Has Russia conquered Belarus? Expert opinion

The Russian Federation controls the territory of Belarus and uses it for its military purposes, there are no signs that Lukashenka can interfere with the Russian army.

Belarus is de facto and de jure under occupation, and it is time to create a national liberation movement in the country, – such is the position of one of the leaders of the Belarusian opposition, Pavel Latushko, deputy head of the United Transitional Cabinet by Svetlana Tikhanovskaya. However, not everyone agrees with him. Why?

There is no job, there is a national liberation struggle

“From the point of view of international law, Belarus is not under occupation,” said Ekaterina Deikalo, an international lawyer, an expert of the Belarusian Helsinki Committee. In international law, he explained, the relationship between power and territory is based on the principle of effective control. Despite the fact that Lukashenka is an illegitimate president, he effectively controls the territory. The definition of occupation is that someone forcibly takes this effective control from the previous “owner”.

Today, the expert continues, Lukashenka is very dependent on Russia, but coercion is when you have no choice. And he deliberately, for the purpose of maintaining power, gave his territory to the Russian army – this is pure collusion. Therefore, Deikalo called exaggeration on the subject of occupation by some representatives of democratic forces “populism and a desire to avoid the responsibility of Belarus for co-aggression against Ukraine.”

But in terms of the national liberation struggle, in international law, in history, the national liberation movement emerged during the decolonization period. The people, using the right to self-determination, began to fight against the colonial regimes, and the international subjectivity of the body that represents the people in the course of such struggle can really be recognized. Belarus, explains Ekaterina Deikalo, is not only occupied, but colonized by Russia.

The signs of the national liberation movement, he pointed out, have all the struggles of Belarusians since 2020, and the cabinet of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya can be a representative body. Many associate the national liberation struggle with armed resistance only, but this is not true, Deikalo warned: “The essence and meaning of the struggle and its methods should not be confused, and there is no “right to revolt”, it is a unprincipled interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

Political statements and their weight

Political observer Valery Karbalevich agrees that there was no de jure occupation of Belarus by Russia. But the statement of Pavel Latushko, he said, should be considered as a political one, and it can be interpreted in different ways, based on the principle that “the statement of a politician has exactly the weight that a politician has .”

To speak about the national liberation struggle in Belarus, the expert continues, is quite legitimate, but the use of force must be isolated. And recently, in the opposition movement the mood for the violent overthrow of the regime has begun to prevail. The war in Ukraine and the appearance of Belarusian armed formations there added sharpness to them, said Valery Karbalevich: “However, it is still not entirely clear how the military option will be implemented.”

Andrey Kushnerov, former fighter of the Belarusian Kalinouski regiment fighting in Ukraine, calls the talks about the military campaign against Belarusian speculation. Even among the veterans and the wounded, he pointed out, the Belarusians, scattered in units, could gather only up to a thousand people. It is almost impossible to imagine their clash with the army of Belarus, where there are 45 thousand soldiers.

Politicians, he believes, do not understand how warring formations work. “Kalinovsky Regiment” is a volunteer battalion, and to face the regular army, a regimental structure is required, which in fact does not exist. But most importantly, Kushnerov continues, so far none of the opposition’s plans have worked – neither strikes nor, for example, electronic voting. All this affects the mood of the Kalinovites.

Latushko’s arguments

Pavel Latushko, in response, taught the adversaries the concept of non-hostile occupation in peacetime. He insisted that it was a fait accompli, and immediately found six clear signs of the occupation of Belarus by Russia. This is the control of the Russian Federation over the territory of Belarus and its use for its military purposes. Also, there are no signs that Lukashenka can stop the Russian army, even if he is obliged to do so according to the Constitution – there can be no aggression against a third country from the territory of Belarus.

Russia uses the consent of the illegitimate puppet government of Lukashenka, continues Pavel Latushko, and the beginning of the occupation may not be related to a declaration of war – the occupier is hiding behind exercises or a joint army group. In addition, the international agreements used to bring troops were subsequently violated – the Russian army was not withdrawn after the exercises, but invaded Ukraine. And during the occupation, Lukashenka de facto illegally took power in Belarus by force, losing the election.

In response to Valery Karbalevich’s attack, Pavel Latushko said that he and Svetlana Tikhanovskaya were not the only ones to declare the occupation of Belarus. Political statements are made at the level of the Secretary of the Security Council and an adviser to the Office of the President of Ukraine. In addition, the head of the Lithuanian Foreign Ministry said that he considers Belarus to be partially occupied, and similar statements were made even at the level of the US President – the Belarusian regime has lost effective control over its territory.

“There is enough evidence base, and legal recognition requires legal decisions of other states. Let’s see if precedents are created,” said Pavel Latushko. The national liberation movement must be considered together with the recognition of the occupation, the belief of the politician, and the discussion of whether it started or not is a political question. Such a movement is created from below, not from above, explains Pavel Latushko, and its elements are already there: “But we also need a serious unifying emotional factor that can give us the right to say that it is happening.”