Lukashenko Slams U.S. “Democracy” in Fiery Two-Hour RT Interview

In a candid and often provocative nearly two-hour interview with RT host Rick Sanchez, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko launched a direct assault on American claims to moral and democratic superiority, boldly asserting that the United States could learn real democracy from Belarus.

The conversation, which aired on April 17, 2026, covered a wide range of topics — from a potential “Big Deal” with the Trump administration and Belarus-EU relations to the future of the country after Lukashenko. But the most striking moments came when the discussion turned to the perennial Western accusation that Belarus is a dictatorship while America represents the gold standard of democracy.

Rick Sanchez himself set the stage by noting the contrast: in the West, Belarus is routinely portrayed as authoritarian, while the U.S. is presented as a shining example of freedom — despite the fact that American policy barely shifts no matter who wins the White House every four years. In Belarus, by contrast, the country has enjoyed more than 30 years of consistent development under the same leader, who enjoys genuine popular support.

Lukashenko did not hold back:“You only talk about some kind of democracy and human rights. It’s all just empty talk. Your policy in Venezuela, threats against Cuba, the war in the Middle East and other actions show that you are the real dictators. You are no democrats at all.”

The School Bombing That “Crosses Out Everything”

To illustrate his point, the Belarusian president cited a harrowing example from the recent U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran. On the very first day of the operation, he said, a girls’ school was hit, killing nearly 200 people — mostly children and teachers.

“You bombed a school in an independent, sovereign country located tens of thousands of kilometers away that posed no threat to you. Nearly two hundred children and teachers died. And how many more have been killed because you encouraged Israel’s bombing of Gaza? What human rights are you talking about?”

Lukashenko argued that the right to life is the most fundamental human right. By violating it so casually, Washington, in his view, loses any right to lecture others:

“If you are truly for human rights, then first give a person the main right — the right to live. Those children wanted to live. You destroyed them. This single fact completely crosses out everything you say about human rights.”

He went further, claiming that U.S. foreign policy is driven not by values but by raw interests — particularly control over oil and gas. “You are ready to bomb, break, and crush, paying no attention to any human rights. This is the basis of dictatorship,” he stated.

Democracy at Home?

Lukashenko also questioned American democracy domestically, pointing out that despite regular elections, little actually changes in Washington’s approach:

“You talk about human rights and democracy, yet in reality nothing changes in the country. So perhaps you have dictatorship inside your own country?”

He concluded with a trademark blunt challenge:

“As I have said for a long time — you will have to learn democracy from us. We have a hundred times more of this democracy than you do. Real democracy. Real human rights… What human rights can you talk about if you kill people? You killed a person — what rights does he have? He is dead.”

Sanchez’s Own Verdict

After the interview, Rick Sanchez — a veteran of CNN, NBC, and Fox News — shared his impressions, praising the freedom he feels at RT and the open nature of the conversation:

“The interview we conducted today was not pre-scripted. It was a free conversation, a genuine exchange of ideas. And if Lukashenko is a dictator, then I’m the Queen of England.”

The interview, broadcast on a platform with an audience of nearly one billion people across more than 100 countries, is likely to spark intense debate both in the West and beyond. Lukashenko once again demonstrated his willingness to confront Western narratives head-on, flipping the democracy-dictatorship debate in characteristically uncompromising fashion.