Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Belarus' President Alexander Lukashenko take part in a signing ceremony following a meeting of the Supreme State Council of the Union State of Russia and Belarus in Minsk, Belarus, on Dec. 6, 2024.
Viewpoint: With Putin’s protection, is Lukashenko’s reelection in Belarus a foregone conclusion?
Ahead of Sunday’s election in Belarus, there is little doubt that Alexander Lukashenko, Europe’s longest-serving leader, will win a new term in office. After the protests that erupted following the 2020 elections, threatening his grip on power for the first time, a government crackdown supported by Russia has eliminated any opposition to the president.
Yet a new term for the 70-year-old leader, who has complained about health problems, will likely raise questions about potential succession planning in his next term. Regardless of what comes next, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who considers neighboring Belarus a critical part of his country’s sphere of influence, will make sure its interests are protected.
We sat down with Eurasia Group expert Alex Brideau to learn more about the upcoming election.
What do we know about Lukashenko’s true level of support?
Lukashenko has been in power for more than 30 years, ever since he won Belarus’ first and only genuine democratic presidential election, held in 1994 a few years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since then, it has been hard to tell just how genuine Lukashenko’s public support is. He has routinely won reelection in votes that were neither free nor fair. Many of his challengers have been arrested for standing against him.
Lukashenko’s reelection in 2020, though, demonstrated that whatever popularity he previously enjoyed had eroded and that his hold on power looked shaky. Public outcry over manipulated results that showed another landslide victory against a credible opposition candidate, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, prompted major demonstrations that threatened Lukashenko’s hold on power for months. Major repression by the security forces and support from Russia allowed him to regain control of the situation.
Is there any chance of a repeat of the 2020 results or unrest?
This election is going to look very different from the anger of five years ago. Belarus’ security services continue to repress the formal opposition. Parties have been banned and their leaders have been arrested or forced to flee the country. Attempts to protest the results will be met with arrests and force, most likely. The regime may hope that holding the election in January instead of August, as happened in 2020, might limit the appetite for demonstrations. As for the election itself, there is little mystery as to who will win. Lukashenko won’t have a serious challenger, instead facing candidates who are considered to be loyal opposition.
What matters with this vote?
Given his age and past statements suggesting he is concerned about his health, there will be at least some question as to whether Lukashenko might consider a succession plan during his new term. Lukashenko has talked about stepping aside before, only to stay firmly in charge. And it’s doubtful that a succession plan would truly lead to him giving up his control. Lukashenko’s control of the All-Belarusian People’s Assembly gives him a way to exert power if he decided he wanted to transfer the presidency to a loyalist.
How do outside powers view the election?
Russia will recognize the election results, allowing it to maintain its influence over Belarus. Lukashenko isn’t exactly liked in Moscow. His leadership has been considered erratic, and he has thumbed his nose at Moscow’s interests at times when it either helped him at home or when he tried (and failed) to cozy up to the West. But he has become even more dependent on Russian economic and military support since 2020, as Western governments imposed heavier sanctions and even restricted air travel from Belarus. Putin’s policies have treated Belarus much the same way he has approached Ukraine, seeing it as an integral part of Russia’s sphere of influence. Russia has used a bilateral “Union State” treaty from 1999 to boost its role in the country. If there were a crisis stemming from the election, Moscow could very well intervene to ensure that its control was intact.
How about the West?
The US and EU members, meanwhile, will not consider the election legitimate. But so far they aren’t saying all that much. Having already imposed a large number of sanctions against the economy and Belarusian leaders both before and after the 2020 crackdown, there is only so much they are able to do to affect Lukashenko’s control.
Edited by Jonathan House, Senior Editor of Eurasia Group.
Servicemen of the 24th King Daniel of Galicia Separate Mechanized Brigade are firing a mortar at the positions of Russian troops near Chasiv Yar in Donetsk region, Ukraine, on August 14, 2024.
A buffer for Ukraine, new tensions with Belarus?
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Sunday that Ukraine’s military operation in Russia’s Kursk regionaims to establish a buffer zone to prevent further attacks by Moscow. Since Aug. 6, Ukrainian forces havedestroyed two key bridges and disrupted Russian supply lines. Further south, there has also been“intense military activity” near the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, with the UN’s nuclear watchdog warning of deteriorating safety conditions.
For its part, Russia dismissed reports that Ukraine’s shock attack on Kurskderailed discussions on halting strikes near energy facilities. The Washington Post had claimed that delegations were set to meet in Qatar to negotiate a partial cease-fire, but Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova denied the existence of any talks.
Is Belarus next? On Sunday, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed thata third of his country’s armed forces have been deployed along its border with Ukraine. Lukashenko, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, said Minsk’s move was in response to Ukraine’s “aggressive policy” of stationing over 120,000 troops on its side of the border. Lukashenko also said the Belarusian-Ukrainian border is heavily mined.
Ukrainian officials downplayed the situation. Andriy Demchenko, a spokesperson for Ukraine’s border service,denied seeing any increase in Belarusian units or equipment at the border and criticized Lukashenko for “constantly escalating the situation with regularity to please the terrorist country.” We’re watching whether Belarus is bluffing, or whether this could open up another front in the war — and what moving the frontline to Belarus would mean for NATO allies like Poland.Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin drinks tea
Russian nukes move into NATO’s backyard
Russia made good on its promise to move some of its nuclear arsenal to Belarus, putting Russian-controlled nuclear weapons on NATO’s doorstep.
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said his country is hosting the nuclear weapons in response to Poland’s aggression. Over the last two weeks, Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki – who’s positioning himself as the national security candidate ahead of national elections in October – has sent thousands of troops to the border amid rising troop numbers and tensions.
But Russia and Belarus aren’t going to trigger the wrath of NATO lightly, and the transition of weapons, “appears to be largely a signal of strength to the West, rather than a preparation for their use,” says Alex Brideau, Eurasia Group’s Europe Head.
NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg denounced Moscow’s move, but Brideau thinks the response that matters most – to Putin at least – is President Joe Biden’s. “Washington has been cautious in its responses since the February 2022 invasion," Brideau says, noting that “we haven't seen much in terms of concrete US actions to the Russian government's threats about the deployment or use of nuclear weapons.”
Meanwhile, the US Embassy issued a security warning yesterday, urging Americans in Belarus to leave the country immediately. The move appears to be motivated by rising tensions in the region, not the nukes. We will be watching to see whether Russia’s latest move is severe enough to harden Biden’s rhetoric.
How do you think the US should respond? Let us know what you’d do in Biden’s shoes here.
Prigozhin's exit shakes Putin's regime
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here and quite a weekend.
We have just gotten through an unprecedented turn of events challenging President Putin in a way that he has not since he's taken power in that country. Mr. Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner Group, built up directly by President Putin, he is solely responsible for Prigozhin's success and power and wealth, and then essentially declaring war against the Kremlin, moving his forces to within dozens of kilometers of Moscow. And then, at the last moment, "cutting a deal" brokered by Belarus's President Aleksandr Lukashenko. He is today still, to the best of our knowledge, a free man. But for how long? It's hard to imagine that's sustainable.
This is a man who has done a lot of fighting for the Russians on the ground in Ukraine, sending his troops into a meat grinder, as it's been referred to in Bakhmut, some of the only territorial gains that the Russians have had in the last six months. Lionized for that by Russian state media on billboards across the country over the past months, but also increasingly insubordinate, both in his public willingness to go after the Ministry of Defense, the forces, the command structure on the ground, and, in particular, Minister of Defense, Sergei Shoigu. And then, over the last week, when Shoigu said that all Wagner forces and all paramilitary forces had to sign direct contracts with the Ministry of Defense, in other words, they'd be rolling up to their authority. And Prigozhin said no and then Putin directly said, reiterating that order, "Have to sign. Those orders have to become conscripted under contract under Shoigu."
Prigozhin again said no. Put him in an impossible situation. He was essentially dead man walking if he was going to say no. And he said no. Of course, he wasn't in much better of a situation if he said yes, because then those troops no longer report to him, and that is his power base. So he ended up turning around from Ukraine and sending his troops first into Rostov uncontested, head seat of the Southern Military District where the command center for the Ukrainian offensive has been for the Russians. And then up towards Moscow. So that explains why he did it, but much harder to explain why he suddenly backed down and why he's still alive today. Why he backed down I think has more to do with the fact that he didn't have any support inside the Kremlin. I mean, while this was all going on, there were no defections among Russia's military leadership. There were no defections inside the government. There were no defections among Russia's key oligarchs.
Prigozhin is not only a creation of Putin, but is also outside the power structure. So inside the power structure, you don't have a lot of people saying, "I'm with him. I'm with stupid." And so he marches towards Moscow in an utter move of desperation but doesn't have the ability to beat the forces, or doesn't think he does, that are loyal directly to Putin and are accountable directly to Putin defending Moscow. And so then when he is offered a deal, he takes the deal. But I mean, anyone that believes that a deal offered by Putin after this level of personal challenge and embarrassment to the Russian President. People have been assassinated and jailed for a lot less in what they do to the all powerful, or previously all powerful Russian President.
So why is he still alive? And there I think it's a matter of timing. It's the fact that the Russian government has been fighting against this Ukrainian counter offensive, and if they were to have a fight against Wagner right now, and keep in mind the Ukrainian counter offensive hasn't gone very well, but most of the troops aren't involved yet, they have 11 plus trained and equipped divisions, trained by the US, by the UK and allies, only two and a half of them are already involved in the fighting, which means that Putin knew a lot more was coming. And if Wagner's not available, and the Chechen Kadyrov group, another paramilitary that has declared full loyalty to the Ministry of Defense, was pulling back to fight against Wagner and the MOD forces are going to need to be used for that as well.
Suddenly, the Ukrainians might have a clear ability to retake all the territory. So this was the worst possible time for Putin to go to war against Wagner. And perhaps that is the best explanation for why it is that they cut a deal. But the deal that was cut is not a deal that can't be broken. And, of course, now that the Wagner Group, their headquarters have been raided, it has been announced that all of their forces are going to sign direct contracts with the Russian Ministry of Defense. Prigozhin is, at least we believe, either headed to or in Belarus, probably in Belarus. Not a sovereign state. Intelligence, military, really under the control of Russia, just as Lukashenko primarily is. And so that means if Putin wants to take him out, it's more a matter of time than it is a matter of capability.
And I personally can't imagine that he's going to be with us for all that much longer. But a lot of damage has been done. The fact that around the world everyone has seen that when Putin has been challenged and challenged hard that the Russian forces did not stand up to the Wagner forces until they got close to Moscow. And they also showed that, at the last moment, Putin didn't use his forces against him, but instead let him walk away. That's a weakness for Putin internally that is being seen by the Russian people. It's being seen by Russian military elites and others. It's also being seen by other countries around the world.
The Chinese, supposed to be Russia's best friend, they didn't provide any military support for Putin when he was at his moment of greatest need. The Kazakhs, Russia sent over 2,000 paramilitary forces, parachutists, and others into Kazakhstan over a year ago before the Ukraine war was launched, because a coup occurred against President Tokayev. He really appreciated that support. He's there today because of that support. His willingness to support Putin, he said it was an internal Russian matter. So I mean, you look around the world right now, we have a very strong NATO, we have enormous support from NATO into Ukraine, and we have Russia pretty isolated on the global stage.
That's good for the Ukrainians, there's no question, and it's good for NATO's strategy, but it also increasingly gives Putin no outs. Someone considered a war criminal internationally and someone that now has been tested in a way he never expected to be by his own loyal former chef, the caterer, Prigozhin, who at least for now is in Belarus. This story is not close to over. Russia's stability is now a significant question in a way that it really was not just 72 hours ago, and I'm sure we're going to be talking about it quite a bit.
You go back to January this year. Our top risks as we look forward over the course of every year in terms of likelihood, imminence, and impact, number one, and not even close in any other risk that we've seen over the course of the 25 years that we've had Eurasia Group, was the idea of a rogue Russia. A Russia that increasingly has been decoupled from, isolated from, the advanced industrial economies of the world, and is acting out of a sense of risk acceptance and impunity. That rogue Russia risk has gone up significantly over the weekend.
That's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Former Russian intelligence officer: Prigozhin's threat to Putin is “ludicrous” ›
- Prigozhin’s meltdown ›
- The man with his own army ›
- Prigozhin marches on Moscow: What we know, and what to watch ›
- What the war in Ukraine looks like inside Russia - GZERO Media ›
- Don't count Yevgeny Prigozhin out - GZERO Media ›
China-US tensions over COVID origins & Russia's war
But a couple of points here. First, this lab-leak concept was one that would get you banned on social media if you came out with it a year ago. And it just goes to show how you can have a dominant narrative that gets picked up politically and suddenly no one's allowed to ask questions anymore. That doesn't make it a conspiracy theory, it means that people are still trying to understand where it is, what's going on. There was so much that was uncertain about this disease in the early days. One of the things that annoyed me about Fauci, who I've interviewed a couple of times myself, gotten to know him a bit, is the fact that he came out feeling like he was so certain in some of his early communications, on things that he obviously wasn't certain about, and ended up undermining and de-legitimizing science and the medical community in the US in a way that we really cannot afford to do so.
Saying you don't know something is okay. I mean, back last May, I published the fact that I had no idea if it came from a lab or if it came from a wet market. What was clear to me is that it was getting politicized. What was clear from the scientific community is that the disease had not been bioengineered, that it was an accident that it came out. What was also clear is the Chinese lied to their own citizens and internationally, about the virus's origins, when they knew that there was human-human transmission. They lied to the WHO, the World Health Organization, and as a consequence, it was much worse for everyone. And they're still not allowing the WHO or others to investigate appropriately the origins. The fact that the country that the virus came from is not willing to be transparent with the global scientific community. I mean, thankfully there were a bunch of doctors and scientists in China that had humanity and said, "We got to get this out no matter what." Or it would've been even worse.
But it's an enormous problem when politics intervenes in what needs to be just a follow-the-science situation. And that's true on climate, it's true on the pandemic, it's true in so many areas of the world. And in that regard, we haven't changed much at all from today through the beginnings of the pandemic. This, of course, is going to make the Americans feel tougher about relations with China. That is also true on the back of China embracing, welcoming Belarus President/Dictator, Alexander Lukashenko, completely illegitimate leader of that country, using all sorts of repression and force against his own domestic opposition. No free press of course. Again, not surprising for the Chinese at all, but one of Russia's key allies, this on the back of Wang Yi visiting Moscow, and what I expect, relatively soon, will be an announcement that Xi Jinping is going to Moscow. There is a greater comfort of these two countries working more closely together.
Does that mean that the Chinese will provide weapons directly for Russia? I don't think so. I think that's indeed why the Americans put the Chinese on notice. They had intelligence that the Chinese were considering sending drones over. The UK, the NATO Secretary General, also making those statements very strongly. The Europeans and the Americans would have a very different reaction if the Chinese decided to go ahead and put those weapons forward. Now diplomatically, what the Chinese have been saying to the Europeans behind closed doors is, "Look, you guys are providing all these weapons. You're escalating. We are showing restraint." Having said that, if you want to call BS on what the Chinese are saying, you say, "Look, a majority of the world's countries recognize, and have recognized for three straight General Assembly resolutions, that this is an illegal invasion that needs to be condemned and ended immediately. The Chinese have decided that they're going to be neutral and abstain. But most of the world's countries, even the Global South, do not agree with China on this.
That's important, because if the Chinese were to provide weapons to the country that actually invaded, illegally, against the will of the General Assembly, the Chinese are putting themselves in the position of supporting a rogue state. And that is not a position China wants to be in. Not a country that needs economic support and integration from all of the world, not just countries they dominate economically. So I believe that the Chinese may have been fooling around with the idea of providing some weapons to Russia, may have been floating that because they wanted more influence with their own 12-point peace deal. But I would be very surprised if they proceed in providing that support. That's a good thing, in the context of US-China news that right now have very few positive headlines that we're talking about.
So that's it for me. Hope everyone's well, I'll talk to you all real soon.
- China's Ukraine gambit ›
- What We’re Watching: China’s budding diplomacy, Biden’s border control, Russia’s big plans ›
- What We’re Watching: Nigerian election results, Italian migrant tragedy, COVID lab leak report ›
- What We're Watching: YouTube snuffs Bolsonaro, Israel probes Pegasus, China rejects COVID inquiry (again) ›
- What We’re Watching: WhatsApp sues India, US to (re)probe COVID origins, mob boss vs Turkish president ›
- Silicon Valley Bank Collapse: Not 2008 all over again - GZERO Media ›
Photo composite of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping
What We’re Watching: China’s budding diplomacy, Biden’s border control, Russia’s big plans
What’s next for Russia & China?
Russia and China broadcast their friendship to the world on Wednesday as the West freaked out about the possibility of Beijing turning to arm Moscow’s troops in Ukraine. After meeting Chinese top diplomat Wang Yi in the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin said that strong Russia-China ties are “important for stabilizing the international situation.” (A tad rich coming from the guy who upended geopolitics by invading Ukraine a year ago.) Putin also confirmed that Xi Jinping would visit Moscow for a summit in the coming months. Wang, for his part, clarified that while their famous partnership “without limits” is not directed against any other nation, it certainly should not be subject to external pressure. He said both countries support “multipolarity and democratization of international relations” – in other words, not a US-led liberal international order. Still, no matter what Western governments say, the Chinese are not so willing to break ties with the US and its allies, mainly because Beijing's trade relations are too important. Meanwhile, we wonder whether the current status of the Russia-China relationship — friends with benefits but complicated — will blossom into a marriage (of convenience) or end in a bad breakup. What we know for sure is that China is getting more involved in the Ukraine conflict generally. Learn more here.
Biden’s tough new move on immigration
The Biden administration this week unveiled a new hardline immigration plan that will likely come into effect after the current pandemic-era immigration policy, known as Title 42, lapses on May 11. It would then stay in place for two years. Under the measure, first revealed last month, asylum-seekers who cross the US southern border illegally or who fail to apply for asylum in the first country they cross through will be banned from applying for asylum in America. This comes after Biden’s team last month introduced a new policy, whereby migrants from Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba, in addition to Venezuela, would be eligible for “parole” – meaning temporary two-year work visas – only if they apply for asylum from outside the US and if they have a US sponsor. The new plan mirrors a similar policy introduced by former President Donald Trump that was ultimately blocked by the courts. Rights groups, citing a potential threat to humanitarian protections, say they will seek legal action again. Biden has been struggling to contain an uptick in migrants arriving at the southern border in recent months – and the subsequent political backlash. But this plan will infuriate the left flank of the Democratic Party whose support Biden needs as the 2024 presidential race gets underway.
Russia looks beyond Ukraine?
Ukraine is not the only piece of former Soviet ground that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin might like to recapture. Belarus, allied with Russia as part of a “union state” since 1999, has seen Kremlin influence within its borders grow since strongman President Aleksandr Lukashenko called on Putin for help with domestic protests that broke out in response to a rigged 2020 election. Lukashenko has so far resisted pressure from Putin to commit Belarusian troops to the war in Ukraine, but he has allowed Russia to use his country as a staging ground for invasion. This week, a consortium of journalists representing Yahoo News, Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung, and other media organizations published a document they say was obtained from inside Putin’s government that details a Russian plan to essentially annex Belarus by 2030. The 17-page report, titled "Strategic Goals of the Russian Federation in Belarus" and completed in the summer of 2021, calls for Russian infiltration of Belarus’ politics, economy, and military. Like Ukraine, Belarus is situated on land that has sometimes been ruled by Moscow, and it serves as a forward buffer against further NATO advance toward Russian borders. It’s also consistent with a Kremlin announcement this week that created uncertainty over Russian recognition of the independence of Moldova, another former Soviet Republic. Moldova’s pro-Western President Maia Sandu and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky recently alleged a Russian plan to organize a coup in Moldova.
Putin aims to draw Belarus into Ukraine war
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics.
What's the mood in the transatlantic relationship?
Well, not bad. Certainly not, but not as good as it should be. There's been or there is a substantial European irritation with a very high level of subsidies that is given to industries in the US, excluding European deliveries of electric vehicles and energy investments and things like that. And that is causing a somewhat of a mini crisis that I hope will be resolved in the next few months. Let's hope for the best.
What is Mr. Putin doing in Minsk, in Belarus these days?
Well, it's fairly obvious that he's trying to press Belarus and Lukashenko in a far more active role in his aggression against Ukraine. He is now looking medium- and long-term at that particular war. He's probably going to make another go for Kyiv when his new army mobilized hundred thousands of people, when his new army is ready, that he needs Belarus on board. That's in all probability, the meaning of his visit to Minsk today.
Podcast: Fighting for democracy in "Europe's last dictatorship"
Listen: Is there a path to democracy for Europe's last dictatorship, Belarus? Exiled Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya discusses her hopes and fears for the country with Ian Bremmer on the GZERO World Podcast. President Alexander Lukashenko has maintained a tight grip on power in Belarus for the last 26 years and rigged the results of his last election which led to widespread protest and unrest in his country, though few consequences globally. But will he now be held accountable after diverting a flight between two European capitals to arrest a dissident journalist? And just how close are he and Vladimir Putin?
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.