To What Degree Is Zelensky Complicit in Plotting Terrorist Attacks in Belarus?
President Lukashenko’s claim last week that his special services busted a Ukrainian-armed and opposition-led terrorist cell that was plotting attacks all across the country raises questions about the degree of Zelensky’s complicity in this regional destabilization operation.
“Shadow NATO’s” Regional Terrorist Plot
Belarusian President Lukashenko made headlines late last week after he announced that his special services busted a Ukrainian-armed and opposition-led terrorist cell that was plotting attacks all across the country. Questions immediately swirled about whether his Ukrainian counterpart was aware of what was happening in his territory or if his intelligence agencies and/or their American allies trafficked these weapons without informing him. The reason why there’s so much uncertainty about all of this is that President Zelensky is practically an emasculated leader after proving himself incapable of implementing any of his policies since his surprise election in April 2019. Ukraine has also been regarded as a “shadow” (de facto) member of NATO ever since its early 2014 Color Revolution so its leaders haven’t ever held any real power since then anyhow.
From Pragmatism To Puppet Status
Nevertheless, Zelensky at least initially attempted not to publicly provoke Lukashenko all that much during the first few months the ongoing Color Revolution attempt that broke out in his country immediately after its elections last summer. That comparatively pragmatic position, however, began to change for the worse in November after he said that he would no longer address his Belarusian counterpart as “President”. Earlier this month, Zelensky and his Lithuanian counterpart also agreed “to support Belarusian civil society”, which is a euphemism for meddling in its internal affairs to an unclear extent. This gave rise to speculation that Ukraine would play a more prominent role in the Hybrid War on Belarus, or more precisely, the role that many observers initially expected it to play and which was only delayed by Zelensky’s failed foray with pragmatism.
Far From A Moot Point
Some observers might consider the question of Zelensky’s complicity a moot one since there’s little doubt about the veracity of Lukashenko’s claims, but the answer is actually an important one since it could shed light on the his future actions. If he was aware of the arms being trafficked through his country’s territory to opposition-led terrorist groups in Belarus, then it would suggest that he’s completely surrendered to Ukraine’s American patron and that Kiev will once again revert to being a complete proxy of the pro-Democrat faction of the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) upon Biden’s planned inauguration on 20 January. Under Trump, the country at least seemed to have somewhat distanced itself from that faction as evidenced by Zelensky’s prior peace push with President Putin in Eastern Ukraine.
“Deep State” Dynamics
There were also reports that some of its government officials were assisting the Trump campaign’s investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged corruption there so it was safe to speculate that the country had at least partially liberated itself from the pro-Democrat “deep state’s” yoke. If that state of affairs was still in play, even to a limited extent, then Zelensky might not have been notified by his intelligence agencies and/or their American allies of the arms-trafficking operation through his country’s territory, but if he already submitted to that “deep state” faction in the interests of political self-preservation after the US’ elections last month, then there wouldn’t be any problem briefing about those activities. Considering the fact that his comparatively (key word) pragmatic stance towards Belarus shifted after the vote, it seems like he probably sold out around that time.
Will Donbas Be Destabilized Next?
The insight obtained from this analysis strongly suggests that he’d probably go even further with Ukraine’s restored alliance with the US’ pro-Democrat “deep state” faction by naturally being much more likely to carry out provocations in Eastern Ukraine early on in the first year if not months of Biden’s expected term in office at his patron’s behest. After all, if he’s already approved gun-smuggling to opposition-led Belarusian terrorist groups, then there’s no reason why he wouldn’t want to support more terrorist activity in Eastern Ukraine too. In addition, he might have even greenlit the operation with the expectation of a quid pro quo whereby the Biden Administration would presumably give his armed forces more substantial backing in their quest to militarily conquer the rebellious Donbas region, something that Trump might have been loath to do.
President Putin hinted at this in hindsight during his year-end review a week and a half ago when he lamented that his Ukrainian counterpart failed to live up to his peaceful promises. This can now be seen as a subtle signal from the Russian leader that he’s aware of Zelensky selling out to the pro-Democrat faction of the US’ “deep state” immediately after the election, which in turn can be extrapolated upon to speculate that he likely gave approval (or at the very least didn’t dissent) to his intelligence agencies and/or their American allies funneling arms through his country’s territory to opposition-led Belarusian terrorist groups. Should the author’s analysis be accurate, then it presages much more worrisome things to come in Ukraine across the coming year, perhaps even a worsening of hostilities in Donbas as Biden’s first serious anti-Russian provocation.
The analysis argued that the question of Zelensky’s complicity in the Belarusian arms-smuggling operation is actually a very important one since the answer sheds light on his future actions. Considering the very high likelihood that he was at least aware of what was going on and wasn’t kept in the dark out of fear that he might try to stop it for whatever reason (perhaps due to the regional peacemaking promises that he was elected on), then it surely seems as though he’s submitted to the pro-Democrat faction of the US’ “deep state”. This augurs real negatively for stability in Donbas since he might then just as easily submit to the Biden Administration’s possible plan of worsening hostilities in Donbas for what might be the incoming president’s first serious anti-Russian provocation. All of this suggests that Ukraine is embracing its role as an exporter of regional instability.