"The Only Thing Lukashenko's Wishes Might Change Are The Nameplates"

• 16.07.2026, 8:42

On the Crisis in Agriculture.

In an effort to turn Shklov into a model district, Lukashenko paid special attention to the local district agricultural service, which was renovated using budget funds as part of a project by the president’s administrative office.

“For us, this is a miracle,” Lukashenko remarked, adding that such a “miracle” should be “replicated nationwide.”

In his view, such maintenance organizations, along with construction PMKs and other institutions, are essential for district leaders. It is these district agricultural service agencies that should be under their control.

“The market is the market, but it must be regulated and monitored,” Lukashenko noted.

Why should the “levers of control” over district agricultural services be in the hands of the district executive committee chair, and what are they actually doing now? “Filin” asked entrepreneur and former district executive committee official Nikolai Lysenkov.

“Originally, during the Soviet era, district agricultural services were created to help collective farms,” Nikolai Lysenkov recalled. “What did they do? Their mechanized teams organized grain transport, the application of organic matter to the fields, and other tasks when the collective farm itself, for example, couldn’t keep up.”

In addition to the mechanized brigades, the district agricultural service carried out complex repairs that couldn’t be done on a small farm. They also handled procurement and the delivery of fertilizers and spare parts.

I should note that our agricultural enterprises—that is, collective farms—are, in essence, large-scale commercial producers. In developed countries, for example, such large agricultural enterprises provide for all their own needs.

The equivalents of our district agricultural service agencies there mainly assist small farmers who cannot afford expensive equipment. It is cost-effective for them to hire an outside organization on a one-time basis for specific types or cycles of work.

But in Belarus, the district agricultural service agencies have different functions. As is well known, many of our collective farms are operating at a loss; some do not generate enough revenue to cover even half of their costs. All of them require a constant infusion of funds.

This has nothing to do with business. These are simply production units that carry out orders from above. Of course, this phenomenon does not exist in developed countries. If a business there operates at a loss, it is either taken over or shut down.

At the same time, agricultural subsidies are provided everywhere; it’s just that there, they’re used to make it profitable for farmers to work. In other words, the government incentivizes farmers to stay on the land.

Here, however, money is allocated not to help collective farms develop, but to keep them from dying out completely. And the district agricultural services are yet another lifeline for them. Because no one except the district agricultural service will provide credit to a destitute, unprofitable collective farm.
And there’s no money to pay for everything they need.

— According to Lukashenko, the chairpersons of the district executive committees are responsible for overseeing the work of the district agricultural services.

— They’ve always done that anyway. The directors of the district agricultural service agencies were always appointed by the chair of the district executive committee, and they couldn’t do anything without the committee’s knowledge.

Back in the day, the district agricultural service agencies were doing quite well. They really did set their own prices. And although there were always base rates for services—such as plowing, organic matter removal, repairs, etc.—each agricultural service looked for loopholes to raise them.

They would explain, for example, that repairs had become more expensive than the standard rate because spare parts had gone up in price or for some other reason. In other words, the district agricultural service agencies managed to make some money back when the collective farms were paying well. The collective farms paid them.
Now, obviously, it’s no longer possible to support the struggling collective farms, and the authorities are looking for someone to shift part of these problems onto.

By direct order of Lukashenko, the chairpersons of the district executive committees must now decide for themselves who will settle accounts with whom and how. But in reality, the district agricultural service agencies are in a very unenviable position.

— I wonder what the outcome will be of the interaction between the district agricultural service agencies, which are in a difficult position, and the struggling collective farms under the leadership of the district executive committee chairpersons?

— Ideally, both the collective farm and the district agricultural service would be independent, fully-fledged businesses that help each other on mutually beneficial terms.

But as I said, in our country, agriculture is not driven by the market or money, but by the district executive committee chair. First, on his orders, the district agricultural service provides certain services to the collective farm, and then runs back to him with a request: “Help us get the collective farm to pay up, or we won’t have anything to pay salaries with.”
In other words, what we end up with is a scheme where the debts of one entity are passed on to another. And even if Lukashenko wants to change all this, the only thing that might change is the nameplates at the entrance—nothing more.
Listen, if one collective farm in a district is struggling while all the others are performing well, it means the system at that one collective farm isn’t working. If one district in a region is lagging behind while all the others are thriving, it means the district executive committee chair isn’t doing their job.

And if we look at the countries in the region as a whole, agriculture is profitable in Lithuania, just as it is in Poland. Russia doesn’t stand out in any way compared to developed countries, but it looks better relative to us.
Even in Ukraine, where there’s a war going on, the indicators are better. Accordingly, we must draw conclusions. If just one country in the entire region is unable to harvest its grain crops, it means the system there isn’t working.

And if you’re unable to change that system, you need to replace the leader who’s just going through the motions without actually getting anything done.