0n 17-19 February the Libyan Aram Armed Force’s (LAAF) commander, Khalifa Haftar, visited Belarus. This indicates that, despite past setbacks, he remains a central figure in Libya’s power struggle because of the LAAF’s geographical control of most of the country. The visit to Minsk, which has very close ties to Moscow, is highly significant and suggests Haftar is seeking external support as well as diversifying this beyond his traditional allies which, until now, have mainly been Russia, Egypt and the UAE. 

The high-level reception for Haftar’s delegation headed by the State Security Committee of the Republic of Belarus’ (KGB RB) chairman Lt-Gen Ivan Tertel — which included including two of his sons, Lt-Gen Saddam Haftar and Khalid Haftar — highlighted the importance that Minsk placed on the visit. It also indicates that the visit may involve aspects of security cooperation. 

The meetings with President Alexander Lukashenko and Prime Minister Roman Golovchenko were publicly positioned as opportunities to enhance bilateral cooperation across various sectors including technology, economics, industry and agriculture. Haftar’s expressed admiration for Belarus in these sectors is probably calculated to attract investment and technical expertise to LAAF-controlled territories. Haftar’s visit is also intended to send a message of strength to his domestic rivals. The demonstration of his ability to secure high-level meetings with foreign officials projects an image of power and relevance, which bolsters his position in Libya’s ongoing power struggles.

However, the primary focus on economic and technical cooperation suggests a pragmatic approach by Haftar to consolidate his authority through improvements to infrastructure and by attracting foreign investments. Despite its own serious economic challenges, Belarus’ agricultural and industrial expertise could be valuable to the LAAF and its allies. Golovchenko’s specific mention of food security, industrial development, construction, geological exploration, and education further underscores this point.

The choice of Belarus also points to a deliberate strategy of diversifying alliances. With traditional backers such as Egypt and the UAE facing potentially increased scrutiny for their involvement in Libya, Haftar’s engagement with Minsk is an alternative channel for support which may also encompass military or security assistance. Belarus’ close alignment with Russia cannot be overlooked. While not explicitly stated, this visit could signal a tacit coordination or alignment of Moscow’s interests. It could potentially strengthen Russia’s influence in Libya which will seriously concern Western powers which are already wary of its involvement in the region.

This may also explain why Moscow does not seem optimistic about an imminent political breakthrough in Libya. In an 18 February speech to the Russian State Duma, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stressed that one of Moscow’s main goals is to prevent what happened in Libya in 2011 being repeated in Syria. He said that ‘the intervention of NATO countries deprived Libya of its entity and divided the country which has not been able to unite for 15 years.’ Similarly, its representative to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya, called on the UN Security Council to rectify what he considered an imbalance represented by the Advisory Committee set up by the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UMSMIL). He called for the revival of UN mediation efforts by the new UN envoy, Hannah Tetteh, because he claimed that Stephanie Khoury had adopted strange methods without the consent of the Libyan people or the Security Council.

Haftar’s visit to Belarus draws attention to the complex and multi-faceted nature of the Libyan crisis in which external actors continue to exert significant influence in shaping the country’s future trajectory. Whether his efforts succeed remains to be seen but the visit in itself represents a determined effort to secure his long-term position in a fractured Libya. Future developments will depend on the actual implementation of the agreements that were reached and the reaction from other key domestic and international stakeholders.