This question is still very topical and has been the subject of much discussion. At the same time, I consider it really important and therefore I will try to formulate as concisely as possible the key points and questions without which the discussion on compensations, in my opinion, will never move from the emotional to the practical plane.
While Lukashenko is in power, it is pointless to even speak about reparations, contribution or other forms of compensation. Lukashenko, absolutely for sure, will not compensate Ukraine, and that must be clearly understood, in order not to have any illusions.
Accordingly, we proceed from the fact that Lukashenko will not be in power at this moment. Who will be after him? Again, if the regime remains in the person of, for example, Natalia Kochanova, or another pro-Russian successor or a Russian protege comes to replace Lukashenko, talking about reparations (or other forms of compensation) simply does not make sense.
It is possible to talk about this only with a civilized democratic government that respects international law, unlike Russia and the Lukashenko regime. I think I will express here the general position of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus - we are 100% committed to international law.
However, in order for the right of compensation to come, a decision of the tribunal is necessary, which will establish responsibility for aggression. So far, we do not see that the issue of the tribunal against the Republic of Belarus, where the state has been illegally usurped by the Lukashenka regime, has been discussed as widely and openly as the issue of compensation. At the same time, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is considering draft laws both on the recognition of Belarus as occupied and on the recognition of Belarus as an aggressor. Neither one nor the other draft bills have been considered.
After the holding of the tribunal and the change of power in Belarus to a democratic government, it, following the norms of international law, will have to comply with the relevant decisions of the tribunal. Accordingly, it is important to start discussing the issue not from the end, but from the beginning. Otherwise, without solving the basic issues A, B and C (the official position of Ukraine, the tribunal and the change of power in Belarus), one can speculate for a long time on D and E (responsibility of Belarus and compensation), but this will remain only discussions.
Pavel Latushka - head of the NAM Artsiom Brukhan -the NAM analyst