Site search

Pavel Latushka: Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, Representative of the Cabinet for the Transition of Power, Head of the National Anti-Crisis Management, Leader of the "Latushka Team and the Movement 'For Freedom'" faction within the 3rd convocation of the Coordination Council. Following Lithuania, Ukraine has effectively “paid for a ticket” for Lukashenko to The Hague, this time within the framework of a different criminal process. Today, during the meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in Chișinău, a decision was approved on behalf of 37 states to establish an Enlarged Partial Agreement on the creation of a Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. It is particularly important to emphasize that, in his statement on this occasion, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha explicitly named Lukashenko among those who fall under the jurisdiction of this tribunal. It is important to note that this is also a result of the work carried out by me and the delegation of the Coordination Council in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). During participation in PACE sessions, resolutions were adopted that established the framework of the Special Tribunal with a jurisdiction that makes it possible to hold Lukashenko accountable. A relevant amendment on Lukashenko’s responsibility was prepared by the team of the National Anti-Crisis Management (NAM) and submitted by me as a delegate of the Coordination Council to PACE; it states that “the Assembly emphasizes that the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal should cover alleged crimes of aggression committed by the so-called Belarusian leadership.” This is a direct result of the work and the important role played by the Coordination Council in the struggle against the Lukashenko regime. At present, the team of the National Anti-Crisis Management (NAM) is collecting evidence of Lukashenko’s and his accomplices’ commission of the act of aggression against Ukraine, which will be submitted to the newly established Special Tribunal.

Pavel Latushka: Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, Representative of the Cabinet for the Transition of Power, Head of the National Anti-Crisis Management, Leader of the "Latushka Team and the Movement 'For Freedom'" faction within the 3rd convocation of the Coordination Council Coordination Council delegate and member of the CR delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Pavel Latushka, addressed a session of the PACE Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. Pavel Latushka highlighted the enormous scale of repressions in Belarus, which have not ceased, drawing attention to the fact that, according to Dissidentby, as of today 920 people have been recognized as political prisoners. According to information from the human rights centre "Viasna", since 2020 at least 9,691 people have faced politically motivated criminal prosecution. At least 8,394 people have been convicted, including in absentia. "The repressions in Belarus — the most extensive in the history of 21st-century Europe — are not merely continuing; they have long since taken the form of systematic state terror. The conveyor belt of repression does not stop for a single day." Pavel Latushka emphasized that in order to achieve genuine rather than cosmetic political change in our country, we propose a strategy consisting of two directions: The United States, using its sanctions pressure tools against the regime, seeks the release of political prisoners. It is also important to achieve the cessation of repressions. The European Union and other democratic countries are urged to consistently employ sanctions mechanisms as leverage to achieve real, systemic change in Belarus. "We ask that the message to the regime from European partners be unequivocal: dialogue with Belarusian society must come first." Separately during his address, Pavel Latushka briefed the PACE Political Committee on the results of the elections to the Coordination Council. He noted the unprecedented pressure that had to be confronted in conducting these elections. "The regime created an atmosphere of fear among Belarusians. All slates that participated in the elections were declared extremist, as was the Coordination Council itself, which has been designated an extremist organisation. The regime staged fake detentions of Belarusian citizens inside the country, ostensibly for participating in the elections; relatives of candidates were subjected to repressions in order to coerce them into withdrawing from the electoral campaign. A large-scale campaign of discrediting and disinformation was organised — directed both at the Coordination Council itself and at the elections as a whole. We faced DDoS attacks of an unprecedented scale. During the elections, more than 24 billion requests were made against the Coordination Council's electronic voting platform, generating approximately 68 terabytes of malicious traffic." During the address, Pavel Latushka also identified several key priorities on which the CR delegation to PACE will continue its work: To lobby among PACE colleagues so that other countries join the International Criminal Court Prosecutor's investigation into the "Belarusian situation". To focus on transboundary crimes. To support the work of the Special Tribunal on the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. To hold Lukashenko accountable for the unlawful transfer of Ukrainian children, within the framework of the case already under investigation at the ICC. To implement the Luxembourg Agreements adopted by PACE, concerning the practical resolution of legalisation issues for Belarusians abroad — given that Belarusians find themselves in an exceptional situation in which the Lukashenko regime has banned the issuance and renewal of passports for Belarusian citizens residing outside the country. To support political prisoners. "As the delegation of democratic Belarus in PACE, we are committed to long-term and constructive cooperation with PACE. I believe that through our joint efforts we will return Belarus to the great European family of democratic peoples."

Pavel Latushka, Warsaw, 2026. Photo: Ruslan Seradzyuk Elections have always been and remain the principal source of democracy, and under the conditions of a totalitarian dictatorship inside the country, we have no right to abandon this unique instrument. It allows us to form a democratic institution through the votes of Belarusians, regardless of where we live, writes Pavel Latushka, Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet and leader of the electoral list in the elections to the Coordination Council, "Latushka Coalition and the ‘For Freedom’ Movement", in his address to the audience of Radio Svaboda. Source: svaboda.org We must not allow the process of democratic formation of our institutions to be interrupted precisely now, when there is a real threat to the future of the country and its independence. At the same time, it is important to understand that the legitimacy of the Coordination Council is determined not only by the number of people who voted, but also by the scope and scale of the tasks being carried out in the interests of Belarus and Belarusians, as well as by the reach of its activities across countries where Belarusians reside. Of course, the Coordination Council can and should be criticized for inefficiency, but at the same time we must not close our eyes to the fact that the Coordination Council is on the front line of pressure from all branches of the regime’s special services. The goal of the regime and its special services is absolutely obvious — to destroy the representative body of Belarusians. Are we really prepared to agree that our interests coincide with the interests of the regime, namely the depoliticization of society and the elimination of elections as a form of democratic expression? The answer, I believe, is more than obvious — no. And this answer is being given by the nine electoral lists and 172 candidates running in the elections to the parliament independent from Lukashenko’s dictatorship — the Coordination Council — who are assuming political responsibility and readiness to risk, if necessary, even their lives and health so that the collective voice of Belarusians may be heard. Today, we are effectively at war, where not only weapons are used, but also disinformation aimed at discreditation. Therefore, it is important for us to remain tolerant and thoughtful in our assessments, without allowing ourselves to speculate on narratives that are artificially created within the regime in order to demotivate us from continuing political struggle. Let us imagine an ideal scenario: one million Belarusians cast their votes in the elections to the Coordination Council. Would any international partner then dare to bypass our interests? Ignore them in relations with the regime that usurped power in our country? Of course not. Would this voice influence the internal political situation in Belarus? Undoubtedly yes. A real parliament — not the regime’s imitation parliament — is our genuine voice on the international stage. Let us look at what we have managed to achieve even with the 6,700 voters who cast their ballots for the third convocation of the Coordination Council in 2024. As of today, our representative body has been recognized by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, as well as by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, where our official delegations are active. This happened for the first time in the history of the democratic forces and, in fact, in the history of Belarus. The Coordination Council has also been recognized by the European Parliament and the Senate of Poland, while the 2024 elections were directly observed by members of the French National Assembly. In parallel, delegates of the Coordination Council conducted bilateral meetings with parliamentarians from dozens of democratic countries, during which the interests of Belarus and Belarusians — both inside and outside the country — were actively advocated. The Coordination Council has consistently lobbied for accountability of representatives of the Lukashenko regime, as well as for sanctions pressure aimed at securing the release of political prisoners. We succeeded in lobbying for a whole series of additions and amendments to resolutions of the European Parliament concerning sanctions pressure, accountability for torture against political prisoners, international criminal responsibility for crimes against humanity committed against the Belarusian people, and responsibility for aggression against Ukraine. Even a single amendment, achieved through the work of the Coordination Council delegation, to the resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the responsibility of Lukashenko and his accomplices for the act of aggression against Ukraine is sufficient reason for the Coordination Council to exist. Had we not been present in PACE, that amendment would not have existed either. A real parliament — not the regime’s imitation parliament — is our true voice on the international stage. It is important to emphasize that neither the House of Representatives nor the Council of the Republic could ever even imagine achieving what the Coordination Council accomplished in just one year and ten months of work. Moreover, the Coordination Council directly influences the activities of the United Transitional Cabinet: every Cabinet member first undergoes a vote confirming their mandate for appointment and subsequently reports to the Coordination Council on their work, while the Coordination Council also conducts votes of confidence. The results of this work are visible at the level of national parliaments of other countries as well. Both the Sejm and the Senate of Poland refused to recognize Lukashenko as president — and members of the Coordination Council also lobbied for this outcome. PACE likewise refused to recognize Lukashenko as president, which became the result of the work of our first-ever delegation to PACE. In turn, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe granted delegates of the Coordination Council the right to observe elections in the 46 member states of the Council of Europe. Let me emphasize: not to observe us, but for us to observe them — and this is a unique precedent. A special place in our work is occupied by the legalization of Belarusians abroad — something the Coordination Council works on daily and one of the issues that concerns voters outside Belarus most deeply. Constant and continuous lobbying is carried out during meetings with colleagues from the parliaments of dozens of democratic countries: Austria, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Canada, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, France, Croatia, Sweden, Estonia, and many others. Eighty voices united within one institution are a real force and a strengthening of our Belarusian voice. Of course, there are no instant solutions to all problems, nor can there be. Politics does not achieve all goals in a single day. Even a national parliament cannot force the government of another country to resolve all issues concerning foreign citizens during one meeting. This requires daily work, lobbying, and negotiation. We must not forget that every country has its own national interests. Speaking about the importance of the Coordination Council as an institution, it is worth remembering: a delegate who holds a mandate from voters is many times more effective than a self-appointed or self-proclaimed politician. These are democratic standards recognized within the European Union. Every partner country has its own internal issues, but when 80 delegates lobby for our interests, this is no longer the voice of one person, even if that person is the most famous and influential democratic politician of the country — Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. Eighty voices united within one institution are a real force and a strengthening of our Belarusian voice. The regime has always sought to eliminate genuine elections, transforming them into a formal calendar procedure for extending powers. But we cannot and have no right, as people who believe in democracy, to renounce its very essence, where the key words are “elections” and "choice". I would like to remind you that in a recent interview with the Russian propaganda channel RT, Lukashenko reflected on conducting a "reform of state governance using the experience of the old days" — meaning the Soviet past, where the Communist Party played the leading and decisive role. It is obvious that his main dream is to eliminate the institution of elections once and for all. He organically rejects the very fact that the president and deputies are elected positions, not lifelong privileges. These are offices to which the people appoint politicians by evaluating their proposals and their responsibility for implementing programs. That is precisely why we vitally need our own real representative body of Belarusians — the Coordination Council. Today, it is our only opportunity to maintain a democratic alternative to the authoritarian regime. In the same interview, the dictator complained: "Westerners recommended to us, first of all, multiparty politics, pluralism of opinions, and so on". He directly calls adherence to these recommendations a mistake. Lukashenko is deeply hostile to the very idea of a democratic path of development. He does not even hide that he deliberately led the country toward authoritarianism: “And when I became president, even without possessing the power I possess now, I began reforming the country. The foolish reforms were abolished in the harshest possible way". As a vivid illustration of how this system functions, I can recall a story from personal experience. After my return from France, where I served as ambassador, the then-chairman of the Council of the Republic proposed that I write a letter to the dictator requesting appointment to the upper chamber of Lukashenko’s parliament. This clearly demonstrates the true state of affairs: in Belarus, deputies of the House of Representatives and members of the Council of the Republic are not elected — they are effectively appointed from above. We, by contrast, propose a genuine democratic instrument — elections. After my return from France, the chairman of the Council of the Republic suggested that I write a letter to the dictator requesting appointment to the upper chamber of Lukashenko’s parliament. Today we have a unique opportunity to change this system. Let us vote! Let us together create a real alternative to appointed pseudo-parliamentary structures. Lukashenko does not have our support, but we must constantly reaffirm that he has no right to speak on our behalf. By electing our parliament — the Coordination Council — we preserve this right for Belarusians. Because if we dissolve the Coordination Council, then champagne — even Soviet champagne, perhaps especially Soviet champagne — will only be needed to celebrate new ranks for another group of lieutenant colonels and generals in Minsk. And the seats of the Coordination Council at negotiations in European capitals will be taken by Gaidukeviches, Gigins, and Azaronoks, who represent the interests of the regime, not those of Belarusians. And finally, last in order but not in importance: it is impossible to imagine discussions in a democratic society about abolishing parliamentarianism, even at the stage of its emergence. One can always speak about improving and strengthening parliamentarianism, but never about eliminating or dismantling it — that is the road to dictatorship.

Dainius Žalimas. Source: madeinvilnius.lt In connection with the coordinated information campaign aimed at discrediting Lithuanian Member of the European Parliament and former President of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania, Dainius Žalimas, through attacks against the activities of the Center for Law and Democracy "Justice Hub", I, Pavel Latushka, Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet, Head of the National Anti-Crisis Management (NAM), and Laureate of the Lech Wałęsa Award, state the following. Dainius Žalimas and the "Justice Hub"center previously headed by him have made one of the most significant contributions to advancing accountability for representatives of the Lukashenko regime for international crimes committed against Belarusians. The history of my personal cooperation with Mr. Žalimas began in 2021. In 2023, it was precisely thanks to the work organized and financed by "Justice Hub" that the first multilateral report on crimes against humanity in Belarus was prepared. It can confidently be stated that this was the first major expert document to directly substantiate the qualification of crimes against humanity in Belarus. Most importantly, the document provided a highly detailed description of the pathways toward justice, taking into account the available international and national legal mechanisms. On the occasion of the report’s release, "Justice Hub" organized a major international conference in Vilnius with the participation of distinguished international experts. Throughout 2022–2025, NAM worked in the closest possible cooperation with "Justice Hub", particularly within the framework of preparing the aforementioned report. It was precisely thanks to these joint efforts that an international community of like-minded experts was formed, capable of carrying out work that has today resulted in the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court opening an investigation into the "Belarus situation". In addition, "Justice Hub" directly contributed to the initiation in Lithuania of investigations into crimes of torture committed in Belarus on the basis of the principle of universal jurisdiction. There is no doubt that the current discrediting attack against Dainius Žalimas and the work of "Justice Hub" bears all the hallmarks of a coordinated information campaign conducted by the Belarusian and Russian special services. Why now? Because the work of "Justice Hub" and the personal contribution of Dainius Žalimas have now produced tangible results and brought closer the real accountability of the Lukashenko regime, as well as the restoration of the rights of hundreds of thousands of Belarusians. On March 12, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court launched an investigation into the "Belarus situation". At the same time, Dainius Žalimas has consistently defended the issues of international justice for Belarus, support for Ukraine, and the broader European vector at the European Parliament. It is precisely now that the Belarusian regime, together with the Belarusian and Russian special services, is systematically attacking everyone connected to the result we have achieved at the International Criminal Court.Dainius Žalimas, as a person who made a significant contribution, has become the target of one such attack. In this regard, I express my full solidarity and support personally, on behalf of the team of the National Anti-Crisis Management (NAM), and on behalf of the Belarusians whom I represent in the Coordination Council. I would like Belarusians to know that Dainius Žalimas was among the first to come to the aid of Belarusians who suffered from repression, and that his work has produced real results in the matter of protecting victims of international crimes. In the person of Dainius Žalimas, democratic Belarus has found a true friend and ally, for which I am sincerely grateful to him.

Coalition "Latushka and the Movement 'For Freedom'" Sitting in the gilded chairs of the Palace of Independence today is no easy task. For many ministers, directors, and officials of the vertical, these meetings have long since ceased to be strategy discussions and become psychological torture. You watch as the country's "chief economist," stuck in the methods of the last century, drags your enterprises and your careers into the abyss. But this year, each of you — and all Belarusians — has a real chance to change this scenario: from 11 to 17 May, elections to the Coordination Council will take place. This is currently the only legal and safe way to form an alternative to the dictatorship. While the dictator once again searches for someone to blame for his own failures, it is time to acknowledge: we cannot go on living like this. While you avert your eyes before the cameras at yet another pointless meeting, we will answer the questions put to you that you are afraid to answer truthfully. On 5 May, another act unfolded in the long-running drama known as "Dressing Down the Government." This time, the country's chief and irreplaceable economist gathered his loyal ministers and bankers to discuss, for the hundredth time, why his beloved projects — cement plants and agro-industrial complexes — are once again asking for money instead of generating it. Lukashenko traditionally assumed the role of a stern auditor "alarmed by the flood of requests for handouts." He posed four questions to the room about the survival of the industry — questions that officials, nervously glancing at the State Control Committee, are unlikely to answer honestly. For in this system, the truth is the shortest path to dismissal or pre-trial detention. Since the dictator will not receive objectivity from his entourage, we decided to assist Lukashenko and prepared the very answers that neither the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Ministers, nor the heads of the State Control Committee, nor representatives of the National Bank, nor a number of ministers and regional executive committee chairmen — who sit at these meetings with eyes cast down — will ever dare to speak aloud. This meeting is a classic example of "Groundhog Day" in the Belarusian economy. We see the same mise-en-scène again: the dictator reprimands officials for the fact that his own economic mega-projects have turned into bottomless budget pits. 1. What has the government already done for the development of the cement industry? In short: under the strict control and guidance of Lukashenko, it drove the industry into a Chinese credit trap. In 2007–2012, three cement plants — Krasnoselskstroymaterialy, the Belarusian Cement Plant, and Krichevtsementnoshifer — underwent forced modernisation financed by tied Chinese loans (over $1.2 billion). The plants acquired excess capacities that went unused and technologies that proved extremely energy-intensive. The trap lies in the fact that the loans must be repaid in foreign currency, while cement is sold primarily in roubles (domestically) or at dumping prices in Russia. Rising energy costs and exchange rate differentials turned these plants into financial zombies. Lukashenko created a system in which the plants were doomed to operate at a loss from the outset due to an unmanageable debt burden. Self-proclaimed President of Belarus Aleksander Lukashenko. Photo: Russian state media. 2. Will the enterprises be able to ensure stable and profitable operations if a positive decision on debt restructuring is taken? Even if the debts are forgiven or stretched over 20 years, the root causes of unprofitability will not disappear. The dictator continues to dictate prices on the domestic market, and all development decisions are made from above. In conditions where "the line is set by the President," economics is replaced by the task of regime survival. As long as an enterprise cannot independently determine its prices, markets, and workforce, no paper restructuring will make a plant efficient. 3. Will the plants themselves continue to modernise production to the required extent? Here we see classic negative selection. In Lukashenko's system, a director is a temporary manager whose primary task is to avoid imprisonment. Any economically sound decision — such as closing an unprofitable line or purchasing spare parts — may be interpreted as sabotage or corruption. And refusing a loss-making state order will immediately be construed as an abuse of authority. Real modernisation requires technology and capital. Managers have neither the resources nor the authority to carry out reforms. Their managerial courage ends where the Criminal Code or an instruction from Minsk begins. 4. Why can we not satisfy the domestic market with cement products? This is the most absurd paradox: there is an excess of capacity, yet there is a shortage of cement. This is the principal outcome of "wise" governance. Reason 1: The government demands foreign currency earnings from the plants. All quality cement goes for export, primarily to Russia, in order to service those same old debts. The domestic market is supplied on a residual basis. Reason 2: Shortage of raw materials and spare parts. Belarusian cement is heavily dependent on imported consumables. As soon as a Western component on a modernised Chinese line breaks down — production grinds to a halt. At this meeting, Lukashenko effectively acknowledged that the Turchin government, whatever it may be called — new or old — is timidly attempting to rescue the system through market crutches. But the dictator firmly cut off these attempts: "The President is the same. And the line is set by the President." This is a signal to the entire vertical: There will be no reforms. We will wring water from stone until the stone crumbles. His irritation at "handouts" is fear that the treasury is running dry and there is nothing left to feed the industrial giants. The cement meeting is an acknowledgement of the bankruptcy of the entire economic model. The dictator demands "to push on and work," but in a system where initiative is punishable and debts exceed revenues, this pushing leads to only one outcome — the final collapse of the industry under the weight of unpaid interest. This economic agony is the direct consequence of the usurpation of power. We address you — officials, enterprise managers, and business representatives who witness the inadequacy of the so-called "presidential line" every day.You have the opportunity to break this cycle of destruction without waiting for the final collapse of the country's independence. What can you do today? From 11 to 17 May, elections to the Coordination Council will take place. This is your chance to safely support those who offer a real path to saving Belarus. Coalition "Latushka and the Movement 'For Freedom'" We call upon you to find the strength to vote for list No. 9 — the Coalition "Latushka and the Movement 'For Freedom'". We must preserve and strengthen our democratic institutions so that the country has a legitimate foundation for replacing the dictatorship. The future of Belarus is hurtling toward the abyss — one cannot sit with folded hands. Vote.

Pavel Latushka: Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, Representative of the Cabinet for the Transition of Power, Head of the National Anti-Crisis Management, Leader of the "Latushka Team and the Movement 'For Freedom'" faction within the 3rd convocation of the Coordination Council Lukashenko's crimes did not begin yesterday, and they are not happening only today. They have been occurring practically from the very first years of the dictator Lukashenko's time in power. Today I would like to discuss with a very distinguished guest those events that continue to trouble many Belarusians to this day. The years 1999–2000, the disappearances of prominent politicians: Viktor Gonchar, Deputy Prime Minister and then Chairman of the Central Election Commission, and General Zakharenko, Minister of Internal Affairs of our country. These terrible crimes, for which accountability has still not been established, cannot simply remain in history. We must remember them when speaking of the responsibility of the Lukashenko regime for all the crimes it is committing today. I am meeting with Mr Günter Schirmer. He is one of the most distinguished lawyers — a German jurist and international official who for decades has been a "think tank" for legal initiatives within the Council of Europe. And, as you can see, we are recording this interview in the Council of Europe itself. He is often described as one of the principal architects of Europe's legal policy on human rights and international justice. Together with Christos Pourgourides, a member of parliament from Cyprus who was appointed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as rapporteur on the disappeared persons in Belarus, he visited Belarus during those years. And today I would like to put several questions to him in order to shed some light on the mysteries of those events. Pavel Latushka: Dear Mr Schirmer. You are rightly regarded as one of the principal architects of Europe's legal policy in the field of human rights and international justice. I would also like to sincerely thank you for agreeing to answer a number of questions that continue to trouble Belarusian society to this day. The events of 1999 and 2000 have still not been resolved. Final conclusions have never been drawn, and we still do not know what actually happened. You were among the international experts who attempted to investigate these cases. In particular, I would like to discuss the disappearances of prominent Belarusian figures: former Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the Central Election Commission Viktor Gonchar, and former Minister of Internal Affairs of Belarus, General Yuri Zakharenko. My first question, Mr Schirmer: how did you come to work with Christos Pourgourides? And when you began your work in the early 2000s, did you believe that you would actually be able to prove what had happened to Zakharenko, Gonchar, Krasovsky, and Zavadsky? Günter Schirmer: Well, first of all, you greatly exaggerate my role. Until my retirement last year, I was merely a staff member of the secretariat of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly. I came to join Christos Pourgourides's team because I had shortly before joined the group of lawyers and inherited this case from my predecessor — one of many cases handled by our small group. The job of a secretary is precisely to assist rapporteurs and parliamentarians in researching materials and preparing reports. I was proud and glad to work with Christos Pourgourides. He is a strong personality, a man of principle, and a firm defender of the truth. Did we believe that we would be able to prove who was responsible for these abductions and probable murders? It is not the role of the Parliamentary Assembly to act as a judge. We can gather clues, data, and facts. But we do not have the authority to issue judicial conclusions or verdicts. That is the prerogative of national and international courts dealing with such cases. However, at the time Belarus wanted the Council of Europe to unfreeze its "special guest" status in the Parliamentary Assembly, which could have been a step toward joining the Council of Europe. And one of the Assembly's conditions for considering this matter was permission to conduct a PACE investigation into the allegations — which had by then become public even within Belarus itself — concerning these high-profile disappearances. Mr Pourgourides replaced the then Russian member of our committee, Sergei Kovalev, founder of Memorial, whom the Belarusian authorities considered too biased and insufficiently objective. So by general agreement he was replaced by Christos Pourgourides. The Belarusian authorities probably underestimated Christos, who at that point was a relatively new and little-known member of the Assembly. Pavel Latushka: Mr Pourgourides has recounted that in Minsk, Lukashenko's agents followed you openly. Did you feel their surveillance? Did it hinder your work, or on the contrary, did it only confirm that you were getting very close to the truth? Günter Schirmer: Of course, there was an atmosphere of constant surveillance, especially electronic surveillance. And I felt it just as acutely as Christos did. It did not intimidate us to the point of ceasing our work, but we had to be far more cautious when meeting with unofficial interlocutors. Far more cautious. In a sense, this atmosphere only confirmed our suspicions: if the authorities behave in such a manner, it means they have something to hide. There was a very strange moment: on the day of meetings with officials, during lunch at the Hotel Minsk — which evidently belongs to the presidential administration — Pourgourides announced in the presence of ambassadors of Council of Europe member states that he had reached a preliminary conclusion that... And at that point the British ambassador pointed at the ceiling and said: "Be careful, we are most likely being listened to." Pavel Latushka: I understand. Günter Schirmer: Pourgourides then started again and said: "I want everyone listening right now — both those in this room and those outside it — to know: I have reached the preliminary conclusion that this country is run by a criminal gang." The ambassadors present in the room greeted these words with applause. And evidently the authorities heard it, because they cancelled all our meetings scheduled for the afternoon. Those meetings were not particularly important, but it was clear proof that we were being listened to. Pavel Latushka: Understood. You met with Sheiman, Naumov, and Pavluchenko — the men who were probably behind these murders. How did they react when you asked them directly about the disappearances? Did they appear confident that they would never be held accountable? Günter Schirmer: Pourgourides is a practising lawyer specialising in criminal cases. He asked very specific questions. Some of them our interlocutors had clearly prepared for in advance, and their answers were carefully coordinated — they all said the same thing. But there were questions they were not prepared for, and then they began to behave in quite an aggressive manner. For example, when Pourgourides asked Mr Sivakov, the former Minister of Internal Affairs, to explain why he had ordered the issue of an execution pistol on 7 May 1999. Sivakov produced a rather... well, let us say, a very carefully crafted but not particularly realistic explanation. Allegedly the pistol was taken for testing, to check whether the Belarusian method of carrying out the death penalty met European standards. Pavel Latushka: A humanitarian. Günter Schirmer: "Comparative research," they said. And we asked: "In comparison with which country?" For nowhere in Europe, except Belarus, is the death penalty still applied. In any case, that answer had been prepared. But then Pourgourides asked a second question: "And what about the second time the pistol was issued, in September of the same year — which again coincided with the disappearance of another victim?" And this time there was no prepared answer. Sivakov simply became angry and said: "Operational purposes, state secret, I cannot tell you." It was strange that he had not prepared for that. Pavel Latushka: A line of defence. Yes, I understand. Many dictators try to distance themselves from the crimes of their security forces, but Lukashenko openly dismissed the investigators working on these cases. In your view, was he protecting his people, or was he simply afraid they would talk and point directly at him? Günter Schirmer: I am sorry, but I cannot comment on that. I never met Lukashenko and cannot comment on his psychological profile or other motives. However, in the report you can find references to instances where Lukashenko spoke and acted in a very sharp manner. Thus he was personally involved in this matter, but it is impossible to say which of the two options you mentioned is correct. Both are possible, but we cannot speculate on this. Pavel Latushka: Thank you for that answer. Zakharenko was an influential figure in the security forces: a former Minister of Internal Affairs, a general, a very popular man in Belarus. Gonchar headed the Central Election Commission and was a deputy in the first independent parliament of Belarus. He was also an extremely popular politician. Why then did Lukashenko choose to kill them rather than imprison them, as he does today? We now see how many people in Belarus are behind bars for political reasons. Was he more afraid of losing power at that time? Günter Schirmer: Again, it is not for me to speculate, but Christos Pourgourides in fact stopped just one step short of directly accusing Lukashenko of ordering these murders. In the report by Lopatik — the head of the criminal police — it is noted that the relevant order came from Sheiman when he was still head of the presidential administration. Other sources told us that there was a certain meeting at which Lukashenko personally gave this order. But we were unable to speak with anyone who was allegedly present at that meeting, and we cannot work on the basis of rumour. That is why we — or rather, Pourgourides — decided not to complete the chain of evidence all the way to the top, to Lukashenko, since this was rumour rather than evidence that could withstand scrutiny in court. Of course, the people who were present could have become witnesses had they wished, but they were either ordered to remain silent or chose not to speak with us. In the end we had to stop at Sheiman and not proceed to the presidential level. Pavel Latushka: Mr Schirmer, when SOBR fighter Yuri Garavsky publicly confessed in 2019 to having participated in the executions, did you feel that your report had finally been confirmed by a living witness? And when a court in Switzerland acquitted him in 2023 — was that a failure of justice or simply a legal technicality? Günter Schirmer: Mr Pourgourides and I never encountered the name of Yuri Garavsky — only the name of the SOBR commander, Colonel Pavlichenko. And I cannot speculate as to why the Swiss court did not find Mr Garavsky's confession sufficiently convincing to deliver a guilty verdict. In Western courts, a confession alone is often insufficient for a conviction if there is no additional evidence that the person confessing possesses so-called "criminal knowledge" — that is, details of the crime that only the perpetrator could have known. That is probably what happened in this case: beyond the confession itself, there was simply insufficient evidence to find him guilty. And so he was acquitted. In proper courts, this is standard practice. Pavel Latushka: Today, here at PACE, a delegation of the Coordination Council is present — the representative body of the democratic forces and Belarusian society. We pay enormous attention to the situation with repression in our country. Repression in today's Belarus is even more severe than in 1999. The regime says: "These are matters of the distant past. Forget about them." But what is actually needed to bring these crimes before an international tribunal? Why does the Pourgourides report remain important in 2026? And do you personally believe that those responsible will face justice within our lifetime? Günter Schirmer: As for the last part of your question: I intend to live a long life, so — yes. Pavel Latushka: Thank you. That matters. Günter Schirmer: As for the statute of limitations: under the UN Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the limitation period only begins to run from the moment the fate of the disappeared person has been definitively established. As a rule, this occurs when a body is found. Moreover, in many jurisdictions — Germany, for example — murder may be prosecuted without any statute of limitations. Thus, a future international tribunal (or the founding states of such a tribunal) will be free to reach back into the past as far as it considers necessary. The Pourgourides report, in my view, remains relevant today, as it clearly demonstrates the true nature of the Lukashenko regime. And, as you rightly noted, the situation has not improved since then. So yes, the creation of an international tribunal is still possible, and the report can serve as important testimony to that very nature of the regime. The decision as to how far back into the past the tribunal's jurisdiction will extend will rest with its founders. There are even precedents for the creation of such tribunals without the approval of the UN Security Council — for example, the tribunal for Sierra Leone. So even a veto by Russia cannot save the Lukashenko regime from the creation of such a tribunal. Pavel Latushka: My final question, Mr Schirmer, and it will be a fairly extensive one. You are aware that the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is currently conducting investigations into crimes against humanity committed against the Belarusian people. On 12 March, the prosecutor opened a formal investigation into the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Belarusians from the country. My team has supported this investigation, and we are actively cooperating with the Ministry of Justice of Lithuania. At the same time, an investigation is under way into the fact that Lukashenko gave orders for the unlawful transfer of Ukrainian children from the occupied territories of Ukraine and their subsequent indoctrination in Belarus in the interests of the "Russian world." Our team has also submitted two official submissions with evidence to the ICC prosecutor's office. This case is under consideration at the ICC. Furthermore, a Special Tribunal on the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine is currently being established. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is playing an enormous role in its creation. As far as I am aware, you yourself have also been actively involved in this process. In this tribunal, Lukashenko is also at the centre of attention as the person who took the decision to make Belarusian territory available for the aggression against Ukraine. I, as a member of the democratic forces delegation at PACE, proposed the relevant amendment to a special PACE resolution. Do you consider it realistic that in the future Lukashenko and his accomplices will actually stand trial? Günter Schirmer: Well, there are two possibilities here. Either the regime falls, and a future democratic Belarus with a judicial system oriented toward human rights and the rule of law will do this work itself. I believe there is more than enough evidence to put Lukashenko and his henchmen on trial. Or, with sufficient political will on the part of the international community, a special tribunal can be created. From a legal standpoint, there are no obstacles. Whether that political will will be sufficient — given the need to confront Russian aggression against Ukraine and all the current geopolitical events that are diverting attention even from Europe as a whole — I do not know. I do not know exactly when this will happen, but legally the possibility exists. And even the fact that the "troika" of senior officials generally enjoys immunity from prosecution is not an obstacle. There are two precedents where this immunity did not apply. Immunity holds before the national courts of other states, but not before international tribunals duly established in accordance with international law. Pavel Latushka: Thank you very much, Mr Schirmer. I am grateful for your time and for your answers. Günter Schirmer: You are most welcome. Thank you.

Why is the economy built from the bottom up, not from the top down? Today many of us find ourselves outside Belarus. Many simply travel abroad from time to time, to Poland or Lithuania. But whether in Belarus or in forced emigration, we continue to seek real ways to influence the future of our country. One such step is the online elections to the Coordination Council, taking place from 11 to 17 May. This is an opportunity to vote for democratic representation and support the forces that consistently stand for freedom of private initiative — such as the coalition "Latushka and the Movement 'For Freedom'." For when we look at life around us, in neighbouring European countries, each of us notices one very simple, everyday, yet incredibly important detail. Imagine: you are driving along an ordinary Polish regional road — not a motorway, but a regional road passing through small towns and villages. What do you see out the window? You see life. Fences and facades are covered with dozens of signs: "Repairs," "Tyre fitting," "Seedlings for sale," "Tow truck services," "Fresh strawberries," "Building materials." Even in the deepest rural areas, economic activity is in full swing. People are producing things, selling things, offering their services directly. Now think of our Belarusian roads. Clean? Yes. Tidy? Quite. But… empty. Economically — empty. There is no such density of initiative, no such endless kaleidoscope of private micro-businesses. And here the main question arises: why? For years, Lukashenko's propaganda has drilled into us that we have a "special path," that our people are supposedly not inclined towards business, that Belarusians need a "strong manager" from above to organise everything and provide jobs. This is a lie. The difference between Poland and Belarus lies not in mentality. The difference lies in the structure of the system itself. And today I want to set out clearly why the Polish economic model of small and medium-sized business is what Belarus must aspire to. 1. How does the engine of the economy work? Illustrative photo In economics there is a concept known as the cumulative, or network, effect. And in Poland it operates at full capacity. What does this look like in practice? The more small entrepreneurs there are, the more they earn. The higher their incomes, the more they spend within their own region. The owner of a tyre-fitting shop goes to a private barber, the barber buys vegetables from a local farmer, the farmer hires a team of builders to repair his cowshed, and the builders go to a local café in the evening. This is a self-sustaining cycle. More initiative — more employment — more household income — more local demand, which generates new businesses. Money does not flow to the centre; it circulates "on the ground," enriching society. Why does this cycle not exist in Belarus? Because it presupposes freedom of action. And freedom, in any of its manifestations, is precisely what Lukashenko fears. The short answer: because of Lukashenko's cowardice and fears.The dictator is afraid that he will not be able to control and intimidate a large number of small initiatives. And like any pathologically cowardly person — especially one endowed with power — he either destroys everything or resorts to blackmail and threats. That is why we have critically few independent entrepreneurs. Employment is concentrated in large state-owned enterprises or the regime structures of Lukashenko's "wallet holders." People's incomes are extracted and redistributed through administrative channels: taxes go to Minsk, and from there officials decide who receives a subsidy. The density of transactions between private individuals is artificially suppressed. We have no economic "self-acceleration." 2. The right to make mistakes as an entrepreneur Illustrative photo. Source: money.onliner.by Let us look at how people start their own businesses. In Poland, since the 1990s, the bet was placed on private initiative. A "dense and porous market" was created — as economists call it. Entering business is easy. Flexible forms of self-employment exist; registration takes minimal time. The Polish authorities are not afraid of enterprising people — on the contrary, they support them in every way. The Polish market is also highly de-monopolised in many sectors, even in such strategic ones as transport and fuel. For example, in Belarus there are only a few large petrol station chains; in Poland there are dozens, with hundreds of individual small private stations belonging to no chain at all. In Belarus, this was also taking shape in the 1990s, but was quickly destroyed with Lukashenko's rise to power.Everything ended up in the hands of his inner circle. The reason is the same — Lukashenko's fear. He was afraid that enterprising citizens would acquire additional income and become independent of his dictatorial system, and so, in his cowardly view, he must control all income. But the most important thing is that in Poland the cost of failure is low. If you tried and it did not work out, you simply close the business. The state regulates the rules of the game but does not attempt to manage the structure of the market itself. And what is the cost of failure under Lukashenko? As a rule, there is only one cost — a prison sentence. Lukashenko's economy is an economy of rigid control. The state acts not as an arbiter but as a overseer and the main player. The cost of entering legal business is enormous, and the cost of exiting is even greater. Every micro-business lives in fear: inspectors will come, find a violation, "reclassify" your activity in such a way that you end up owing the state more than you have earned since opening. After 2020, the regime went after sole traders, the self-employed, online shops, rural guesthouses, craftspeople, tutors, minibus operators, and taxi drivers. The list of those they want to dispossess again goes on and on. Lukashenko has always had a pathological fear of them and continues to fear them. That is precisely why our roads do not have signs saying "Repairs and services." 3. Micro-business in rural life The image is for illustrative purposes only. Source: Lucas van Oort / Unsplash Let us return to those signs on fences. What we see in Poland is the consequence of a vast number of individual entrepreneurs in construction, logistics, and agricultural services. It is the result of intense competition for customers. People are accustomed to selling their goods and services directly, without intermediaries in the form of ministries or state conglomerates. In Belarus, a huge share of basic services is artificially "packaged" into large companies belonging to Lukashenko's "wallet holders" or state structures. This is especially visible in the countryside. The Polish village lives off farmers, their cooperatives, and thousands of private entrepreneurs who serve them. Around one farmer, mechanics, haulers, and builders all make a living. The village is economically active and independent. Houses in Polish villages can often make urban residents envious. Poles have no reason to all move to the capital, since even in the provinces one can earn a good living if one wishes. The Belarusian village, by contrast, is trapped within large and often loss-making agro-enterprises. Even private shops in the countryside are a rarity, let alone any more substantial businesses. Around agro-enterprises there is no network of independent contractors. The density of private initiatives in rural areas tends toward zero. And where there is no independent owner, the village slowly but surely dies, waiting for handouts from the budget. No amount of shouting and threats of imprisonment directed at officials and agricultural managers by Lukashenko changes anything. Moreover, everyone has long since understood that this is simply PR and theatre on the part of the dictator. 4. Do Belarusians prefer to work for someone else? The image is for illustrative purposes only. Source: euroradio.fm We hear that Belarusians more often prefer to be employees rather than entrepreneurs. Yes, this is true. But let us be honest: why? This is pure risk psychology, dictated by the dictatorship. In a stable market environment where the laws work equally for everyone and the courts protect property, people more readily try to start businesses. In a rigidly regulated environment where rules change retroactively and any success can become grounds for repression or the seizure of a business, people choose employment. Not because they cannot be entrepreneurs. But because they want to survive. Change the rules of the game, remove the truncheon of the inspecting authorities — and you will see how hundreds of thousands of Belarusians open their own workshops, cafés, IT start-ups, and logistics companies. But to change all of this, the first thing needed is to remove Lukashenko himself. What kind of country do we want to build? Coalition "Latushka and the Movement 'For Freedom'" People often say that these are simply different models. Poland is a market economy with a leading role for the private sector, while Belarus is a managed state system offering stability. We categorically disagree that these are "simply different models." For us, for the future of our nation, Lukashenko's model is a dead end. This model is good for one thing only: keeping power in the hands of a family and a narrow group of individuals who control all financial flows. A model with few small players, where everyone works for a monopolist, produces no economic growth. It gives people no independence. Those who depend on the state for their wages depend on it for their right to vote as well. The Polish model of small and medium-sized business is not just about money. It is about freedom and resilience.Many independent players means that the economy cannot be destroyed by a single decree. It means that people themselves bear responsibility for their own lives, themselves create the wealth of their region, themselves form the middle class — which is the foundation of any democracy — and themselves initiate the adoption or repeal of the legislation that governs their lives. We must aspire to this model. We must aspire to keep cowards out of power — those whose methods of governance consist of threats, blackmail, and fear. Our goal is to unleash the energy of the Belarusian people. To make starting a business as simple as paying a fine. To make the word "entrepreneur" once again a synonym for "creator," not "suspect." Once Belarus is free of Lukashenko and becomes truly free, once fair laws are established and property rights are guaranteed — our cities and villages will flourish. And one day, driving along a Belarusian regional road, we will see hundreds of signs belonging to free, successful, and independent people. People who are building the country's economy with their own hands. And this path to change begins with our actions today — however small — taken in solidarity. That is why it is important for us to use every platform and every legal instrument of pressure available. By voting in the online elections to the Coordination Council from 11 to 17 May, we are taking a real step toward building that independent, strong, and enterprising Belarus — where everyone can work honestly on their own land and look proudly toward the future.

Illustrative photo. Source: belinstitute.com During the night of 6 to 7 May 2026, a hacker attack was carried out against the Belarusian online library Kamunikat.org. The library's servers were simply wiped clean. They contained more than 70,000 various Belarusian publications — books, newspapers, magazines, audiobooks, video and audio materials about Belarus. This is yet another dark page in the Lukashenko regime's war against Belarusian identity. As part of its support for the work of the Office for National Revival of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, the National Anti-Crisis Management (NAM) recently published a brief review dedicated to the regime's policy of eradicating Belarusian culture and promoting the ideology of the "Russian world." This review was presented at the side event "How the Russian World Works: The Ideology and Practice of Hybrid Aggression against Europe" during the spring session of PACE in April 2026. What is this review about? The authors draw a chilling parallel: what is happening in Belarus after 2020 essentially replicates the processes taking place in the occupied territories of Ukraine, but on a more concealed scale. This is a systematic effort to replace Belarusian identity with a "Russian world" narrative. The main fronts of this "battle": Banning literature: Books by classical and contemporary authors have been added to the list of "extremist materials." Leading independent publishing houses have been liquidated. War on history: Monuments to national heroes are being dismantled while monuments to Russian figures such as Alexander Nevsky are being erected in their place. Repression in culture: Attacks on cultural projects, the closure of exhibitions and festivals, and the Russification of theatres. Assault on the Belarusian vision of the past and present: Persecution of editors of the Belarusian Wikipedia and the introduction of "unified history textbooks" jointly with Russia. Suppression of the language: In 1994, 58% of Minsk first-graders were taught in the Belarusian language; this figure has now fallen to a critical 5%. How does the mechanism of destruction work? The process is triggered through denunciations by pro-Russian "pseudo-activists" and is then taken up by propagandists and security forces. What is to be done? The report offers not only a diagnosis but also a rescue plan: — Creation of an online national education system accredited in the EU. — Large-scale digitisation of archives and libraries on secured servers. — Support for cultural figures and language schools in the diaspora. Belarusian identity is the principal barrier to the country's absorption. To preserve it is to preserve the chance of an independent future. The full text of the report is available at the link below.

Artsiom Brukhan, Adam Michnik, Pavel Latushka. Warsaw, 2026. Photo: NAM Media Poland's historical experience of overcoming a deep domestic and foreign policy crisis in 1989 was discussed during a meeting between Coordination Council delegate and leader of our coalition Pavel Latushka and CR Speaker Artsiom Brukhan with one of the leaders of the Polish "Solidarity" movement and Editor-in-Chief of Gazeta Wyborcza, Adam Michnik. Adam Michnik expressed his readiness to provide comprehensive support to the democratic forces of Belarus with the aim of changing the situation in our country. A special place in the course of the meeting was devoted to the discussion of Poland's historical experience. Adam Michnik, who was one of the architects and participants of the "Round Table" negotiations in 1989 on behalf of the independent trade union "Solidarity," shared his vision of the transformation of the political system. During the meeting, a possible scenario and the conditions that could lead to the convening of a "Round Table" as a way out of the crisis in Belarus were discussed. In the course of the conversation, Pavel Latushka and Artsem Brukhan informed Adam Michnik about the progress of the election campaign to the Coordination Council, the elections to which are scheduled to take place from 11 to 17 May. Adam Michnik noted the importance of proactive action on the part of the democratic forces and the public, the necessity of not ceasing the struggle in order to achieve the main goal — the freedom of the Belarusian people. He also emphasised the great role of the elections to the Coordination Council in this process.

Pavel Latushka. Warsaw, 2026 "You need to be Belarusians. Be Belarusians — that is what would be needed," said Pavel Latushka, Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet and delegate of the Coordination Council, responding to a moderator's question about what Belarusians can do to support democratic forces, during the discussion panel "Political Advocacy: Challenges and Opportunities" at the 5th Conference of Belarusians of the World. "As a Belarusian politician, it is strange for me to say what Belarusians can do to help us. While still serving as Minister of Culture, I initiated the adoption of the law 'On Belarusians Abroad.' And I am proud of that. I was the first chairman of the Advisory Council of Belarusians Abroad as Minister of Culture, and I developed the support programme for Belarusians living abroad. I recall that at the time we managed to increase funding for Belarusians residing abroad tenfold. And today I am no longer a member of the Government in Belarus, but a representative of the executive body — the United Transitional Cabinet — and I should rather be concerned with what I can do for Belarusians. We have a unique infrastructure; the democratic movement of Belarus has never had what we have today. We have the Office of the President-elect, the executive body — the United Transitional Cabinet, the Coordination Council, elected by Belarusians. And this Coordination Council is recognised by international partners — the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, Euronest, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Senate of Poland — and this uniqueness can be sustained exclusively through elections, through the votes of Belarusians." During the discussion, Pavel Latushka also called for strengthening institutions: "Let us imagine an idealistic scenario: elections take place on 11–17 May. I will say at once that this is a dream, but what if one million people voted for the Council. Can you imagine what mandate it would have when communicating with our partners?" Pavel Latushka stressed that in such a case it would be hard to imagine our partners beginning to engage with the regime without taking the voice of Belarusians into account. During the discussion, Pavel Latushka noted the demand among international partners for the expertise of Belarusian democratic forces on the situation in Belarus. As an example, he mentioned that regular meetings are held with European analytical centres. NAM has prepared reports such as "The Lukashenko Regime's Systemic Preparation for a Possible Entry into the War on the Side of Russia and Recommendations for Preventing This Scenario," "The Union State as a Tool for Concealing Russia's Imperial Policy," and "The Battle for Belarus: The Lukashenko Regime's Systemic Policy of Destroying Belarusian Identity and Promoting the 'Russian World,'" which have been in demand in expert circles. Pavel Latushka shared important achievements of the CR delegation at PACE, emphasising that PACE did not recognise the presidential elections of 2025, but Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, the United Transitional Cabinet, and the Coordination Council were recognised — this is reflected in the fundamental political resolutions. "Amendments were introduced by the CR delegation at PACE to resolutions establishing that Lukashenko bears responsibility for committing an act of aggression against Ukraine, as well as amendments related to the unlawful transfer of Ukrainian children. Our expert reports by NAM and their legal substantiation assisted in the adoption of a number of PACE resolutions. A report on transnational crimes is currently being prepared and, regrettably, the Belarusian community abroad is among the 'leaders' in terms of persecution. The rapporteur will likely include this in the report: what mass crimes are being committed against Belarusians, and a corresponding resolution will follow in due course. And this assists us in criminal court proceedings to hold Lukashenko accountable."

Ireland's Ambassador to Poland Patrick Gerard, Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet, Coordination Council delegate, Head of the National Anti-Crisis Management Pavel Latushka The situation regarding the release of political prisoners in Belarus, as well as the continued repression by the regime, were discussed during a meeting between the Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet and Coordination Council delegate Pavel Latushka and Ireland's Ambassador to Poland, Patrick Gerard. During the meeting, Pavel Latushka specifically emphasized the importance of releasing Andrzej Poczobut, the leader of the Polish minority in Belarus, while noting that the regime continues its repression in Belarus without pause. As examples, he cited the detentions and arrests of Belarusian women in Navapolatsk, Slonim, Brest, and other cities across the country. The Deputy Head of the Cabinet expressed support for the efforts of the United States of America to secure the release of political prisoners, while simultaneously emphasizing the necessity of halting repression in Belarus and the practice of a "conveyor belt" of detentions in exchange for the release of groups of political prisoners. Pavel Latushka also addressed a request to the Ambassador of Ireland — which assumes the Presidency of the European Union from 1 July of this year — to continue pressure on the Lukashenko regime with the aim of achieving not cosmetic but real changes in Belarus. The necessity of compelling the regime to engage in national dialogue was also underscored, in accordance with the EU conclusions of 19 February 2024. In addition, Pavel Latushka informed the Ambassador about the preparations for the elections to the Coordination Council of Belarus, to be held from 11 to 17 May. The Ambassador expressed support and emphasized the importance of the Coordination Council functioning as a representative elected body of Belarusians. During the meeting, Patrick Gerard was presented with requests to hold consultations regarding Ireland's possible accession to the ICC investigation into the "Belarusian situation," opened on 12 March, as well as regarding other international justice instruments. Patrick Gerard noted that during Ireland's EU Presidency, the key priorities will be the protection of human rights and ensuring accountability for crimes committed. At the close of the meeting, the Irish representative was presented with a joint report by NAM and BELPOL on the militarization of Belarusian children in Belarus.

Pavel Latushko. Warsaw, 2026. Photo: NAM-media We are living in unprecedented times. More than five years of the most grueling struggle have passed since 2020, and today we face a new — and perhaps the most insidious — test. It is not new threats or new articles of the criminal code. It is a test of our political will and our memory. The regime and its hidden lobbyists have launched a large-scale demoralization campaign. They are trying to infect us with the virus of "pragmatic capitulation," disguising it as concern for people. Today I want to break down this hybrid trap in detail, step by step. I will name seven key myths — seven poisoned narratives that are being actively planted right now into the minds of Belarusians and even into the offices of European politicians. Our task is to expose this anatomy of lies. Myth 1. "Pressure harms the people, not the regime" A. Lukashenko. Source: times.by Day after day we are told: "Your sanctions are hitting ordinary Belarusians! People are suffering, they cannot get visas, they cannot travel to Europe. You are fighting not Lukashenko, but Belarus." This is a brazen attempt to shift responsibility from the executioner onto those who are trying to stop the violence. It is not the sanctions of the democratic world that imprison people for internet comments. It is not we who cancel consular services abroad, stripping Belarusians of their passports. It is not we who close borders, artificially creating migration crises and turning the country into a military staging ground. Western pressure is a response to Lukashenko's terror. Those who claim that lifting sanctions will ease the lives of the people are lying. Lifting pressure without political concessions from the dictatorship will only fund the repressive apparatus. The dictator will receive money to continue his aggressive policies, while Belarusians will remain in the same prison — only with the illusion of an open window. Myth 2. "Negotiations and dialogue are more effective than pressure" Protests in Minsk, 2020. Photo: AP The second narrative flows smoothly from the first: "Look — talks with Lukashenko yield more results than years of your uncompromising struggle abroad. There is an alternative, and it works!" We are asked to believe that the dictatorship has suddenly become open to negotiation. But let us be honest: what is being sold to us as "pragmatic agreements" is blackmail. The regime artificially creates a crisis — seizes political prisoners, drives migrants to EU borders, rattles weapons — and then demands political and economic concessions in exchange for temporarily lowering the level of madness. The artificial juxtaposition of "effective negotiations" against "useless pressure" is a classic technique to reduce our actual strategy — pressure plus negotiations — to a caricature and discredit it. Dialogue with a terrorist holding a gun to a hostage's head is not diplomacy. Fully legitimizing a strategy of negotiations without pressure only convinces the regime that blackmail works — which is precisely why pressure is a necessary precondition for any negotiations with the regime. We are not saying that pressure is purposeless or aimed at abstract outcomes such as the regime spontaneously collapsing under the weight of sanctions, as our opponents attempt — by substituting concepts — to put in our mouths. Pressure has a concrete goal: a complete change of policy on the part of the regime, and as a result, a Round Table between representatives of the democratic part of society and representatives of the regime, to be followed by genuine political change. Moreover, former political prisoners themselves refute the claim that pressure is useless. Upon leaving the regime's dungeons, one after another they say they were freed precisely because of sanctions. Their freedom was exchanged for the sanctions that we systematically worked to secure. Myth 3. "Humanitarian logic supersedes political logic" "Path to Freedom" rally, dedicated to the Day of Political Prisoners. Warsaw, Poland. 18 May 2025. Photo: Raul Duke / Belsat This is the most painful and cynical argument. We are told: "Human fates matter more than political status. One must negotiate with the devil on any terms, as long as people are released." Every political prisoner who walks free is cause for immense joy. We fight with all our strength for their salvation. But the substitution of concepts here lies in the attempt to shift the conflict from the political plane to the humanitarian one. We are being invited to play by the captor's rules: The regime takes thousands of innocent people hostage. Then it "graciously" releases hundreds in exchange for the easing of sanctions or recognition. Meanwhile, the repression machine does not stop for a single moment, accumulating a new "exchange fund." If we accept this logic, we will be held hostage forever. The true humanitarian solution is to break the repression machine itself, to restore law and justice — not to buy freedom tickets for the chosen few. Without stopping the carousel of arrests, releases, and new arrests, we will achieve no qualitative change in the situation. Myth 4. "Concrete cases of release matter more than systemic pressure" Pavel Latushka (left) greets Viktor Babariko in Warsaw, Poland, 18 December 2025. Photo: "Zerkalo" We are told: "More people have been freed through a few months of behind-the-scenes maneuvering than through years of your struggle abroad!" The emphasis is placed on targeted, short-term results as opposed to a long-term strategy, which is declared ineffective and failed — and the struggle itself dismissed as fictitious and not genuine. This is a classic manipulation. Focusing on the regime's tactical concessions — such as the release of several prominent figures or a partial amnesty — forces us to close our eyes to a catastrophic reality. While we applaud targeted releases, the country continues to destroy the remnants of civil society, rewrite history, surrender sovereignty, and build the foundations of totalitarianism in Belarus. Furthermore, even those who have been freed are not rehabilitated. Political prisoners are expelled from the country en masse, without the right to return, without amnesty — and in some cases new criminal cases are opened against them in Belarus. Abandoning systemic pressure in favor of short-term deals is a betrayal of those who remain in prison and of those who dream of a free Belarus — not an endless cycle of arrests and ransoms. Myth 5. "Normalization is inevitable; the thaw is already on the horizon" "Will they come for everyone?" / LookByMedia. Source: euroradio.fm In the speeches of so-called "pragmatists," we see an attempt to create a sense of predetermination: "Europe is tired. Everyone will return to working relations regardless. Isolation is temporary". This narrative is designed to break our resistance. We are being made to feel that the struggle is lost, and that we must hurry to take a seat at the negotiating table on the dictator's terms. But this "thaw" exists only in the minds of those who wish to preserve their status quo at any cost. There is nothing inevitable about forgiving crimes against humanity. Our task is to remind the world that "business as usual" with a regime that is complicit in war and terrorizes its own people is simply not possible. Myth 6. "External third-party forces are obstructing our reconciliation" The Palace of Culture and Science illuminated in white-red-white. Warsaw, Poland. 9 August 2025. Photo: Raul Duke / Belsat When "pragmatic dialogue" falters, the regime's lobbyists need someone to blame. And so accusations are leveled at third countries. It is claimed, for instance, that "Ukraine is deliberately running information operations to prevent Belarus from reconciling with the West." This is not merely a lie — it is a carbon copy of Russian and Lukashenko propaganda. It is not Ukraine's fault — Ukraine, whose cities were struck by missiles launched from our soil. It is not the fault of EU member state governments, which are trying to protect their borders from hybrid attacks. The fault lies exclusively with the regime, which has turned Belarus into a source of regional instability. To attribute the lack of progress in relations with Europe to the "interference of third parties" is to refuse to acknowledge the root of the problem: dictatorship is incompatible with mutually beneficial, peaceful neighborliness. Europe became peaceful and united only when it rid itself of dictatorial regimes from its war-ravaged body. Myth 7. "Democratic forces and advocates of pressure are out-of-touch lunatics" Pavel Latushka. Warsaw, 2026. And finally, to clear the path to capitulation once and for all, those who hold principled positions must be discredited. We are called "figures detached from reality," for whom "the preservation of their own status matters more than people." We are being portrayed as radicals simply because we refuse to call black white. Is it madness to demand the withdrawal of foreign troops from our territory? Is it irrational to insist on the release of ALL political prisoners and the complete cessation of repression? Is it politicking to say that without free and fair elections there will be neither stability nor sovereignty? This is not radicalism. It is the only healthy, politically mature way of seeing things. Those who accuse us of "unwillingness to see the benefits" actually want to make themselves comfortable in a prison cell — not for themselves, of course. We, on the other hand, want to demolish the prison itself. Our Strategy: Consistency and Principle One must not allow oneself to be deceived. All of these narratives are links in a single chain, whose purpose is to make us surrender — to convince the world that the regime has become "normal" and amenable to negotiation, that it is genuinely making concessions, and to sell our freedom in exchange for a promise of illusory stability. What do we set against this deception? Smart and firm pressure. Sanctions must strike at the pillars of the regime — its beneficiaries, and the enterprises that sponsor war and terror. At the same time, we must demand from Europe maximum support for Belarusian mobility: visa issuance, scholarships, support for independent media and business. We distinguish between the regime and the people. We have never proposed, and do not propose, measures directed against Belarusian society or Belarusian citizens. Rejection of endless hostage trading. The basic condition for any negotiations on large-scale sanctions relief is the full release and rehabilitation of all political prisoners and the complete cessation of repression. Defense of sovereignty. No "thawing" of relations is possible as long as Belarus remains under Russia's creeping occupation and is a direct accomplice in aggression against its neighbors. We understand the exhaustion of society. But capitulation will bring no relief — it will bring only new repression, occurring in silence, with the tacit consent of a "pragmatic" world. We harbor no illusions: the road to a normal, free Belarus has turned out to be a marathon, not a sprint. For a long time we were told that it was a dead end. But we simply stopped watching the clock and listening to "pragmatic" advisers, and instead began to read the map more carefully. And we will not leave the route until we get home.