• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Belarus - NATO

Belarus wants to have some room for manoeuvring, rather than just be a satellite of Russia. For a long time, Belarus was considered a buffer zone of sorts. Lukashenko tried to position himself as a neutral party, so that he could maneuver freely and remain a go-between for the West and Russia. After the election of 2020, Belarus had practically no freedom to remain a neutral player, since the actions of Lukashenko cut all of its ties to the Western countries.

Belarus views the NATO alliance from a pro-Russian perspective, while the alliance regarded Belarus as a country controlled by Russia.Belarusian representatives joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) back in 1992, and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) in 1997. Belarus’ diplomatic mission to NATO came a year later, followed by further involvement in NATO training sessions.

Alexander Lukashenko had sought ways to cooperate with NATO. After a crackdown on protesters that began in August 2020, the period of flirtation seems to be over. “Tanks and planes are deployed 15 minutes from our border. NATO troops are at our gate,” said Alexander Lukashenko to a crowd of protesters in Minsk in August. “Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and our dear Ukraine are telling us to hold new elections,” he added, as mass demonstrations against his rule shook the country. The enemy-at-the-gate narrative replaced what was left of the relationship with NATO.

In February 2023, a document on presumable plans to increase Russian influence in Belarus was allegedly leaked by a source at Vladimir Putin’s Presidential Office. The journalists shared this leak with Süddeutsche Zeitung, Delfi Estonia, Dossier, The Kyiv Independent, WDR, VSquare, Frontstory, NDR, Expressen and the Belarusian Investigative Centre. Belarus Investigative Center [BIC] head Stanislau Ivashkevich reported " Russia’s main strategic goal is to establish a full-fledged Union State of Belarus and Russia by 2030.

The 10-page document suggests concrete steps to this end. It is divided into three sets of prospects – short-term, medium-term and long-term. Depending on the time period, there are plans to regulate three spheres of public life: political, economic and humanitarian." Ivashkevich reported "The emergence of conditions for Belarus’ integration with the EU and NATO, as well as our country’s withdrawal from the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, are among the potential threats to the integration within the Union State, the leak notes."

According to the document, the rapprochement between Belarus and NATO or its members, as well as the destabilisation of its social and political situation “due to the EU or US leverage” can pose a threat to maintaining Russian influence in Belarus. The author(s) of the document also fear(s) the “rise” of “pro-Western and nationalist” politicians in Lukashenka’s entourage. According to the document, in the medium term there are also plans to expand the infrastructure of Russia’s military presence in Belarus and to prevent NATO military exercises from being held on the territory of Belarus. At the same time, the author(s) of the master plan consider(s) the potential of Belarus joining NATO as a threat to the country’s integration with Russia.

According to June 2014 survey, in general Belarusians are not interested in joining NATO "It should be noted that the idea of Belarus joining NATO enjoyed its biggest level of support in September 2002, shortly after V. Putin proposed that Belarus should be integrated in Russia as 6 provinces. At the time the threat of independence loss might seem real. A threat to other countries doesn’t provoke a similar wish to hide under NATO’s “security umbrella”. Neither the Russian-Georgian war, nor the present actions of Russia in Ukraine didn’t cause an upsurge of pro-NATO moods. Today their level is higher than 6 years ago, after the Russian-Georgian war, but is still insignificant. Belarusians don’t expect that Crimean script will be repeated in Belarus. However, in case it happens, the readiness to resist it is quite low. The idea of Belarus joining NATO enjoys almost the same level of popularity. The number of supporters of the idea of nuclear power status restoration is slightly higher."

Andrei Sannikov, the leader of the European Belarus civic campaign, stated "there will be no security in Europe without Belarus. Ukraine will not solve the problem of European security. It is a balcony, look at the map and you will see a beautiful, as if specially created for Russian imperialists, balcony for attacking Europe, first of all Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia. And if this balcony does not become an independent Belarus without dictators, there will be no security in Europe.

"That is why I am constantly talking with my Ukrainian friends, partners, that Ukraine must have security guarantees. Absolutely right. But include Belarus. Without a guarantee from this side, the theory of buffer zones, that you can fish somewhere in a grey zone and guarantee security, collapsed with Russia's attack on Ukraine. As the well-known politician and diplomat Kurt Volker, who was once the US President's representative in Ukraine, said:

"The grey zone is a green light! That is, it is an invitation to aggression. So there should be no such grey areas. And if Europe harmonises its borders, it will provide security. And today only NATO provides security in Europe.

"The EU has tried to create its own armed forces, and something has happened. Probably the coordination between the armed forces of the European armies, i.e. the European countries, has increased. But this is not a functioning army like NATO has. Look at how clearly NATO functions today, despite the differences that have emerged and existed.

"Why does Stoltenberg remain for a third term? Because he is a world leader who perfectly steers the huge machine of NATO's military-political organisation, being both captain and navigator at the same time. And if NATO had failed, if it had started to think about what it could do and what it couldn't do, and had not started to help Ukraine, not immediately, we admit, but it did, then Ukraine would not exist today, let's be honest. That is why NATO today provides security and even the perimeter of Europe.

"We cannot choose neutrality. I'm not a big fan of the political "we should be neutral" argument. Guys, take a pencil and work out how much it would cost. Sweden, the richest country, is now joining NATO. Why? They've been spending huge amounts of money on defence to ensure that neutrality. They will now spend less than this fixed 2% because they have spent much more on their defence. So we are talking about neutrality that we can somehow include in some agreements. ..... First of all, agreements with Russia are impossible. What can we say about trade and economic agreements? Russia has withdrawn from the nuclear agreements that we have been talking about. By withdrawing from the agreements, it immediately increased the danger for the whole world. It immediately undermined international peace and security. So this is out of the question.""