{"id":118846,"date":"2024-12-18T14:51:42","date_gmt":"2024-12-18T11:51:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pozirk.online\/en\/longreads\/118846\/"},"modified":"2024-12-18T14:51:43","modified_gmt":"2024-12-18T11:51:43","slug":"militarist-fever-lukasenka-projects-dictators-downfalls-onto-himself","status":"publish","type":"longreads","link":"https:\/\/pozirk.online\/en\/longreads\/118846\/","title":{"rendered":"Militarist fever: \u0141uka\u0161enka projects dictators’ downfalls onto himself"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Startled by the swift collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, Alaksandar \u0141uka\u0161enka quickly drafted another “defense blueprint,” worried that Russia may not be able to guarantee his security if similar events unfold in Belarus.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n \"\"\n
\n
\n\n A wreck main battle tank in front of a destroyed mosque in Syria\n <\/div>\n \n
\n (Christiaan Triebert \/ Wikimedia Commons)<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/figcaption>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Security documents<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

State media have long portrayed the Belarusian authoritarian leader as a peacemaker\u2014an advocate for stability in Belarus and an international mediator pushing for a quick end to the war in Ukraine. However, this image has been overshadowed by his increasing militaristic rhetoric and actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On December 6, \u0141uka\u0161enka asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to deploy Russian Oreshnik missiles, signaling a new phase of military escalation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Four days later, on December 10, in Barysa\u016d, \u0141uka\u0161enka escalated his belligerent rhetoric, citing threats from the West and warning Europe that he would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons or Oreshnik missiles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On December 12, he convened a meeting of the Security Council to discuss a defense blueprint for 2026-2030. This move followed the adoption of several key security documents earlier in the year, including the Concept of National Security, <\/em>the Military Doctrine, <\/em>the Concept of Security of the Union State, <\/em>and the Treaty between Belarus and Russia on Mutual Security Guarantees.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0141uka\u0161enka likely believes that producing more paperwork will enhance his security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, on December 13, Security Council Secretary Alaksandar Valfovi\u010d conducted an unannounced inspection of the border with Ukraine at \u0141uka\u0161enka\u2019s direction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Strategic marginalization<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

There are two key reasons behind his hostile rhetoric and militaristic fever, which \u0141uka\u0161enka alluded to during his visit to Barysa\u016d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, his plan to deploy Oreshnik missiles may provoke public discontent. \u0141uka\u0161enka admitted that such a decision would be a tough sell ahead of the January presidential election. He defended the idea, framing it as a necessary response to US plans to station similar missiles in Germany. However, this US deployment is not expected until at least 2026 and remains uncertain, particularly with a change of administration in the US on the horizon. Meanwhile, Moscow has already decided to move forward with deploying Oreshnik missiles and accelerating the arms race.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, in discussing the use of Russian weapons stationed in Belarus, \u0141uka\u0161enka emphasized that he could order strikes without Moscow\u2019s approval. He claimed that Belarus would choose its military targets independently, while Valfovi\u010d asserted that \u0141uka\u0161enka has his own \u201cred button.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These claims, however, appear to be a desperate attempt to save face. As political analyst Juryj Drakachrust observed, Belarus is not even a pawn in the strategic chess game; it is merely a square on the chessboard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0141uka\u0161enka’s insecurities<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime may have played a role in \u0141uka\u0161enka’s militaristic escalation. The rapid and unexpected collapse of Assad’s government must have been a shock to \u0141uka\u0161enka, especially since even Russia’s support could not save the Syrian leader.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0141uka\u0161enka takes the overthrow of dictators personally, seeing it as a threat to his own rule, which he considers sacred. He fears that a similar scenario could unfold in Belarus, and views such events as a direct challenge to his leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For this reason, \u0141uka\u0161enka often defends toppled leaders. For instance, he condemned the arrest and transfer of Slobodan Milo\u0161evi\u0107 to an international tribunal as \u201coutrageous and undemocratic.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2005, during his address at the UN General Assembly, \u0141uka\u0161enka voiced concern over the persecution of political leaders in Yugoslavia and Iraq. He denounced the prosecution of Milo\u0161evi\u0107 as a travesty and criticized Saddam Hussein\u2019s handover to the victors as barbaric. \u0141uka\u0161enka argued that these leaders were denied the right to a fair trial because their states had been destroyed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0141uka\u0161enka’s support for these leaders went beyond words. He offered political asylum to Milo\u0161evi\u0107, Hussein, and deposed Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On December 10, during his visit to Barysa\u016d, \u0141uka\u0161enka once again defended dictators. He praised Hafez al-Assad, Saddam Hussein, Muammar al-Qaddafi, and Fidel Castro as strong leaders who stood up for their people and countries. \u201cIn what way is Bashar al-Assad a dictator?\u201d he asked. \u201cA doctor by profession, I\u2019ve known him for a long time. We are on good terms. He\u2019s never killed anyone.\u201d He claimed that the West demonized such leaders out of frustration at their inability to control them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0141uka\u0161enka then drew a parallel to himself, stating, \u201cYou see how heads of state are demonized. This is something I know firsthand. You also have a dictator running the country.\u201d In this remark, he directly connected the criticism of Assad and others to the pressure he faces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dictators’ failure triggers militaristic action<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

From a rational perspective, defending deposed tyrants seems futile. Autocrats who have lost power are universally seen as failures, and focusing on them is a political mistake. Politicians typically seek to align themselves with success stories, not with failed regimes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, \u0141uka\u0161enka\u2019s inexplicable sympathy for dictators takes on a nearly mystical and fatalistic character. He often reacts impulsively to the overthrow of other autocrats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take, for example, his reaction to Muammar al-Qaddafi\u2019s death in 2011. \u0141uka\u0161enka responded by ordering the formation of territorial defense units, demanding annual military exercises and conferring the rank of major general on the chairpersons of the regional and Minsk executive committees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, the fall of the Assad regime prompted \u0141uka\u0161enka to act. His immediate response was to convene the Security Council for an urgent meeting and adopt a new defense blueprint, accompanied by aggressive rhetoric.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These actions may seem irrational, but they appear to be a form of psychological coping\u2014a way for \u0141uka\u0161enka to regain a sense of control amid growing uncertainty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n
\n \"\"