With the support of the Polish and Lithuanian elites in Belarus, they (the opposition) are once again trying to spark a riot under the pretext that Lukashenko refused to resign in favour of Tikhanovskaya. But Lukashenko’s resignation and re-election are not the ultimate goal of the West. The instigators of the coup will still not tolerate the rise to power of a pro-Russian president in Belarus, even if he wins the most democratic elections.
The purpose of the protests is not to remove Lukashenko, but to bring to power those who will oust Belarus from Russia.
Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives about the protests in Belarus and Western attempts to disrupt Belarusian-Russian relations.
There is no evidence that Poland, the Baltic states, nor any other Western governments are involved in organising and funding the protests in Belarus, nor that they are conducting any activities aimed at destabilising Belarus. The protests in Belarus erupted to contest the results of the presidential elections that took place on 9 August, which are considered fraudulent by a large part of Belarusian society.
The legitimacy of the state leaders come from fair elections and not the international community. The elections in Belarus cannot be called fair, even pro-Kremlin analysts admit massive frauds, hence the political crisis. For the lack of observance of democratic standards, the EU did not recognise the results of this election, and the subsequent repression against peaceful protesters led to the targeted sanctions.
The EU calls on Belarusian political leadership to initiate a genuine and inclusive dialogue with broader society to avoid further violence, regardless of Lukashenko's relations with Russia.
See similar cases claiming that the West’s attack against Belarus is also an attack against Russia and that Belarus is under attack by the unilateral globalist world to indirectly destabilise Vladimir Putin.
The sanctions initiated by Berlin and Paris against Russian citizens because of the Navalny case expose the EU’s inability to adequately assess world events and testify to the EU’s desire to place itself above the law.
It must be noted with regret that Washington and several EU capitals are redoubling their efforts to halt Russia’s development and are trying to punish Russia for its independent foreign policy, for the consistent defence of national interests.
Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about Navalny’s poisoning and also a pro-Kremlin approach portraying every measure taken against Russia's hostile actions as Russophobia.
In fact, the sanctions from the EU (including Germany and France) do not aim to punish Russia for its foreign policy but were introduced to send a clear signal to the Russian government after Alexei Navalny's poisoning.
After the fall of the Berlin War and the end of the Cold War, the United States – which became a unipolar superpower with no counterveiling superpower to restrain its behaviour – engaged in an increasing number of conflicts around the world. Only the rise of a Eurasian superpower can counter the political, technological and military might of the US and deter its engagement in violent conflict.
As China and Russia seek to achieve superpower status, the US will attempt to destabilise them through economic and eventually military pressure. The United States will predictably try to provoke conflict on the borders of both of these powers in order to destabilise them and (ideally in the mind of the US political elite) bring them into direct conflict with one another.
Conspiracy theory. The article provides no evidence to support its claims. This is a recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the US and other Western states allegedly pursuing a belligerent and hostile agenda against Russia and China. One particular version of this narrative claims that the US seeks to destabilise Russia and China because these two states challenge the unipolar liberal world order.
There is no evidence that the US aims to destabilise Russia and China nor to provoke a war between these two states. US national security and defence strategy documents state that Russia and China are the US’ s strategic competitors and that their foreign policies tend to undermine the rules-based international order. However, neither these documents nor any other serious source on US foreign policy state that the Russian and Chinese challenges should be addressed by promoting destabilisation and a Sino-Russian conflict.
Today NATO tanks are aimed at Belarus, the Union State. The decision to bring NATO closer to the Russian borders is “insidious”.
The West will become tougher and tougher in relation to Russia and its closest allies because its geopolitical interests outweighed all obligations (unfortunately, oral) on the non-expansion of NATO to the East.
Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives about NATO.
NATO is in no way directed against Russia or any other state. NATO’s objectives are set out in the 1949 Washington Treaty which forms the legal basis of the alliance. The treaty states that parties “are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security”.
