>

Leader my ass. Anything that come out of this guy's mouth should be regarded as pure noise.
Aren’t we a little bit past that point now? >

IF a request like this was signed it would likely be for 1 of 2 reasons
1: Stop Russia from being strengthed during the coming rumored offensive
2: Give Belarus a final chance to reintegrate into the larger European sphere, as assisting Russia with its troops in Ukraine would be the final death knell. Belarus as a country would simply cease to exist as far as the European Markets and Governments would see it.
Edit: I do am have stupid. Knell* >

3) sign it, then claim Ukraine broke it thus giving them an excuse to join the Russian effort further.
This agreement isn't worth anything with Lukashenko and Putin still in play. >

4) He knows the Belarusian military would immediately enact a coup and remove him so signing it is a way to pretend he has power. >

I hear there.  The vast majority of their pop is against attacking Ukraine >

One of those most fascinating polling points of the Ukrainian conflict is that fact that upwards of 80% of Russians fully support the conflict whereas upwards of 80-90% of Belarusians oppose the conflict. 
We tend to lump them together but Belarus and Russia are two fundamentally different countries. >

Spent last few months in Belarus.
Reddit has no idea how anti Luka and Russia they are. >

Interesting. Did you see a lot of people under the age of 40 there? Really curious how many have fled versus stayed. >

Most people haven't fled. I spent some time in Minsk, Gomel and a few other places.
It's very 50/50 in terms of age, just like any country.
They are also terrified of uttering a word about anything in public, but the minute you sre behind closed doors, they are clearly anti Russia, anti Putin, anti Luka etc 
Right behind the FSB building in Minsk is prison with the 2020 protestors still inside (apparently).
Also, Belarus citizens are very critical of Belarusians who ingest Russian news.
Edit: to be clear, during the 2020 protests, we saw it was police / army vs the people. But for some reason, Belarusians have a belief that if they are forced into a war, the army will turn on Luka almost instantly. >

Interesting. I have that same belief as well >

I'm Belarusian.
Stop listening to this guy, he is a pathological liar. >

It would be so interesting if Belarus were to declare war on Ukraine and immediately after doing so, someone assassinated Lukashenko and said:
"Stop listening to this guy, he is a pathological liar".
And we all just shrugged our shoulders, nodded in agreement and didn't go to war. >

Lukashenka is very stupid but he is also a survivor.  He isn’t going to follow Putin off the cliff by declaring war on Ukraine.  He would if Russia were winning but since they are not he is all talk and no action. >

He definitely acts stupid, but I don’t think he is actually stupid. He has somehow successfully stayed in power for a very long time with a powerful neighbor that routinely invades and usurps their neighbors while his population is not only against him and his government, but has revolted and now routinely sabotages their own infrastructure even knowing the penalty is death.  All this and he is somehow navigating the tightrope between complete oblivion and full war with Ukraine. 
I don’t think he survives this, but I think his chances are actually a bit better than Putin. >

He is definetly acting. Otherwise he would have been replaced by putin by now. His saving feature is being an incompetent yet loyal fool. Which makes him irreplacable >

Lukashenko knows Russia will lose, he doesn’t want to go to war with Ukraine but he’s beholden to Putin.  Notice that everything he does around Belarus / Ukraine war kicks the can down the road - “yes, but now is not the time”. >

I agree with this analysis. As long as Russia keeps losing Lukachenko will do his best to be as little involved as he can get away with. He is a scumbag who only cares about himself. >

He knows there is a rope in The Hague with his name on it >

More like a brand new skyscraper in Belarus to get pushed out of. >

Generous to call them skyscrapers haha >

All the washer and dryers the Russians stole from Ukraine gotta fund something right? >

There aren't ant Belarusians stealing washer dryers in Ukraine so not sure I get the joke >

I'm saying Putin would build one to show his success in Ukraine with a skyscraper and then promptly push homeboy out of it. >

He looks like a cartoon villain out of The Adventures of Tintin. >

I can't unsee it now haha >

Which one? >

I'm sure it'll be as tight as the German-Soviet pact from '39. >

Was about to say I know a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, when I see it. >

Funny thing but history shows that non-aggression pacts usually guarentee aggression. >

Well you don't sign a non aggression pact with your allies. >

Would he be willing to let nato station troops in Belarus to make sure he isn’t violating the pact by letting Russian troops attack Ukraine from his territory? 🤔 >

I didn't read the article, but the title said he'd been "asked" didn't say anything about him being receptive to it. >

He doesn’t even say who has asked him and the writer doesn’t seem to have received confirmation from Ukraine officials so at this point it’s not even clear if anyone asked him or he just made that up. >

An obvious ploy by Belarus dictator Lukashenko. If Ukraine agreed to such a thing (Zelensky isn't stupid!) the next step would be for Lukashenko to claim that Ukraine "violated" the pact so as to provide a rationale for joining Putin's criminal aggression against Ukraine.
It's worth noting that Lukashenko doesn't say who asked him to seal a non-aggression pact with Ukraine - probably Putin. >

They never needed anything to justify aggression in the first place.
On the other hand, Luka probably feels the need to make sure those Leo2s won't inadvertently end up rolling through the streets of Minsk. >

This would be more about garnering more public support for aggression, which is fairly low in Belarus where their people  (correctly) see Lukashenko as a Russian puppet who stole the election. >

lol just like Hitler and Stalin Non Aggression pact.
history doesn't always repeat but it does rhyme. >

If he did it would not take very long for him to "fall" from Putin's favor. >

Breaking News!
30 seconds after announcing potential non-aggression pact with Ukraine, the Belarus leader fell down an elevator shaft and died.
Investigators say it's the first reported case of elevator death with no elevator involved. >

Like the one that Russia signed with Ukraine when it gave up its nukes?
They should print the agreement on rolls of toilet paper because that's what an agreement with a Russian puppet would be worth. >

Like the one Germany and Russia signed in WWII.  Hey wait, I’ve seen this one…. >

It's almost like fascist dictators don't honour their treaty obligations. >

"Our troops are merely passing by." >

I read the article and noticed a decided lack of Ukrainian corroboration. My guess? This is so later Belarus can accuse NATO and the West forcing Ukraine to fight even though they just want peace. 
“The Ukrainians wanted to sign an nonaggression pact but NATO wouldn’t let them, we need to save them from NATO so that’s why we burned down that hospital.” >

belarus 3 years ago was pro-maidan and anti-putin; today he is putin's closest international partner.  the protests changed everything.  luka has learned that he is not immune from being color-revolutioned, no matter how strategic he is as a partner against putin >

Belarusian here. Reuters' editors are either oblivious to whom they're quoting, or are paid off by the regime to quote BELTA of all things. This is like quoting satan saying that he's actually a pretty good guy, source: trust me bro.
Ignore this article and everything the clown says, or better yet, inverse it to be closer to the truth. >

Didn’t Hitler sign a nonaggression pact with Russia before attacking? >

I prefer to call it a ‘Please don’t bomb fellas I’m just a wee little lad with a big angry daddy who I can’t admit I’m afraid of’ pact >

Why does this feel like pre-invasion statement inferring “we are in it for peace, but just because Russia is sending troops in Ukraine from our sovereign soil doesn’t really mean we are on their side” but we are or maybe not 🤷‍♂️ >

'"I don't know why the Ukrainians need this," Lukashenko was quoted as saying. He said his security forces would respond harshly to any threat to internal order and did not want a repeat of mass protests against him in 2020/21 which he cast at the time as part of an alleged Western regime change plot.'  
Yeah, it can't be he's unpopular, it has to be a "Western regime change plot." These losers are all the same. >

So, I assume that means they will be kicking out the Russians who are using Belarus to attack Ukraine? >

I'm sure Russia's puppet will adhere to it just as rigorously as they did the Budapest Memorandum and Minsk Agreement. >

TIL non-aggression is letting another county use your airbases as staging grounds to launch an invasion on your neighbor’s capital. >

Did you read the article? Or title even?
He is being asked to sign one ,he's not proposing one >

It's too late, he already allows safe harbor to Russian soldiers and allows Russia to use his country as a staging area. >

It is not like he had any choice. He walked into this mess back when he beat down the opposition plus forced down the airplane to arrest a dissident and therefore lost all friends except Putin. Now he is paying the price for past bad choices. It is not like he can oppose Putin without getting invaded and killed.
He is a terrible person and created this mess himself so I feel zero sympathy for him but I have so far seen no evidence that he supports the invasion of Ukraine. Invading Ukraine is very unpopular in Belarus and he has nothing to gain from it personally either. >

For whatever motives he has, it’s very clear that he has employed as much passive resistance as possible for engaging Belarus in the invasion of Ukraine.   
Neither he nor Belarus have any capacity for active resistance, so this passive resistance is meaningful. >

These guys should just go back to their room and play europa universalis. Might be easier for them >

Sure, otherwise another invasion from north wouldn't work. 
^^^/s >

During WW2 Russia signed a non combat treaty with Japan and refused to help the allies fight the japanese for the entire war while happily accepting billions in allied lend lease...
Wouldnt it be ironic to have their current allies sell them out the same way the soviets did the west in WW2? >

If you actually put in the efforts to know why the Soviets and Japanese signed it you wouldn't write such a comment, but it seems this is generally considered too much to ask from people these days. >

Who cares? The entire point is that Russia refused to help the allies fight japan for the entire war...while the allies supplied russia with billions to save it from Germany.
Then as an extra thank you, the despicable russian c*nts REFUSED to repay the lend-lease for the equipment they were sent to save them from Germany.
Russia is despicable no matter which way you look at it. >

"Who cares?" LMAO, you basically admit to not know how or why this decision was made, but still want to judge it? No offense, but that's just super dumb.
Prior to the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact the Soviets and Japanese were involved in (heavy) border conflicts and clashes in Manchuria and Mongolia. Soviet and Mongolian Victory in the Battles of Khalkhin Gol not only allowed the Soviet Army and its officer corps to deter the Japanse but also get experience  (A certain General Zhukov was in charge for these battles) .
The victory at Khalkhin Gol and subsequent border skirmishes led to the signing of the Neutrality Pact, which allowed the Soviets to re-deploy Siberian Troops to the western border to participate in the Battle of Moscow, a very crucial moment in WW2.
Also, the Soviets were taking on the brunt of Germany and its armed forces for the entirety of the war with millions of troops and thousands of aircraft and tanks involved, opening up a new front against Japan in '42, '43 would be one of the worst decisions ever made.
If you want to shit on someone, shit on the Western Allies that refused the Soviet offers of forming a collective security pact against Germany. Soviet Diplomats tried for years to get French and British support, yet were always refused or held on, till the very last moment. And even then, they sent their delegations by BOAT to Moscow and some didn't even had the necessary authority to negotiate on behalf of their governments. >

I love my Xiaomi air-fryer, but there is no way I'll let it join my wifi. 
However I'm not sure if I understand how a lightbulb could be used for this.. >

Not real light bulbs, but security cameras designed to look like lightbulbs. Since most people have wide open networks it's like giving the world access to your living room >

Wouldn’t be worth the paper it was written on >

From a diplomatic standpoint, this would be okay ish news for Ukraine. 
Belarus is in a tricky spot politically. Their leader is unsure if his troops will follow the order to attack Ukraine, with good reason, they'd die like chaff to support the Russian agenda.
Oddly enough, I think this might explain Ukraine's request to leave Belarus off the last round of sanctions. Which gives this statement some credibility. Back room conversations and that.
Belarus cannot resist Russia at this time. They don't have the positioning. Eg, Russia is in their fucking borders and diplomatically lashed to Belarus. 
This gives luka a reason to hide behind not attacking in the event Russia gets tired and demands they help more.
That only holds up as long as lukashenkos spine holds out though. And if he goes back on his word the sanction hammer comes back out.
Overall? It's a move on Ukraine's move I support as it costs them nothing and might neutralize a potential hostile force through inaction.
On belarus's side? Good as they might not join the war, which would destroy their fragile country, and good for Luka as he won't be dragged to the nearest streetlight and hung like the fascist dictator he is if his spine gives out. >

If Lukashenko has stopped sucking Putin off, I think it's a sign that Putin doesn't have much more time in power. >

Sure he did... until little czar puti changed it... like what happened with the peace agreement in 1994 between Russia and Ukraine. Nukes for peace. That turned out to be a real banger of a show! /s >

He looks like a bloated Hitler. >

Russia said to Ukraine give up your nukes and we’ll never attack you. That did a lot of good didn’t it? >

Well, it is not so much that it is not true t is more that it is useless. He cannot stop Russia from using Belarus as a staging ground plus even if he is honest about not wanting to invade Ukraine (I actually think he is) circumstances may change. Putin might force him to act. >

Lukashenko doesn't even have full control over his own country.  Even if he signs the agreement and intends to keep it, Putin can just march through and attack Ukraine from Belarus if he wants to.  No agreement with Belarus is worth anything due to their lack of sovereignty. >

I agree with what you say.  But if this did happen and Putin invaded through Belarus he would open himself up for a guerrilla war on another front that he  would not want. >

This piece of crap allowed ruzzian maniacs to use territory, infrastructure, tanks and ammo against Ukraine. He will also be taken to responsibility for his co-aggression. >

"Oh yeah sure, I bet we can trust this deal, it looks legit!"

Soviet leaders convincing Stalin to sign the molotov ribbentrop pact. >

Lol no, you don't get to pass up accountability like that. >

Lies, damned lies, and Lukas
Lukas are much the worst >

Man... If he did that Putin would never make him a Soviet Colonel in the USSR... >

Probably a ploy to drop their border guards, but that would be the most obvious of ploys. >

I don’t see anything inherently wrong with a nonaggression pact…but only a fool would expect a > 0.01% chance of it preventing aggression. >

Pick a side already >

They can't Putin already did it for them. >

Umm…Adolf used that as his entree into WWII. Didn’t work out so well for all concerned! >

Didn't this guy lose the last election? >

In Sovjet Russia, election wins you!
In all seriousness, Lukasheno held a "referendum" in 2022 to solidify his power and transforming Belarus into a Russian puppet state. >

The offer was written on a piece of toilet paper >

You play civilization/totalwar? Then you know these pacts mean shit >

And this guy will hold his end of the deal? Please… >

Yeah, like anyone sane would trust the Russian puppet. >

Sure, lots of people may ask that, not that he is going to accept or even honor it. >

He is anything but our “leader”. For fuck’s sake, does anyone actually know what happened during last election. >

Reverse psychology: They’re preparing to attack Ukraine from the North. >

Sign it -- hope it won't be like Molotov -- Ribbentrop treaty >

We are asking nicely, now do as you are told 🤭 >


Belarus leader says he has been asked to seal...

This is Luka's way of offering-not-offering such a pact... should anyone be interested in such a thing.
He probably thinks such a pact helps him resist Moscow. It's actually not a bad idea. Non-aggression is not disagreeable.  It would be a diplomatic win for ukraine, loss for russia. It doesn't involve killing.
Why not? >

this is the worst picture of a diplomat possible >

Only if they can secure a trade agreement first >

He won't, but he probably won't send his troops in with  Russia either. >

I smell a Molotov-Rippentroff >

Lukashenko isn’t the true leader of Belarus so the agreement is nil and void. >

Patriot missile system for Belarus with a nato armada support? >

Luka would sign it, forced by Putin, only to get more Russian troops into Belarus, and closer to Kyiv. Hoping for Ukraine to let their guard down on the north so Putin could try and take Kyiv again like last year. >

Is George Santos can be a President >

This is likely a signal to Putin to trade some political benefits or something. >

Seal or sign? >

Hey, I've seen this one before! >

I was out of town, I thought there was a three pronged attack occurring. Wasn’t one of the prongs out of Belarus? So is this non-aggression pact, tongue-in-cheek, or after they attack Kyiv. 🤷🏽‍♂️ >

Because they can trusted. >

Asked by whom?  Even the article doesn't answer: "It was not immediately clear from his comments whether Ukraine itself or the West had made the alleged offer." >

Of course he wont do it, claiming that any treaties with Ukraine and West are worthless. >

There is no "peace for our time". >

Pure lies . >

🖖🏻 >

Perfect time for military coup in Belarus while Russia is weakened. I have no idea how much their military supports Russia though. >

Just said this in another comment, but Belarus won't go for a coup unless they get pulled into the war or an attempted annexation by Russia (which they fear a lot right now) >

He looks like Charlie Chaplin's serious brother >

I would have gone with Chaplin’s obese and mentally challenged brother >

You allowed Russia to invade a peaceful country from your land. But he knows, after Vladımır is done and gone he is next. >

What are the ramifications if an aggression pact is made and then broken? >

Likely none, look at all the pacts Russia has broken. What more can Russia/Belarus do to Ukraine? >

It’s a trap! Belarus will attack when Russia orders an attack. Belarus has every advantage to pretend they won’t attack Ukraine. Kick putin. >

Lol >

Don't know what youre laughing at. You need only search the belarus volunteers battalion 'Kastuś Kalinoŭski'. >

Lol why would any Belarusians not want to follow ole boi luka to glory with his best bud to the east! Joining those pesky Ukrainians, what buttholes!!!