The evacuation of the residents of Olshek in Russia became a rare episode when Russia, Ukraine and Belarus found themselves participating in a joint humanitarian operation. For people who lived for months under shelling, in total isolation, this is an opportunity to escape. But for Lukashenko this story has another dimension. Belarus provided not only a transit area, but also a platform for contacts between the representatives of the warring parties. Minsk was quick to show this as evidence of the importance of its peacekeeping, and the head of state has been trying, unsuccessfully, for several days to extract political dividends from what is happening. Personally, the head of Belarus did not appear in the framework, but state media conveyed the main messages to Belarusians: Minsk is significant in the international arena, and the parties apparently cannot get along without Lukashenko as a mediator. Of course, the propaganda did not mention that the territory of Belarus was invaded by Russian forces in Ukraine in February 2022 and the Lukashenko regime continues to assist the Russian military-industrial complex. What happens in foreign policy is just as important for the regime. By emphasizing the "neutrality" and "peacekeeping" role of Belarus as an organizer and as a guarantee of compliance with the agreements, a more subtle thesis can be advanced: the Lukashenko regime, no matter how harsh the attitude towards it may be, is capable of being a useful partner on certain issues. This scenario may also be beneficial for Putin. In the future, Belarus could again become a kind of buffer between Russia and the West - not in the sense of real independence from Moscow, but as an intermediate platform for negotiations, transition, personal agreements and "parallel imports". For Western politicians it is important to remember: the humanitarian result must be acknowledged, but it does not change the overall picture of the war and Belarus' role in it. Helping civilians is not the same as refusing to support aggression, and participating in exchanges does not make a co-aggressor a neutral mediator.

The evacuation of the residents of Olshek in Russia became a rare episode when Russia, Ukraine and Belarus found themselves participating in a joint humanitarian operation. For people who lived for months under shelling, in total isolation, this is an opportunity to escape. But for Lukashenko this story has another dimension. Belarus provided not only a transit area, but also a platform for contacts between the representatives of the warring parties. Minsk was quick to show this as evidence of the importance of its peacekeeping, and the head of state has been trying, unsuccessfully, for several days to extract political dividends from what is happening. Personally, the head of Belarus did not appear in the framework, but state media conveyed the main messages to Belarusians: Minsk is significant in the international arena, and the parties apparently cannot get along without Lukashenko as a mediator. Of course, the propaganda did not mention that the territory of Belarus was invaded by Russian forces in Ukraine in February 2022 and the Lukashenko regime continues to assist the Russian military-industrial complex. What happens in foreign policy is just as important for the regime. By emphasizing the "neutrality" and "peacekeeping" role of Belarus as an organizer and as a guarantee of compliance with the agreements, a more subtle thesis can be advanced: the Lukashenko regime, no matter how harsh the attitude towards it may be, is capable of being a useful partner on certain issues. This scenario may also be beneficial for Putin. In the future, Belarus could again become a kind of buffer between Russia and the West - not in the sense of real independence from Moscow, but as an intermediate platform for negotiations, transition, personal agreements and "parallel imports". For Western politicians it is important to remember: the humanitarian result must be acknowledged, but it does not change the overall picture of the war and Belarus' role in it. Helping civilians is not the same as refusing to support aggression, and participating in exchanges does not make a co-aggressor a neutral mediator.