Why is Protasevich so important for Lukashenko that he risked international sanctions in order to arrest him?

Question

I understand the willingness to arrest him, but is he really so important, that it was worth forcing foreign aircraft with uninvolved passengers to land, under the escort of the military aircraft? Lukashenko must know for sure that hijacking a plane would be a big incident that will lead to international sanctions.

Protasevich isn't even a leader of the opposition, only one of the operators of the opposition channels on the internet. It's quite sure that arresting him won't change anything, someone else will overtake his tasks.

Is this all only to 'send a signal', like in the case of Litvinenko?

Answer 1

The goal is to get people to self-censor, including both people at home and expatriates. This is a common behavior of totalitarian regimes such as China's. It's well documented, for example, that the Chinese government works through agents to discourage Chinese students in the US from speaking against the regime. They want to make those people fear harm to themselves or their families, so that they will shut up.

Protasevich is simply a case where the methods were more shameless and overt.

It's quite sure that arresting him won't change anything, someone else will overtake his tasks.

I wish I could believe this. People as energetic, competent, honest, and altruistic as Protasevich are in short supply. Lukashenko's action against him is likely to be extremely effective in forcing other expat dissidents to self-censor.

An attack like this is also extremely attractive because there is no down-side. Lukashenko and Putin have been carrying out these attacks on people like Litvinenko and Protasevich with total impunity. Sanctions worked, for example, against apartheid-era South Africa, but they worked because they had an impact on people who were able to vote. If sanctions are imposed on Belarus, the people affected by them will not be able to do anything about it, because there are only sham elections. There is also a nuclear umbrella over Belarus and Russia, which makes their rulers feel impervious to threats against their regimes.

Answer 2

The very same question could be asked about Julian Assange or Edward Snowden in relation to the US government. Are either of them important enough to lock a man in an embassy for years or to cause a major international scandal by grounding down a Presidential plane? Probably not - both men don't yield significant enough power to cause further damage to the US. Assange's organization primarily relies on leaks and those could continue to be obtained with or without him in charge.

We could also ask a similar question about Alexei Navalny. While he's a prominent critic of the Putin regime, he's not the only one. Plus Putin controls the election system tightly enough to stop worrying about the competition and could send Navalny to prison at any time he wanted, as proven by his arrest after recovering from Novichik. So why bother poisoning him?

So why try to capture/kill Protasevich, Navalny, Assange and Snowden? The answer is simple: to send a message. To quote an article on Putins poisoning of Alexei Navalny:

And consider the fact that the Kremlin has so often resorted to substances — such as polonium or nerve agents — that would be almost impossible for non-state actors to obtain. The message seems clear: yes, we’re the ones who did this. Cross us and we will come after you — even if you are on foreign soil. And we won’t just put a bullet in your head; we will make sure you die in slow agony.

America is more subtle here in that they prefer to send people to jail rather than poisoning them but the idea remains the same. If someone can get away with openly flaunting your government you risk many more such defectors springing up in the future. But if all of them suffer for their actions, most people would be too scared to show defiance.

Answer 3

I'm not a psychologist, but it seems like one of the characteristics of dictators is that they are in constant paranoia of their dissidents.

They simply aren't cool headed enough, to be able to go on with business while some people are speaking against them and trying to remove them from their positions.

A short glimpse at the history of dictators shows that each and every one of them have gone out of their way to move opponents "aside", no matter how much those adversaries were or weren't actually threatening the regime.