Ukraine has decided to recall its ambassador from Minsk, at least temporarily, according to the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ihor Kyzym has been called back to Kyiv "for consultations."

The reason for such a measure was a meeting between Lukashenka and the Donetsk gauleiter Denis Pushilin.

Read editor Yurii Panchenko's article on why Ukraine should finally dot all the i's in its relations with Belarus: One-way ticket. Why Ukrainian ambassador should not return to Lukashenka's Belarus.

"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine condemns Alexander Lukashenko's April 18 meeting in Minsk with Denis Pushilin as an attempt to legitimise this representative of the Russian occupation administration in Donetsk," a statement by the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry read late Tuesday.

However, it is worth acknowledging that nothing special happened on April 18.

Representatives of the "People's Republics" had previously traveled to Belarus, and Lukashenka himself had repeatedly made statements indicating recognition of the "legitimacy" of the annexation of Donbas and Crimea.

As early as July of last year, Lukashenko stated that he had de facto recognized the formation of the "LNR" and "DNR," as well as the annexation of Crimea by Russia, and that he would issue the corresponding decree if necessary.

The agreement signed last autumn on cooperation between Minsk and Sevastopol is also a prominent event — or last year's visit of Belarusian MPs and propagandists to occupied Donbas.

The current meeting with Pushilin stands out only in its performance.

What's worth mentioning is Lukashenko's question: "How are we doing on the front?".

Yes, this "what are we" turned out to be very eloquent. It perfectly shows the price of Belarusian "neutrality," but the current meeting has already changed little.

But Kyiv could no longer ignore this meeting.

Recalling the ambassador for consultations in and of itself does not signify a radical change in relations. In diplomatic practice, the ambassador usually returns within a month or two.

"EuroPravda" – and not only us – have repeatedly emphasised the need to break diplomatic relations with Belarus.

To show the world that we consider present-day Belarus as much of an aggressor as Russia. This step is necessary to push all partners to synchronise sanctions against both aggressor countries finally.

However, in all official explanations as to why Kyiv has not broken diplomatic relations with Belarus, the MFA mentions a humanitarian component.

In particular, in an interview with "EuroPravda," Ambassador Kyzym admits that he is practically in a complete blockade in Minsk. The only significant reason for maintaining our diplomatic presence in Belarus is to help Ukrainian refugees who come to Belarus from Russia and try to get home.

However, the presence of an ambassador is not at all necessary to perform such functions. Ambassador Kyzym's forced stay in Kyiv will only confirm this, even if Kyiv has yet to mature to break diplomatic relations with this aggressor state.

Therefore, there are simply no real reasons to send back the ambassador to Belarus.

Instead, his return to openly hostile Belarus after short consultations would send the wrong signal to the world.