When the world's at stake,
go beyond the headlines.

In 2021, Michael Kimmage wrote, “Belarus and the Ukraine Trap,” where he argued the United States should adopt a realistic diplomatic relationship with Belarus that takes into account its strategic partnership with Russia and learns from overpromises made to Ukraine. Five years later, we asked Michael to revisit his arguments. Image: President of BelarusIn your 2021 article, you named Belarus as one of the most likely places for a war to break out between Russia and the West. Belarus became a staging ground for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, yet a direct confrontation with NATO has not occurred. What factors explain why that war didn’t happen, and do you think the risk has passed or simply shiftedBelarus remains an exceptionally dangerous potential flashpoint between Russia and the West. The reason why conflict has not arisen over Belarus in the past five years is that Alexander Lukashenko, the dictator who has long ruled the country, remains in power. He has tried to maintain some distance from the war in Ukraine, but he has also allowed Russian President Vladimir Putin to do what he wishes on Belarusian territory, where the Russian military is dug in and ubiquitous. If anything, the risk that military tensions or even outright war might follow Lukashenko’s departure from the scene, when that occurs, is greater today than it was in 2021.If Lukashenko or Putin can find a political leader to uphold the ancien régime in Belarus, they will be content. European countries, for their part, will not challenge a Belarus under tacit Russian control, since that is already the status quo. Lukashenko’s domestic-political legitimacy, however, has long been eroding. He has no discernible vision for his country, which he has unnaturally alienated from all of its neighbors other than Russia. As in Ukraine in 2014, many in Belarus