Reports early this morning suggest that the Department of Defense has acted in Belarus without the approval of the White House and Commander-in-Chief. A CIA insider reported that “the DOD lied about the presidential approval” which raises serious concerns regarding co-operation within the government. In a CIA memo revealed yesterday, the Agency called the Department of Defense “dysfunctional” and questioned their decision-making. Though the Department of Defense is yet to make any sort of public response to the allegations, sources in the Department described the CIA as “a tough batch”.

Will internal struggles between different institutions in the U.S. government prevent America from coordinating a viable and consistent response to a conflict on NATO’s doorstep? If the trends of recent hours continue, that may well be the case.

An anonymous source has informed The Washington Post that there is serious concern that the current plan of action was poorly thought out. The source suggested that internal discussions between the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Department of Defense (DoD) are growing hostile as the two agencies struggle to formulate a conclusive plan which both parties can agree to pursue. 

In an open memo to President Biden, the CIA accused the DoD of “worryingly aggressive” and “warmongering” behavior. The deployment of U.S. troops inside Belarus near the Russian border would certainly be an act of war, so both the CIA and the DoD must tread carefully. There are growing concerns inside the CIA that the DoD may initiate an armed conflict, which one insider described as “practically starting World War III”. The CIA memo also questioned the leadership of the DoD, reiterating concerns that they were “dangerous,” while the memo also called the DoD’s plan “unnecessarily violent and foolish.” 

“Though the Central Intelligence Agency also supports the cause of Belarusian democracy and the sanctity of free elections,” the memo says, “American Troops in the region, without the support of our allies, will only tarnish the image of America in the view of our allies and our rivals. The right approach, alongside allies, with methodical deliberation, and with the full range of American Diplomatic effort, would have been infinitely preferable”. 

The CIA’s full memo can be found here.

As for Russia, they have yet to take military action in Belarus, but it appears to be preparing for conflict following the Federation’s recent nationalization of the Sukhoi and Tactical Missile Corporation. Russian state media network RT has called for the U.S. to not deploy troops in Belarus, and Russian President Vladimir Putin called the U.S. involvement in Belarus “a blatant act of American imperialism” before warning “if this can happen in Belarus, this can happen anywhere.”

Despite a tumultuous period following the assassination, which involved protests, bombings, and shootings, the pro-democracy group has rather suddenly declared victory. “Democracy has won,” says newly declared Belarusian President Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya “it is a bright new day for the Belarusian people.” 

For years, Belarus has been firmly under the sphere of influence of Russia and its authoritarian President, Vladimir Putin. The new government, however, is democratic and fundamentally opposed to Russia. So far, it appears that Russia has allowed Western companies to waltz right into Minsk and support the newborn Belarusian democracy. Reports suggest that US government organizations are prepared to offer direct support to the new government, if they have not already. Russia is silent. There have even been talks of entering a treaty alliance with the United States or NATO. Russia, for their part, is yet to intervene. 

Why would Russia allow a Western democracy to spring up in a country merely 451 kilometers away from the city of Moscow? This lack of an active military response is a stark contrast to the former Soviet Union, which built up several layers of puppet buffer states as part of the “Iron Wall” to protect the Russian homeland. One of the only possible explanations for this lack of action is that we are witnessing the decline of Russia’s power; perhaps, Russia is incapable of maintaining a large sphere of influence, and perhaps it may lose even more influence over Europe to the West and to NATO. 

Belarus’ democracy is young and fragile. Should it seek to survive, it will face many challenges in the very near future, but the Russian threat from the near east could prove less fatal than it first appeared.

There is now dispute over who should take control of Belarus’ government, with opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya and military leader General Viktor Khrenin both seeking to take power. Internal tensions continue to rise, as several incidents have already taken place in the Belarusian capital of Minsk, such as bombings and shootings. 

Foreign governments, most notably the United States of America and the Russian Federation, are closely monitoring the situation in Belarus. The U.S. Department of Defense has reportedly been in contact with allies in Europe to keep the situation under control, but no direct action has been taken yet. At this stage, foreign governments view it as essential that the situation is not escalated further, and that they proceed with caution with regards to any actions.

The U.S. is not opposed to taking actions in the coming hours, however. The Department of Defense’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff commented on the news out of Minsk, stating that “the situation in Belarus is quickly deteriorating. At this time, know that the United States Government and the United States Department of Defense are taking immediate and sufficient action to address the crisis overseas. We are currently working to help stabilize the region as well as keep and restore peace and order to the crisis areas.”

What specific actions foreign governments and militaries may take in the eastern European nation remain yet to be seen.

President Biden has remarked on the new challenges that his administration will face in the international setting. Biden commented in an interview with NBC that “President Trump has changed the landscape. It’s become America first, it’s been America alone.” Already the new administration seeks to rectify this, and has seeked co-operation with key allies in response to recent events. General Austin wrote in a letter that his Department “will work with our allies and never underestimate our enemies,” and that the administration will look to the national security issues of the future.

The new administration will also review the military’s withdrawal of troops from conflict-stricken regions. Under President Trump, the military reduced the number of troops in regions such as Afghanistan and Iraq; Trump ordered the removal of over 3,000 US troops from those two conflicts, reducing the US presence there. While Austin did not confirm that he would increase US numbers in those regions, he has stated that he will review what presence the United States should have in Iraq and Afghanistan.