Let's look at the Vancouver Declaration and the adopted resolutions of the OSCE PA in a broad sense.
The first thing that is important to understand: these documents are essentially a tool for fixing political reality. As well as reflection and development of recommendations. That is why they say that the resolutions are advisory in nature and are not binding.
At the same time, the content of the resolutions reflects public opinion - after all, they are adopted by deputies, that is, people's representatives, who are elected throughout the civilized world, and not appointed from above.
From here we can say that these documents are also a tool for interaction between representative and executive bodies, a kind of tool for controlling the work of executive bodies by the society and reporting the former to the latter.
After all, despite the optionality for execution, these documents are further evaluated point by point by experts in the designated areas. That is, it can be called the starting point for an expert study of the issues and issues raised, their analysis, and the development of appropriate approaches to them. And, perhaps, the adoption of certain decisions by the executive bodies. And in this case, such resolutions can form, among other things, their justification.
For us, of course, the most important are concrete practical actions, but we should not devalue the very fact of the adoption of such documents for the reasons that we are talking about above - fixing the political situation (as in the proverb about the pen and the ax) and the formation of a public views on the issues and concerns raised. Because in the civilized world, public opinion matters. It defines the policy.
Therefore, in the case of the soft annexation of Belarus thesis, the most important thing is that civilized society and countries increasingly understand the aggressive, imperial nature of the policy of the Russian Federation - and with this comes understanding that this policy also applies to Belarus. That is, the fact of political recognition of the situation associated with the gradual accession of Belarus to Russia has been documented. That the sovereignty of Belarus, its independence are under real threat, and this is not a false alarm of the national-oriented forces of Belarus, which sound the alarm about this. This means that the policy towards Belarus will change accordingly and, I hope, a coherent strategy will appear.
This is a clear signal for the Lukashenka regime: The West sees that it is not a guarantor of the sovereignty of Belarus and an independent government, but, on the contrary, is an illegitimate puppet administration that surrenders the country's independence in favor of Russia.
And in the international arena, this thesis will be an excellent counterargument to all politicians who propose "not to put too much pressure on Lukashenka, so as not to push Belarus even deeper into Russia." After all, it is obvious that it is he who is the conductor of the "soft annexation" of Belarus, as the OSCE PA calls it.
And the point here is not even what term the OSCE PA used (many media, for example, for some reason wrote about "soft occupation"), but that a clear understanding is being formed that Belarus is a victim of Russia's imperial policy and, accordingly, the Lukashenka regime, which provides it.
Here's what's important. Whether this situation will be given an appropriate legal assessment - here I am a skeptic, international law did not breathe, it cannot simply be turned the way you want. But politically, the OSCE PA's demonstration of understanding of the situation is very important for developing a strategy for Belarus. And it will allow us, in particular the Cabinet, to be more effective in cooperating with partners to counter Russia and the Lukashenka regime and protect our independence.
This is also an important signal for Belarusians who are ready for an active struggle for independence. Neither Lukashenka nor the Kremlin will be able to sell the thesis about "terrorists" or "mercenaries" to anyone, as was the case, for example, in Kazakhstan to justify the intervention of the CSTO in those events. Moreover, in the event of an active struggle for independence, there will be clear legal grounds for the appropriate recognition of this struggle, and, accordingly, the right to seek help from Western countries. And they will have the right to help us.