When Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya discusses Belarus today, she starts with an important distinction: “We can’t consider Belarus as a single entity right now — we need to differentiate the [Alexander] Lukashenko regime from the Belarusian population.”
Five years have passed since she was compelled to flee after competing in the 2020 presidential elections, which sparked unprecedented pro-democracy demonstrations. From her base in Lithuania, Tsikhanouskaya continues to oppose Lukashenko’s regime.
In a conversation with The Moscow Times, she warns that due to Russia’s ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the presence of Russian troops and nuclear arms in Belarus, and continuous provocations at Europe’s borders, the West can no longer ignore Belarus — for its own safety.
Tsikhanouskaya is actively highlighting the continued repression in Belarus. Although Minsk released several dozen political prisoners recently, including her husband, opposition figure Siarhei Tsikhanouski, at least 1,240 individuals are still imprisoned, as reported by the human rights organization Viasna.
Despite what she describes as “Stalinist-level repression,” Tsikhanouskaya insists that there is ongoing resistance, both within Belarus and among the many Belarusians in exile.
The Moscow Times: How do you view Belarus-Russia relations in 2025?
Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya: Firstly, we cannot perceive Belarus as a single entity right now — it’s crucial to distinguish between the Lukashenko regime, which is entirely loyal to Putin, and the Belarusian people. The connection between Putin and Lukashenko is symbiotic; they rely on each other at this time. For Putin, Lukashenko is a cost-effective ally who, in return for some political and minimal economic support, offers territory, infrastructure, and anything else Russia may require for its objectives.
Regarding the Belarusian population, especially following the onset of the war in Ukraine, they have evidently made a geopolitical choice in favor of Europe. It has become clear that Belarusians cannot associate themselves with Russians, contrary to the claims of Belarusian propaganda. We do not share imperial aspirations, nor can we understand how anyone would wage war against their neighbors. It is evident that Russia — or at least its leadership — aims to annex more countries and create satellite states governed by subservient and loyal allies, such as Lukashenko, who do not act in the interest of their own nations.
Consequently, internal resistance is emerging among Belarusians, both domestically and abroad, against this forced integration, as Lukashenko is effectively trading away our sovereignty and independence for the sake of his power. Without Putin, he would have been ousted within days. We must grasp that the ongoing russification in Belarus does not benefit the Belarusian nation or its identity — it is a strategy for subordinating the country. There exists a significant threat that Russia, with the compliant Lukashenko, could completely absorb Belarus economically, politically, and in the media domain — which is essentially what is happening now.
How do Belarusians view this integration process?
The repression in Belarus is so severe that many are afraid to voice their opinions publicly. Presently, being anti-Lukashenko or opposing the war in Ukraine can lead to years in prison. This is, without a doubt, Stalinist-level repression; there is no other way to put it. Sadly, Belarusians are operating in a ‘safe mode,’ remaining somewhat underground; there are no anti-Russian articles in the media as it is simply forbidden. However, discussions with Belarusians reveal an understanding that people recognize Lukashenko’s crimes in sacrificing Belarusian sovereignty. Conversations with officials suggest that even among them, discontent is rising — Lukashenko has compromised Belarusian independence far too much. While individuals may hold various political viewpoints, many officials have grown accustomed to viewing Lukashenko as the ‘father of Belarus,’ believing the nation couldn’t function without him. Yet, even they agree with us that the independence of Belarus is the utmost priority, and that Russia must not be allowed to incorporate Belarus.
For instance, there is information about Russia planning to establish a large-scale weapons factory in Belarus, shared by individuals with access to such insights. They do this because they recognize the necessity of defending sovereignty and seek to assist in this manner. However, if a journalist were to approach anyone on the street in Belarus for their opinion, they would likely not respond, as expressing their true thoughts could lead to imprisonment.
Ukrainian intelligence has recently disclosed new Russian plans to utilize Belarus for military objectives. How would you assess Belarus’s current involvement in the war?
It’s essential to remember that Belarus consists of both a regime and its people — they cannot be treated as one. The [Lukashenko] regime is fully responsible for its role in the aggression, but the fact that the Belarusian army has not been deployed in the war is a testament to the Belarusian people, who do not consider this conflict justified.
Lukashenko is entirely complicit in this war. He assists Russia in circumventing sanctions imposed due to the conflict, facilitating the acquisition of microchips that Russia is unable to procure legally. Additionally, around 290 Belarusian companies have shifted production from regular consumer goods to military items, supplying optics, components, and other materials that sustain the Russian war effort. By doing so, Lukashenko has become a war criminal.
As for the Belarusian populace, there is a strong pro-Ukrainian sentiment. Belarusians are against the war; they recognize its unjust nature, and this realization has shocked them. In terms of internal politics, the narrative pushed by Lukashenko—that he has shielded Belarusians from war—is no longer persuasive. Belarusians now perceive him as the individual responsible for dragging Belarus into this conflict and bringing the war to our soil. Belarus and Russia pose an increasing threat even to NATO nations: drones are flying from Belarusian territory into Poland, and the border between Lithuania and Belarus is being closed due to frequent smuggling activities. Such occurrences seldom happen without the consent of certain authorities — they are provocations. I anticipate more provocations because Russia, alongside its ally Lukashenko, is testing NATO’s resolve and ability to respond. Lukashenko will be used as Putin sees fit, with Belarusian territory and infrastructure at his disposal.
You frequently emphasize the significance of Europe recognizing Belarus’s role in the context of European security. To what extent do you believe European nations and leaders comprehend and acknowledge this issue?
That’s precisely why we travel, engage, and communicate with politicians—to instill this perspective in those who shape Europe’s future. Too often, Belarus is viewed solely through a humanitarian lens: political prisoners, repression, the need to liberate people from incarceration—as if that alone encapsulates the situation. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the context has dramatically shifted. It is now unequivocally clear that Belarus, or rather the Belarusian regime, has become an accomplice in this war.
Moreover, we must remember that all these provocations at the borders with Poland and Lithuania originate from Belarusian territory. That’s why we continually stress to our partners: don’t overlook Belarus. Yes, liberating political prisoners is crucial, but we must view the broader picture. Europe will never feel truly secure while provocations persist, while nuclear weapons are stationed in Belarus, or as long as ‘unidentified objects’ fly across borders and are later dismissed as mere accidents. All of these actions compel neighboring nations to redirect their focus and resources to border security instead of, say, bolstering Ukraine or reinforcing their national defense. This constant unease only drains Western resources and attention, and it will persist as long as Lukashenko’s regime remains entrenched in Belarus.
The placement of nuclear weapons in Belarus is a provocative maneuver, too. If the idea of utilizing nuclear arms ever arises, it is likely that they would be launched from Belarusian soil. There are numerous intricacies to consider. There are discussions of fatigue in Europe — the prolonged war has led to weariness with Belarus. However, this conflict could soon reach Europe’s doorstep if Belarus is not liberated, and Ukraine is not assisted towards victory.
Dictators possess a certain mindset: they continually assert, “We can outlast them.” In democracies, political figures change; dictators simply wait. They have the means to sacrifice lives and continue weapon production. If a new Western leader with less resolve takes office, Putin will likely exploit that opportunity to encroach even further into Europe.
We must acknowledge that this isn’t a conventional war akin to World War II—with tanks and aircraft—but rather a hybrid one. Even when discussing weapons, it isn’t just about drones; it’s also a battle of information. I increasingly observe how propaganda is poisoning the minds of democratic societies. It’s easy to fall into the narrative that one shouldn’t worry about Ukraine or Belarus—just enjoy one’s comfortable life. People desire simple answers to complex problems, which undermines critical thinking. However, if you fail to support Ukraine and Belarus now, you could find yourself next. This is precisely why we urge politicians — because the strategic importance of Belarus for European security cannot be overlooked.
I also want to ask about the perceived thaw — at least on the surface — between Lukashenko and the United States. Have the Belarusian opposition’s interactions with Washington altered in light of this?
First and foremost, we must recognize that, due to the diplomatic initiatives of Donald Trump, dozens of political prisoners were released — including my husband, Siarhei. This was made possible through the efforts of both Trump and his team, and we are immensely grateful for that, as this is not merely a political issue for us — it’s about the lives of thousands of people.
At the same time, we must acknowledge — and we make this clear to our American counterparts — that Lukashenko remains a dictator who continues to hold thousands of individuals hostage. He releases a few but incarcerates hundreds more. He exploits human lives as bargaining chips, hoping for concessions and recognition. This is pure cynicism, entirely characteristic of a dictator’s nature.
For Lukashenko, projecting an image of dialogue with the United States is vital. He aspires to be acknowledged, to regain acceptance in the West. In the past, he has attempted to recreate a semblance of a formal status quo — after the 2006 and 2010 elections — but the current circumstances are starkly different. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, he has no prospects of restoring legitimacy. Both the EU and the U.S., as well as Canada and the UK, have official documents labeling him illegitimate after both the 2020 and 2025 elections. He has become a pariah dictator, a war criminal. It is important to recognize that any meeting, phone call, or correspondence involving Lukashenko does not equate to recognition — it is merely a tool for exerting pressure. Such interactions do not grant him legitimacy, yet he will attempt to leverage even the slightest indication of dialogue as evidence of his strength. For him, it serves as a public relations opportunity.
Moreover, we are aware of the game Lukashenko is playing: in exchange for the release of some prisoners, he aims for the suspension or reduction of U.S. sanctions. He will utilize the easing of pressure to argue with the European Union, claiming, “Look, we’re engaging with the Americans; perhaps it’s time for you to join in.” We can clearly observe these signals. It’s apparent how Lukashenko’s envoys and sympathizers in Europe propagate these narratives — suggesting a return to ‘business as usual.’ However, there is no appetite for that in Europe; I don’t sense it, and I am grateful for that.
The West has a much clearer understanding of who Lukashenko truly is. The EU’s steadfast and principled stance is significant in this context. We certainly welcome any humanitarian efforts aimed at freeing people, but we stress that these actions should only be a starting point. Genuine change requires the release of all political prisoners, an end to torture and repression, the reestablishment of the rule of law, and the organization of new elections.
You’ve consistently highlighted the issue of documentation for Belarusians who have fled the country, mentioning that nearly half a million could soon lack valid identification. Has there been progress on the new Belarusian passport initiative, and do Western partners grasp the urgency of this predicament?
The truth is that the challenge of legalizing and obtaining documents for Belarusians may reach critical levels. Since leaving in 2020, we have been working on behalf of Belarusians in every nation. This became particularly urgent after the regime barred its embassies from renewing or exchanging Belarusian passports, resulting in a significant issue as people find themselves without documentation. Even seemingly straightforward tasks — like opening a bank account or acquiring a visa — become impossible.
Initially, we began to communicate with various countries individually to find a legal solution that would allow Belarusians to obtain documents locally without a passport. Many countries, including Lithuania, Poland, Denmark, and Germany, are now addressing this issue. While approaches differ, the matter is being tackled. However, it’s not yet being done on a large enough scale, and many individuals’ passports will soon expire.
This is why we proposed a comprehensive solution, creating our own document for this purpose, at least for countries within the European Union. The initiative seems promising since this document aligns with all ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization] standards. However, political will is necessary for its acceptance. When we referred to it as the ‘passport of the New Belarus,’ we envisioned it as an identification document. It won’t replace residence permits nor eliminate the necessity of legalizing one’s status in each country. It serves as an additional ID for individuals undergoing checks and verifications.
Yet, there lies a bit of a dilemma. Those who wish to obtain this document must wait for it to gain legal recognition. Our European partners currently do not perceive a strong demand for it, but the issue could escalate. We are presently explaining to Belarusians that in order for this process to progress, a considerable number of recipients is required. Naturally, we must also consider the propaganda which asserts that anyone acquiring these passports will be labeled extremists or terrorists, and their property and relatives could face repercussions. We recognize that passport initiatives are very sensitive for the regime, but it could likewise serve as a leverage point for pressuring the regime into revoking its arbitrary decision against issuing passports [abroad].
Belarusians endure numerous restrictions. We have prepared a document, in collaboration with the Luxembourg parliament, known as the ‘Luxembourg Solutions,’ detailing all the challenges faced by Belarusians abroad and proposing solutions. In other words, we are not neglecting these matters. We are actively working to support Belarusians in difficulty.
