Belarus Regime Declares War on ‘Pro-Russian’ Internal Foes

A fierce internal conflict is erupting within Belarus’s pro-Russian circles, as one of Alexander Lukashenko’s most aggressive state propagandists has publicly branded prominent activists as “internal enemies.” Elvira Mirsalimova, a well-known activist from Vitebsk, has found herself at the top of an enemies list penned by state television host Grigory Azarenok, who accuses her and others of attempting to sabotage the Union State between Belarus and Russia from within. The incident highlights the regime’s growing paranoia and its campaign to eliminate any political activity not directly controlled by the state.

In an article for the state-run “Minskaya Pravda,” Azarenok claims Mirsalimova and others exploit their pro-Russian credentials to gain the trust of Russian institutions. According to Azarenok, they then spread disinformation, portraying the Belarusian government as “pro-Western” in an effort to “poison the atmosphere of relations” and sow distrust between Minsk and the Kremlin. Mirsalimova has formally complained to the publication, stating Azarenok’s claims are “unsubstantiated and insulting” and serve to slander her.

This attack appears to be part of a broader, state-sanctioned campaign rather than a personal initiative. The move echoes sentiments previously expressed by Alexander Lukashenko himself. In an interview with TIME magazine, Lukashenko acknowledged the existence of influential groups in Russia that are suspicious of his policies. Azarenok’s decision to target the supposed sources of this friction in Belarus suggests a coordinated effort to control the narrative presented to Moscow.

Political analyst Pavlyuk Bykovsky explains that this crackdown is driven by the regime’s fear of losing its monopoly over the relationship with Russia. As Belarus deepens its integration, the emergence of independent, pro-Russian voices creates a potential threat to Lukashenko’s power. “Any uncontrolled ‘pro-Russian’ initiatives are perceived as a potential threat,” Bykovsky notes, explaining that the danger is not that these activists are anti-Russian, but that they could offer Moscow alternative channels of influence in Belarus, bypassing Lukashenko entirely.

Ultimately, Lukashenko appears to fear the rise of forces that might propose a more radical version of integration to the Kremlin—a scenario that could lead to the absorption of Belarus and the end of his rule. Azarenok’s public attack is a preemptive strike against any potential rivals for Moscow’s favor, sending a clear signal that in today’s Belarus, the only acceptable pro-Russian stance is the one personally dictated by Lukashenko himself.