate in such negotiations in an international format, as the country has firmly established its status as Russia’s co-aggressor in the war against Ukraine.
Charge d’Affaires of Belarus to the United States P. Shidlovsky has stated that the Embassy is engaged in a dialogue with the American expert and humanitarian community, as well as NGOs. However, fundamental issues of normalization of relations, including the exchange of ambassadors, are not discussed. But then, A. Lukashenko himself has acknowledged the West’s being not interested in cooperation with Belarus, which, in his view, necessitates deepening cooperation with Russia, for which one of the key areas is cooperation in the military-industrial sphere. A. Lukashenko’s support for Russia’s escalation course becomes a condition for his political survival, but it also makes it impossible to achieve positive changes in the Belarusian-American dialogue.
Maria Hutsalo,
expert, PhD in Political Science
(Keith Kellogg held talks with Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko.
Photo source: https://tsn.ua/)
