Lukashenko Interview with Time Sparks ‘Duplicity’ Scandal in Belarus

An interview between Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and American journalist Simon Shuster has erupted into a major controversy in Minsk, with state media launching a coordinated attack against the Time magazine correspondent. Officials and state television personalities are accusing Shuster of “duplicity” and fabricating details after his article presented a narrative that sharply contradicts the official government version of the encounter.

The Belarusian side insists they were inundated with interview requests from American media and graciously granted access to Time. Lukashenko’s press secretary, Natalia Eismont, stated that they accommodated the journalist’s two-week request to delay publication in the belief that he was preparing a “deep” and “serious” piece. This trust, she implied, was ultimately betrayed, leading the state news agency BelTA to decry the “duplicity of American journalism.”

However, in his article for Time, Shuster paints a very different picture. He claims it was Lukashenko’s aides who initiated contact and were “unusually persistent” in arranging the meeting. In a particularly damaging allegation, Shuster wrote that a Belarusian official asked him how much it would cost to secure the interview, a question he interpreted as a veiled bribery attempt. “Just checking,” the official reportedly explained, “to avoid any misunderstandings later.”

The response from Minsk has been furious. While some official outlets have been reserved in their criticism, prominent state television host Grigory Azarenok issued a direct and emotional rebuke, accusing Shuster of lying. “Syonochka, you don’t have to lie like that!” he exclaimed on air, using a diminutive form of the journalist’s name. “The president meets you, tells you things with sincerity.”

According to political analyst Alexander Friedman, the intense reaction stems from the core message of Shuster’s article. The journalist suggests that Lukashenko’s primary mission was not to mend ties with the United States or seek sanctions relief, but to act as a messenger for the Kremlin. Shuster’s analysis posits that Lukashenko was attempting to persuade the West that negotiating with Vladimir Putin on Russia’s terms is necessary to avoid a worse outcome.

This portrayal of Lukashenko as a Russian proxy, rather than an independent leader seeking dialogue, appears to have infuriated the Belarusian authorities. Friedman believes the scandal erupted because the American journalist proved too perceptive, uncovering and publicizing a strategic motive that Minsk preferred to keep hidden, thereby undermining the intended diplomatic mission.