Belarus Tension



The majority of Belorussians are Orthodox Christians. The Catholics are the second biggest religious movement there. The different religious movements have their representatives as for example in Turkey there are representatives of the Armenian church, the Orthodox church etc. The situation is that many Catholics there are of Polish and Lithuanian decent which are predominantly Roman Catholics and the Belorussian authorities were motivated politically for these moves as the Head of the Roman Catholic Church of Belarus Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz is of Polish family. It is presumed that he is intervening in the internal affairs of Belarus trough his power in the church and I personally would not be surprised if it's true.

A neighbour country to Belarus is Poland which is also predominantly Roman Catholic and we know about many examples when the religious representatives are used for political objectives. This is also nothing new for the region when taking place the soviet past and how the KGB used to integrate state agents on critical positions in religious institutions and also the history of Poland is no different so they know how it's done and how important it is to have that power in a religious country like Belarus.

Belarus is the most Russified ex Soviet republic out there the small minority the west props up that wants Lukashenko out is being used and I am no surprised if the Catholic Church is involved they always lean western and have been used by the west in the Cold War to supplant anti US anti wester govts as for Lukashenko no love for him as he turns out be huge idiot before the protests he was getting chummy with west now like a whore he wants to go back to Moscow again biting hand that feeds


Maria Kolesnikova, a prominent figure in the Belarusian opposition movement has reportedly been abducted.

west is trying to pressure them and creating fake stories fake heros.. they did it with many countries everytime the same way..

(yes their president is a dictator yes russian big influence)
Another Juan Guaido in the making actual number 2 since the other one fled to Lithuania pathetic in the past Americans and west had better leaders like Lech Walesa or military men now they get the worst of shrills ever really shows the art of coup making in Langley has declined


Russia will only probably intervene if there are massive elite defections from the military and intelligence apparatus they are reports of strikes and some in the media and IT sector supporting the opposition but as always I would take Russian or Western press reports with a grain of salt as both are creating narratives for their own "geopolitical" goals for Belarus


Seriously what can Turkey gain out of Belarus???

Seriously we dont need to support the protests or take Lukashenkos side.

I remember Hulusi Akar meeting up with their military so we can imcrease defence cooperation. Also we gain resources there too. Just like Venezeula is giving its gold to Turkey also oil maybe.

Yeah again its a client state for Moscow or their Canada basically


Active member
4 300
Nation of residence
Nation of origin
Belarus tension will direct the political development in east europe whose outcome will have an affect on EU and Russia as well indirectly Türkiye relationship... it will remain exciting.


Today İ've just spoken with belarussian tourists. They say" most of citizens dont support protests. Just 10-15 percent especially the youth at the streets." The tourists seemed to worry being " Ukraine 2.0".
Everyone knows it's a US/EU conspiracy against Russia.


Everyone knows it's a US/EU conspiracy against Russia.

Russia is definitely looking into the situation if it loses Belarussia it will easily lose access to Kaliningrad Oblast which is why I doubt they will let it go Lukashenko will still need to leave power at some point but at Moscow's request

KKF 2.0

Well-known member
Nation of residence
Nation of origin
I prefer a Western Belarus over a pro-Russian zombie state but at this point I can't really say how much support the pro-Russians have in the overall Belarusian society. Are they the majority? I feel like that most of the Belarusian people are demanding a higher standard of living rather than a union with Russia or the EU.



Belarus Warning Update: Lukashenko Softens His Opposition to Protests, Seeking Leverage against Increased Russian Pressure
Mason Clark
Originally published in Institute for the Study of War
Posted courtesy of the Institute for the Study of War.
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi, Russia, on September 14.
Putin and Lukashenko made initial public remarks before meeting privately for nearly four hours.[1] Lukashenko has not traveled outside Belarus or met Putin in person since the August 9 election but has held several calls with Putin and hosted Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin in Minsk on September 3.[2]
Lukashenko sharply changed his framing to tacitly accept continued weekly protests but retained the threat of violence against protesters in response to an unspecified “red line.” Lukashenko markedly changed his framing of ongoing protests to downplay their threat in his public remarks. Lukashenko stated that Belarusians “live an ordinary life” on weekdays and claimed that on Saturday and Sunday “we release a part of Minsk so that people can, if they wish, walk through this part.”[3]
Lukashenko’s statement is a marked change from previous statements by the Belarusian government, which continues to decry the protests as illegal. Lukashenko’s statement additionally misrepresents Belarusian security forces continued beating and detention of protesters, as well as continued protests outside Minsk. Lukashenko claimed that reports of the protests as being more widespread are misrepresentations, telling Putin “you know as well as I” how “information confrontations and wars” distort protests.[4] Lukashenko further downplayed the protests by stating they have not yet crossed the “red line,” which he compared to Putin’s “red line” in Chechnya. Lukashenko is likely opening the door to continuing protests while threatening demonstrators with brutal oppression if they go too far. Ordering Russian military operations against Chechen insurgents in the Second Chechen War, which killed tens of thousands of civilians, was among Putin‘s very first acts as president.
Lukashenko likely seeks to steadily erode the scale of protests without a violent crackdown that could invite an immediate Kremlin intervention. Lukashenko began distancing his rhetoric on the protests from the Kremlin’s portrayal of the protests as a Western hybrid campaign in the week prior to his meeting with Putin.[5] ISW previously assessed Lukashenko seeks to find a method to end protests without either making concessions to protesters or using lethal force, which would likely trigger a more direct Kremlin intervention to control the situation.[6] Lukashenko is likely downplaying the scale of protests to minimize the threat of the opposition and – in a reversal of earlier claims of an impending NATO invasion to justify military deployments – seeks to justify a lack of a large-scale crackdown to the Kremlin.
Lukashenko likely assesses prior Kremlin support and his security forces’ efforts have managed the protests enough to secure his position, even if weekend protests continue. The Sunday protests continue to regularly exceed 100,000 participants, but other opposition efforts have largely failed: regular weekday protests have ceased since the first two weeks of protests; nationwide strikes ended in late August; telegram channel NEXTA’s efforts to spur protesters to create alternative state structures failed; and Lukashenko has successfully imprisoned or exiled every major opposition leader previously active on the ground in Belarus.[7] Lukashenko will likely refrain from large-scale crackdowns while continuing targeted detentions to steadily erode protester will. If Lukashenko is willing to allow protests to continue for months, he may hope that the arrival of winter will finally end them. His new rhetoric leaves open that possibility.
Putin successfully secured increased leverage over the Belarusian economy and security space. The Kremlin granted Belarus a $1.5 billion state loan to maintain Belarus’ economic stability and cement Belarusian economic reliance on the Kremlin.[8] Belarusians withdrew approximately $1 billion from bank accounts in August 2020 – 17 times as much as in the previous month.[9] The financial strain of the August protests exacerbated the Belarusian economy’s dependence on Russian subsidies.[10] The Kremlin likely seeks to economically stabilize Belarus in the short term to maintain Lukashenko’s control over Belarusian security services, and will likely leverage this economic pressure and the dependence of a large state loan to coerce Lukashenko into adopting more Kremlin-preferable polices.
Putin additionally secured an increased level of Belarusian military cooperation with Russia. The Kremlin doubled the length of the Slavic Brotherhood 2020 military exercises in Belarus – which began in Brest, Belarus, near the Polish border – from September 14 to September 25.[11] The exercises were originally planned to run from September 10-15 and included Serbian forces.[12] Serbian forces withdrew from the exercises a day before they were scheduled to begin on September 9 due to European Union pressure.[13] In addition to this immediate exercise extension, Putin and Lukashenko agreed to hold “almost monthly” joint military exercises in both Belarus and Russia in 2021.[14] Putin said Russian forces will return to their permanent home garrisons after these monthly exercises.[15] The Kremlin will likely exploit regular exercises to increase its military presence in Belarus with the eventual aim of permanent basing, as well as maintain its framing of the necessity of Russian military deployments to counter NATO despite Lukashenko’s increasing minimization of the NATO threat.
Putin likely secured a further roadmap of Belarusian integration. The Kremlin likely secured further, currently confidential concessions from Lukashenko during the September 14 meeting. Lukashenko made several conciliatory statements to increased integration with Russia, including stating Belarus must remain close to its “older brother” Russia and praising the Kremlin for demonstrating “the border of Belarus are the borders of the Union State” and thanking Putin.[16] Lukashenko stated the Kremlin and Minsk “postponed” several agreements until the meeting between himself and Putin.[17] Neither the Kremlin or Lukashenko has released a statement following the meeting as of this writing.
Putin directly threatened Lukashenko with the prospect of constitutional changes and continued Russian relations with Belarus “regardless of who is in power.” Putin called for “timely and expedient” work to “update” the Belarusian constitution and stated Russia will participate in the process “at the highest level,” a typical Russian diplomatic term for Minister-level consultations.[18] Putin further stated Russia considers Belarus its closest ally and will fulfill its treaty obligations “regardless of who is in power” – directly threatening Lukashenko with the possibility of the Kremlin supporting his eventual removal from power.[19] The Kremlin likely retains Lukashenko as its current preferred partner in Belarus but will likely seek to cement its dominance and potentially remove Lukashenko over time through involvement in constitutional changes. Lukashenko is unlikely to fully prevent the Kremlin’s absorption of Belarus but will seek to slow the Kremlin’s efforts.



Russia says Belarus leader plans to change constitution
President Lukashenko began raising the question of changing Belarus's constitution several years ago.
3 hours ago

The meeting came as Lukashenko faces mass protests at home following a presidential election on August 9, which the opposition claims was rigged [Anadolu]

The meeting came as Lukashenko faces mass protests at home following a presidential election on August 9, which the opposition claims was rigged [Anadolu]
Russia said Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has confirmed he plans to change the constitution as the two leaders held talks in Sochi on Monday.
The meeting came as Lukashenko faces mass protests at home following a presidential election on August 9, which the opposition claims was rigged.
Lukashenko, who has been in power for 26 years, began raising the question of changing the constitution several years ago.
He has since presented this as a way to respond to public desire for social change. He has also proposed holding the next presidential polls early.
Lukashenko's plane landed in the Black Sea region a day after police arrested 774 people at anti-government rallies across the country, including 500 in the capital, Minsk, the Belarusian interior ministry said. At least 100,000 protesters flooded the streets of Minsk on Sunday.
"Lukashenko confirmed his intention to make changes to the constitution," said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov after talks at Putin's residence in Sochi.

"They talked for almost four hours," he said, calling their conversation "constructive, lengthy and substantive in content".
Peskov added that Russia wants "everything that happens in Belarus not to be in the form of unconstitutional processes but within the framework of the law".
The Belarusian strongman has said he wants to hold a referendum on reforms, although he has not made clear what these would be. He has suggested reducing the president's powers in appointing judges.
Lukashenko has previously changed the constitution to increase his presidential powers.
The opposition wants to change the constitution back to its original form, but Lukashenko has said this would be a backward step.
Moscow has recognised Lukashenko as the legitimate president after he claimed victory in disputed elections that the main opposition contender Svetlana Tikhanovskaya says she rightfully won.

A week with the seriously quick and great sounding Maserati Levante SUV
Ad by Maserati

See More
https://platform-cdn.sharethrough.c...geted advertising from Sharethrough's partner

Putin and Lukashenko also agreed on Monday that Moscow would withdraw reserves of troops that were deployed at the border with Belarus, Russian news agency TASS reported.
"An important result of the two presidents' talks in Sochi became an agreement that Russia removes the reserve of law enforcement bodies and the national guard, which was deployed near the Russia-Belarus border, and withdraws people to their permanent bases," Peskov was quoted as saying by TASS.

Have your say.Give us feedback.

Watch to learn more

Israel ties that bind: What is the US giving Gulf Arab states?
Analysts say normalisation deals between UAE, Bahrain, and Israel are unprecedented steps with unknown ramifications.
by Creede Newton
14 Sep 2020 14:53 GMT

Israeli National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat, US president's senior adviser Jared Kushner, and UAE's National Security Adviser Sheikh Tahnoun bin Zayed Al Nahyan hold a meeting in Abu Dhabi [Handout via Reuters]

Israeli National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat, US president's senior adviser Jared Kushner, and UAE's National Security Adviser Sheikh Tahnoun bin Zayed Al Nahyan hold a meeting in Abu Dhabi [Handout via Reuters]

Representatives of the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Israel, and United States governments will converge in Washington, DC on Tuesday to sign historic normalisation accords between the Gulf nations and Israel.
The UAE agreement, announced in August and since dubbed the "Abraham Accords" by White House officials, makes the UAE the third Arab country and first in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to agree to establish relations with Israel.
The agreement ends the UAE's economic boycott of Israel and allows the possibility of advanced US weaponry sales to the Emirates. Blasted by Palestinians as a "betrayal", a sentiment echoed by regional players Turkey and Iran, the deal will have lasting, unprecedented geopolitical ramifications, experts told Al Jazeera.
But the extent of these ramifications remains to be seen.
Arms sales
William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Program at the DC-based Center for International Policy, told Al Jazeera arms sales were an "important factor" in the agreements.
The UAE has long wanted F-35 fighter jets, Hartung said, and larger drones, which the US was unable to sell because of its commitment to Israel's military advantage.

But Trump often touts arms sales and was likely to view the UAE as another client as a positive, Hartung said.
The US ramped up its arms sales by 42 percent globally in 2019, an increase of almost $70bn, according to figures from the Forum on the Arms Trade (FAT) from the US Foreign Military Sales programme.
But the Middle East and North Africa region far outpaced the global growth rate, going from $11.8bn in 2018 to more than $25bn in 2019, or a 118 percent increase. Morocco leads the pack in purchasing US arms, with almost $12bn sold to Rabat.
Nations in the GCC accounted for much of the rest. The UAE spent more than $4.7bn on US arms in 2019, FAT recorded, with Bahrain spending $3.37bn, Qatar spending about $3bn and Saudi Arabia at roughly $2.7bn.
Hartung said Bahrain may have agreed to normalisation to access to advanced weaponry and the Saudis could potentially follow.
A handout picture released by Bahrain's official news agency (BNA) on August 26, 2020, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (C-L) meeting with Bahrain's Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa (

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, centre-left, meeting with Bahrain's Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, centre-right, in the capital Manama [Bahrain News Agency/AFP]
"Bahrain certainly benefitted from US transfers after Trump lifted the hold on F-16s … so they may feel somewhat beholden to him on that front", Hartung said, citing a 2017 decision to sell the jets to Bahrain without conditions on human rights.
However, the status of an F-35 deal with the UAE remains questionable, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces criticism from his right-wing base as his political fortunes fall.
Regarding domestic political victories, Hartung said the Trump administration can "brag" about normalisation during the presidential campaign and possibly tout jobs from the F-35 programme.
It may also "burnish the F-35 programme", which has cost trillions to US taxpayers and is criticised for its cost and inefficiencies, Hartung noted.
The move may "also be perceived as a move to further contain Iran", a target of ire from the Trump administration's and a regional foe for the UAE, Bahrain and Israel, though Hartung said he did not see it as a benefit.
Traditional diplomacy
Jon Alterman, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told Al Jazeera while Gulf countries normalising relations with Israel raises new questions, it is "an uncharacteristic dedication to traditional diplomacy on the part of the Trump administration".
Alterman said the deal with the UAE showed the Trump administration was capable of diplomatic manoeuvres outside of doing "things quickly with presidential involvement".

However, concerns remain regarding the Israel-Palestinian peace process, Alterman said. The normalisation agreement could pave the way for other major Arab states to normalise ties with Israel without addressing the underlying issues of the conflict.
"We still have a long way to go to resolving the long-running conflict," Alterman said. "I would hope this will mark an effort to redouble efforts rather than claim it is solved."
While much of the focus is on the regional implications for Arab states, Alterman wrote for CSIS it could provide a "more robust and inclusive regional dialogue could be a constructive way to reduce tensions" between Israel, Turkey and Iran, three of the region's most powerful - and non-Arab - countries.
The view from Tehran
Israel and countries such as the UAE and Bahrain, which is a Shia-majority nation with a Sunni monarchy, have long held the common interest of keeping Iran at bay.
But Assal Rad, a senior research fellow at the National Iranian-American Council, does not think containing Iran was in the "calculus on the UAE's side".
The UAE and Iran have long-standing economic ties and a sizable diaspora of roughly 500,000 Iranians live in the Emirates, mostly in Dubai.

UAE exports to Iran totalled $10.23bn in 2018, according to UN figures cited by Trading Economics, making it among Iran's top trade partners.
But Rad does not "see the normalisation as taking anti-Iran stance and aligning with Israel", she said.
If the UAE was adopting an anti-Iran strategy, recent meetings between Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, who will lead the UAE delegation in Washington on Tuesday, would not have occurred.
"It's attempting a sort of balancing act. I don't see it as an anti-Iran move. They wanted advanced weapons … which this deal makes possible."
The larger strategy
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincey Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera the deal and possible advanced weapons sales could further threaten regional stability, but not in Iran, and it remains unclear how enthusiastic UAE leadership can be, domestically.
"On the one hand, they want it, but ... it doesn't scream confidence when [Abu Dhabi's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan] isn't going to show up to the signing ceremony in the US," Parsi commented.
But normalisation could lead to an "emboldened" UAE in Yemen in Libya, he continued.
Video reportedly shows UAE's involvement in Libya (2:34)

Parsi pointed to Saudi Arabia, which he claimed has achieved tacit approval for "reckless" military actions in Yemen by purchasing US weapons.
"They are operating under the impression they have the protection of the US... To this day, even when Congress has voted twice to stop the war in Yemen, the president has vetoed it twice."
While the UAE has reduced actions in Yemen, it is still active there and concerns remain about military actions in Libya, Parsi warned.
Alterman, for his part, said normalisation was not a "get out of jail free card" for the UAE.
The upcoming election could shift US strategy towards the Gulf as a broader conversation about how much effort the US should spend on the region continues, which weighs on individual Gulf states, Alterman said.
"Ultimately, the US has a larger regional strategy that is [more important] than any of its individual relationships with individual" states, Alterman said, and "every country needs to figure out how it needs to shape its relationship" within said US strategy.
Normalisation "represents a beginning of the UAE's answer" to that question, Alterman concluded.



Russia says CSTO military drills to take place in Belarus from Oct. 12-16
By Reuters Staff

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Six members of a post-Soviet security bloc led by Russia will hold joint military drills in Belarus from Oct. 12-16, the Russian defense ministry said on Tuesday.
The ministry said six member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) -- Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan -- would take part in the exercises with a focus on preparing and conducting peacekeeping operations.
The ministry earlier said military drills between Russia and Belarus had started on Tuesday in the Brest region near Belarus’ border with Poland.
Reporting by Polina Devitt; Writing by Alexander Marrow; Editing by Catherine Evans
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.


Russia-Belarus military drills are not targeting other countries: Ifax
By Reuters Staff

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Joint military drills taking place in Belarus this month between Russian and Belarusian forces are for counter-terrorism purposes and are not directed against other countries, the Interfax news agency cited Russia’s defense ministry as saying on Tuesday.
The “Slavic brotherhood” military drills began on Tuesday, the ministry said, and are due to run until Sept. 25.
The drills are taking place in the Brest region near Belarus’ border with Poland and are happening amid mass protests in Belarus following contested Aug. 9 presidential elections.
Reporting by Polina Devitt; Writing by Alexander Marrow; Editing by Katya Golubkova


Well-known member
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Everyone knows it's a US/EU conspiracy against Russia.
It's always a conspiracy against this tinpots who are otherwise uncapable in holding true democratic elections to prove how much they're loved by their people.
Top Bottom