As Russia wages its war against Ukraine and instability persists in the region, the future of Belarus remains dependent not only on internal factors but also on a number of external ones. Experts from Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya’s Office outline several possible scenarios for how the situation might develop in Belarus and the wider region to help identify potential risks, challenges, and opportunities for the country in the current complex geopolitical reality.
Scenario summary
- Regional scenarios
- Frozen conflict, ceasefire as compromise
Aid to Ukraine is insufficient to shift the situation on the front. Under external pressure, Russia and Ukraine agree to a ceasefire. The conflict is frozen roughly along the line of contact. The occupied territories remain under Russian control, while Ukraine does not recognize them as Russian. No peace agreement is reached.
Russia’s leadership presents the situation as a victory. The United States leadership also declares success. Russia remains the aggressor, having received a temporary reward for its aggression. Sanctions are only partially lifted. The roots of the conflict remain, with a significant risk of renewed escalation. Ukraine gets a breather and works to strengthen its defense capabilities. Regional instability persists. The precedent of compromising with an aggressor undermines trust in international organizations and law, as well as the authority of the collective West.
- Stalemate and prolonged war
Neither side can gain the upper hand; only local skirmishes occur. A “coalition of the willing” is either not formed or fails to provide sufficient aid to Ukraine. Peace efforts do not result in a ceasefire. The United States declares both sides incapable of negotiation and loses interest in the conflict. Militarization continues in both Russia and Ukraine, but the war causes economic problems and fatigue in both societies, leading to growing domestic issues. The U.S. withdraws from European concerns. Europe faces a major challenge: can it become the guarantor and protector of international law without relying on the U.S.? The region arms up and prepares for war. Authoritarian countries see unchecked aggression as acceptable behavior. Western countries and international organizations lose credibility; powerful states ignore international law.
- Ukrainian advantage, Russian crisis
Ukraine receives substantial military and financial support from the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. A “coalition of the willing” is formed and active. Ukraine gradually gains the upper hand and liberates occupied territories. Internal issues in Russia mount. After a series of defeats, Russia loses initiative and agrees to a ceasefire on terms favorable to Ukraine. Ukraine emerges from the conflict with at least a partial but meaningful victory, consolidating national unity. The country begins reconstruction and reintegration of liberated territories. Western countries provide Ukraine with security guarantees, and EU integration accelerates.
Russia faces serious internal problems, which, on the backdrop of military defeat, lead to self-isolation or regime change and gradual normalization of relations with the West. The EU uses Ukraine’s victory as proof of its policy’s effectiveness and continues its strategic consolidation. The U.S. also presents Ukraine’s victory as validation of its foreign policy, freeing resources to address other global threats. NATO is strengthened. Members of the coalition increase their international influence. Ukraine’s victory restores confidence in the Western model – democracy, freedom, international law, and collective security. A window of opportunity opens for Belarus to liberalize and normalize relations with the West.
- Russian victory, Ukrainian defeat
Western countries significantly reduce support for Kyiv, and Russian offensives lead to Ukraine’s military collapse. Russia secures “new borders,” and Ukraine becomes a weakened state with limited sovereignty. The West loses faith in its collective security system. The EU becomes divided: Eastern European countries demand strong measures against Russian threats, while “old Europe” seeks reconciliation with Russia. The strategic autonomy vision within the EU faces internal crisis and stalls. The U.S. states that Europe bears responsibility for the regional situation and shifts focus elsewhere.
Russia’s victory undermines the U.S.’s status as a global security guarantor. A domestic debate grows between advocates of global leadership and isolationism. The reputational damage affects Washington’s influence in other regions. NATO experiences a trust crisis; its effectiveness in a future conflict is in question. Europe prepares for a new war. Belarus remains under Russian control.
- Escalation of war, global crisis
Russia, facing a deadlock or, conversely, feeling confident in its strength, decides to attack a NATO country to test the Alliance’s resolve. NATO becomes divided: some countries are ready for decisive action, while others fear direct confrontation. This disunity allows Moscow to act selectively and increases the risk of the conflict escalating into a large-scale war. Direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO becomes a turning point in the history of European and global security. The conflict grows into a full-scale war using conventional weapons across Europe. The escalation in Europe provokes crises in other regions. Countries involved in the war pay a high price for the inefficiency of current security systems. After the war, demand emerges globally for a new international security system.
- Escalation of war, defeat of Russia
Russia, facing a deadlock or, alternatively, feeling confident, attacks a NATO country to test the Alliance’s determination. NATO states respond swiftly and unitedly, reinforcing the eastern flank and coordinating with Ukraine. Russia’s attempt to break the resistance fails, and internal crises lead to its defeat. Russia enters a period of turmoil, resulting in either self-isolation or regime change, followed by gradual normalization of relations with the West. Ukraine regains occupied territories. The political unity forged through victory gives Kyiv the foundation to further pursue European and Euro-Atlantic integration. Ukraine’s success, in partnership with NATO, restores trust in the Western model of collective security, affirms the validity of international law, and strengthens the global leadership of the U.S., the EU, and the members of the “coalition of the willing”.
- Scenarios for Belarus
- Preservation of the Lukashenka regime (status quo)
The authorities in Minsk continue to rely on repression and Russian support. Belarus remains a “quiet rear” for Moscow despite growing dependence and a weak economy. Society is crushed by repression, and the West maintains sanctions and isolation.
- Direct involvement of Belarus in the war and Russian control
Under Kremlin pressure, Minsk sends troops into Ukraine. This causes shock within Belarus and active public resistance. Protests are suppressed by the joint efforts of Belarusian and Russian security forces. Ukraine’s retaliatory measures and the complete breakdown of relations with the West push Belarus to the brink of deep crisis, and the regime effectively falls under Moscow’s full control.
- Direct involvement of Belarus in the war and regime change
Under Kremlin pressure, Minsk sends troops into Ukraine. This sparks shock and resistance within Belarus. The regime tries to suppress protests but faces a split among the military, security forces, and officials. A new leadership group emerges, comprising military personnel, security representatives, and members of the government. Consultations begin on how to resolve the political crisis and ensure Belarus’ independence.
- Complete absorption of Belarus by Russia
The Lukashenka regime is either eliminated and replaced with a pro-Moscow administration or voluntarily signs documents formally integrating Belarus into the Russian Federation. Additional Russian troops are stationed in the country, and Belarus loses its formal independence. The West does not recognize the annexation, and underground resistance grows within society.
- Gradual transformation of the regime
Lukashenka leaves office (due to illness, death, or other reasons), and a less controversial bureaucratic successor comes to power. The new authorities promise reforms, slowly ease repression, and attempt to balance between Russia and the West. Political freedoms remain limited, but there is slightly more room for maneuver.
- Regime change and departure from Russia
An internal crisis in Russia and/or mass protests within Belarus lead to the fall of the Lukashenka regime. A new government pursues democratization and reevaluates the alliance with Moscow, aiming to break away from harsh dependence. The West lifts sanctions and provides economic and reform support, and Belarus gains genuine sovereignty.
