
The election that wasn't in Belarus
Lukashenka barely campaigned at all, telling factory workers he was simply too busy. In reality, vote rigging made the result a foregone conclusion. Lukashenka's closest rival, Sergei Syrankov of the Communist party, took 3.2% of the vote. 'We understand who'll be the winner in this race,' Syrankov told Russian state media. 'We fully support that.'
Activists were threatened by security services in the run up to the election. Those are not idle threats – 1,265 political prisoners already behind bars. No invitation was sent to Europe's main election observation body, the OSCE, and voters were banned from photographing their ballot papers – a tactic previously used by opposition activists to check whether votes were being fairly counted.
'These are not elections but a 'special operation' to illegally cling to power,' said Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, the leader of the Belarusian opposition. She remains in exile after standing against Lukashenka in the country's 2020 elections. Her husband, Sergei, was jailed in Belarus for 18 years after organising anti-government protests. 'We will never accept [Lukashenka].'
Lukashenka's stage-managed victory was intended to show a government firmly in control. During the last elections, five years ago, thousands of pro-democracy protesters flooded the streets in defiance of the regime. Although they were violently dispersed by police, the memory of that protest lingers.
But while Minsk tries to project an image of stability, the reality of different. State oppression is only intensifying, says Olga Dryndova, a political scientist at the University of Bremen and editor of Belarus-Analysen .
'Belarus is still not North Korea, but there are signs of a state trying to control all the spheres of society, including the private sphere,' she says. 'Elections now play a different role: it's not about trying to show a façade of democracy, it's about showing control over society, control over the elections, and control over the political system.'
As well as the pseudo-democratic sheen of the vote itself, Minsk released more than 250 political prisoners in the run-up to the election, a signal of willingness for fresh dialogue with the West.
'Lukashenka wants to try and win back some legitimacy: for [the West] to call him the president and talk directly to him. As a rule, a lot of countries don't do that now because they don't recognise him as president,' says Dr. Andrew Wilson, a historian at University College London.
Such recognition is not only a matter of pride for Lukashenka himself: it would give Minsk a greater chance of shedding some of the sanctions currently imposed against it, for reasons ranging from Belarus' role in Russia's invasion of Ukraine to political persecutions.
In a joint statement, the EU diplomat Kaja Kallas and EU enlargement commissioner Marta Kos described the vote as a 'sham election' that was 'neither free, nor fair.' The US State Department also denounced the vote. 'Repression is born of weakness, not strength. The unprecedented measures to stifle any opposition make it clear that the Lukashenka regime fears its own people,' it said.
But Lukashenka's leadership is less tied now with the ballot box than it is with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Minsk has battled to ensure it does not become directly embroiled in the conflict, although it has allowed Russian troops to launch attacks from its territory.
'Lukashenka has managed to be a co-aggressor against Ukraine, but has avoided sending troops to fight there. Belarusians like that,' says Tatsiana Kulakevich, an associate professor at the University of South Florida.
'For the last 30 years, the ideology of the Belarusian state has been 'Belarusians are a peaceful people'. It's so ingrained, this idea that we don't want to be 'like Ukraine'.'
An unfavourable turn to the war for Putin will mean more pressure for Minsk to commit its own armed forces to the cause – or even the potential loss of Minsk's most important ally. Such scenarios are likely to leave Minsk increasingly hopeful for peace talks – particularly if Belarus can escape international ire in any final deal.
'If they forget about Belarus during peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, then Belarus is screwed because nothing will change,' says Kulakevich. 'People in Ukraine are paying for freedom with their lives. In Belarus, they are dying too – except hidden in jail.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Channel 4
10 minutes ago
- Channel 4
Trump threatens severe consequences if Putin doesn't end war
Today's virtual summit was the last chance for Europeans to sway Donald Trump before the showdown in Anchorage with the Russian President. But while Europe's leaders emerged from the meeting optimistically restating Ukraine's goals, it may amount to very little. None of them are set to be in the room when Trump and Putin go face to face.


Reuters
37 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump asked Polish President Nawrocki to replace Tusk in Ukraine meeting
WARSAW, Aug 13 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump at the last minute requested MAGA-allied Polish President Karol Nawrocki join the Ukraine teleconference with European leaders on Wednesday, according to centrist Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Nawrocki's bitter political rival who had been expected to attend. Nawrocki, a conservative nationalist and eurosceptic, is an ally of Trump's right-wing populist MAGA political movement and visited the White House during Poland's presidential election campaign this year. He defeated the candidate of Tusk's pro-European, centrist party in June. "Just before midnight yesterday we received information, alongside our European partners, that the American side would prefer that Poland was represented by the president in contacts with President Trump," Tusk told a news conference. The White House did not comment whether the U.S. requested Nawrocki rather than Tusk take part in the call. A Polish government spokesperson said on Tuesday that Tusk, a former head of the European Council of leaders, would attend the call with Trump. But Nawrocki foreign policy adviser Marcin Przydacz told reporters he had "no information that Prime Minister Donald Tusk had previously planned to participate." He said Tusk's team showed it did not have good contacts with the Trump administration because it was under the impression Tusk would take part. Government spokesman Adam Szlapka said Tusk was representing Poland in two calls on Wednesday with European leaders but not Trump. Przydacz said the offices of the president and prime minister would exchange information about the meetings. European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy spoke to Trump ahead of the U.S. president's summit with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, stressing the need to protect Kyiv's interests. Krzysztof Izdebski, policy director at the Batory Foundation, said having two political opponents represent Poland created a risk of mixed messages. "This shows that, even in foreign policy, in such a key issue of security, we are simply hostage to internal politics and a certain competition between various state bodies," he said. He said this would undermine Poland's effort to present itself as a modern country working with leading nations on international political issues. Nawrocki and PiS are strong supporters of Ukraine in its war with invading Russian forces, as is Tusk and his government, but they differ on issues such as abortion, family values and the rule of law. Tusk said that he respected the U.S. request to keep contacts at the presidential level, but this should not be used to "play Poles against each other".


JAMnews
42 minutes ago
- JAMnews
'Armenia–US drills are more political than defensive,' says analyst
Eagle Partner 2025 military drills in Armenia Joint Armenia–US military drills, codenamed Eagle Partner, have begun in Armenia and will run until 20 August. Held annually since 2023, the exercises focus on preparing participants for peacekeeping missions. This year, special attention will be given to medical evacuation. Political analyst Beniamin Poghosyan does not believe the drills will play a decisive role in Armenia's defence system. 'We are talking about peacekeeping operations, about a peacekeeping brigade. I would say these exercises have more political than defensive significance – in terms of hard power. But they do show that Armenia–US defence cooperation, which did not start today and has a long history, has intensified in recent years,' he said. Participants march at the opening ceremony of the drills. Photo: Armenian Ministry of Defence Participants and objectives According to the defense ministry, Eagle Partner 2025 involves personnel from Armenia's peacekeeping brigade, the US Army Europe and Africa, and the Kansas National Guard. Armenian armed forces chief of staff Edward Asryan and US ambassador to Armenia Kristina Kvien attended the opening ceremony of the drills. Photo: Armenian Ministry of Defence Objectives of the drills: improve coordination between units taking part in international peacekeeping missions share experience in command and tactical communication enhance the readiness of Armenia's peacekeeping unit Comment According to political analyst Beniamin Poghosyan, similar drills have been held in Armenia for the past three years. However, he does not rule out that this year's format could lead to a broader range of training for servicemen in the future. 'Whether this could become the basis for larger-scale exercises in the future, or drills involving not only members of the peacekeeping brigade, is hard to say. But it is clear that Armenia–US defence cooperation is continuing – and its continuation at least leaves open the possibility of expansion,' he said. The analyst noted that the first Armenia–US exercises in Yerevan were held after the Armenian government decided not to take part in drills of the CSTO military bloc, which operates under Russia's aegis. Since then, Moscow has consistently criticised Armenia–US exercises, with Russian politicians claiming that through them, the US is imposing NATO standards on Armenia. This year, the Kremlin has yet to comment on Eagle Partner. Armenia has long ceased participating in CSTO activities, with the authorities accusing their bloc allies of failing to meet their obligations. They say the CSTO did not ensure Armenia's border security, in breach of commitments under the organisation's charter, referring to events in 2021–2022 when Armenian forces requested help over an incursion by Azerbaijan's military into its sovereign territory. CSTO members declined, arguing that Armenia's border with Azerbaijan was not yet delimited. Prime minister Nikol Pashinyan said: 'Saying there is no border between Armenia and Azerbaijan means claiming there is no area of responsibility for the Collective Security Treaty Organization. And if there is no area of responsibility, there is no organisation.' Armenia has since frozen its CSTO membership, and in his most recent press conference, Pashinyan said the country is more likely to leave the bloc than to unfreeze its participation. Beniamin Poghosyan believes the Kremlin will not take harsh measures against Armenia unless it crosses three 'red lines': 'The first red line is the operation of the Russian military base in Armenia [the 102nd base is stationed in Gyumri], which under the agreement is to remain until 2044. The second red line is membership in the Eurasian Economic Union [also operating under Russia's aegis]. The third red line is a de jure withdrawal from the CSTO.' Regarding the West's position on Armenia's CSTO membership, Poghosyan noted that France and the United States under the Biden administration signalled to Armenia's leadership that freezing its membership was the right move. However, they advised against rushing a de jure withdrawal. Therefore, he does not believe Armenia's formal membership in the CSTO is an obstacle to cooperation with the West. He cited the example of Armenia–France defence cooperation, which has been expanding in weapons supplies and training: 'We have never received any indication from France that de jure CSTO membership hinders cooperation. There have been no statements suggesting they would sell more weapons if Armenia were not a member. At least, I have never heard anything like that.' According to Poghosyan, the same applies to Armenia–US defence cooperation — formal CSTO membership is not a barrier. However, it could limit the transfer of advanced technologies: 'In the US, there is a clear division regarding which groups of states can be supplied with certain advanced technologies. I do not rule out that as long as Armenia remains a de jure CSTO member, there may be problems related to the export of specific technologies.'