Belarus courts the west as its opposition keeps fighting
This happened hours after Lukashenko received U.S. envoy Keith Kellogg in the capital of Minsk. The release of Siarhei Tsikhanouski — known as ' Minsk's number one political prisoner,' who had received the regime's harshest verdict of 18 years — underscores the high-profile nature of the gesture.
Kellogg's visit was not his first. On Feb. 12, soon after his initial trip to Belarus, the authorities pardoned three political prisoners, including an American citizen. The June amnesty therefore builds on a pattern linking each wave of releases to Kellogg-brokered diplomacy.
The end of the isolation of the Lukashenko regime, however, does not necessarily mean abandonment of Belarusian opposition.
Every year since she emerged in 2020, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya has used major international platforms — from long-form journalism and television interviews to speeches at parliaments, security conferences and her own social channels — to repeat the same demand: freedom for all Belarusian political prisoners. The consistency of that message underlines that freeing everyone, not a token few, is non-negotiable for the democratic movement she leads.
Posting on social media, Tsikhanouskaya thanked President Trump, Kellogg and other partners for securing her husband's freedom. She added, 'We're not done,' and urged that the remaining 1,186 political prisoners be released as well, a demonstration that the fight against the regime will persist.
With so many political prisoners still behind bars, Lukashenko's selective pardons fall far short of systemic change. Yet they signal a calculated bid to shed pariah status and rebalance Belarus's dependence on Russia and Vladimir Putin.
Belarus is the world's third-largest producer of potash, a key component of fertilizer, but sanctions and Lithuania's 2022 ban on its using the port of Klaipeda have cut it off from Western buyers. Almost all Belarusian potash now travels by rail through Russia to China and other Asian customers. Because Russia controls this sole export route and competes with Belarus in the same fertilizer market, it can charge premium transit fees, squeezing Belarusian profits and deepening Lukashenko's dependence on the Kremlin.
Putin's leverage helps explain why Lukashenko trades high-profile prisoner releases for talks on easing sanctions and restoring cheaper sea access.
Sending Kellogg to Minsk lets Trump advertise an early foreign-policy win: a humanitarian deal, plus a possible opening for Ukraine peace talks. To pull Belarus even slightly out of Putin's orbit strengthens Trump's argument that his personal diplomacy can keep Russia in check.
Over 90 percent of the potash used in the U.S. is imported. Top countries for potash exports include Canada, Belarus, China and Russia, with the last three accounting for more than 40 percent of global supply.
Belarus has turned eastward since Western sanctions cut off its traditional routes: China's share of Belarus's potash sales surged from 17 percent in 2021 to more than 70 percent in 2023. President Xi Jinping hailed Lukashenko as a 'true friend' during the Beijing summit on June 4.
For Trump, who has pursued a consistently hardline stance toward Beijing, the June deal that freed Tsikhanouski also serves as proof that his direct, transactional diplomacy can peel partners away from Beijing while advancing U.S. security aims — whether that is diversifying fertilizer supply chains or kick-starting Ukraine peace talks.
While economic and political calculations may shape how the Trump administration engages with Lukashenko, they do not equate to an end of international criticism of the Lukashenko regime or support for the Belarusian opposition. On March 27, the EU added 25 more officials and seven entities to its Belarus list of 310 individuals and 46 entities under asset freezes and travel bans, keeping Belarus under the same scrutiny as before the prisoner-release diplomacy began. High-level political platforms remain open to Tsikhanouskaya and her allies, and foreign legislatures and multilateral bodies still push accountability.
This international pressure helps to keep the opposition's cause alive and ensures that the struggle for democracy in Belarus still has external backing.
Tatsiana Kulakevich is an associate professor of instruction in research methods and quantitative analysis at the University of South Florida.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Mamdani would make New York a gloomy city of handouts and moochers
For centuries, New York City was the place strivers came to make something of their lives — where smarts, hard work and grit turned pushcarts into prosperity, and where the streets were paved with gold for those willing to mine them. Success in New York was always tougher than anyplace else. Making it here meant you could make it anywhere. Only the very poor received charity or government assistance, and only enough to help them get on their feet and start helping themselves. Advertisement Zohran Mamdani has a very different philosophy. Much of his 'affordability agenda' isn't targeted to the neediest — but to New Yorkers who should be paying their own way. Take fare-free buses: The city already offers a half-price 'Fair Fares' program for low-income bus and subway riders. Advertisement Free buses would be available to everyone, including well-paid professionals and even loathed billionaires. Food stamps, too, are means-tested, but city-run grocery stores wouldn't stop millionaires from scooping up avocados at below-market prices. Plenty of wealthy people already live in rent-stabilized apartments, so freezing the rent would benefit some rich tenants at landlords' expense, even those small landlords who are less well-off than their tenants. Advertisement But Mamdani isn't asking everyone to share the burden evenly by raising taxes across the board. He wants to tax corporations and the wealthiest. It's welfare for the upper-middle class, with no strings attached. It's also a paradigm shift, a belief that government — not our own efforts — should guarantee security. The traditional American free market rewards those who work hard, delay gratification and take risks. Advertisement Those efforts benefit wider society — making companies more productive, adding to the tax base through growth and extending new opportunities for others. In much of the country, homeownership is the reward for these sacrifices — a marker of having earned one's place in society and holding a stake in a stable neighborhood. In rental-heavy New York, paying rent for a comfortable place confers a similar status. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Rent stabilization, by contrast, provides these benefits through government mandate. Stabilized tenants can pass along a legal entitlement to live in the below-market apartment to family members and even in some cases to non-related co-residents. Unsurprisingly, these tenants rarely give up their sweetheart deals, making it harder for younger New Yorkers to find a foothold. Doubling down on these programs would make New Yorkers more dependent on them — and on the government. As always, those who benefit from a government program have a strong stake in seeing it continue — and they vote. Mamdani's proposals are tailor-made for his base of young, highly educated, far-left NYC newcomers. These bright and capable young voters aren't chasing big dreams. Advertisement By many measures, they experience higher rates of mental health challenges and lower well-being at work — and are turning to the government for a more comfortable, secure life. But New York has never been content with 'good enough.' Is it difficult to buy a house or afford rent, especially for the young? Absolutely. But is it the answer to hand more power to City Hall and let it determine more of our lives? Advertisement The government's track record isn't pretty. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The single biggest reason why housing is so expensive in NYC is that, for decades, City Hall has prevented the private sector from building enough supply to meet demand. And in the housing stock the government does control or influence, residents aren't thriving. Advertisement Rent-stabilized apartment stock is rapidly deteriorating. Landlords are prohibited from collecting enough in rent increases to cover higher operating and maintenance costs. Conditions in NYCHA buildings are so poor that far-left Public Advocate Jumaane Williams has repeatedly named the public housing authority the worst landlord in the city. On average, it takes 413 days for NYCHA to complete repairs. At its best, New York rewards aspiration, not entitlement. If the city is to be a place where strivers thrive, its government must reward diligence and productivity. Advertisement It must allow for growth, making it easy for businesses to set up shop and create jobs. Instead of making life more comfortable for young professionals, the next mayor should inspire them to make the most of their skills and talents — to make them dream bigger than what mere government can offer. Allowing the private sector to build much more housing would give young New Yorkers a better chance to buy or rent new, modern apartments. They'd feel like their hard work is getting them somewhere. The alternative is stagnation — a sadder, less dynamic city. That's not New York. John Ketcham is director of cities and a legal policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute. All views expressed are those of the author and not the Manhattan Institute.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
The Trump-Epstein circular firing squad is just like an episode of ‘Seinfeld'
The Jeffrey Epstein scandal that has engulfed the Trump administration and MAGA world is like an episode of 'Seinfeld.' Somebody does something stupid and the remainder of the show is about the reactions of a cast of soulless characters who are so without redeeming qualities, you can't root for any of them. Donald Trump's decision not to release whatever is in the Epstein files has paralyzed the most MAGA of conservative media outlets. When I checked earlier today, The Federalist, The Daily Caller and Breitbart were all doing their best to ignore the story dividing Trumpists like never before. It is like the digital outlets are waiting for orders from on high, but the leading voices are a confused cacophony, not the usual Trumpy chorus. Fox News and the Wall Street Journal opinion page are both promoting an op-ed by former Epstein lawyer Alan Dershowitz that is as confused as this Seinfeldian story about nothing. You see, Dershowitz says there's nothing to see here, Epstein committed suicide and was not murdered, but the jail staff may have helped him. Oh, also there's nothing incriminating about Trump. Suicide is a fraught subject that must be handled delicately in all instances, but I am not so clear on how there can be help from the people who are supposed to be guarding you. I didn't know it was OK for the guards to deliver 'assisted' suicide services normally provided by medical personnel. Wouldn't that be a scandal? Dershowitz blames the fact that you can't see the Justice Department files on court-ordered secrecy, as if suddenly the Trump administration has gotten all Emily Post about following judges' orders. Meanwhile the formerly conservative Drudge Report, enemy of all things Emily Post and still frequented by many on the right who want a dose of the day's tabloid fare, is promoting rumors that a big Trump-Epstein story is about to appear in the pages of either The Washington Post, The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. Just as I am writing this, The Wall Street Journal breathlessly published a story marked 'exclusive' that, along with dozens of other people, Trump wrote a bawdy letter to Epstein for his 50th birthday. In this letter, Trump allegedly drew a naughty picture with breasts and pubic hair. Oh, my. The only thing worth being on the front page is that Trump called the Journal's top editor to try to stop the story with a lawsuit threat. So it is no wonder the White House and Trump himself are livid at all this attention with the press secretary blasting people like me who keep covering this 'like it's the biggest story that the American people care about.' For once, Karoline Leavitt appears to be sticking to the facts. Conservative talk radio hosts who I listen to, such as Erick Erickson, report that while their 'very online' listeners are mad as hell, their ideological cousins who have touched grass more recently couldn't care less. If it is not clear already, I am watching the whole kerfuffle and enjoying every minute. If a political movement born of nothing but Trump's grudges, conspiracy theories and self-interest deserves anything, it is to suffer a circular firing squad about Trump holding a grudge against his supporters who still believe a conspiracy theory that is suddenly no longer in Trump's self-interest. This won't be the last time that Trump's imaginary hobgoblins will come back to haunt him. Wait until his handpicked Attorney General Pam Bondi fails to come up with anyone to indict for stealing the 2020 election, as all Trump's supporters have been promised. We'll think back on this week's Epstein blowup as a little family disagreement. If we were watching a 'Seinfeld' episode, this is where Jerry would be told, 'No soup for you,' and we'd all have a good laugh. It isn't so funny when the job prospects of our top law enforcement officers depend on the outcome of a scandal about nothing and the president seems more engaged with the fate of a dead sex trafficker than the real lives of the people he is supposed to govern.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Are Americans hungry for political violence? This info might surprise you
We know the bad news well enough: Violence targeting elected officials is on the rise. The attack on lawmakers in Minnesota last month that left two dead and two injured is but the most recent example. There is increasing political violence initiated by the federal government, arising from its efforts to deport millions of people and suppress dissent. But this is only part of the story. Research by our group and others has repeatedly found that there is also room for hope and clear guidance for actions all of us can take to prevent political violence from spiraling out of control. Our group at the University of California, Davis has conducted a survey of the American public's views on political violence each year since 2022, gathering data from the same people over time to allow for accurate monitoring of trends. Participants are members of the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, recruited through an address-based, equal-probability sampling system such that — with statistical weighting — they accurately represent the adult population of the United States. The survey is conducted online. (Panel members who do not have internet access are given the necessary equipment and service, free of charge.) Ours has been an unusually large survey, with nearly 13,000 participants in 2022 and response rates of at least 84% each year thereafter. In 2022, two-thirds of our respondents rejected political violence altogether, though we gave them more than a dozen opportunities to endorse it. This proportion rose to 75% in 2023, and, contrary to our expectations, did not fall in 2024 — an election year, when concern for violence was high. In 2022, an are-you-kidding-me 14% of our respondents — 1 adult in 7 — strongly or very strongly agreed that 'in the next few years, there will be civil war in the United States.' But agreement fell to 6% in 2023 and stayed there in 2024. What's more, of the minority of our respondents who endorse political violence in principle, the vast majority (roughly 80%) are unwilling to engage in such violence themselves. We explored this more deeply in 2024 and got more good news: Of the small percentage (about 4%) of respondents who thought it very likely they would engage in combat if civil war broke out, a remarkable 45% said they would change their minds if urged to do so by their families; 20% to 30% were open to persuasion by friends, respected religious and community leaders and the media. We can work with this. The vast majority of us who reject violence must make our positions loud and clear to our families and friends and to the public at large. There are clearly identified groups at high risk for committing political violence, and engaging directly with these individuals deserves extra effort. In our surveys, these groups have included young men; MAGA Republicans; endorsers of many forms of fear, hatred and enmity toward others (racism, hostile sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia and antisemitism) and people who approve of violent extremist organizations and movements such as the Proud Boys, Christian nationalism and the militia movement. Our actions will produce some awkward conversations, and not all of them will be successful. But even when we don't affect individual behavior, our collective efforts will help create a climate of intolerance for violence in our social networks and in our society. Preventing the normalization of violence can, by itself, reduce the risk that violence will occur. But that reduction won't be to zero. Our second responsibility is, 'If you see something, say something.' In most cases, those who are planning violence tip their hands, and any one of us could be that person who prevents a tragedy by calling 911 and relaying key information to those in a position to do something about it. Violence initiated by the government is a special case, and we're likely to get much more experience with it in the near future. Our third responsibility is not to oppose violence with violence. In this country, at this time, violent opposition will almost certainly accelerate a downward slide into authoritarianism. Our model must be the civil rights movement, not the American Revolution. Those who confront violence with nonviolence hold the moral high ground, and their example mobilizes others to join them. There is no room on the sidelines this time. For the United States to survive — let alone to thrive — we must remain a nation that does not resolve its differences through violence. Each one of us now faces this question: 'What will I do to make that happen?'
