‘Belarus was the place where fake news started’. Edward Lucas grants interview to Belsat TV

Why is Belarus considered a place where fake news appeared first? What direction are Belarus-West relations going to? What should we expect of the joint Russia-Belarus war game. Edward Lucas, senior editor of The Economist, granted an interview to Belsat TV show Prasviet (World and Us).

Journalist: In February and March we noticed that Western media paid more attention to Belarus than usual. However, the media coverage was mostly about the repressions and protests against the authocratic government. In your opinion, how is Belarus viewed by the West?

Edward Lucas: I think Belarus is a kind of information black hole. It does not really feature in most people’s outlook, many people find it hard to find Belarus on the map. But we do write about it; it is usually for some other reason. The main thing we are worried about at the moment is the Zapad-2017 exercises because this will happen partly in Belarus.

There is always a little bit of interest about what relations are between Belarus and Russia and whether there will be some kind of provocation from the Kremlin in Belarus and so on. But I think we do not really cover Belarus much as a country.

You mentioned Zapad-2017. What do you think might change in the relations of Russia, Belarus and the West against the background?

There are several worries about the Zapad. One of them is the scenario – will it be equally threatening as that of Zapad-2009 when they rehearsed the invasion and occupation of the Baltic states? Will there be a nuclear weapons component together with conventional weapons? Could it be sort of a cover for some military provocation perhaps involving transit between Kaliningrad and Belarus, the so called Suwalki Corridor across Lithuania? I actually think that is really unlike. Some years ago there was such a danger, but not now.

Another question is whether the Russian troops that come to Belarus will go home.This is a big worry for the Ukrainians because at the moment the northern Ukrainian  border is almost completely undefended. Ukraine is concentrating all its efforts on the war in the east. So, if you suddenly have information of a brigade or division, or some other formation of Russian troops staying after Zapad in the south of Belarus, that will be a real problem for the Ukrainians.

Who may create an unstable situation? Russia? Belarus?

It is very unlikely that Belarus would try to pick a fight with Russia given that it is dozens of times bigger. But it a provocation – for example, misbehaviour of some sort within Belarus which would give the Russians the opportunity to complain and take some kind of measures in response. I think everything that we say is ‘guess what’. We do not know what relationship is between Putin and Lukashenka. All we know is that Russia already has everything it wants in Belarus. They are extremely well informed, they have deep penetration of politics, media, military and security, establishment. So, if Russians are going to do something in Belarus, it would be really doing it for symbolic reasons or for maybe for domestic effect in Russia, not because of any objective things they need in Belarus.

Is there any common strategy for Belarus-EU relations?

We have tried almost everything: we have tried being nice, being tough; we have tried carrots-sticks, engagement-disengagement, sanctions. Nothing really works. We occasionally thought we were making progress – political prisoners were released and so on. But in the end, it is up to president Lukashenka what he does.

He usually uses the West as a means of extracting concessions from the Kremlin. We cannot see this movie several times – we have already watched it. We get messages from the Belarusian authorities saying they would like to improve the dialogue. What we tend to say is “Why should we take you seriously this time if you were unserious on the previous four or five occassions?” To move on, we need something very really serious from the side of the Belarusian authorities to make us think they have serious intentions. If they did that, it would cause a lot of interest in the West.

Who is promoting the idea of normalization of the relations between the Western countries and Lukashenka and why? Is there any interest in this?

If Belarus showed signs of leaving away from the Kremlin and having trade and cooperation and other things offered in the Eastern Partnership, we would like that. Perhaps there is less enthusiasm for visa-free travel in the EU, it would be more difficult. But we want a safe, stable, prosperous, free, happy neighbourhood, and Belarus is not prosperous, or free, or happy under this regime which is holding the country back. I have always thought that if Belarus wanted to turn to the West, it would be a really quick transition.

There is so much in Belarus that is really good in terms of physical infrastructure, the way the economy functions. The country can offer a lot to the European Union as a trade and investment partner. I think it will be interest.

In Belarus, the repressions of independent media and political activists are in progress, but we do not see any strong reaction from the West. That is why I am asking whether there is any ‘lobby’ of Lukashenka?

I do not think that there is any lobby, because Belarus is not big enough. Maybe a handful of companies in Poland and Germany could say: “Let’s keep away from politics and do business”, but Belarus does not have such weight as Russia or China does. I would like to keep the pressure in respect of human rights.

I think there is a political focus on Belarus – at the moment, it is releasing political prisoners, media freedom, rule of law. If your authorities wanted to improve the relations, there is a positive agenda.

It is easy to imagine a deal when political prisoner were released, some steps were made towards free elections or at least some kind of political competition… I think that the wheels of trade and investment would start turning quite quickly. Nobody in the West is interested in having a bad relationship, we just really care about political prisoners and repression. As I said at the beginning, Belarus is an information black hole, it is also the last dictatorship in Europe. We mind about that.

What role might Belarus play in this political, information, cyberwarfare confrontation between Russia and the West?

Belarus was actually the place where fake news started in the post-Cold War era. Lukashenka’s propaganda machine pioneered the things which later were taken by the Russian media and other people attacking the West. I think that Mr Novikau [Yauhen Novikau – an anchorman at the Belarusian state television] was one of the earliest practitioners of what we now call fake news. I think that now Belarus is pretty much off the radar. If Russia wants to attack Western political systems, it can do it through its hacking and leaking attacks. We could see them in the USA, France; we will probably see then in Germany.

Belarusian resources are not exploited and, probably, will not be. It is possible they might use belarus when they need to shift responsibility and say ‘it was not Russia, it was Belarus’. That could be the case in some of the Baltic states. But I think that you are probably luckily not involved in this particular warfare.

You have mentioned that it is just ‘guess what’. However, do you have any predictions what can happen?

I was very sceptical about Lukashenka in 1994 when he was running for president, I did not think he would win because his competitors were strong political establishment. When he won I did not think it would last long, but I was wrong. He has an amazing ability to survive both internal and external challenges and come out on top.

It is clear that Vladimir Putin does not like Lukashenka, he finds Belarus a nuisance in any respect. But he would rather keep it ‘his’ nuisance than let it become anybody else’s nuisance. Within those constraints, I think president Lukashenka can continue to run the country pretty much he wants.

Hanna Liubakova, London

Watch the full episode: