Should Nato Attack Belarus? Understanding The Alliance's Hesitation

Belarus's involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been limited to allowing Russian troops to perform military drills on its territory, providing a launchpad for the invasion, and allowing Russian missile launchers to be stationed on its territory. Despite this, the Belarusian Armed Forces (BAF) have not directly participated in the conflict. This could be because the Belarusian army is too small to make a significant impact on the war, and the Ukrainian armed forces are now better prepared for an attack from the north. Additionally, Belarusian society is largely against the country's participation in the war, and sending troops could provoke a serious wave of discontent within the country.

NATO's focus is on conventional and nuclear attacks, not grey-zone tactics

Belarus has been accused of using "grey-zone tactics" to destabilize the region and provoke a response from NATO. These tactics include weaponizing migrants, spreading propaganda, and conducting joint military drills with Russia. While these actions do not constitute a conventional or nuclear attack, they are still very dangerous and can easily lead to a dangerous escalation.

For example, in November 2024, Belarusian soldiers fired what were thought to be blank shots at Polish soldiers, and Polish soldiers fired warning shots in response. This incident could have easily escalated into a full-blown conflict if either side had misinterpreted the other's actions.

Another example is Belarus's decision to allow Russian troops to remain in the country after joint military drills, giving Russia a strategic base from which to launch its invasion of Ukraine. This action provided valuable support to Russia without Belarus ever having to engage in direct combat.

The use of grey-zone tactics by Belarus and Russia highlights the limitations of NATO's current strategy, which is focused solely on conventional and nuclear attacks. NATO needs to adapt and develop a response to these new types of threats, or risk being outmaneuvered by its adversaries.

One option for NATO could be to increase its presence in Eastern Europe and strengthen its support for Ukraine. This would send a strong message to Belarus and Russia that their actions will not be tolerated and that NATO is committed to protecting its allies. However, this option also carries the risk of escalating tensions and leading to an all-out war.

Another possibility is for NATO to work more closely with its allies to impose economic sanctions on Belarus and Russia. This could involve targeting individuals or entities within these countries who are responsible for or complicit in the grey-zone tactics. This approach would allow NATO to take a strong stance without necessarily resorting to military action.

In conclusion, NATO's current focus on conventional and nuclear attacks is not sufficient to address the complex and evolving threats posed by adversaries like Belarus and Russia. By adapting its strategies and developing responses to grey-zone tactics, NATO can better protect its allies and maintain stability in the region.

Belarus is a close ally of Russia, and has supported its invasion of Ukraine

Belarus is a close ally of Russia and has supported its invasion of Ukraine. Before the invasion, Belarus allowed the Russian Armed Forces to perform military drills on its territory. However, the Russian troops did not leave after the drills were supposed to finish. Belarus also allowed Russia to launch part of its invasion from Belarusian territory, giving Russia the shortest possible land route to Ukraine's capital, Kyiv. Belarus has also allowed Russian missile launchers to be stationed on its territory and shoot at Ukrainian targets.

Several reports emerged from the Belarusian opposition and the Ukrainian military that Belarusian troops were in Ukraine fighting alongside Russians. However, the Belarusian leader, Aleksander Lukashenko, dismissed these claims and said that the Belarusian Armed Forces (BAF) would not participate directly in the conflict. As of early 2023, the BAF has not been involved in fighting against Ukraine and has remained on Belarusian territory during the entire conflict. Lukashenko has stated that he would only send soldiers into Ukraine if Belarus was attacked first.

Belarus's involvement in the Russian invasion has been condemned by Western countries, including the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan, which have imposed sanctions on Belarus. According to Chatham House, Belarus's participation in the military conflict is unpopular among the general Belarusian population. Protests were held on February 27, 2022, the day of a constitutional referendum that revoked Belarus's non-nuclear country status, but these protests were quickly dispersed.

Belarus's proximity to Kyiv and its shared border with Ukraine are considered to be of major strategic value to Russia. Belarus has also hosted diplomatic talks between Russia and Ukraine and served as a staging ground for Russian troops in the months preceding the invasion.

Belarus's involvement in the conflict is unpopular among its citizens

According to a survey by Chatham House, 79% of Belarusians think that the death of Belarusian soldiers during the war between Russia and Ukraine is unacceptable, and more than 50% thought that Belarus should remain neutral. Another survey found that over 90% of Belarusians reject the idea of joining the war on Russia's side. This opposition to the war is not limited to the general public, as even low-ranked Belarusian soldiers are opposed to participating in the invasion of Ukraine.

The Belarusian leader, Alexander Lukashenko, is aware of this unpopularity and has stated that there would be "no way" he would send soldiers to Ukraine unless attacked first. However, Lukashenko has provided support to Russia in other ways, such as by allowing Russian Armed Forces to perform military drills on Belarusian territory and by revoking Belarus's non-nuclear status.

The unpopularity of Belarusian involvement in the conflict has also led to acts of sabotage and disruption by Belarusian activists and dissidents. These acts have targeted the Belarusian Railway, which is used to transport Russian military trains, and have included destroying control points of semaphore signals and railroad switches, organizing short circuits of the signaling system, and damaging network infrastructure. There have also been reports of Belarusian volunteers joining the Ukrainian Armed Forces to fight against Russia.

Belarus's army is too small to be effective in the war

The Belarusian army's ineffectiveness in a potential war with NATO is further compounded by its reliance on outdated equipment. The military forces are almost exclusively armed with Soviet-era equipment inherited from the Soviet Union, which some Western experts consider outdated. While Belarus receives around 100 new and upgraded systems annually, its main battle tanks (MBTs) are of the Russian type T-72, T-62, and T-55, and its armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) are of the Russian type MT-LB, BMP-2, and BMP-1.

Additionally, Belarusian society is overwhelmingly against the country's participation in the war. More than 90% reject the idea of joining on Russia's side, and sending Belarusians to war could provoke a serious wave of discontent within the country. The Belarusian democratic forces in exile would likely exploit this discontent to overthrow the Lukashenko regime.

Furthermore, the Ukrainian armed forces are now much better prepared for an attack from the north. They have mined the roads and fields on the border with Belarus, destroyed relevant bridges, and acquired modern Western weapons such as HIMARS anti-tank missiles, which could prevent troops from even crossing the border.

Therefore, the small size and limited capabilities of the Belarusian army, combined with strong domestic opposition to the war and Ukraine's improved defensive measures, make it unlikely that Belarus's involvement would significantly impact the war.

NATO has not figured out how to respond to grey-zone aggression

Some members of the alliance would likely argue for defusing the situation, while others would push for punishment as they view the weaponization of migrants and triggering of conflict as a 21st-century armed attack. However, it is not clear what form this punishment would take, as liberal democracies cannot respond in kind. NATO cannot simply send thousands of migrants into Belarus.

The situation is further complicated by the presence of NATO troops in Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania as part of the alliance's Enhanced Forward Presence (EFP). In the event that one of these EFP soldiers is harmed in clashes with Belarusian forces or migrants, NATO would have little choice but to respond with force. This would constitute an armed attack under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that an attack on one ally is considered an attack on all allies.

The decision to respond with force would need to be agreed upon by all NATO members, and it is unclear how they would reach consensus given their differing views on how to address grey-zone aggression. This lack of a clear response strategy could be exploited by adversaries, as seen with Belarus's use of migrants to destabilize the region and potentially draw NATO into a conflict.

To avoid being drawn into a conflict on Belarus's terms, NATO needs to develop a comprehensive strategy for responding to grey-zone aggression. This strategy should take into account the diverse views of its members and find a middle ground that allows for a proportional response that deters adversaries without escalating the situation unnecessarily.

Frequently asked questions