In an interview with the "Ordinary Morning" channel, NAM Legal Advisor Mikhail Kirilyuk discusses the prosecutor's office's initiatives to tighten parents' responsibility for their children's offenses The current administrative code already establishes parental responsibility for such offenses. However, the proposed criminal liability is indeed an "innovation." It is crucial to consider the potential aspect of political intimidation that these new measures could be used for. Why are these changes being introduced? Is there a significant increase in child crime in Belarus? There is no evidence to support such a claim. Who are the individuals that believe we have such a problem in our country and that it requires separate legislation? These individuals are prosecutors who have not been elected by the people. The issue lies in the absence of a parliament that represents the choices of the population. This is the problem at hand. What can we anticipate from this legislation? In terms of law enforcement practices, we should not expect any fundamentally new strategies, as the overall situation regarding laws in Belarus remains unchanged. The OSCE report in 2020 characterized Belarus as having a legal default, and that situation has not been rectified yet

Pavel Latushka, deputy head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, head of the National Anti-Crisis Management gave a welcome speech at the solemn event commemorating Freedom Day - the 106th anniversary of the proclamation of the Belarusian People's Republic. "Belarus has its heroes: heroes fighting in Ukraine, Belarusian partisans, and unfortunately, heroes imprisoned. The majority of Belarusians yearn for freedom and democracy. They desire independence and continue to fight for it," noted Pavel Latushka. The event took place on March 21, 2024, at the Free Belarus Museum in Warsaw. Video messages were also delivered by Ivonka Survilla, Chairman of the Council of the Belarusian People's Republic, and Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus. Representatives from the Office of the President of Poland, the Polish Sejm and Senate, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland, including directors of contractual and legal and consular departments, as well as representatives from the Ministries of Culture, Internal Affairs, Justice, and Sports, attended the event. Ambassadors from Austria, Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, France, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, Estonia, Norway, Ireland, Moldova, and diplomats from other countries, along with a representative from the government of Flanders, were also present. In the congratulatory speech by Piotr Zgorzelski, Vice-Marshal of the Polish Sejm, the shared history of the Belarusian and Polish European peoples and Poland's continued support in the struggle for a free and independent Belarus were highlighted. Krzysztof Śmiszek, First Deputy Minister of Justice of Poland, expressed the Polish authorities' support for the democratic choice of the Belarusian society in his speech at the ceremony. Representatives from independent Belarusian and foreign media, including Belsat, Financial Times, Rzeczpospolita, Radio Racyja, and TVP World, participated in the event. The event brought together members of the Belarusian diaspora, the Belarusian ethnic minority, democratic forces, social activists, and leaders of Belarusian initiatives. Representatives from the Council of the Belarusian People's Republic, members of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, the Coordination Council, associations of Belarusian security forces ByPol and BelPol, the Belarusian Council of Culture, the association of Belarusian political prisoners "To Freedom," and “Partyzanka” were also in attendance. The cultural program of the celebration included a fragment from the show "Words from behind bars" by the theater troupe "Volnyja Kupalaucy," featuring Honoured actress of Belarus Zoya Belakhvostsik, Aleh Harbuz, Siarhei Chub, and Kryscina Drobysh. The Concordia choir, under the direction of artistic director and conductor Halina Kazimirouskaya, and the Warsaw Free Orchestra also performed. The event included the opening of the REVISION 30 photo exhibition by Siarhei and Dzmitriy Brushko, father and son, who documented Belarus's journey of change over the past 30 years. Lawyer Anna Matsieuskaya donated artworks by Yury Stylski, Anton Radzivonau, and Yana Shostak to the Free Belarus Museum. "Today, by celebrating the state holiday of Belarus, not legally but in practice, we must recognize the historical parallel in which Belarus and the Belarusian people find themselves. True nations are forged through trials. We, Belarusians, must fulfill our historical duty. Now is our time to determine the fate of Belarus. We must save our country. It is our responsibility. And we will return, we will undoubtedly return to a free and independent Belarus," emphasized Pavel Latushka during the event. This event was solely financed by the patrons of the Free Belarus Museum.

Pavel Latushka: Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, Head of the National Anti-Crisis Management, Ambassador Today, on March 18, prior to the EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting, which included a discussion on the situation in Belarus, Latvian Foreign Minister Krišjānis Kariņš  made a statement suggesting that sanctions against the Lukashenko regime should be aligned with those imposed on Russia. In other words, the sanctions applied to Russia should be fully applied to the Lukashenko regime to prevent any circumvention. The minister justified this by citing "Russia's complete effective control over Belarus." Personally, as a Belarusian politician, I find the wording quite harsh and unpleasant. It would be more accurate, in my opinion, to describe the situation as a serious threat to the sovereignty and independence of Belarus due to Russian influence. However, it is important to acknowledge that the fact that Belarus provided its territory for an attack on Ukraine and the so-called "integration agreements" does indicate that military control over Belarus is exerted to a greater extent by the Kremlin than by Minsk. Additionally, in several key areas of life and the country's economy, Russia's control is increasing due to the actions of the Lukashenko regime. The longer this regime remains in power, the higher the risks become for Belarus to find itself in the exact situation described by the Latvian minister. As Belarusians, we must not allow this under any circumstances. Regarding the minister's remarks, it should be noted that the already failed foreign policy of the Lukashenko regime has suffered another setback. No matter how much the dictator tries to assert his sovereignty in decision-making or hopes to be seen as legitimate or at least independent, the words of the head of the Latvian Foreign Ministry completely undermine those hopes. Lukashenko is a failed politician, a puppet at the beck and call of the Kremlin. Unfortunately, by losing its political autonomy, the Lukashenko regime is eroding the sovereignty of our state, the Republic of Belarus. Therefore, the sooner our country rids itself of this figure, the sooner we, as Belarusians, can free ourselves from Russian control and fully restore our sovereignty and independence. This will also contribute to Ukraine's victory. One of the most crucial steps on this path is to eliminate opportunities for Russia to bypass sanctions through Belarus, a topic that high-level Western politicians are increasingly discussing. This is why the synchronization (or harmonization) of sanctions is necessary, along with a ban on the transit of sanctioned goods through our country. The cost of war for Russia should be maximized, and aggression should not be fueled by resources coming from outside. Simultaneously, the puppet regime of Lukashenko should lose the resources necessary to support the war and its own existence. Of course, sanctions alone cannot win a war, and they may not be sufficient to remove the Lukashenko regime. However, they are an important tool that should be used effectively. Western partners must also demonstrate political will and provide Ukraine with all the necessary support to defeat the aggressor. Resistance within Belarus, at all levels, including grassroots movements, is crucial. Both we, as Belarusians, and our partners in the West and Ukraine need to understand that Belarus without Lukashenko means Belarus without Russia, and therefore without a threat to its existence or its neighbors, including Ukraine, Lithuania, Poland, and Latvia. I am confident that this is what we all aspire to see in Belarus—a Belarus where Belarusians can find agreement among themselves and with their neighbors, all without the presence of Lukashenko.

Pavel Latushka: Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, Head of the National Anti-Crisis Management, Ambassador The regime of Lukashenko places significant emphasis on the ideological indoctrination of children, both in Belarus and Ukraine. Since the initiation of Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine, the NAM team has been diligently gathering evidence indicating that Lukashenko and his accomplices have committed a war crime by illegally transporting Ukrainian children, including orphans, from Ukrainian territories temporarily occupied by Russia to Belarus The NAM team has already obtained personal information regarding dozens of Ukrainian children who were unlawfully taken from Ukrainian territory. According to our data, over 3,000 Ukrainian children were taken from more than 20 occupied cities and towns in Ukraine and transported to Belarus. During the illegal transportation and residence of Ukrainian children in Belarus, the Lukashenko regime implemented a re-education program disguised as a so-called "rehabilitation program" at the Dubrava camp. This program involved interactions with representatives from the self-proclaimed "Union State," the Lukashenko regime, the Russian Orthodox Church, the "Night Valkyries" and "Night Wolves" motorcycle clubs, as well as members of the Belarusian National Youth Union and propagandists. Furthermore, based on photographs published by Lukashenko's propagandists, it is evident that the children are being taught basic weapon handling skills. The evidence collected indicates that the children were subjected to a program of activities that included elements of political re-education, particularly anti-Ukrainian, pro-Lukashenko, and pro-Kremlin ideologies. It is crucial that during the discussion on the report concerning the situation in Belarus by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the representative of Ukraine emphasized that "the deportation of children to Belarus constitutes a war crime." This discussion took place in Geneva a few days ago as part of a session of the UN Human Rights Council. NAM acknowledges the significance of the official positions expressed by Ukraine, other countries, and international organizations regarding the issue of the illegal transportation of Ukrainian children, as well as their indoctrination and re-education within the territory of Belarus. We will continue our efforts to collect evidence and subsequently submit it to the Office of the ICC Prosecutor and the Ukrainian authorities in order to hold Lukashenko accountable for the war crime he has committed.

Sectoral sanctions on Belshina products continue to apply The EU Court of Justice has lifted the blocking sanctions on Belshina OJSC, based on its decision. What does this mean and should we be concerned? “The removal of EU blocking sanctions from the company does not fundamentally change the overall sanctions mechanism regarding the Lukashenko regime. Despite the lifting of sanctions on the enterprise itself, Belshina OJSC's products, particularly rubber tires (HS code 4011), remain subject to EU sectoral sanctions,” Pavel Latushka stated. In other words, the sanctions have been removed from the company as an entity, but not from its products. Belshina OJSC is still under sanctions from the USA, Japan, Switzerland, and Ukraine. It is definitely surprising that the EU Council did not provide the Court of Justice with “sufficient concrete evidence to support the allegation that the company dismissed employees who participated in protests and strikes following the 2020 presidential elections in Belarus”. However, the court decision itself does not deny the occurrence of repression, contrary to how some sources interpret it. Unfortunately, the defendant (EU Council) simply couldn't provide evidence capable of confirming the content of press articles regarding employee dismissals at Belshina OJSC or refute the information presented in the dismissal acts by the company's management.

We express our gratitude to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) for its attention to the situation in Belarus and its significant efforts in documenting the crimes committed by the Lukashenko regime against civilians. It is of utmost importance that acts of violence, including persecution, are increasingly referred to by their proper name and recognized as crimes against humanity. NAM has thoroughly reviewed the latest report from OHCHR and believes that certain crucial crimes committed by the regime have not received sufficient attention. Failure to acknowledge these crimes may result in victims being denied fair justice. It is important to note that a significant number of Belarusians have been forced to flee the country due to fear of reprisals based on political persecution. The scale of the situation and the number of Belarusians who have been compelled to leave their country are critical matters that are not adequately addressed in the OHCHR report. Following the precedent set by the International Criminal Court (ICC), the circumstances created by the regime that force citizens to leave Belarus could be classified as crimes against humanity in the form of deportation. It appears that the Office of the  ICC Prosecutor could potentially establish jurisdiction to investigate a situation involving the possible commission of a crime against humanity, specifically the deportation of the civilian population of Belarus to countries that are signatories to the Rome Statute. NAM expresses concerns that the failure to mention this violation may contribute to the denial of this phenomenon as a crime against humanity. Comprehensive documentation of the regime's crimes is necessary to facilitate the possibility of holding the perpetrators accountable. Therefore, we will continue to collect and analyze information regarding the atrocities committed by Lukashenko and his accomplices.

The illegal movement of Ukrainian children to Belarus has become the focal point of discussion at the UN Human Rights Council "The deportation of children to Belarus is a war crime," stated the representative of Ukraine during a hearing on the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights titled "The situation of human rights in Belarus in the run-up to and after the 2020 presidential elections." The report is currently under discussion in Geneva as part of a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council. In the latter part of last year, NAM actively took steps to collect and transmit information regarding Lukashenko's crimes to the Ukrainian authorities. Additionally, this information was communicated to partner countries and international organizations through bilateral meetings, multilateral forums, and presentations in the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, as well as the OSCE and the UN. The issue of the illegal transfer of Ukrainian children to Belarus was also raised by representatives from Poland, Bulgaria, Montenegro, and several other countries. Human Rights Watch, a human rights organization, also highlighted that open-source data suggests the involvement of Belarusian authorities in the illegal transfer of 2,000 children to Belarus. NAM emphasizes the significance of presenting the official stance of Ukraine, partner countries, and international organizations regarding the illegal deportation of Ukrainian children, their indoctrination, and re-education within the territory of Belarus. In June and November 2023, NAM submitted two sets of communications to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, providing evidence of Lukashenko's and his accomplices' involvement in this war crime. NAM continues to work diligently in collecting evidence and subsequently sharing it with the ICC, Ukrainian authorities, and partner countries with the aim of bringing Lukashenko to justice for the committed war crime.

Pavel Latushka: Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, Head of the National Anti-Crisis Management, Ambassador Some may argue that Putin's elections (and expecting anything else would be strange) passed almost unnoticed and calmly, much like the "single voting day" in Belarus. There was no significant protest mobilization or societal activity, no serious resistance, and so on. In this sense, both events appear similar. However, there is a significant difference. The actual boycott of the so-called "single voting day" in Belarus on February 25 occurred after 2020, when Belarusians had already demonstrated what they stand for and fight for. Hundreds of thousands (up to a million) of people took to the streets across the country (up to half a million in Minsk). This boycott took place amidst 3.5 years of continuous mass repression, following the anti-war protests and partisan actions in 2022. Despite the dangerous conditions and the height of terror, the Belarusians did not relent and showed through their actions that they are against the war that Lukashenko has dragged Belarus into. Therefore, the boycott of the so-called "single voting day", where the Lukashenko regime attempted to corral people and present it as a monumental event for Belarus, is also a form of protest, taking into account the internal context of Belarus and the situation of mass terror. In Russia, the elections took place with virtually no visible opposition or disagreement from society. Compared to Belarus, the conditions were relatively safe (the level of repression and corresponding threats and risks for citizens expressing protest in our country and in Russia are incomparable). Moreover, the actions in Russia were merely symbolic and did not have a massive scale or a specific political agenda. Thus, the non-participation of Belarusians in the so-called "single voting day" can be viewed as a positive phenomenon, demonstrating the ongoing rejection of the Lukashenko regime in society and the unwillingness to associate with it. On the other hand, the passivity of the majority of Russians in the presidential elections is a concerning phenomenon that reflects the true attitude of Russian society towards ongoing events, the war, and Putin. It indicates general acceptance and public consent. In this regard, it is not difficult to believe in the record, according to the Russian Central Election Commission, turnout, even if it was partly falsified, and in the results of the recent vote. However, it is important to note that the "elections" in the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, which are part of the international crime of aggression committed by Russia against Ukraine and its people, should not be considered valid. Therefore, the very fact of organizing "elections" in those territories should preclude the possibility of international recognition of the presidential election results in Russia. Returning to the reaction of Russian society, it can be concluded that today Russia and the majority of Russians have made their choice. Like a well-known warship, Russia continues on its frightful course of aggression, war, and imperialism. The only way to halt this is through Ukraine's victory, with one crucial element being the removal of Putin's puppet Lukashenko's regime in Belarus, followed by the invitation of democratic Belarus to join the EU.

For over three years, the EU, the US, and other democracies have imposed sanctions on the dictatorial regime of Lukashenko, which consistently violates international law. There are numerous myths and speculations surrounding the topic of sanctions. Only a few are genuinely trying to assess their true impact on the economy, regime, and society, while also proposing measures for their further enhancement. You can familiarize yourself with the situation concerning sanctions in the analytical review of the National Anti-Crisis Management titled "Sanctions Pressure on the Lukashenko Regime (2020-2023)." This report aims to provide answers to several questions regarding the extent of the imposed measures, the effectiveness of sanctions in specific economic sectors, and measures that could enhance the existing and ongoing sanctions restrictions.

Pavel Latushka: Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, Head of the National Anti-Crisis Management, Ambassador Looking at the news from Russia today, we can observe the following: in Russia, a rather symbolic event is taking place, whereas in Belarus in 2020, the Belarusians aimed to bring about a change in the political system from a dictatorship to a democracy. Unlike Russia, a majority of citizens actively participated in these actions. As a result, Belarus witnessed a tumultuous election in 2020 that marked a complete failure and political defeat for Lukashenko. In Russia in 2024, despite the "Noon against Putin" protest, there is no sense of a democratic and protesting majority or a significant segment of Russian society. For the past two years, Russian society has not rallied against the war and Putin, despite the fact that the potential consequences for doing so in Russia are incomparable to the fully totalitarian system of control and widespread repression in Belarus. There are no large-scale repressions in Russia, nor is there widespread public dissent against the actions of the authorities. In contrast, in Belarus, the majority of Belarusians oppose Lukashenko and the war, and the cycle of terror in the country continues unabated. This is the fundamental difference. The Lukashenko regime in Belarus relies on fear, violence, and terror against Belarusians, whereas the Putin regime is founded on the consent and approval of the vast majority of Russians. How can Putin and the war be stopped? By supporting Ukraine and providing it with the necessary resources to repel aggression and achieve victory on the battlefield. Simultaneously, supporting the Belarusians who persistently fight for the liberation of Belarus from the Lukashenko regime, a key ally of Russia, is crucial. We must place our bets on those who actively fight and resist.

Pavel Latushka: Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, Head of the National Anti-Crisis Management, Ambassador There is an opinion that the sanctions allegedly provoke Lukashenko to continue repressions in Belarus, and that allegedly, by strengthening sanctions, we contribute to even greater repression. So what should we do? Let's try to look at this through another analogy: aggression and resistance. And let’s ask ourselves this question: Is it necessary to resist the aggressor? Is it necessary to punish him for aggression? Or should we lay down our arms, capitulate, and turn a blind eye to everything that he has already done, so as not to provoke him to even greater aggression? Let me pose the question even more specifically: What should Ukraine have done when Russia, with the participation of the Lukashenko regime, launched a full-scale war against it? What should Ukraine have done to avoid "provoking" Russia? And what should Ukraine do now? Should they give up, capitulate, and surrender their territories? What should Ukraine’s partners do? What should Ukraine ask them for? Should they be told: "Okay, Russia, we stop helping Ukraine, remove all sanctions from you, and at the same time recognize that the territories you occupied officially become your part because we don’t want to provoke you further." Is that what should be done? In 2020, the Lukashenko regime attacked Belarusians who do not want to live under his dictatorship (just like Ukrainians do not want to live under Russian occupation). This attack, in the form of massive daily reprisals, which have already been repeatedly described as having the characteristics of and falling under crimes against humanity in various international documents, continues to this day. According to the Justice Hub Center for Law and Democracy, as of May 2023, at least 136 thousand people became victims of these crimes. In February 2022, Lukashenko, as Putin’s puppet, ensured Russia’s invasion of Ukraine from the territory of Belarus. In other words, together with Putin, he committed an act of aggression against Ukraine. And this crime of aggression continues to this day. At the same time, Lukashenko also commits war crimes by organizing the illegal movement and deportation of Ukrainian children from temporarily occupied territories. So what do the proponents of the "do not provoke aggressors" approach offer us under these conditions? I will answer what they suggest: to resign, do nothing, and give up. Surrender Ukraine to Putin. And hand over Belarus to Lukashenko. Ultimately, this also means surrendering Belarus to his master, Putin. In other words, instead of "to be," they propose "not to be." And what do you choose?

Author Mikhail Kiryliuk: NAM lawyer. Source: belsat.eu The emergence of a more moderate opposition is a sign of the modern time. This opposition is rational, convenient, and pragmatic, willing to be flexible and explore various options. As the administrations of Lukashenko and Putin continue to control Belarus, more individuals will be inclined to seek a middle ground between Voskresensky and Gaidukevich. The reasons behind this trend are clear. Many people have grown weary from the prolonged struggle, as their initial hopes for an early victory following the high political activity of Belarusians in 2020 have not materialized even after three years. Unfortunately, the war has played a significant role in diverting attention and impacting more lives than the Belarusian elections. Many individuals are tired of living in exile and are willing to consider compromises with the Lukashenko and Putin administrations to return to Belarus. Democratic forces now face a challenging choice: to continue existing in exile, to withdraw from politics altogether, or to risk imprisonment. It is natural for politicians to desire the ability to influence the situation within their country, and it is evident that there are fewer opportunities to do so from abroad. Therefore, it is normal for them to seek ways to return to their homeland. The desire to outmaneuver Lukashenko, make promises to alleviate repression, and revert to a time when the media operated freely, public criticism of the authorities was possible, and participation in ministry events and making proposals were feasible (I, too, had this opportunity) is understandable. Nostalgia for 2018, when it was possible to openly wear embroidered shirts, attend Belarusian language courses, and live an ordinary life in Minsk, is a normal sentiment. The desire to free political prisoners at any cost, some of whom are slowly being killed in prison, is entirely justified. As a result, we are witnessing an increasing presence of voices in the media advocating for "negotiations," a "compromise position," the "withdrawal of radical demands," and a call to "look at things realistically." However, the tone of these publications often resembles calls for capitulation. In certain cases, there is nothing inherently wrong with adjusting strategies, changing deployment, or even capitulating. For instance, Ukrainians evacuate populated areas if it is the only way to save their people In my perspective, it appears illusory to believe that there are conditions in 2024 under which such a return is realistic. It is unlikely that there exists a specific formula that democratic forces can offer to Lukashenko to gain his agreement. What do you think, even if Tsikhanovskaya, Latushka, BYPOL, BYSOL, and all the iconic figures in exile turn to the commission for return with consent to return and renunciation of their demands with one single condition - to release the prisoners, will this request be heard? I'll bet you 10 to 1 that it won't. Why would Lukashenko need that? Since 2020, Lukashenko has increasingly relied on Russia rather than the Belarusian people to maintain power. In Russia, the government sees the army, nuclear weapons, oil and gas fields as the sources of its stability, while the people are viewed as sources of problems. Even if, in a fantastic scenario, Lukashenko wishes to resolve the political crisis in a civilized manner and release key figures from the democratic forces, it would be logical for the Putin administration to oppose this outcome. Such a development would undermine the stability of Lukashenko's power and, consequently, threaten Russia's military presence in Belarus, which they actively utilize during their aggression. If hypothetical negotiations were to take place, they might unfold as follows: Lukashenko: Give me all your property, renounce your political views, betray your relatives and supporters, and go to prison, where you will probably die. I will release you if I feel like it, but even after your release, you will remain under 24-hour surveillance, much like Protasevich. Democratic politicians (surprised): Why would we agree to that? Lukashenko: Well, as you wish. If there were any meaningful purpose behind the return commission, it would not be a problem for the Lukashenko administration to showcase a "successful example" of its work over the past year: an emigrant applies to the commission, takes an oath, and is ceremoniously relieved of responsibility for extremist charges for a period of 10 years. They would then be able to return to Belarus, walk around Minsk, go skiing in Silichi, and share their experiences on social media. However, as we can observe from the commission's actual practice, it was only assigned imitation tasks. The current configuration of political forces entails that confrontation is perhaps the only viable option for both sides. The war, first and foremost, leaves its mark and significantly affects the strategies employed by politicians. Our situation is often compared to that of Ukraine and Israel. People remind us that despite intense confrontation, Ukraine manages to get  the heroes of Azovstal back home, while Israel retrieves hostages taken by Hamas. This statement implies that only the short-sightedness of our leaders prevents us from engaging in such an exchange. However, there are certain differences between our realities. Belarusians lack a proper exchange fund. We do not hold figures like Karpenkov, Karaev, or Kolya Lukashenko hostage, as Ukraine did with Medvedchuk, nicknamed "Putin's godfather." We are deprived of the opportunity to carry out bombing raids against Drozdy like Israel does in relation to Hamas. Among the tools of confrontation at our disposal are sanctions, and their impact on the opposite side is not nearly as destructive as the previous examples. If Ukraine receives weapons from the West and chooses how to use them, then in the case of sanctions, both the choice of "weapon" and "target" are completely in the hands of EU and US politicians. Belarusian politicians can only submit their analysis of the situation and proposals. From this stalemate, some influential figures in public opinion conclude that sanctions need to be made weaker, reducing pressure. In our opinion, the opposite is true. To act as a worthy subject of negotiations, the degree of pressure needs to be increased, not decreased. For a long time, Lukashenko tried to put pressure on the EU with the help of the migration crisis and even resorted to military threats from the Wagner PMC in an effort to escalate the conflict. However, after the three countries simultaneously promised to close the border synchronously and completely in the event of armed provocations, the attempts at escalation stopped. But maybe sanctions only harm those Belarusians who have the lowest salaries and who are unable to influence Lukashenko's administration? On the contrary, it is Lukashenko who is destroying the economy more than any sanctions. The faster Belarus gets rid of him and begins the transition to a healthy economy, the faster the cause of poverty for Belarusians will disappear. According to colleagues' observations, in Russia, after 2014, entire departments of lawyers worked in international legal corporations in the area of sanctions. Currently, legal conferences are being held in Russia, where panels are devoted to actually circumventing sanctions legislation. Lukashenko introduced criminal liability for calling for sanctions and puts people behind bars for decades under this article for a reason. This is not how you fight a non-existent threat. Meanwhile, in the current situation, we have enough room for maneuver: Twelve times more sanctions were imposed against the Russian Federation than against Belarus. Their synchronization will hit the regime not only directly, making it difficult to make money from the war, but also secondarily, making it difficult to make money by circumventing sanctions. The opening of at least a few criminal cases in the EU against representatives of the regime who help circumvent sanctions will bring the release of political prisoners closer than dozens of declarations and resolutions. This is the direction in which it is worth working. Moreover, there is more than enough evidence for criminal prosecution. A significant proportion of what is now called "weak sanctions" are not really sanctions at all. This involves counterfeit or smuggling, where a sanctioned product is moved under the guise of an unsanctioned product. Tracking illegal sales using fake documents doesn't require any new laws. We need determination to strictly control the laws that already exist. Existing legislation is more than sufficient for criminal liability. EU law enforcement authorities should begin to prosecute the change of destination of goods. There are also all the necessary reasons for this: the transit of goods using deliberately false documents is a crime in all countries at any time. All these actions do not require any supernatural efforts. But the result—a free Belarus—could be the straw that breaks the back of Putin's camel.