Lukashenka’s Peacekeeping Intentions Clash with the Kremlin’s Plans for Ukraine

Minsk has expressed its desire not only to participate in negotiations between Russia and Ukraine but also to host them—albeit excluding European capitals and the United States. Meanwhile, the Kremlin continues to signal an intent to escalate the conflict with Ukraine, maintaining its ultimate goal of dismantling Ukraine as a nation-state.

Lukashenka reiterated that he opposes Belarus being drawn into the escalation of Russia’s war against Ukraine and thus favors a peaceful resolution, given that the war is taking place near Belarusian borders.

He emphasized that while he is not seeking a mediator role in the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, such talks should occur on Belarusian soil, and Belarusian interests must be respected. For this reason, Lukashenka insists on being present at the negotiations to safeguard his country’s interests. He hinted that the ideal format would be trilateral talks involving “Moscow – Kyiv – Minsk,” explicitly excluding European capitals and Washington.

At the same time, the Kremlin’s recent actions—approving a new nuclear doctrine lowering the threshold for nuclear weapon use and deploying the “Oreshnik” intercontinental ballistic missile against targets in Ukraine—demonstrate a clear intention to further escalate the conflict. The Kremlin’s ultimate objective remains the dismantling of Ukraine as a nation-state and the establishment of control over its territory.

Notably, Russia’s Ministry of Defense has prepared a document forecasting global military-political developments through 2045. The document envisions the division of Ukraine into three parts: one absorbed into Russia, another becoming a pro-Russian state entity with a Russian military presence, and a third designated as a disputed territory to be decided by Russia and neighboring states.

The Kremlin believes that victory over Ukraine and a favorable global outcome for Moscow are possible under only two of four scenarios: “The Formation of a Multipolar World and the Division of Spheres of Influence by Leading Actors” and “Regionalization/Chaos.” The other two scenarios—”Dominance of the U.S. and the West” and “China’s Emergence as the Leading Global Power”—are viewed as unfavorable for Russia and could result from either a Russian defeat or a frozen conflict in Ukraine.

Thus, Lukashenka’s peacekeeping rhetoric is more likely a strategic disinformation campaign than a genuine effort. If the Kremlin’s plans for dividing Ukraine are considered, these trilateral negotiations in Minsk may ultimately serve as a platform where Moscow imposes its will on Kyiv entirely.

A critical requirement for implementing these plans is Russia’s ability to project military power from Belarusian territory. Joint strategic exercises, such as “Zapad-2025,” suggest that Belarus not only provides its territory for Russian forces but may also commit its military to an offensive. This indicates that Lukashenko’s regime has no intention of leaving Russia’s sphere of influence and is unwilling to normalize relations with the West to return to a multi-vector foreign policy.