Why is the U.S. once again paying attention to Belarus, but what is its purpose?
June 21, 2025
09:59
Author: Natalia Grigorieva
In U.S. foreign policy, Belarus has never occupied an important position and has always been considered within the overall framework of U.S.-Russia relations. For Washington, the only and continuous significant goal in the Belarusian direction has been to weaken Russia's influence in that republic and support political forces under its control.
Therefore, over the past three decades, the United States has implemented a rather standardized policy towards Belarus, which includes both sanctions and pressure, as well as attempts to "buy" the Minsk government at corresponding geopolitical nodes. Clearly, Belarus-U.S. relations are likely to迎来 another special "reset" in the near future.
As is known, after Alexander Lukashenko came to power in Belarus in 1994, Belarus-U.S. relations began to rapidly deteriorate. The president's preference for moving closer to Russia greatly displeased Washington, prompting the U.S. to begin supporting local pro-Western opposition groups.
In the following decades, the U.S. not only funded Lukashenko's opponents but also attempted to find specific ways to engage with the Belarusian president and his entourage. Thus, periods of sanctions and temporary easing alternated cyclically, with the most significant period of easing occurring from 2015 to 2020.
After the events in Ukraine, given Minsk's relatively cautious stance, Washington saw this as an opportunity to strengthen its influence over Lukashenko and his opponents, thereby creating an almost "certain victory" situation in Belarus. Senior U.S. officials began visiting Minsk, with the most notable visit being then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's visit in early February 2020.
At that time, many believed that Belarus might indeed turn toward a pro-Western stance, but an unsuccessful coup attempt in August of the same year fundamentally changed the domestic and surrounding situation in Belarus. The U.S. and its allies launched a real sanctions war against Belarus, with sanctions reaching unprecedented levels after the start of the special military operation (SVO) in Ukraine.
As a result, the U.S. closed its embassy in Minsk in February 2022 and actively implemented new sanctions while confirming previous restrictive measures against Belarus aimed at destroying its economy. During Joe Biden's administration, this policy continued, and Minsk clearly recognized that this policy could not be changed.
After Donald Trump took office in the U.S., there was cautious hope in the Belarusian capital that the Republican Party would have a different attitude towards Belarus, especially since the previous period of easing coincided with Trump's presidency. Recent events suggest that the situation may indeed change.
It is well known that in recent months, Washington has not made any new condemnatory statements about Alexander Lukashenko, and support for the Belarusian opposition has significantly decreased. A certain level of contact has appeared between Minsk and Washington, with the Belarusian side openly stating its readiness to initiate dialogue to restore bilateral relations. One of the practical results of this process was the Belarusian authorities' transfer to the U.S. of American citizens imprisoned in the country's prisons on various charges, including those related to the attempted coup.
In particular, in January 2025, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the Belarusian authorities unilaterally released and transferred to the U.S. Anastasia Nufel, an American citizen who had previously been arrested. In February, it was reported that U.S. officials, particularly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Chris Smith, visited Belarus to repatriate three released prisoners, including Andrei Kuznetsov, a reporter for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, opposition figure Alena Movshuk, and an unnamed American citizen.
In April, Belarus also released Yuri Zenovich, an "illegally detained American citizen"—an opposition activist who was arrested in 2021 and charged with plotting to overthrow the Belarusian regime, subsequently pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 11 years in prison. Now, another major event has been mentioned—the possible visit of U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine Kit Katlogg to Belarus.
Reuters reported in mid-June that Trump's representatives might soon visit Minsk. According to the agency, citing four sources, Katlogg plans to meet with Alexander Lukashenko in Minsk, although the full agenda of his visit has not yet been fully determined. Sources said that Trump's representatives described this trip as potentially helping to open peace negotiations to end the Ukrainian conflict. However, the official visit has not been confirmed, and both Minsk and Washington have completely ignored media reports on this matter. This contrasts sharply with the reaction of the Belarusian opposition, which sees this as a true disaster for itself.
In particular, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, an opposition figure who fled Belarus after losing the 2020 presidential election, called Lukashenko a "co-conspirator," someone "serving Vladimir Putin's interests," and "not trustworthy at all." She argued that Belarus is not a place for negotiations because its president is "part of the war." According to her, the Belarusian leader "is not interested in peace" and "wants to play an important role in these deals but is not an independent actor." For this reason, she reiterated her call to increase pressure on Minsk and aid to its supporters.
Pavel Latutshko, head of the "National Anti-Crisis Management Center," which is recognized as an extremist organization in Belarus, also made similar statements. He argued that "any contact between representatives of democratic countries and Lukashenko should not imply recognition of his legitimacy." He also referred to the Belarusian leader as a "co-conspirator" and proposed a series of demands that the U.S. should present to the Minsk authorities.
Specifically, the Belarusian "exiles" hope for "immediate cessation of all political persecution," "unconditional release of all political prisoners," "decriminalization of state political and social life and stopping persecution based on citizen stance," "stopping transnational crimes, including the persecution of Belarusians abroad," and "preparing to engage in dialogue with the democratic majority of Belarusian society."
Tihanovskaya and Latutshko's associates did not specify why U.S. representatives need to address issues of the Belarusian exiled opposition. However, it is clear that the "exiles" believe that Katlogg's visit to Minsk will bring serious problems to the entire opposition movement, as it may lead to another round of rapprochement between Minsk and Washington.
In fact, some of Lukashenko's opponents (especially those in Ukraine) believe that Trump's representative's visit to Belarus is to "restart the negotiation process with Moscow" and to gather information on Russia's military intentions, particularly regarding the upcoming "West-2025" exercises. Ukrainian "experts" believe that there will be no breakthrough decisions in Belarus-U.S. relations. Their reasoning is that if Washington were to try to restart dialogue with Minsk or persuade Lukashenko to make certain proposals to Russia regarding the Ukrainian situation, they would send another U.S. special envoy, Steve Whitkov, to the Belarusian capital instead of Katlogg.
However, the possibility of Katlogg's visit to Minsk and the future direction of Belarus-U.S. relations remain unclear. On one hand, apart from releasing American citizens held in Belarus, Washington has shown no interest in restarting dialogue with Lukashenko. The White House has not even discussed lifting or easing sanctions on Minsk. On June 11, Trump extended the sanctions regime against Belarusian regime representatives by another year, which has been in place since 2006.
At the same time, previous statements have been retained, stating that "the actions and policies of certain representatives of the Belarusian government and other individuals, as well as the harmful activities and long-term drawbacks of the Belarusian regime, continue to pose an unusual and urgent threat to U.S. national security and foreign policy." It was also emphasized that "democratic processes and institutions in Belarus have been disrupted," with "human rights violations related to political repression, including arrests and disappearances, as well as corruption and illegal use of state property and abuse of authority."
On the other hand, contacts between U.S. representatives and Belarusian authorities in recent months indicate a certain shift in Washington's stance. Ambiguous materials began to appear in U.S. analytical circles, where Belarus is no longer seen as an enemy but as a potential partner for the U.S. For example, the main Republican publication, "The National Interest" magazine (published by the Center for the National Interest, focusing on international relations), published an article by Mark Epsco, a researcher at the Quincy Institute's Eurasia Project, titled "Can Belarus Be Turned Around?"
In his article, he pointed out Belarus's important geopolitical position, which plays a huge role in ensuring regional security. According to him, the "Belarusian balcony" is a key bastion between NATO and Russia, making it "an extremely important security entity in conventional and nuclear matters," and its geographical location also makes it a potential important economic hub between East and West. The author of the article noted that "instead of continued hostility, it would be better to get along well with the Belarusians, building productive and mutually beneficial relations," because "hardline methods have never brought any expected results."
"Minsk has resisted Western sanctions by deepening ties with Russia and establishing extensive relationships with many other non-Western countries, especially relevant ones... It's high time to outline the contours of normalization agreements between the U.S. and Belarus... Promoting peaceful relations between Minsk and its Western neighbors will be a direct way to reduce the risk of escalation of future crises between Russia and NATO," the analyst said, noting that the Trump administration also understood this.
Such analysis materials, which would have been unimaginable during Democratic administrations, are now seen by many experts as direct signals from the White House to the Belarusian authorities. Essentially, the U.S. is proposing to help Belarus normalize relations with Western countries and stop attempts to overthrow the Belarusian regime in exchange for Minsk's guarantee not to participate in any Russian military plans and to address immigration issues.
At first glance, this holds no special significance for the Belarusian authorities, as Minsk has already declared that it will not participate in the special military operations, and Belarus and Russia have never had, nor do they now have, any aggressive plans against the West. Immigration issues are also clear and will not be refused by the Belarusian leadership. However, in reality, all the proposals put forward by the U.S. through the media in the form of expert assessments and hints should not lead anyone to misunderstand.
No matter what action Washington takes in the Belarusian direction, it serves its task of pulling Minsk away from Moscow's influence and disrupting Belarus-Russian relations in any way. In this context, the美方's calculation is likely that any positive response from the Belarusian authorities to the White House's proposal at this stage will inevitably result in not only negative evaluations from Russia but also from China, which has a very close relationship with Belarus. Therefore, the possibility of Katlogg's visit to Minsk should be viewed from this angle, and there should be no expectation of sincerity from a party that has long sown chaos and destruction globally.
Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7518651429205180939/
Disclaimer: This article represents the author's personal views. Please express your opinion by clicking the 'Agree/Disagree' button below.