“A Half-Hearted Position by Kyiv Has Led to Nothing Good.” Belarusian Experts on Arestovych’s Statements

How should one assess the position of the Ukrainian authorities, who do not want to sever relations with the Lukashenka regime completely?

Oleksii Arestovych, adviser to the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, said on Euroradio that Kyiv is not ready in the near future to break economic ties with Belarus.
“Belarus provides significant, critically necessary resources for us, the same diesel fuel, electricity, and so on.

We are not yet ready to break these ties,” Arestovych said.

The adviser to the head of the Presidential Office assured that economic ties between Belarus and Ukraine would be preserved, including through President Volodymyr Zelensky’s team pursuing a cautious policy toward Belarus.

He also explained why, in his opinion, the president has not yet met with Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya.
“If President Zelensky meets with Tsikhanouskaya, Alexander Lukashenka may react sharply and nervously on a personal level.

Do we need him to react sharply and personally in a situation where the Russian army is using Belarusian territory for aggression against us?” Arestovych noted.

UDF (https://udf.name/) asked experts whether they agree with the opinion of the adviser to the head of the Presidential Office.

Director of the Political Sphere Institute and Doctor of Political Science Andrei Kazakevich noted in a comment to UDF (https://udf.name/) that the continuation of economic cooperation between Ukraine and Belarus is by no means guaranteed.
“First, information had previously appeared that neither electricity nor fuel is already coming from Belarus to Ukraine.

That is logical: a country at war cannot rely on supplies from a hostile state.

Second, life itself may remove the question of continued cooperation.

Even if Belarus retains some share of the Ukrainian market, it seems to me that the Ukrainian leadership, for security reasons, will be forced to restructure supplies and move away from dependence on the same Belarusian petroleum products,” Kazakevich believes.

He emphasized:
“The question is not what individual politicians or advisers want, but how the logic of ensuring Ukraine’s security and survival under conditions of aggression will develop.”

How effective is Kyiv’s tactic of a “cautious policy” toward Minsk?
“So far, it is not visible that such a tactic has brought Ukraine noticeable results.

Kyiv’s half-hearted position since August 2020 (there were harsh statements, but trade also continued actively) has led to nothing good for it.

Belarusian propaganda formed a negative image of Ukraine and effectively promoted aggression against the southern neighbor.

Ultimately, Belarus acted as a co-aggressor, providing its territory and infrastructure to the Russian military and even threatening the use of military force.

After the start of the war, Kyiv’s previous position looks even less rational,” Kazakevich noted.

He also pointed to the inconsistency of the Ukrainian authorities’ policy.
“Volunteer military formations made up of Belarusians are being created in Ukraine, and they constantly emphasize that in the future they aim to fight for democracy in Belarus.

This is probably a much more irritating factor for Lukashenka than Zelensky potentially meeting with Tsikhanouskaya,” Kazakevich believes.