Иллюстративное изображение. Вышка сотовой связи. Фото: dprom.online
Today, during a ceremony honoring graduates of higher military educational institutions and newly promoted senior officers, Aliaksandr Lukashenka made a statement that, albeit indirectly, may shed light on the fate of the retransmitters whose shutdown had been demanded by the Ukrainian leadership.
Addressing the military, Lukashenka once again accused Europe’s “party of war” of doing “everything possible” to prolong Russia’s war against Ukraine, pursuing a “course of militarization,” fueling an “absurd hysteria over the imaginary ‘threat from the East,'” and waging a “hybrid war against our country.”
At first, it seemed Lukashenka would once again offer nothing new. But then he unexpectedly made a rather intriguing remark:
“The hybrid war against our country continues. Economic diktat, political and information pressure are being supplemented by active espionage and provocations along our southern borders. There are things we do not talk about, we keep silent,” he said.
Notably, the state news agency BelTA omitted this part of his speech in its coverage of the event. But what exactly did Lukashenka mean by “active espionage”? And what provocations along Belarus’s southern border did he believe were better left unmentioned?
One possible explanation is the story of the very retransmitters used to guide Russian drones, whose removal from Belarusian territory Kyiv had repeatedly demanded.
On June 19, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy gave Aliaksandr Lukashenka one week to disable equipment used to guide Russian drones that, according to Kyiv, was located on Belarusian territory.
“There are retransmitters installed on the towers. Russian retransmitters, Belarusian retransmitters—it makes no difference to us. They are on his territory, along two regions bordering Ukraine. This equipment adjusts fire directed at the Ukrainian civilian population. (…) Let him remove this equipment, let him switch it off. I think one week will be enough for him to do that,” Zelenskyy said.
A few days later, on June 22, in an interview with TSN, the Ukrainian president clarified his demand:
“Switch them off (the retransmitters – Reform.news note), remove them, and show us that they have been removed. (…) That means if he does not remove them, we will. Whatever happens after a week—it will be either them or us.”
That clarification was significant. Zelenskyy was effectively warning that if the retransmitters continued operating, Ukraine was prepared to disable them itself.
Then, on June 24, Zelenskyy stated that, as of June 22, the retransmitters in Belarus were no longer functioning. At the same time, he noted that there was still no confirmed information that the systems had actually been dismantled.
On June 30, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Oleksandr Syrskyi said that one of the retransmitters used to guide Russian drones in Belarus had recently been switched on again. However, he added that Ukraine believed this would not happen again.
“Yesterday, one retransmitter was switched on. I think they will not switch them on anymore,” Syrskyi said.
“Will that be physically impossible for them?” the interviewer asked.
“Well, I cannot tell you everything. I think they understand that they should not do it, let us put it that way,” the commander replied.
Syrskyi’s words can be interpreted in different ways. They could suggest that some persuasive argument from the Ukrainian side had convinced the Belarusian authorities not to activate the retransmitters again. But they can also be interpreted differently—that there was simply nothing left to switch on.
The following day, Vadzim Kabanchuk, the representative for defense and national security in the United Transitional Cabinet, stated that the retransmitters had been destroyed by Ukrainian drones.
“They physically no longer exist,” Kabanchuk said, without specifying the source of his information.
Of course, it is possible that when Lukashenka spoke of active espionage and provocations along the southern border, he had something other than the alleged destruction of the retransmitters in mind. For example, Ukrainian drones entering Belarusian airspace. That could, at least to some extent, explain both the references to espionage and to provocations.
The problem with that explanation is that Belarusian officials have never been silent about such incidents. On the contrary, they have publicly and repeatedly accused Ukraine of carrying them out. As recently as May, Belarusian Security Council State Secretary Aliaksandr Valfovich claimed that Ukrainian drones had violated Belarusian airspace 116 times in a single week.
According to Valfovich, “in some cases these are not accidental incursions but attempts to strike elements of border infrastructure under the guise of supposedly accidental crossings.” Minsk has therefore hardly remained silent about drone incursions. This time, the issue appears to be something else.
One could also assume that Lukashenka chose not to dwell on the recent drone strikes on Belarusian buses. But both incidents occurred not in Belarus, but in Russia’s Bryansk region. Although they happened close to Belarus’s southern border, they did not take place on Belarusian territory. Moreover, drone strikes on buses, regardless of who launched them, have little to do with claims of “active espionage.”
The retransmitters are a different matter. Destroying them would have required preparation. And if they were indeed struck, that would not merely have been a provocation—it would have been a significant blow.
If one accepts Kabanchuk’s claim that the retransmitters on Belarusian territory were in fact destroyed by Ukrainian drones, then Lukashenka’s desire to keep quiet about the incident becomes understandable. It would have amounted to a full-fledged military operation conducted by the Armed Forces of Ukraine on Belarusian territory. Faced with such a situation, Minsk would either have to respond decisively or quietly swallow the humiliation. Judging by subsequent events, the authorities appear unwilling to respond, presumably because the consequences could prove far more painful.
Yet Lukashenka still had to allude to the fate of the retransmitters, even if only indirectly. There is also an explanation for why he was compelled to touch on the subject during today’s meeting with military officers. They already know. It would be virtually impossible to conceal information about the destruction of the retransmitters within military circles. Pretending that nothing extraordinary had happened would have been pointless. It was easier to explain the situation to generals and officers by saying: we have decided to remain silent. And you should remain silent as well.
In return, as Lukashenka assured the officers, “no one is going to send you into that slaughter.” A straightforward quid pro quo in this game of silence.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel Reform.news: The Most Interesting Stories
***
The opinions and assessments expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the position of the editors of Reform.news.