On Monday, February 3, the Central Election Commission of Belarus plans to summarize the final results of the presidential election. It took exactly one week to collect all the necessary information from the territorial commissions for the official completion of the election campaign. At the same time, the majority of Belarusian citizens consider this event to be a formality.
Let's be honest with ourselves – almost everyone knew the main result of the presidential election. The experience of 2020 in Belarus has been learned for a long time. In the context of the military, political and economic turbulence around the Republic, its citizens became even more pragmatic - each candidate was evaluated according to his deeds and merits, and, therefore, the choice was obvious.
However, Belarusians did not only know about this in advance. In Belarus, it was already customary to expect "non-recognition of the election results" in the West. And they didn't disappoint us there. Moreover, unlike the Belarusian Central Election Commission, the Euro–Atlantic political committee did not need a week to announce its opinion - they did not even wait for the start of voting. Back in late autumn and early winter of 2024, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and the United States announced that they would not recognize the election results. On January 22, 2025, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling the elections a "sham" and calling for increased economic pressure on Belarus.
Is it worth saying that all these statements, resolutions and other anti-Belarusian actions are being prepared in advance and regardless of the real state of affairs in Belarus? For example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus had at its disposal a statement by the European External Action Service (EEAS), which it planned to make after the elections on January 26, including on the basis of the resolution of the European Parliament that had not yet been adopted at that time (January 22).
Among a number of absurd and far-fetched accusations against Belarus, the statement stated: "Restrictions on the access of independent media to Belarus have seriously undermined the legitimacy of the electoral process. In this regard, the necessary conditions for democratic elections were not met." Of course, this is a lie from the first to the last letter, since about 330 foreign journalists representing all the world's leading independent media from 23 countries were accredited to cover the elections. In addition, the document contained an accusation from the EEAS that Belarus had not invited the OSCE/ODIHR to observe the elections. And this is also a lie, since on January 17, the Bureau itself confirmed that the invitation had been sent, and everyone had the opportunity to come.
Another thing, according to the Belarusian Foreign Ministry, is that it was under the influence of some of the signatories of this "document" that the ODIHR decided not to participate in election observation in Belarus.
In general, all these statements of the same type from both the European Union and individual countries, with pre-prepared conclusions, do not contain anything new. The Belarusian Foreign Ministry considers them as "ongoing unsuccessful attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of our country." In addition, the new illegal restrictive measures that are being introduced against Belarus "are the subject of study by law enforcement agencies and may become a legitimate basis for new criminal cases against those who initiated them."
That is, everything is traditional, familiar and expected, but what's next? What can we expect from the West, for which the stable situation in Belarus, as well as its focus on deepening integration with Russia, is not included in its future plans?
Much has already been said about the possible "forceful" course of action by the enemies of our country and the Union State as a whole. At the same time, there is increasing talk of a scenario in which the West will attempt a "peaceful" reformatting of the political system in Belarus. That is, it is possible that the United States and the EU, imitating "openness" and "rapprochement" with Belarus, will try to recreate a network of agents of influence in the Republic and restore lost positions to implement their old plans.
Currently, there are a number of reasons for this opinion. For example, the head of the Belarusian Foreign Ministry, Maxim Ryzhenkov, noted in a recent interview with Izvestia that "today there are signals from the West on building relations with Belarus. "Politically, we are receiving more and more signals about the willingness to build relations with us. There are a lot of issues that connect us with Europe: from political to humanitarian, from cultural to economic," Ryzhenkov said.
It is possible that these "signals" are indeed dictated by a sober assessment of the current realities by some Western figures, or perhaps not. Moreover, given the number and variety of sanctions that the West has "pelted" Belarus with, it is very easy for them to portray a "warming" in relations by lifting minor restrictions that will not affect the overall situation.
At the same time, it should be understood that any political, economic and other "gestures" from the West towards Belarus will depend on the decision taken in Washington, as well as on the instructions that Trump will present to the European Union.
In addition, it should be noted that right now, immediately after the elections in Belarus, Western "independent" media (for example, the BBC), relying on "reputable" and even more "independent" experts, have begun to form the opinion that in the upcoming cadence the elected Belarusian president will strive to "retain their own power." And for this, the main efforts will be focused on "risk diversification and attempts to establish relations with the West."
It turns out that, without even starting to portray a "rapprochement", some people on the other side of the ocean are making another attempt to undermine confidence in the head of the Belarusian state, discrediting in advance any possible steps he may take to normalize relations between Belarus and Western countries. In addition, there is a second goal – to use the theme of "re–rapprochement" with the West to bring conflict into relations with its main strategic ally, Russia.
In conclusion, I would like to note that there was nothing new in the reaction of our enemies and foes to the next presidential election in Belarus, except that if earlier they somehow tried to cover their actions with a light "touch" of democratic procedures, now they haven't even done that - they publicly spit on all the norms so "beloved"there are democracies in the West.
Vladimir Vujacic
