Lukashenko’s Voting Ceremony

Before addressing the press, Lukashenko cast his vote at a polling station, disregarding the electoral silence. In the context of his regime, his vote seemed to mark the election’s end, allowing his press conference to begin. His voting was like a state-sanctioned religious rite. Beaming, the dictator entered the polling station, hands clasped as if for communion. Surrounded by his staff, he moved slowly, solemnly, surveying the room, as though he was blessing the crowd with a gentle smile. The election commission greeted him ceremoniously. All watched reverently as Lukashenko cast his vote, an act that filled the room with joy. It was common knowledge  that  this  was  the  election’s  pivotal  moment.

The Belarusian people’s role was essentially over. Yet, as is often the case in such staged events, a minor incident spoiled it all: Lukashenko’s dog. Strolling with dignity beside his leader, the dog casually relieved itself against the polling station’s facade. No one dared to stop it. The dog treated the grand hall as if it were a public toilet. And in that moment, the entire charade of the Belarusian elections was exposed. The dog illustrated, acting on behalf of his master, the true feelings toward democratic elections They were literally being urinated on.

The Press Conference Highlights

 The press conference, which extended beyond three hours, had a distinctly ceremonial air. Interestingly, it was attended by Lukashenko’s loyal supporters who accompanied him during voting, along with his youngest son. His dog was noticeably absent, probably for understandable reasons. The event attracted a significant international presence, including journalists from Europe and Asia, marking one of the largest press conferences in Minsk in recent years.

Marek Sygacz, a Polish journalist and correspondent for Polsat in Belarus, questioned Lukashenko regarding the tense situation at the Polish-Belarusian border, following the death of a Polish soldier.

He asked what measures Lukashenko, in his capacity as head of state, planned to take. Lukashenko’s reply to this seemingly simple question will be remembered in Belarusian history as either a demonstration of his detachment from reality or a display of arrogance before his inevitable downfall. Lukashenko’s speech stretched to nearly thirty minutes! Instead of answering directly, he unleashed a torrent of blatant lies. His entire statement was nothing but disinformation. It seemed as though he had been waiting, lurking, for a question from a Polish journalist just so he could use the opportunity to humiliate Poland. His response wasn’t meant to address the issue; it was a calculated attempt to denigrate the Polish state on camera. His speech was chaotic, disorganized, full of threats. The journalist became a target of open hostility—a punching bag, a treatment not afforded to any other foreign journalist present.

Here’s what “Father Lukashenko” said:

 “Marek, I don’t think you don’t know my position. Poland is pursuing an especially aggressive, hostile policy against Belarus. Especially. I’m not making this up. I don’t want this. You are our neighbours. We lived for many years—as I tell you as a historian —in one country. Good or bad, we helped each other. Then something happened with us. Doesn’t matter. Yet now you are laying claim to Western Belarus, to Minsk. These claims aren’t just coming from journalists. And now you’re talking about Western Ukraine. And so on. First question: why do you need this imperialism? Do you understand that you won’t gain even one metre of our land? This is our territory. You say: Poles and others live there. I already answered you. Calm down. Marek, calm down. Poles live here. These are my Poles. (…) Marek, don’t do this. We want to live. To live normally with you. Are our Poles trying to flee to you? No. Are Russians or Jews? No. They want to live here. You bought tanks from the Koreans. Fine, let it be. But don’t say that it’s against Russia. You borders are not with Russia. You borders are with Belarus. They want to deal with Kaliningrad. I would advise against it. And you understand it’s impossible. Your policy is abnormal. (…) We’ve always been your friends and want peace with you. Yet, what did you do according to EU and US orders? You imposed sanctions on us. Why? Dozens, even thousands of Polish entrepreneurs opened businesses here. They weren’t just betting on the Belarusian market. They were trading with vast Eurasia through Belarus. (…) You could have sold this production to China. Why did you shut it down? Why? Sanctions? What, sanctions? It’s strangling my people and me. It’s a noose around the neck. You imposed the noose. And what, you want me to defend you? You should have stayed politically silent. (…) Guys. I won’t defend you. Because you are strangling my people. Sanctions are above all against the people. Not just against me. Did you change the president’s life? No. You want to make life worse for people. The protests in 2020, that Blitzkrieg, where was it directed from? From Poland. (…) Was that not interference in the electoral process? You wanted to break up the state. You wanted to      turn             Belarusian         Poles              against me,              against    the government (…). But they will vote for me today. (…) You built a wall. It’s downright corruption. Ten minutes to dig under it, fifteen to cross. Enough. The company that built it stole $500 million. Journalists uncovered it. Good job. You kill migrants and bury them in the forest. (…) Belarusians love Poles. They treat them humanely. Belarus is a tolerant, beautiful country. We don’t want to attack you. You won’t defeat us. Never. (…) This is our land. Why do you look at us through gun sights and cannons? Why? We are not preparing to attack you. We can’t defeat you. But you need to know—you won’t defeat us. Never. It’s very hard. (…) This is our land. You know why it’s hard for Russians in Ukraine? Because they’re fighting on their own land. They know every metre of it. Every piece. That’s what Russian military forces don’t see. Believe me, there won’t be another president in Belarus who wants good relations with Poles like I do. (…) We have enough land of our own. We don’t need to attack you or wage war. Stop buying tanks. Buy tractors. Your farmers are already, sorry, throwing manure and sh** at your ministries, and tomorrow they’ll have nothing to plough with.”

Lukashenko later directed his criticism towards Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, regarding his online post: “Belarus is holding        ‘elections’         today.   The   suspense   over   who   will   be announced as the winner is unbearable. By the way, I ask the media not to call Alexander Lukashenko the last dictator of Europe, because Vladimir Putin has now matched and exceeded him in terms of theft, repression, and international aggression.” Lukashenko, seemingly angered by these words, raised his voice and  said:

“Why  are you  provoking  Russia?    Why  are    you provoking Putin? Don’t you have enough problems? Sikorski is an experienced person. We met with him, we talked… Let him think about what will happen tomorrow. Today, Polish farmers dumped manure in front of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And tomorrow?”

Lukashenko   went   further,   accusing   Poland   of   harbouring territorial ambitions regarding Ukraine and Belarus, stating, “If you enter Ukraine, you’ll have to deal with Russia and Belarus.”

Marek Sygacz responded to Lukashenko, replying in a composed manner that Poland was not planning any military action against Belarus or Ukraine. Lukashenko’s response was: “Marek, God willing. But why do you need tanks?”

Unpunished Lies

 What stands out most in this outpouring of words is the sheer lack of consequence attached to the lies. Lukashenko doesn’t seem to care about the accuracy of his statements. Perhaps he just says whatever he feels like, however he wants. He comes across as a some kind of unfulfilled actor. He portrays himself as a man who is deeply troubled and internally fragmented. On the one hand, he wants to be seen as a capable leader of Belarus, his “grand collective farm.” On the other hand, he is compelled to remain a faithful servant to Putin. He claims to love Polish people – especially those he considers “his” Poles, like any Belarusian would. But at the same time, he is accusing Poles of murdering migrants at the border. He is both Belarusian and Russian, an atheist who is also Orthodox.

He’s a thug and a liar, but also the nation’s caring “Father”. Brutal yet merciful, a walking contradiction. Has Lukashenko’s disinformation game finally unravelled? Perhaps he’s become too sure of himself, or maybe the years and the pressure are taking their toll. His lies used to be more coherent, built on a foundation of historical knowledge. They formed narratives that looked beyond short-term political wins. His anti-Polish disinformation was a carefully constructed web of lies and truths, fact and fiction. The real reasons behind these manipulations were often cleverly hidden, creating an illusion of authenticity and neutrality.

Peacemaker

 As can be seen, the Belarusian leader has portrayed himself as both a peacemaker and protector of Belarus’s independence against a supposed Western threat. But Lukashenko is wary of Russia absorbing Belarus, a process he initiated himself and that has been ongoing for years. What he intended as a short-term tactic ,has been strategically exploited by the Kremlin to reshape relations with Belarus, integrating it into Russia’s administrative structures. Lukashenko seeks to preserve his position and the current relationship with Russia, but it has not yet occurred. Therefore, his mention of Ukraine’s resistance against Russia suggests that Russia won’t take Belarus without a fight. He implied Belarus could face a similar fate to Ukraine, and all his lies regarding Poland and Poles support this objective.

Spreading Fear

 A key element of Lukashenko’s discourse is his persistent instilling of fear. His language is consistently crafted to intimidate Belarusians, Poles, and Ukrainians, a technique he continues to use effectively. This is meant to generate friction between nations in the region, especially between Poland and Ukraine. His claim that Poles want to seize western Ukraine and western Belarus is a classic example of how the dictator from Minsk reinforces his internal position and shapes his image in the eyes of Russia. While threatening Poland, Lukashenko paradoxically insists he is protecting Ukraine.

He presents Belarus as crucial for regional stability, shielding it from alleged threats by its neighbours. Such claims not only generate fear but also reinforce Lukashenko’s authority. Creating division between Poland, Ukraine, and Belarus is a component of a larger disinformation strategy, intended to sow distrust and anxiety across the region and unite Belarusians against an external threat.

A Bright Future

On January 26th, Lukashenko also presented a vision of a bright future for Polish-Belarusian relations. What does it entail? Pursuing shared business interests. It’s noteworthy that his proposals involves separating morality, democracy, and human rights from business. According to him, morality and economics should be two separate realms – ideally, completely unrelated. He entices Poles to turn eastward, promising vast opportunities for wealth and prosperity, supposedly experienced by Polish businessmen in Belarus before the border closures.

Is Lukashenko supported by Poles in Belarus?

Despite Lukashenko’s claims, it is inaccurate to suggest that all Poles in Belarus are supportive of him. Like other communities within Belarus, the Polish minority holds a range of opinions regarding Alexander Lukashenko and his rule. Contrary to Lukashenko’s claims, there is no widespread support for his regime among Poles. Their attitudes are shaped by various factors, prominently the repression they face. Belarusian authorities have long curtailed the rights of the Polish minority, closing Polish schools, persecuting community leaders, and suppressing the activities of the Union of Poles in Belarus (ZPB). Consequently, many Belarusian Poles view Lukashenko’s regime with animosity.

The ZPB is internally divided, with one faction recognised by Belarusian authorities and the other backed by Poland. While the regime-aligned faction might seem pro-Lukashenko, this doesn’t guarantee widespread support. Some Poles might voice support due to fear of repression or a desire for stability. It’s a blend of fear and practicality. In an authoritarian state, many avoid publicly criticising the regime, regardless of their private views. Some older Poles might hold traditional Soviet values promoted by Lukashenko, but that doesn’t automatically translate to backing his policies. In short, Belarusian-Polish attitudes towards Lukashenko are varied, depending on age, personal circumstances, involvement in the Polish community, and individual experiences with the government. Lukashenko has successfully divided the Polish community, using the Polish minority as a tool to put pressure on Warsaw. Actions such as closing Polish schools, imprisoning Polish community leaders like Andżelika Borys and Andrzej Poczobut, and limiting minority rights demonstrate his willingness to target Polish interests.

The same old story

 It appears that Lukashenko’s anti-Polish rant on January 26th exposed a critical truth –that of a man entangled  in his own web of lies, offering nothing new to contribute. His statements regarding Poles and Poland are merely a tired, recycled narrative, an old worn-out script. It’s the same propaganda concerning a supposed military threat from Poland, coupled with the standard accusations of meddling in Belarusian affairs. He continues to assert, as he has for years, that Poland backs attempts to destabilise Belarus, including organising the protests against his rule, particularly in the aftermath of the 2020 elections. His narrative regarding alleged schemes to reclaim the “historic Eastern Borderlands” at Belarus’s expense is tiresome. The claim is entirely unfounded, designed purely to incite fear of Poland amongst Belarusians. Equally unoriginal is the suggestion that backing opposition figures in Belarus is somehow detrimental. The dictator is evidently getting old.

The true tragedy lies with the Belarusians, who must endure such a reality. What repercussions will arise from all of this?

Marek Melnyk