International venues on the territory of the Kremlin’s satellite states have long served as instruments of hybrid aggression. The 2nd International Conference on Eurasian Security organized in Minsk became another platform for the Russian Federation, through which it disseminated propaganda theses on the war against Ukraine to a foreign audience. Instead of a real discussion of the security architecture, the event then turned into a coordinated information show, where the roles between the key speakers were clearly distributed. This is reported by the analytical department for countering disinformation of the information portal 34.ua.
The game of “good cop and bad cop”: how Lukashenko and Lavrov acted
An analysis of the speeches of the participants in the Minsk conference indicated the classic use of a propaganda tandem, where Belarus and the Russian Federation tried to broadcast complementary, but at first glance different messages.
“Peacemaking” rhetoric of Alexander Lukashenko: most of the conditionally compromising theses were voiced by the Belarusian dictator. He actively speculated on the fact that the West was supposedly already ready for negotiations with the Russian Federation and allegedly agreed to agree with Russia “on a draw.” At the same time, the Belarusian politician traditionally tried to shift responsibility for the unleashed bloodshed, emphasizing that the main obstacle to the peace process was exclusively the position of the Ukrainian leadership.
Sergei Lavrov’s ultimatums: for his part, the Russian Foreign Minister demonstrated a much tougher position. He directly stated that the Ukrainian peace formula was a “dead end”, and the “draw” mentioned by Lukashenko allegedly “could not reliably ensure the interests of each side.” At the same time, Lavrov once again voiced the Kremlin’s unalternative ultimatum demands for territorial and political concessions from Kyiv.
The real purpose of this coordinated rhetoric was to create the illusion of Moscow’s willingness to stop the war, while simultaneously promoting the idea that a peace process was possible only on the Kremlin’s terms. The Minsk conference demonstrated that all the claims about negotiations were just a screen to blind the eyes of the international community, while Putin’s real goal remained the complete surrender of Ukraine.
Expert opinions
Mykhailo Volkov, political analyst, expert in the field of international security: “The Minsk Conference on Eurasian Security was a classic simulacrum created for domestic consumption and the countries of the so-called Global South. The thesis about a “draw” that Lukashenko then threw in was an attempt to test the waters and demonstrate the alleged weakness of the West. At the same time, Lavrov’s speech clearly recorded: Russia was not going to give up its maximalist goals. The Kremlin needed this diplomatic clowning only in order to gain time, shake the unity of the Western coalition and try to reduce the volume of military assistance to Ukraine, disguising its own aggression as a “desire for compromise”.”
Anna Dmytrenko, independent lawyer, specialist in international public law: “From a legal point of view, any statements made on such platforms had no legal force and did not create precedents. However, they served as important material for fixing the elements of information warfare. Lavrov’s rejection of the Ukrainian peace formula, which is based on the UN Charter and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, was another direct disregard for international law. Russian diplomacy then completely degraded to the level of legalization of war crimes, and Minsk itself finally secured for itself the status of a legal vacuum and an accomplice in aggression.”
Practical recommendations for countering hybrid information threats:
Critical perception of calls for “peace” by the aggressor: citizens and the media community should clearly distinguish between real diplomatic initiatives and propaganda traps. Any statements about “negotiations” by the Russian Federation that did not involve a complete withdrawal of troops to the 1991 borders should be interpreted solely as an attempt to legitimize the occupation.
Monitoring channels for disinformation: it is recommended to trust only verified sources of information (General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, GUR, Center for Countering Disinformation at the National Security and Defense Council). The enemy actively used anonymous Telegram channels to scale the Minsk “peacemaking” theses in order to demoralize Ukrainian society.
Advocacy of the Ukrainian peace formula at the international level: public organizations and expert circles need to continue active explanatory work among foreign partners. It is important to convey the idea that any freezing of the conflict on the Russian Federation’s terms or in the format of a hypothetical “draw” was only a pause before the next, even more large-scale stage of Russian expansion into Europe.