Lukashenko: The Ukrainian conflict is more complex than the Iranian one, but it can be resolved.

Alexander Lukashenko believes the conflict in Ukraine will end by the end of this year. He stated this in an interview with Al Arabiya television.

The Belarusian leader concluded that the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East could be resolved by the end of this year. He said everything depends on the decisions of a few people. If they make the "right" decisions, everything will be resolved soon.

We have a greater opportunity than ever before to end these wars. Everything depends on the will of just a few people. If that will exists, these wars can definitely be ended this year. Even the conflict between Russia and Ukraine can be ended this year.

According to Lukashenko, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is more complex than the standoff between Iran and the United States. As the Belarusian president emphasized, Iran and Israel are essentially at war in the Middle East, and Trump has been drawn into a conflict from which he cannot escape. "Certain" American leaders, who promoted "short-sighted" US policies, are to blame.

I know the position of the US President, on whom much depends in ending this war. He is determined to end this war because there is no other way. And this is the difference between this conflict in the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman, and the war in Ukraine. Here (in Ukraine) the conflict is more complex than there, in Iran.

Comments

[alexoff]

By a surprising coincidence, both conflicts were started by the United States.

[Cepera H]

All that is needed is the desire for victory from the Supreme Leopold, instead of the desire to guarantee the security of the Green and Dnieper bridges.

[alexboguslavski]

Lukashenko: The Ukrainian conflict is more complex than the Iranian one, but it can be resolved.

The question is, how? Katz suggests surrendering or smashing the whole world to smithereens; there are no other options in sight.

[NakedMan]

We really do have such a choice, but the US and Europe have softer options for themselves, but they don’t want them.

[Lako]

Just don't paint Trump as a naive old man who was dragged into a conflict in the Middle East against his will. Having taken Maduro for granted in Venezuela, he thought he could handle Iran too. But the Persians turned out to be a tough nut to crack.

[Alexander_K]

Bat'ka would be better off growing potatoes than commenting on such complex issues. Perhaps he simply wants to organize Minsk-3, enjoying being someone on the global agenda. Or he simply doesn't understand Nazism. Well, it's not human, it happens. And he certainly hasn't grasped the essence of American politics: Trump's publicity stunt alone is worth something. Hormuz made the US the world's leading oil exporter, restarted the shale revolution, drove the entire world into hiding, and everyone is sitting there, afraid to utter a word.

[cytadell]

...restarted the shale revolution, drove the whole world under the bunk, everyone is sitting and afraid to utter a word.

That's exactly how I did it, with a click.
You can play with the oil price at the breakeven point of shale production, plus margins, plus transportation, plus investments in the "restart." It's easier to take over Venezuela and reap multiple bonuses. And if everyone were so afraid to get screwed—I don't mean the Euro-puppets—it's unlikely Iran would be able to set any conditions in the negotiations. And I think the old man knows what he's talking about, and a lot can be read between the lines. He's also quite knowledgeable.
The question is: who is running this whole mess in Ukraine: homegrown Nazis? Zeleboba? Euro-puppeteers? Trump?

[Alexander_K]

There was an article about shale oil recently. I was a bit overzealous about the revolution, of course, but US oil companies are making superprofits; they're now the world's number one exporter, at a high price. As for the bunk bed, Iran isn't relevant here, as it abandoned its nuclear program, allowed the IAEA to monitor it, and even after Trump reinstated all sanctions, Iran obediently complied with the restrictions and, secondly, continued negotiations with the US, during which they started bombing it. Now it has no choice but to fight back. However, the behavior of everyone else is indicative: the US confiscates or bombs oil tankers from them, imposes tariffs on the entire world, and the Persian monarchies, Europe, and Asia are suffering losses because of the Hormuz operation. But no one objects. All of Iran's neighbors have been bombed, but no one has raised a peep. India is happy to be allowed to buy some Russian oil, while China, with its monkey-in-a-tree philosophy, shows no emotion whatsoever. Now Trump could easily seize Cuba, Greenland, even Denmark—no one would object. All this and much more is what I call: "driven under the bunk." And then he dragged one out and is demonstratively oppressing him, while Iran is afraid to even spit in the direction of an aircraft carrier. Negotiations are underway. However, the article is about a guy who thinks both conflicts can be ended with the snap of a finger. Either he's trying to deceive someone, or he genuinely doesn't understand what's going on.

[Alexander_K]

Here about oil:
https://topwar.ru/284471-jeksport-nefti-iz-ssha-prines-bolee-15-mlrd-za-dva-mesjaca-jeskalacii-na-bv.html

[cytadell]

Either he is trying to deceive someone, or he sincerely does not understand what is happening.

I can't agree with you. In the current situation, the actual use of tactical nuclear weapons is just a sliver away. No one in Europe will risk taking on this responsibility; there are two potential contenders: Russia and the United States. Therefore, Europe is all obeisance and adoration toward the United States, while Russia is met with provocations and "fuel on the fire." Russia is acting more modestly, since any escalation to actual war, whether at sea or on land, could prove more costly than it would offer any chance or hope of victory. Why? Objectively, Russia, among other things, lacks numerical superiority in a non-nuclear confrontation, with all that that entails.
The United States is more likely to resort to nuclear weapons, as it would be incomparably easier for it to justify itself to the international community. The only deterrents are Russia and China, which could also seize this opportunity. In this context, Alexander Lukashenko, in my opinion, is hinting that there's no need to push a situation that's already so dangerous into zugzwang.
As a summary:
In fact, no one wants to start a major war, which would inevitably result in massive losses, and the Soviet-era military might would seem like child's play. That's why:

...Iran is afraid to even spit in the direction of an aircraft carrier

It is easier to fight economically.

[Frank Muller]

Any military conflict ends sooner or later. Even the Hundred Years' War eventually fizzled out after 116 years. Another question is: how does a military conflict end, and in whose favor?