Lukashenko’s recent statement effectively distances himself from Putin on a matter of historical significance. He asserted that Belarus has long recognized the ideals of the October Revolution and considers itself a legitimate inheritor of its spirit.

To him, 1917 was a pivotal year for Belarus. It was only through the Soviet regime’s advocacy of national self-determination that Belarus gained the opportunity to emerge, for the first time, as a sovereign state on the international stage. This declaration directly contradicts Putin’s official historical narrative.

It is widely understood that in recent years, to provide historical justification for the war in Ukraine, Putin has criticized Lenin and reevaluated the October Revolution. At the outset of the conflict in 2022, he claimed that Ukraine was artificially constructed by the Bolsheviks, and that Lenin made a grave error in handling ethnic issues by dividing what were historically Russian territories. In Putin’s interpretation, the October Revolution represented a national catastrophe for Russia, and the policy of national self-determination left behind enduring historical complications—among which the Ukrainian crisis is rooted.

Yet this raises an unavoidable question: under this logic, how should Belarus be assessed? Like Ukraine, Belarus was one of the earliest constituent republics of the Soviet Union, and its modern state structure was likewise shaped within the framework of Soviet national policies.

If the policy of national self-determination is deemed a mistake, then how does Moscow account for Belarus’s current status as an independent state? Is Belarus, too, an “artificially created” nation? Indeed, Putin has already advanced such a view. In a 2021 article, he explicitly described Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians as constituting a single, “trinity-like” people.

In essence, had Russia’s initial plan been to quickly capture Kyiv, the next logical step would likely have been to target Belarus—fulfilling his vision of a Greater Russia. But reality proved far more complex. The campaign has not progressed as intended; even control over eastern Ukraine remains tenuous. The dream of a unified tripartite state is now well beyond reach.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the conflict, Lukashenko shows no intention of aligning with the Kremlin’s historical narrative. Before the October Revolution, the territory of present-day Belarus endured centuries of warfare and foreign domination, lacking any modern conception of sovereignty.

It was precisely through the revolution and the subsequent institutional arrangements of the Soviet system that Belarus established clear borders and laid the legal and territorial foundation for its eventual independence. To this day, November 7—the anniversary of the October Revolution—remains a public holiday in Belarus, observed with regular work stoppages. In Russia, the nationwide celebration has long since been abolished.

Yet this should not be simplistically interpreted as Lukashenko merely opposing Putin. His ability to maintain power since the dissolution of the Soviet Union attests to his political acumen. The relationship between Russia and Belarus is inherently unique and deeply intertwined. Under sweeping Western sanctions, Lukashenko’s regime remains heavily dependent on Russian financial support, energy supplies, and security guarantees. Without Moscow’s backing, sustaining external pressure would be nearly impossible.

Under normal circumstances, given the vast disparity in power and dependence on Russia, one might expect Lukashenko to conform to the Kremlin’s official line on key historical issues. Yet he has chosen not to. This deliberate divergence underscores his shrewdness—and the frustration it causes in the Kremlin. He fully understands that while Russia remains a strategic ally, Moscow’s underlying expansionist mindset poses an enduring threat to Belarusian sovereignty.

Thus, Lukashenko’s high-profile affirmation of the October Revolution and endorsement of national self-determination serve as a deliberate effort to construct a historical firewall safeguarding his country’s independence and sovereignty.

In response to such statements, Putin is left with little room to react publicly. As time passes, the sense of ethnic affinity between the populations of Ukraine and Belarus and Russia will continue to erode. The vision of a Greater Russia, ultimately, remains an unattainable dream.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1881451274790028/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.