TESTIMONY: Zelensky vs. Lukashenko — One Week to Silence the Death Relays

TESTIMONY: Zelensky vs. Lukashenko — One Week to Silence the Death Relays

Introduction: When Minsk Becomes Complicit in the Drones Killing Ukrainian Civilians

The Ultimatum That Changed Everything

On June 19, 2026, Volodymyr Zelensky stood before journalists and spoke simple, direct words that rang like an indirect declaration of war against Alexander Lukashenko: "I think one week is enough for him. If he doesn't do it, we will." One week for Belarus to dismantle the relay stations Russia uses to guide its Shahed drones onto Ukrainian civilians. Seven days for a dictator to prove that his protests of neutrality amount to something more than air.

This was not a speech from an international podium. It was an operational ultimatum, backed by precise intelligence, maps, and intercept data. Kyiv knew exactly where these installations were — on communication towers in the oblasts of Homel and Brest, along the Ukrainian-Belarusian border. And if Minsk did not dismantle them, Kyiv was prepared to do it itself.

Antennas on Five-Story Residential Buildings — The Technical Reality of the Relays

What are called "relay stations" or "retransmitters" is relatively simple equipment, but of formidable effectiveness. A Shahed drone traveling hundreds of kilometers must maintain a connection with its Russian operators. The Earth's curvature makes a direct connection impossible beyond a certain range. The antennas installed on Belarusian communication towers — and even, according to Zelensky, on the rooftops of ordinary five-story residential buildings — serve as relays to amplify and retransmit that signal.

It was Serhii Beskrestnov, an adviser to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, who explained the mechanism precisely: "These nodes are typically a mobile operator tower or another structure of 70-80 meters, equipped with powerful antennas pointed toward Ukraine." Thanks to them, Shaheds striking Kyiv, Rivne, or Volyn — regions difficult to reach from Russian territory alone — receive real-time course corrections. Without these relays, many strikes on northern and western Ukraine would simply not have been possible.

How Ukrainian Hackers Uncovered the Network

Operation InformNapalm: Spying on the Spies

The story of the discovery of the Belarusian relay network is itself remarkable. In January 2026, intelligence began filtering out about Russia's use of Belarusian infrastructure to control its drones. It was the international intelligence community InformNapalm, in collaboration with the cyber analysis center Fenix, that confirmed and documented the network by breaching the accounts of Russian military personnel.

Ukrainian hackers did not take control of the drones — they observed them. For months, round-the-clock clandestine surveillance mapped the network, identified relay positions, and traced flight paths and command systems. This data was fed in real time to Ukrainian defenses, significantly improving the interception rate. By February 23, 2026, Zelensky was already able to announce that three or four of these stations "no longer existed."

The March 2026 Escalation: Moscow Plans to Expand the Network

But Russia adapts. In March 2026, Zelensky revealed, following a briefing from Oleh Ivashchenko, director of Ukrainian military intelligence, that Moscow was planning to install new drone control stations in Belarus. Four stations had been identified, with others in preparation. Russia was not backing down — it was intensifying its use of Belarusian territory.

This escalation is characteristic of Russia's strategy in drone warfare. Moscow's engineers find solutions to every Ukrainian countermeasure: balloons carrying relays dropped from Belarus, Shaheds equipped with SIM cards that connect to Belarusian, Polish, and Romanian mobile networks when Ukraine jams its own frequencies. The drone war is also a signal war, a permanent and evolving electronic battle.

June 19, 2026: The Public Ultimatum

A Message as Hard as a Declaration of War

The press conference of June 19, 2026 will be remembered as one of the most direct moments of Zelensky's diplomacy. Standing beside Honduran President Nasri Asfour, on an official visit to Kyiv, the Ukrainian president delivered the ultimatum without detour. He described the relays installed on Belarusian towers — "Russian repeaters, Belarusian repeaters, what difference does it make to us?" — and articulated the consequence with a clarity that left no room for ambiguity: if Lukashenko refuses, Ukraine will destroy these installations itself.

This wording was deliberately weighted. It implied that Ukraine was prepared to conduct operations on Belarusian territory — a potentially major escalation. But Zelensky also took care to leave Lukashenko a face-saving exit: "If Belarus truly does not want to be involved in the war, it must remove them." A formulation that allowed the Belarusian dictator to comply without entirely losing face.

Moscow's Response: Peskov Confirms, Putin Consults

The most revealing response came from Moscow — not from Minsk. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that Vladimir Putin would discuss the ultimatum with Lukashenko. This statement, seemingly routine, reveals a deep tension within the Russian-Belarusian "alliance": it is Moscow that decides, not Minsk. Lukashenko is not an equal partner — he is a vassal who depends on Russian protection since his crackdown on the pro-democracy movement of 2020.

Belarus is in an uncomfortable position. Its air force has been dismantled in favor of Russian systems deployed on its territory. Its real sovereignty is largely nominal. Lukashenko needs Putin to stay in power — but he did not necessarily want his territory serving as a direct platform for killing Ukrainian civilians, thereby increasing the risk of Ukrainian reprisals against his own infrastructure.

Three Days Later: The Relays Go Silent

June 22, 2026: The Towers Fall Silent

The ultimatum was set to expire on June 26, 2026. But by June 22 — just three days after the ultimatum — Ukrainian intelligence confirmed that the relay stations were no longer functioning. General Oleksandr Syrskyi, commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, informed Zelensky of this critical development. The president chose careful wording in his public statement: "I honestly don't know whether they have been dismantled or simply switched off. But the fact is that the relays are not working today."

This distinction — switched off versus dismantled — is crucial. Equipment that is simply switched off can be reactivated in seconds. Physically dismantled equipment implies a real effort and a lasting change in capabilities. Zelensky refused to claim premature victory. He confirmed that he was monitoring the situation closely, receiving daily reports, and that Ukraine was "working" to verify the situation.

Ground Confirmation: Drone Incursions Drop

On the ground, converging signals confirmed the effect of the relay shutdown. The Ukrainian Border Guard Service, through its spokesman Andriy Demchenko, reported a "certain reduction" in Shahed drone incursions in the Chernihiv region. Large coordinated Shahed flights along the Belarus-Ukraine border ceased. The independent Belarusian media outlet Flagstok reported that no drone activity had been observed for three consecutive days along that border.

The specialized outlet Euromaidan Press confirmed that the relay network exposed and partially dismantled in February 2026 had been rebuilt by Russia — and that the new June 2026 shutdown represented a real operational victory, even if a temporary one. The northern Shahed route is, for now, compromised. This does not mean the end of attacks — Russia has other routes and other guidance mechanisms — but it is a tangible limitation of its strike capabilities.

The Silent Victims: What the Belarusian Relays Have Cost in Lives

Zhytomyr, Rivne, Volyn: The Sacrificed Regions

The regions of Zhytomyr, Rivne, and Volyn — in northwestern Ukraine, far from the Donbas front lines — paid a particularly heavy price for the drones guided via Belarusian relays. These are predominantly agricultural and forested regions, midsize cities that had nothing "military" about them at first glance. But their electrical grids, railways, fuel depots, and industrial infrastructure made them targets for Russia's strategy of systematically destroying Ukraine's civilian economy.

Dozens of documented strikes on these regions in 2025 and early 2026 correspond to flight routes passing through Belarus. The destruction of electrical substations in these areas left hundreds of thousands of people without heating and electricity during the winter months — a slow and deliberate form of torture. This is not collusion — it is documented complicity.

The Human Cost of Minsk's Complicity

Zelensky said it plainly in his ultimatum: "Civilians are dying every day because of this. Children are being injured." This formulation is not rhetorical — it is factual and documented. Reports from the UN and UNICEF on Ukrainian civilian casualties from drone strikes confirm dozens of deaths and hundreds of civilian injuries in these regions since the deployment of the Belarusian relays.

The massive strike of June 15, 2026 on Kyiv — approximately 70 missiles and more than 600 drones, according to Ukrainian ambassador to the UN Andriy Melnik — is the most recent and most dramatic example of this mass violence. The attack damaged the Dormition Cathedral at the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra (UNESCO site), the Dovzhenko film studio, and other cultural landmarks. Every drone that strikes a cathedral carries the signature not only of Putin, but of everyone who facilitated its guidance.

The Belarusian Excuse: "We Have No Control"

The Rhetoric of Powerlessness as a Shield

Lukashenko and his representatives have regularly attempted to plead ignorance or powerlessness regarding Russia's use of Belarusian territory. After the 2022 invasion, when Russian missiles were fired from Belarus, Lukashenko told Zelensky that rockets "had flown there and they had not been controlling them for a long time." Zelensky cited this exchange in his June 2026 ultimatum, making clear that such an excuse was no longer credible.

Indeed, if the relays are installed on communication towers managed by Belarusian operators on sovereign Belarusian territory, claiming to have no control is either a deliberate lie or an admission of a total loss of sovereignty so profound that it constitutes in itself a grave problem. Neither position releases Minsk from its responsibility.

Lukashenko Stripped of His Air Defenses

A particularly revealing element of the Belarusian situation is the depletion of its air defense systems in favor of Russia. Reports indicate that Belarusian air defense equipment has been redistributed to Russian forces in Ukraine. Lukashenko would therefore be in the paradoxical position of having allowed Russia to install offensive equipment on his territory while having surrendered part of his own defensive equipment. His dependence on Moscow is now total and existential.

This situation may explain the speed with which the relays went silent after Zelensky's ultimatum. Not because Lukashenko suddenly developed a moral conscience — but because he calculated that the risk of Ukrainian strikes on his infrastructure, without an air defense umbrella, was real and immediate. The credible threat was enough.

The International Response: Europe Validates Ukraine's Position

Brussels Backs the Right to Self-Defense

The European Union gave its explicit support to Ukraine's position following the ultimatum. In a statement reported by Ukrainian media, Brussels underscored that "Ukraine has the right to self-defense" and that the Belarusian regime "is assisting Russia in its war." This formal EU backing is significant: it legitimizes the possibility of Ukrainian operations against targets on Belarusian soil, provided those targets directly serve to carry out attacks on Ukraine.

This EU position reflects a gradual evolution in Western stances since 2022. Initially highly cautious about any action that might spill over onto third-party territory, Ukraine's allies have progressively accepted the legal framework under which launch or guidance platforms in third countries engage their responsibility and can legitimately be neutralized under the right of self-defense.

Lessons for NATO: Belarus Is Not a Protected Space

The Belarusian episode has significant implications for NATO doctrine. Reports have mentioned that drones guided via Belarusian towers have at times violated the airspace of NATO member states — Poland, Romania — using their mobile networks as signal relays. If confirmed, this would mean that civilian infrastructure belonging to NATO members was involuntarily used for Russian military operations against Ukraine.

This dimension raises complex but urgent doctrinal questions: what constitutes an "attack" on a NATO member under Article 5? Does the unconsented use of an ally's civilian infrastructure to conduct military operations against a third country fall within that definition? These questions remain unresolved — and their clarification is a strategic priority the Alliance must address.

The Technical Profile of the Shaheds: Understanding the Weapon That Strikes

An Iranian Drone in Service of the Russian War

The Shahed-136 — renamed Geran-2 by the Russians to deny its Iranian origin — is a remarkable weapon in its effective simplicity. It is a kamikaze drone of straightforward design, piston-engine driven, with an explosive payload of approximately 40 kilograms. It flies slowly (around 185 km/h), at low altitude, which makes it difficult to detect by radar but relatively vulnerable to modern air defense systems. Its strength lies in numbers: launched by the dozens or even hundreds simultaneously, they saturate defenses.

Iran has supplied thousands of these drones to Russia, and Russia now manufactures them locally under license or by copying. By 2026, estimates suggest Russia has deployed more than 10,000 Shahed/Geran drones against Ukraine. Every Belarusian relay that improves their guidance therefore represents thousands of more precise, more lethal, more infrastructure-destroying strikes.

The Countermeasures War: Ukrainian Defenses Adapt

Ukraine has developed increasingly effective countermeasures against Shaheds. Western air defense systems — NASAMS, Patriot, Iris-T — can intercept some of these drones, but they cost far too much relative to the cost of a Shahed to be deployed systematically. Ukraine has therefore developed in parallel electronic jamming systems, anti-drone drones, and mobile precision-fire teams that shoot down Shaheds with Kalashnikovs or shotguns.

The compromising of Belarusian relays fits within this logic of asymmetric countermeasures. By neutralizing the guidance network rather than intercepting each drone individually, Ukraine adopts a systemic approach that multiplies the effect of its actions. One neutralized relay can degrade dozens of potential strikes — a cost-effectiveness ratio infinitely more favorable than individual interceptions.

Ukraine's Military Pressure in June 2026: A Context of Strength

Deep Strikes That Are Changing the Equation

The Belarusian ultimatum did not occur in a vacuum. It came during a period of intense Ukrainian military pressure on Russian rear areas. In the night of June 21-22, 2026, air-launched cruise missiles struck several strategic targets deep in Russian territory. Among the targets: the "Dubna" space communications center near Moscow — a column of smoke was observed, with damage assessment ongoing — a critical plant in Voronezh producing electronic components for Iskander, Kh-101, and Pantsir-S1 systems, command posts in the Belgorod and Donetsk regions, and port infrastructure at Kavkaz.

These deep strikes illustrate Ukraine's new operational doctrine: no longer merely defending the front, but reaching Russia's productive and logistical capabilities. Destroying a plant manufacturing electronic components in Voronezh is not symbolic — it is severing the supply of parts that allow Russia to sustain its production pace of missiles and air defense systems.

Melnik at the UN: Ukraine's Patience Has Limits

On June 22, 2026, Ukrainian ambassador to the UN Andriy Melnik warned the Security Council that Kyiv's patience was "not unlimited." If the Council continues to choose a "wait-and-see attitude," Ukraine might reconsider its current proposals, including its offer of a ceasefire along the current line of contact — a major concession that already represents an abandonment of the official position of liberating all occupied territory. He also noted that Russia is suffering more than 30,000 casualties per month and will "never hold onto the occupied Ukrainian territories."

These statements must be read in context: they are simultaneously a genuine warning and a tool of diplomatic pressure. Ukraine is operating on multiple fronts — growing military pressure on Russian rear areas, the ultimatum to Belarus, warning signals at the United Nations. It is a coordinated maximum-pressure strategy designed to force Russia to the negotiating table on acceptable terms.

Zelensky Versus Lukashenko: A Lesson in Coercive Diplomacy

What This Episode Reveals About Zelensky's Diplomatic Style

The Belarusian relay episode reveals a great deal about Zelensky's diplomatic style. He is not a president who negotiates politely in carpeted corridors. He is a president who names problems publicly, sets clear terms, and creates political pressure that makes inaction costly for all parties involved. The public ultimatum was itself a tool: by exposing Belarusian complicity before the international community, it made any defense of Lukashenko politically more difficult for Moscow.

He also demonstrated his ability to manage crisis exits. The formulation "if Belarus truly does not want to be involved in the war" left Lukashenko the option to present his withdrawal as a sovereign decision rather than a capitulation. That is skilled politics — hard in substance, but deft enough in form to allow the adversary to retreat without total rupture.

The Limits of Victory: Switched Off Is Not Dismantled

Zelensky's caution about the distinction between "switched off" and "dismantled" is analytically honest and strategically important. Equipment that is simply deactivated can be reactivated within hours if the pressure eases. Russia has shown its capacity to rebuild similar networks after the February 2026 operations. The victory of June 22 is real — but it is not definitive. Ukraine will need to maintain constant surveillance and a sustained posture of pressure to ensure this guidance route remains compromised.

And even if the Belarusian relays remain permanently offline, Russia will adapt. Balloon-carried relays, Shaheds equipped with SIM cards, flying relay drones — alternative solutions in development or already partially deployed. The drone and signal war is a permanent race with no clearly defined finish line.

The Belarusian Question in the Long Term: What Exit Is Possible?

Belarus After Lukashenko: An Existential Question for Ukraine

Beyond the immediate question of the relays, the Belarusian situation raises a crucial long-term question for Ukraine and for Europe. As long as Lukashenko is in power and dependent on Moscow, Belarusian territory will remain a permanent threat to Ukraine's northern flank. The Belarus-Ukraine border stretches 1,000 kilometers — a frontier that Ukraine cannot militarily defend with its current resources while simultaneously holding a 1,100-kilometer eastern front.

The real solution to the Belarusian problem is political: a regime change in Minsk, or at minimum a profound modification of Belarusian foreign policy that would allow the country's neutralization. In 2020, a majority of Belarusians voted against Lukashenko — a democratic movement that was violently suppressed with Moscow's support. Ukraine and its allies should invest more heavily in supporting Belarusian civil society and the government-in-exile of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya.

Post-War Scenarios: What Kind of Belarus?

A lasting peace in Ukraine cannot coexist with a Belarus that remains a military province of Russia. Any future settlement will need to address the question of Belarusian status — guaranteed neutrality, departure of Russian forces, potentially a return toward democracy. This is an ambitious agenda that assumes Russia will be sufficiently weakened to release its grip on Minsk.

In the immediate term, the relay episode has at least demonstrated one thing: Ukraine's credible threats can modify Belarusian behavior, even through the Russian intermediary. That is useful information for the diplomats who will work on the Belarusian file in the months and years ahead.

The Impact on Russia's Global Drone Strategy

Russia's Structural Dependence on External Guidance

The Belarusian relay episode exposes a structural vulnerability in Russia's drone strategy: dependence on external guidance infrastructure that can be targeted, compromised, or neutralized. Unlike ballistic missiles that require no continuous connection with their operator, terminal-guided drones like the Shaheds depend on a communications chain with identifiable and attackable links.

This vulnerability is a strategic opportunity for Ukraine and its allies. Systematically identifying, mapping, and neutralizing Russian guidance infrastructure — whether in Belarus, in occupied territories, or in Russia itself — can significantly degrade the effectiveness of Russian strikes without requiring the interception of each drone individually. It is a form of electronic and infrastructure warfare that targets the real weaknesses of the Russian weapons system.

Toward an Active Defense Doctrine for Guidance Infrastructure

Ukraine's 2026 experience with Belarusian relays could become a case study for Western military doctrine. It illustrates the importance of understanding the complete command and control chain of a weapons system — not just the terminal weapon — and identifying the vulnerable nodes in that chain. It also illustrates the political dilemmas associated with operations on third-party territory and how to manage them through public, transparent coercive diplomacy.

These lessons are relevant not only for Ukraine but for any country that might find itself in a similar situation — defending critical infrastructure networks against actors who use third-party territories to amplify their offensive capabilities.

What Lukashenko Chose Not to See

Complicity by Omission Is Full Complicity

Lukashenko has had numerous opportunities to refuse the militarization of his territory by Russia. After 2022, when Russian missiles transited through Belarus, he chose inaction. When the first Shahed relays appeared on his territory in late 2025, he chose to look away. Each time a drone guided via those relays killed a Ukrainian civilian, Lukashenko bore a share of the responsibility.

This complicity does not reduce to political weakness before Putin — even if that weakness is real. It also reflects a deliberate choice: to remain in power by becoming the rear platform of Putin's war against Ukraine, in the hope that the consequences would stay on the Ukrainian side of the border. Zelensky's ultimatum reminded Lukashenko that this hope was illusory.

Accountability for War Crimes

The question of Belarus's international legal responsibility for war crimes committed with the support of Belarusian infrastructure remains open. Legal specialists in international humanitarian law have begun documenting cases where strikes guided via Belarusian relays targeted civilian infrastructure or non-combatant populations. If this documentation is sufficiently robust, it could one day serve as the basis for proceedings before international jurisdictions.

This is not an imminent prospect — international procedures are slow and complex. But history shows that accomplices to war crimes do not enjoy permanent immunity. The post-war Nuremberg proceedings, the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, the ICC — the mechanisms exist. And the digital archives of 2026 are extensive.

Belarus After the Ultimatum: Reconfiguration or Mere Pause?

A Tactical Withdrawal or a Lasting Capitulation?

The central question analysts have been asking since June 22, 2026 is simple: is the neutralization of the Belarusian relays permanent or merely temporary? The history of modern warfare teaches that actors under pressure do not permanently give up — they reorganize. If Lukashenko chose to cut these relays, it is because the immediate cost exceeded the benefit. But as soon as Ukrainian pressure eases, or as soon as Moscow offers sufficient compensation, the temptation to restart will exist.

Electronic warfare analysts estimate that Russia may seek to relocate its guidance relays to other areas — possibly toward naval platforms in the Black Sea or toward infrastructure on Russian territory itself. In doing so, it would increase the control distance and reduce effectiveness, but eliminate the Belarusian vulnerability. Adaptation is the hallmark of an adversary that has learned to survive under pressure.

The Future of Russian-Belarusian Military Cooperation

The June 2026 episode has at least temporarily strained trust between Moscow and Minsk. By cutting the relays under Ukrainian pressure, Lukashenko sent an ambiguous signal to Putin: that of a partner who has limits. This is not without consequences for future military cooperation. Moscow will now need to calculate to what extent it can rely on Belarusian territorial infrastructure for its offensive operations against Ukraine.

This strain is an opportunity for the West: maintain diplomatic pressure on Minsk, make Lukashenko understand that a gradual — even partial — distancing from Moscow opens a door toward an exit from international isolation. This is not a realistic short-term strategy, but in the medium term, Lukashenko's political survival interests and Ukraine's security interests could converge in unexpected ways.

Conclusion: An Operational Victory, a Strategic Warning

The Balance Sheet of the Belarusian Ultimatum

The Belarusian relay episode and Zelensky's ultimatum of June 19, 2026 conclude, as of June 26, with an immediate positive result: the stations are silent, drone incursions along the northern route are declining. It is a real operational victory, even if its durability remains uncertain. Kyiv has demonstrated that credible coercive diplomacy — backed by precise intelligence and a credible offensive military posture — can produce rapid results even against actors operating under Russian influence.

But the war continues. Russia adapts. Lukashenko remains in power. Iranian drones continue to be produced and delivered. And every night, somewhere in Ukraine, families sleep in their clothes, ready to run to shelters at the first siren. The real victory is not yet here.

What This Episode Says About Ukraine

Above all, what this episode says is that Zelensky's Ukraine is no longer waiting. It no longer begs its allies to act. It acts, it communicates, it presses. And it wins concrete victories, through intelligence, through tactical creativity, through a keen understanding of the available pressure levers. This is a Ukraine that has learned the hard way of war over four years — and has emerged, paradoxically, stronger, more determined, more capable. That is the real testimony I hear in Zelensky's statements this June 2026.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's Transparency Note

My Biases and My Position

I am Maxime Marquette, a columnist-analyst. I am pro-Ukraine — I believe Ukraine has the right to defend itself, to choose its alliances, and to protect its civilians by all legal means at its disposal. I consider Lukashenko an illegitimate dictator whose regime is a direct accomplice to war crimes. These positions are acknowledged and transparent.

What I Do Not Know

I do not know whether the Belarusian relays were physically dismantled or merely deactivated. I do not know to what extent Lukashenko acted on his own initiative or under instruction from Moscow. I have not had access to the Ukrainian intelligence data that made it possible to map the network. My analysis is based on publicly verifiable sources.

Sources

Primary sources

Euromaidan Press — Kyiv gave Belarus's ruler a week to pull Russia's drone relays. They went silent in three days, Zelensky says — June 24, 2026

Militarnyi — Zelensky: If Belarus doesn't want to be involved in the war, it must remove relay stations for Russian drones — June 20, 2026

RBC-Ukraine — Inside Zelensky's ultimatum to Lukashenko — June 19, 2026

UNN — Relay stations on the territory of Belarus have ceased operations since June 22 — Zelensky — June 24, 2026

Secondary sources

EU Alive — Ukraine intensifies military pressure, warns of revising peace proposals as Russia faces deep strikes — June 23, 2026

RBC-Ukraine — Shahed drone flights drop along Belarus border — June 24, 2026

Belsat — What are the relay systems Zelensky has been talking about for six months, and why did he issue an ultimatum to Lukashenka over them — June 22, 2026