United States → Belarus
This score represents United States's relationship toward Belarus. The reverse direction is calculated separately and shown alongside it.
SIX-COMPONENT MODEL
Current component scores
Component values run from −100 to +100 and are combined with the published weights.
No reviewed evidence met this component’s scoring threshold.
Why this score?
The model starts every component at zero. No documented condition or active event currently changes this one.
Coverage gap: The reviewed official record does not establish a frozen bilateral security rule or mutual-defence obligation.
2 documented factors produce the -40 diplomacy assessment.
Why this score?
- -15Serious unresolved political frictionBaseline rule · 2015
The official bilateral record documents substantial and continuing political disagreements between the United States and Belarus.
- -25War-related sanctions deepen the bilateral ruptureActive event · 2022
The United States imposed sweeping financial, export-control and diplomatic costs on Belarus over repression and support for Russia's war against Ukraine.
1 documented factor produce the -30 economic assessment.
Why this score?
- -30War-related sanctions deepen the bilateral ruptureActive event · 2022
The United States imposed sweeping financial, export-control and diplomatic costs on Belarus over repression and support for Russia's war against Ukraine.
Coverage gap: 2015 reporter-side trade remained below the frozen threshold or was unavailable, and no qualifying standing bilateral economic institution was evidenced.
2 documented factors produce the -50 alignment assessment.
Why this score?
- -30United Nations voting alignmentBaseline rule · 2015
A rolling three-year comparison of UN General Assembly votes activates the alignment threshold.
- -20War-related sanctions deepen the bilateral ruptureActive event · 2022
The United States imposed sweeping financial, export-control and diplomatic costs on Belarus over repression and support for Russia's war against Ukraine.
No reviewed evidence met this component’s scoring threshold.
Why this score?
The model starts every component at zero. No documented condition or active event currently changes this one.
Coverage gap: The reviewed record does not establish an active bilateral territorial claim or a qualifying settled-order rule.
No reviewed evidence met this component’s scoring threshold.
Why this score?
The model starts every component at zero. No documented condition or active event currently changes this one.
Coverage gap: The reviewed record does not establish a national-scale people-to-people exchange meeting the frozen societal threshold.
-8 in 2015 → -21 in 2026
The change is generated from sourced events and frozen scoring rules, not retrospective editorial adjustment.
0 points
United States → Belarus and Belarus → United States remain independent assessments.
View the reverse direction →ACTIVE EVIDENCE
Events affecting the current score
War-related sanctions deepen the bilateral rupture
The United States imposed sweeping financial, export-control and diplomatic costs on Belarus over repression and support for Russia's war against Ukraine.
This analytical score is not an objective fact, endorsement or prediction. Confidence reflects evidence coverage, while incomplete or unavailable observations remain explicit. Differences below 5 points are treated as practical ties rather than a meaningful ranking.
Explore the full timeline and sources in the atlas →