Putin's Belarus Move: What's Next?

In 2020, Belarus faced nationwide protests over a rigged presidential election, which led to calls for Russian President Vladimir Putin to intervene and prevent the collapse of the Lukashenko regime. Putin initially promised comprehensive security assistance, but stopped short of military intervention. Instead, he opted to work with the opposition to negotiate a political transition, maintaining Russian influence in Belarus at a minimal cost. Putin's decision was influenced by the desire to avoid major EU and US sanctions and the unpopularity of military intervention with Russian voters. While Putin provided verbal support and conducted joint nuclear drills with Belarus, he did not send Russian troops, despite Lukashenko's pleas for more direct assistance.

Putin's nuclear threats

In the context of the 2020 Belarusian protests, there was speculation about whether or not Putin would intervene in Belarus. While Putin did offer "comprehensive assistance to ensure the security of Belarus", experts believed that Russian military intervention would be expensive, bloody, and unpopular with Russian voters.

Now, onto Putin's nuclear threats.

In June 2024, Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to rule out lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons in Russia's nuclear posture. When urged by Sergey Karaganov, head of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy think tank, to be more forceful and prepared to use nuclear weapons to achieve victory in Ukraine, Putin said that nuclear weapons would only be used in "exceptional cases... when there is a threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country". However, he did not rule out the possibility of making changes to this doctrine.

Putin's comments come as Russia continues to face setbacks in its full-scale invasion of Ukraine and in protest of NATO support for Ukraine. Since the beginning of the invasion, Putin has made several direct and indirect threats referencing Russia's nuclear weapons. Russia maintains a stockpile of 1,000 to 2,000 non-strategic nuclear weapons. The Trump administration's 2018 Nuclear Posture Review asserted that Russia had adopted a strategy of "escalate to de-escalate" as part of its nuclear posture, which would involve using low-yield nuclear weapons early in a conventional conflict to shock the adversary and deter further aggression. While the Biden administration's 2022 Nuclear Posture Review did not repeat this assertion, it raised concerns about the possibility that Russia would use non-strategic nuclear weapons to try to win a war on its periphery or avoid defeat.

In his comments, Putin also refused to rule out the resumption of nuclear testing, stating that "if necessary, we will conduct such tests". Putin's nuclear threats have been dismissed by some as meaningless and without substance, especially in light of the decision by the US to allow Ukraine to use long-range missiles against Russia. This decision has put potential Russian nuclear launch sites within range of Ukrainian missiles, rendering Russian tactical nuclear weapons redundant.

Russian military intervention

In 2020, the question of whether or not Russia would intervene in Belarus was a pressing issue. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, facing mass protests over a rigged election, called on Russian President Vladimir Putin for help. Putin promised "comprehensive security assistance", and stated that Russia was "prepared to render necessary assistance in resolving the emerged problems on the basis of the treaty on the establishment of the Union State, and, if needed, via the Collective Treaty Organization".

However, the likelihood of Russian military intervention in Belarus was questionable. Firstly, the protests in Belarus were not anti-Russian or pro-Western, but specifically anti-Lukashenko. Sending in troops would risk turning the Belarusian people against Russia. Secondly, military intervention would put Russia in the crosshairs of major EU and US sanctions, which Moscow would be keen to avoid. Finally, Putin had other, less costly ways to ensure Belarus remained oriented towards Russia, such as working behind the scenes to negotiate a political transition that would maintain Russian influence.

Despite this, Putin did take steps to prepare for potential intervention. In an interview with Russian state TV, he revealed that he had formed a police reserve force at Lukashenko's request, to be used if the situation in Belarus escalated and "extremist elements" began "setting fire to cars, houses, banks, [and trying] to seize government buildings".

Ultimately, Putin's first choice would not be to take up arms against the people of Belarus. However, if Lukashenko's position became truly untenable, and the opposition threatened to take Belarus into NATO, military intervention would become a more appealing option for Russia.

Public opinion in Russia

Opinion polls show that a vast majority of Russians want to maintain friendly relations with Belarus, which has historically been a close ally. However, there is a risk that sending Russian troops to Belarus without a clear invitation from the Belarusian people could turn public opinion against Russia. Russians are already wary of further economic sanctions, and the country's economy is not in a position to withstand additional burdens.

Some Russia-watchers believe that military intervention in Belarus is imminent or even underway, pointing to Putin's promise to provide "comprehensive security assistance" to Lukashenko. However, others argue that Putin has other, less costly options to maintain influence in Belarus before resorting to large-scale military intervention.

Putin's primary concern is likely preventing Belarus from moving towards NATO or adopting a Western orientation. He also wants to avoid a repeat of the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine, which ousted a pro-Kremlin leader. While the protests in Belarus are not currently directed against Russia, Kremlin intervention could change that dynamic and fuel the democracy movement within Russia itself.

In summary, public opinion in Russia is a complex mix of solidarity with the Belarusian people and wariness of excessive intervention, shaped by recent history with Ukraine and the desire to maintain influence in the region. The Russian government's response to the situation in Belarus will need to navigate these competing interests and considerations.

The role of the EU and US

The European Union's Role:

The European Union (EU) has been actively urging Russia not to intervene in Belarus as the country faces growing protests against President Alexander Lukashenko's rule. EU foreign ministers have met to discuss the crisis, rejecting the results of the disputed election and preparing sanctions against the Lukashenko regime for ballot fraud and violent suppression of protests. Josep Borrell, the EU's foreign policy chief, has called on Moscow to respect the democratic choices of the Belarusian people and refrain from interfering. The EU recognizes the importance of a sovereign and independent Belarus, free from foreign interference. Lithuania, a NATO and EU member state with historical ties to Belarus, has been at the forefront of the EU's response, with its Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius expressing doubts about a potential Russian invasion. The EU is also considering creating a fund to support victims of the crackdown and promote democratic reforms in Belarus.

The United States' Role:

The United States has been skeptical of Putin's pledge to put tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. They argue that this move provides no strategic advantage and serves only as a reminder of Russia's nuclear arsenal. U.S. officials, including White House National Security Council Spokesman John Kirby, have stated that they have not seen any evidence of Russia taking concrete steps toward this pledge. The U.S. also has its own nuclear weapons deployed at NATO bases in Western Europe, which has been a source of tension with Russia. However, the number of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe has decreased significantly since the Cold War, and many question their continued presence.

In summary, the EU and US have taken different approaches to address the situation in Belarus. While the EU focuses on diplomacy and sanctions, urging Russia to refrain from intervening, the US confronts Russia's nuclear ambitions in the region while managing its own nuclear presence.

The future of Belarus-Russia relations

In 2020, Russia intervened to prevent the collapse of the Lukashenko regime amid nationwide protests over a rigged presidential election. This intervention has led to a strengthening of Russia's grip on Belarus, with Russian influence in the country reaching unprecedented levels. Belarus has since supported Russia's invasion of Ukraine, including allowing Russia to use its territory to launch air strikes and conducting joint nuclear drills with Russia.

Despite this, there are indications that Russia may be hesitant to intervene directly in Belarus again. For one, the protests in Belarus are not anti-Russian or pro-Western, but specifically anti-Lukashenko. Sending in Russian troops without a clear invitation from the Belarusian people could risk turning them against Russia. Additionally, a direct intervention could put Russia in the crosshairs of major EU and US sanctions, which Moscow has been eager to avoid, especially given the current state of the Russian economy.

Instead, Russia may opt to work behind the scenes to negotiate a political transition in Belarus that ensures it maintains its privileged position with the Belarusian government, regardless of who emerges as the country's leader. However, this outcome is not guaranteed, and there is a possibility that the transfer of power could occur despite Russia's efforts to control the outcome. In this case, the new government in Minsk could tilt towards Brussels rather than Moscow, which would be a worst-case scenario for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Another factor to consider is the presence of Russian military forces in Belarus. Putin has formed a police reserve force that could potentially be used to intervene in Belarus if the situation escalates and "extremist elements" are perceived to be threatening the stability of the country. However, as of July 2023, Putin stated that this force would only be used if the situation gets out of control, indicating a cautious approach to direct intervention.

In conclusion, the future of Belarus-Russia relations remains uncertain. While Russia has intervened in the past to support the Lukashenko regime and maintain its influence in the country, the current dynamics suggest a more nuanced approach. Russia may seek to work behind the scenes to shape the political transition in Belarus while avoiding direct military intervention unless deemed absolutely necessary. The outcome of this delicate balance of power will have significant implications for both countries and the wider region.

Frequently asked questions