Site search

"A seemingly insignificant economic trigger would be enough for people to take to the streets again with political demands". The NAM lawyer Artsiom Praskalovich — about the protests in Kazakhstan and the plans of the Belarusian dictatorship What should the dictator and his entourage think about against the background of the events in Kazakhstan? That the trick with the imitation of democracy and the All-Belarusian People’s Assembly will not work. People will not be fooled by a formal change of position. The Belarusian people will not like Lukashenka if he is called by a different name. The new Constitution, which the dictator is going to submit to a "referendum", does not at all meet the demands of the Belarusians. What thoughts do the events in Kazakhstan suggest to the Belarusian majority who want changes? The collapse of the system is inevitable: in the current configuration or with Lukashenka at the helm of the National Assembly and the president under his control. But do we want to sit and wait for it to collapse itself? Of course not. Therefore, we will prevent citizen Lukashenka’s plans from coming to fruition at an early stage. We will come to the "referendum" and express our dissent. It will be our vote of no confidence in Lukashenka and his system. We will invalidate the ballots with X’s in all the proposed answers. We, Belarusians, want new elections, we want to determine the future of our country ourselves — and be responsible for it. 🌐 Website of United strategy of democratic forces The "Voice" platform for the "referendum" Telegram Viber *if the referendum poll does not start in the bot, enter the command /referendum

New Year’s address of Sviatlana Tsihanouskaya and democratic forces 2022 Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya: "In 2021, everyone understood for himself what it means to be a Belarusian. Even when we were plucked out of the crowd and left alone with this choice, we have not abandoned it. That’s why the regime still behaves as if there are hundreds of thousands of people standing under the windows of the Palace of Independence. And now our victory is no longer a question of chance or luck. It is a question of our determination. Willingness to take the fate of the Fatherland into our own hands and walk every day towards the new Belarus of which we all dream so much". Pavel Latushka: "A democratic Belarus, where, as the national hero of Belarus Kastus Kalinouski said, "not the people for the government, but the government for the people". And I believe that very soon we will elect a new government for a new democratic Belarus". The "referendum" scheduled for February 27 is an opportunity to show our determination together. For the sake of it, we will come to the "referendum" and act according to the plan of the democratic forces: we will make the ballot papers invalid by putting crosses against all the suggested variants. 🌐 Website of a united strategy of democratic forces The "Voice" platform to the "referendum" Telegram Viber *if the referendum poll does not start in the bot, enter the command /referendum

On New Year's Eve we do not build hopes and do not sum up results - we build an action plan Want to know what our plans are for 2022? Watch the New Year's message from the Natonal's Anti-Crisis Management team. During 2020−21, Belarusians have matured as a nation, we have experienced a lot. But the main thing is that we realized that miracles do not happen by themselves. And that's why we don't expect miracles. After all, only we ourselves, together, through our actions, are able to create them. The NAM team will definitely congratulate all Belarusians on the New Year - in New Belarus. In the meantime, it’s time to act!

Pavel Latushka commented on the published draft amendments to the Constitution What kind of «referendum» are we talking about if Lukashenka appoints it, if there are thousands of political prisoners in Belarus, tens of thousands of repressed, independent media are blocked, when signatures in support of independent candidates are dismissed? The so-called All-Belarusian People's Assembly is a fifth leg in the system of state administration. The draft Constitution is a failure of the people's demands. Lukashenka introduces a triple cordon of protection to nullify his term and rule for another 13.5 years. One single law needs to be passed in Belarus - to schedule a new presidential election. Democratic forces are urging Belarusians to come to the polls during the «referendum» and show their opposition to Lukashenka's crime of placing crosses against all options on the ballot, making it invalid. 🌐 United Democratic Forces Strategy website The Voice platform for the «referendum» Telegram Viber *If the referendum poll in the bot doesn't start, enter the command /referendum

We no longer want to live under a dictatorship In 2020, the illegitimate authorities received a clear signal from the Belarusians: we no longer want to live under a dictatorship. With the new draft of the Constitution, the regime is trying to prolong the period of "no laws" for many years. And the citizen Lukashenka himself wants guarantees of immunity: that he cannot be prosecuted for all his crimes. The dictator wants public servants and law enforcement officers to commit crimes thoughtlessly in order to prolong his power. He wants apathy and acquiescence from all the other Belarusians. To invalidate the ballot, to put crosses in front of all the proposed options — this step may seem small. But it will be huge if the majority of Belarusians do it. We will cross out not only the criminal "referendum" and the dictatorial Constitution, but also all the attempts of the regime to intimidate the Belarusian people. Our common action in the "referendum" will not lead us to an instant victory, but it will be an important step towards it, which cannot be missed. Invalid ballots will be our common "no" to the lawlessness that Lukashenka wants to continue. And our common "yes" to the return of law and law as the only way to build the country we deserve. — Citizen Lukashenka has added Article 89 to his Constitution, with which he wants to save himself from justice for the crimes he has committed. But will it help? Of course it won’t. The dictator will face justice: both Belarusian and international. For all the crimes against the Belarusian people and acts of international terrorism, — said the Head of the NAM Pavel Latushka. What is important to understand? It is impossible to discuss the Constitution in repression, as well as to hold a "referendum"; Lukashenka will now create the appearance that people support the draft, forcing his cronies to speak in his favor; with the new Constitution, the dictator will further usurp power through the All-Belarusian People’s Assembly. The Constitution does not respond to the public’s demand for change. Even now, before the appointment of the "referendum", we must prepare for it and tell our trusted friends, colleagues, relatives, and neighbors about the common strategy of the democratic forces. It is important to tell and show that we are together. A common hand gesture can be such a signal, saying that you share the position of the democratic forces on the "referendum". 🌐 United Democratic Forces Strategy website The "Voice" platform for the "referendum" Telegram Viber *if the referendum poll does not start in the bot, enter the command /referendum

"Integration processes within the EAEU and CIS. Development of a new policy towards Russia" "Expert Environment" is a series of discussions with the participation of Belarusian and foreign experts, analysts, authors of researches and specialists in the sphere of foreign policy, organized by the National Anti-Crisis Management to discuss the geopolitical choice of the Belarusian people. As part of the first discussion "Belarus in Interaction with European Subregional Unions, Groups and Neighborhood Programs", experts and analysts, authors of researches and foreign policy specialists discussed first of all the topic of the Eastern Partnership. In the second discussion the following questions were discussed: What is the Commonwealth of Independent States? How does this format function? What is its relationship to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and other integration formats? What are the results of the functioning of the EAEU? What are the prospects for the Union State of Belarus and Russia? Briefly: Chances for CSTO expansion are not visible. There are no Russian interests in financing military expenditures of other countries at the moment. Unsatisfactory results of the implementation of the EAEU project. Belarusian society does not fully understand what is going on in these integration associations. The principle of all post-Soviet integration processes is not quite usual: "Not to make things better, but worse". Moscow should understand that "arrogance is a poor substitute for expertise". Anyway, we all agree about the existence of the hyper dependence, where Belarus is dependent on Russia in economic, military and other aspects. The CIS closes a layer of humanitarian and cultural cooperation and helps to maintain social and humanitarian interaction within the framework of this association. The situation in which Belarus finds itself is a chance for Moscow to tie it down for good. Lukashenka is not interested in really building the Union State; his dream is to leave everything as it is. Belarusians are ready to build relations without acute conflicts with all their neighbors. Read more: What is the Commonwealth of Independent States? What is its connection with the CSTO and other integration formats? Dmitry Mitskevich, analyst of the Belarus Security Blog project, journalist of Belsat TV channel: I propose to first consider the format of military cooperation using the example of the CSTO. I note that they try to compare the CSTO to NATO, which is not quite correct. The CSTO budget as an organization is $ 4 million, and it includes six states. NATO has 30 states and its budget is $ 225 million, and the member-states must allocate 2% of the GDP to finance the military alliance. The CSTO is not even talking about this. If you look geographically, the CSTO includes Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. Russia is present in all these regions. If we analyze protocols of CSTO meetings, we will find that 80 percent of the agenda consists of issues in the Central Asian region, where there is a real military threat. At the same time, two CSTO members are trying to use the organization to present their political messages — Belarus and Armenia. But no one in the CSTO listens to these messages, because their membership in this structure is rather symbolic, as evidenced by the assistance provided to Armenia by "allies" during the Karabakh conflict. The chances of CSTO enlargement are not visible. At the moment there is no Russian interest in financing military expenditures of other countries. The CSTO is a reincarnation of the Holy Alliance from the 19th century to support dictatorial regimes. Therefore, Belarus should not worry about clearly stating its position in terms of withdrawal from the CSTO, as this union is moving towards the fate of the CIS. Without filling bilateral relations between CSTO member countries, the organization will in fact start turning into a kind of CIS. Everyone has seen what are the results of the CSTO work in stressful situations — nothing. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure own security for everyone. And here a certain problem arises. In 2015 during the active phase of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict a survey was conducted by the most popular Internet resource in Belarus. The question "What spheres require reduction of funding?" was answered by 56% of Belarusians: "Defense and national security". It shows what place defense and security issues occupy in the perception of the Belarusian society. Two neighboring countries are at war, and we believe that it is necessary to cut the budget for the army. We have to explain to people why it is necessary to strengthen the defense capability and increase the financing of this sphere. We can give the example of Armenia. This state is also a member of the CSTO, but it cooperates quite closely with NATO, which offers partnership programs of cooperation. What are the results of the EAEU activities? Valery Karbalevich, Belarusian political scientist and journalist: The EAEU Treaty was signed in 2014, which means that we can already sum up certain results. And these results are disappointing: the process of successful implementation of this project has stalled. There are 12 reasons why this happened: 1. The economic ties between the member countries are very weak. The share of total trade is about 14% and it is not growing. For comparison, in the EU this figure is 65%, in NATO it is 40%. 2. Integration of different scale countries. The successes and failures of projects depend largely on one state. 3. Different economic structures: raw-materials states and energy consumers. Totally different interests. 4. Different types of economy: market and non-market. 5. Most of the member states' industries are not competitive on the global market. Systems of protective measures are instinctively created. 6. For Russia, the EAEU is a geopolitical project, not an economic one. 7. Accelerated transition to the next stages of integration without completing the initial one. 8. Integration of authoritarian regimes — history does not know of any successful examples. 9. After Crimea and Donbass, member states have concerns about Russia. 10. Impossibility of a consolidated approach to the issue of sanctions. 11. Russia has not calculated its forces, primarily in the sphere of economic expenditures. 12. The process has stalled, so there is a return of relations to the bilateral level, and the possibility of expanding the Union at the expense of Asian countries is being considered, but this is impossible. How does the Commonwealth of Independent States function? Kamil Klysinski, Senior Fellow, Center for Eastern Studies (OSW): I would like to add the context of Russian foreign policy and the Kremlin’s understanding of it. Russia sees only one way — gathering of lands. Russia presses various buttons, and various initiatives and projects are created: the CIS, the Union State, the EAEU, etc. The CIS is the most failed project. How did the CIS summit end? Nothing. The EAEU is more successful, but it limps on two legs. In fact, we overestimate the quality of Russian experts and analysts, and do not take into account the "arrogant" approach to foreign policy issues. Because Russia believes that, for example, Belarus will not go anywhere, the attractiveness of integration proposals is reduced. How does Belarusian society assess integration processes in relation to Russia? Peter Rudkovsky, Philosopher, Academic Director of BISS: Belarusian society does not fully understand what is going on in these integration associations. Nevertheless, for a number of reasons, first of all psychological and value-based, there are fears about the integration aspirations associated with the EU. During the first years of independence, the Belarusans had a more positive attitude to the format of the Eurasian integration, but recently there has been a shift towards the EU. This is, incidentally, the second time (the first one was in 2010−2011). There is a chance that in the near future the idea of aspiring to have a closer cooperation with the EU will prevail, despite the contradictions in the issues of minorities, etc. But there is still wariness about the West. What is the main problem of all associations in post-Soviet space? Anatoly Kotov, political analyst, former worker of the Belarus President Administration: The problem of all associations in the post-Soviet space is that for Russia these are political projects, an attempt to keep in the sphere of its influence those countries that Russia considers "its own": Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. And the principle of all these integration processes is not quite usual: "Not to make it better, but not to make it worse". "If you do not join our associations, you lose access to the Russian market on privileged terms". Countries are forced to agree to some restrictions now in order to get some benefits in the future. And the perspective is not always tangible and clear. What do these integration processes look like at this stage? Vadim Mozheiko, Analyst, Belarusian Institute for Strategic Studies (BISS): Moscow should understand that "arrogance is a poor substitute for expertise". The relations between Belarus and Russia resemble those between some states in the Middle Ages, the so-called payment of symbolic tribute. On the one hand, one state sells to the other the idea that it is in the orbit of its interests — something Lukashenka is now actively promoting. On the other hand, there is an understanding that there cannot be a real takeover, even if someone in Moscow has such dreams. An example of such a symbolic tribute is Belarus' support for Russian resolutions at the UN. Such symbolic relations suit both Putin and Lukashenka. The situation looks more and more like the CIS, which in fact has no serious results, but still exists. And in this form, "nothing" is still "something". How should Belarus act in conditions of dependence on Russia? Grigory Astapenia, Chatham House Expert, Director of Research at the Center for New Ideas: One way or another, we all agree that Belarus is hyper dependent on Russia in economic, military and other aspects. We are in a situation where we recognize that it is impossible to sail away. And if we state publicly that Belarus wants to change course, it may, on the contrary, lead to an inadequate response and the opposite result. But we also understand that we can’t increase the level of dependence, because it is already so high that it threatens the sovereignty of the state. Right now, this dependence continues to increase. One does not choose one’s neighbors? Dmitry Bolkunets, political scientist, expert in the sphere of Russian-Belarusian relations: The CIS closes a layer of humanitarian and cultural cooperation and helps maintain social and humanitarian interaction within this association. The EAEU at the moment concerns only the economy, despite the fact that the very idea was certainly a political one. So far, the Kazakhs have managed to keep this union in a truly economic framework. And there are opportunities for this, because the Eurasian Union has no decisions that are mandatory for all participants, unlike the EU. Each of the five countries of the Eurasian Economic Union sees its own benefit in this union in the form of economic preferences, including the energy sector. Belarus must have better relations both with Moscow and Europe; no need to build walls. One does not choose one’s neighbors. What are the prospects for the Union State of Russia and Belarus? Dmitry Bolkunets The situation in which Belarus finds itself is a chance for Moscow to bind it finally. It is worth noting that in matters of economic integration the EAEU has gone much further than the Union State, so now there is an attempt to catch up with this process in the bilateral format. Hence the programs aimed at harmonizing legislation, but their implementation requires time, even if the parliament is manual. In general, it’s worth noting that in the Russian expert community there was a question about the Union State: what to do about it? Different opinions were voiced, but in essence this Union State is considered as an attempt of Russia’s politicians to demonstrate an example of positive cooperation. And the main enemy of the Union State at that time was Lukashenka. Now he was put before a choice: either to go to the Hague, or do something historical, good just for Russia. The Kremlin’s plans to complete this process by 2024 are, in my opinion, utopia. Kamil Klysinski: Yes, Lukashenka is really not interested in the real construction of the Union State, his dream is to leave everything as it is. But now he has little room for maneuvering. To this is added the cooling of relations with China. And we can observe a situation in which the language of the CIS is beginning to be used in the Union State as well. But there is a real threat: Russia is betting on military presence, and this is a real lever of control. How can Belarus build up relations with its neighbors? Peter Rudkovsky, Philosopher, Academic Director of BISS: Sociology suggests that for Belarusians there is no contradiction in the fact that it is possible to get closer to both the EU and Russia. Belarusians are ready to build relations without acute conflicts. And the possible option now can be the denunciation of the Union State and the development of relations within the framework of the EAEU. But initial conditions are necessary: change of the situation in Belarus and reforming Russia in the future. The next discussion of the "Expert Environment": "Prospects for building partnership relations with the EU in the short and long term"

«We mustn't let them intimidate us into a state where we'll be ready to give up our future» Pavel Latushka, head of the NAM, explains how the regime uses all available instruments to force the Belarusians not to go to the polling stations during the «referendum»: We see more and more reports of repression, we see that propaganda relentlessly vilifies Belarusians who want change. The regime is trying with all its might to intimidate us before the «referendum». After the elections 2020, the regime has for the first time encountered the problem of forming commissions: people refuse to participate under any pretext. Each of us decides what will happen to the country next. Each of us can speed up the return of freedom and law to the country through our own actions. We will go to the polls in the «referendum», we will put a cross against every option on the ballot — that is, we will make the ballots invalid. It will be our common contribution to the future of the New Belarus. The crosses in the ballots are only part of Lukashenka's «referendum» action plan. Common action will help us see each other again and move together en masse to the next steps. We will reveal further details of the plan closer to the day of the «referendum».

Remembering examples from history We have already said that the refusal of the Belarusians to participate in the political life of the country is a guarantee of a peaceful life for the regime. But are there any cases where the boycott of the elections led to positive developments? In 2010, the Brookings Institution published a study that analyzed 171 boycotts. In 96% of cases, this not only did not help to resolve the crisis within the country, but also strengthened the position of the current government. Here are some examples from history when opponents of the system called for a boycott, and remember what this led to. (spoiler: nothing good). We specially selected countries with a similar political situation: authoritarian or hybrid regimes, where the regime was accused of electoral fraud. Venezuela 2020 In December 2020, major opposition leaders, including Juan Guaido, called for a boycott of the parliamentary elections. However, this decision made only President Maduro happy. The official turnout was only 31%, mainly supporters of the authorities came to the polling stations and they did not even have to falsify the results: the pro-presidential alliance won the majority of votes, and the opposition lost control over parliament. Azerbaijan 2008 On the eve of the 2008 presidential elections in Azerbaijan, the main opposition bloc decided to boycott the campaign — the authorities exhaled and calmed down. Technical candidates competed with Ilham Aliyev, and the local CEC reported on a «confident victory» — according to official data, Ilham Aliyev gained 88.73%. Due to the fact that the opposition did not participate in the elections, they passed relatively calmly. This made it possible to show a beautiful picture for international observers and foreign partners, and create the illusion of large-scale popular support. Albania 2019 In 2019, opposition forces in Albania accused the ruling party of economic problems and impending fraud and announced that they would boycott municipal elections. Unsurprisingly, representatives of the ruling Socialist Party ultimately triumphed across the country. They did not even have to manipulate the results: after all, the opposition did not nominate its candidates and the elections turned out, in fact, uncontested. Jamaica 1983 Parliamentary elections in Jamaica in 1983 are one of the most striking examples of a failed boycott. The main opposition party has called on its supporters to refuse to vote. The appeal worked and the turnout was only 2.7%. Despite the empty lots, the elections took place anyway. Representatives of the ruling Labor Party eventually took all the vacant seats in parliament and held power for another 6 years. Togo 2002 In Togo, the opposition «Union Forces for Change» party disagreed with electoral legislation and called for the 2002 elections to be ignored. This did not prevent the pro-government party from getting 90% of the seats in parliament, because only its supporters came to the polls. The apathy of political opponents allowed the regime to take advantage of the majority and lift restrictions on the number of presidential terms, and President Gnassing-be Eyadema was able to push through amendments to the law to facilitate the transfer of power to his son. And if it seems to you that it is strange to compare Togo and Belarus, then here are some statistics. In the ranking of the level of development of democracy for 2020, this state of West Africa has overtaken our country by 7 points. The Togolese Republic occupies the 141st place, and Belarus — 148th.

"The classification of crimes against humanity as crimes under international law makes them crimes regardless of their criminalization in national law", reminds Victoria Fedorova of the International Committee for the Investigation of Torture in Belarus. And for those who doubt that the Lukashenka regime is committing nothing less than crimes against the whole society, here are some of her quotes summarizing the situation in the country: The scale of violence, rights violations, persecution, torture, and other illegal actions is unprecedented in the history of modern Belarus. The disappearances of the regime’s opponents in 1999−2000 demonstrate that the regime was originally aimed at liquidating its opponents. Persecution of dissenters is organized, regular and systematic. There is a policy of eliminating all dissent at all levels. Lukashenka and Karaev publicly approve of torture and repression, and declare war on civilians. Law enforcers are given to understand that protesters can be treated as they please. Lukashenka confirmed that he personally gave orders to disperse protesters and break into apartments. The Defense Ministry and the Emergencies Ministry, along with the law enforcement agencies, expressed their readiness to carry out his criminal orders. The military joined in the intimidation of people. The parliament passed a series of laws to suppress dissent and expand the powers of the security and law enforcement agencies. The IC has turned into a punitive body. The Ministry of Information is directly involved in destroying independent media, and state media incite hatred and hostility on political and ethnic grounds. The Ministry of Justice has revoked the licenses of lawyers involved in political cases and has been involved in the smashing of civic organizations. Courts have become part of the repressive mechanism, and the imitation of the judicial process instills in power and other structures confidence in their correctness and impunity. At the same time national, constitutional and international norms are violated. The prosecutor’s office has completely abandoned its supervisory functions and is now on a par with other repressive bodies. To read Victoria Fedorova’s presentation at the NAM Legal Conference in Nuremberg in full, click here.

On the eve of the Eastern Partnership Summit, the first expert discussion "Belarus in cooperation with the European Sub-regional Organisations, Neighborhood Groups and Programs" was held as part of the Expert Environment discussions "Expert Environment" is a series of discussions with the participation of Belarusian and foreign experts, analysts, authors of studies and specialists in the field of foreign policy, organized by the National Anti-Crisis Management to discuss the geopolitical choice of the Belarusian people. Having stolen the votes, rights and freedoms of Belarusians in 2020, Lukashenka also stole from us the right to build a competent policy of good neighborliness, taking into account the national interests of Belarus. The geopolitical choice today is determined exclusively by the Lukashenka’s regime. Excluding the people — the bearer of sovereignty — from participation in solving key issues of foreign policy, Lukashenka uncontrollably bargains with our sovereignty and puts it on the line in his political games. In conditions when the "international relations" of the regime create a real threat of the loss of sovereignty and independence by Belarus, the issue of citizens' understanding of geopolitical processes is critically important. The Expert Environment discussion series is intended to build this understanding. Within the framework of the first discussion "Belarus in cooperation with European sub-regional organisations, groups and good-neighborliness programs", experts and analysts, authors of studies and specialists in the field of foreign policy discussed the following issues: — What is the Eastern Partnership and what bonuses did the participation in it bring to Belarus? — What amount of funding are we talking about when mentioning Eastern Partnership projects? — What is the likelihood of dismantling the Belarusian statehood? Briefly: The Eastern Partnership is a geopolitical response to Russia’s external activity. 750 million euros within the framework of various projects of the Eastern Partnership is a lot of money. Loans on good terms were also of great importance, reaching an average of 500 million euros per year. The degree of confrontation between the West and the Kremlin will not diminish. As long as Lukashenka is in power and is supported by Putin, there is a real threat of the dismantling of the Belarusian statehood. Russian subsidies are used to maintain an ineffective economic model, which has created a kind of vicious circle for Belarus. After Lukashenka leaves, the new government of Belarus will have to rebuild a dialogue with the West, including within the framework of the Eastern Partnership. More details: What is the Eastern Partnership and what bonuses did the participation in it bring to Belarus? Andrey Egorov, Representative of the Coordination Council for Civil Society, Director of the Center for European Transformation: The Eastern Partnership, in many ways, was the EU’s response to Russia’s aggressive policy in the region. This initiative has promoted and continues to promote profound transformations in the EU’s eastern neighboring countries and brought significant benefits for Belarus as well. Belarus and Azerbaijan were outsiders of the program, which was the result of the choice of their political regimes. Although, it is noteworthy that even with this level of relations, financial and infrastructural assistance from the Eastern Partnership was tangible for Belarus. It is noteworthy that the infrastructure assistance from the Eastern Partnership was indeed very important. For example, the road infrastructure financing program, which includes financing of bridge repairs, showed that its termination led to the so-called "Bridgefall". The economic framework for cooperation is set within the political framework of the Eastern Partnership. How much funding are we talking about when talking about Eastern Partnership projects? Andrey Kazakevich, Director of the Institute of Political Research "Political Sphere", Editor-in-chief of the journals "Political Sphere" and "Belarusian Political Science Review": 750 million euros within the framework of various Eastern Partnership projects that the Belarusian economy received is a lot of money. Loans on good terms were also of great importance. According to various estimates, they reached an average of 500 million euros per year. Following the "bridgefall", we will face problems with the water supply infrastructure of the cities. Funds for the development of small businesses, most likely, will also not go to Belarusian entrepreneurs. Separately, it should be noted that the Belarusian science will suffer as a priority. Will Belarusian statehood be dismantled? Pavel Usov, Political analyst and columnist, Head of the Center for Political Analysis and Forecast: It is extremely important for the democratic forces to create a clear plan for the geopolitical choice for Belarus. The Eastern Partnership in the form in which it exists now does not meet the challenges of the times. Russia is pouring a lot of money into its imperial geopolitical projects: in the Donbass, for example, about $ 12 billion. The degree of confrontation between the West and the Kremlin will not weaken, as evidenced by Moscow’s actual ultimatum on the inadmissibility of NATO expansion. While Lukashenka is in power and is supported by Putin, the dismantling of the Belarusian statehood may take place, unfortunately, in practice it is already happening. Is infrastructure assistance within the framework of the Eastern Partnership comparable to Russian energy subsidies? Dmitry Bolkunets, Political scientist, expert in the field of Russian-Belarusian relations The Eastern Partnership for Belarus, in my opinion, is still more a political track than an economic one. Russian subsidies are used to maintain an ineffective economic model, which has created a kind of vicious circle for Belarus. And these subsidies, in my personal opinion, significantly exceed the financial resources allocated within the framework of the Eastern Partnership projects. It seems to me that it is generally beneficial for Russia when some infrastructure projects are financed by the West. The example of Armenia confirms this. Despite the current situation, Europe already has an instrument to support the Belarusian society within the framework of the Eastern Partnership. These are educational programs. In fact, it turns out that the Russian economic model conflicts with the model proposed by the Eastern Partnership not only politically, but also economically? Andrey Kazakevich: in principle, with a strong desire, these models can also be combined, but for this it is necessary to work. And take into account the fact that in democratic countries, at the stroke of a pen, no changes are made to the regulatory framework. Different way of thinking of Belarusian officials does not allow them to understand that it is necessary to work within the framework of procedures in order to combine the models. How real is the threat of Belarus' incorporation in the foreseeable future? Kamil Klysinski, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Oriental Studies (OSW) After Lukashenka leaves, the new government of Belarus will have to rebuild a dialogue with the West, including within the framework of the Eastern Partnership. Today, in my opinion, Russia, oddly enough, is trying to economize on its foreign policy projects, even it is a little greedy. It follows from this that the incorporation or annexation of Belarus is impossible, since it would be too expensive for Russia. The question also arises: what will happen to Lukashenka if Russia needs a thaw in relations with the West? Lukashenka, who is not welcome to shake hands, will greatly interfere with this process. Next discussion of the Expert Environment: "Integration processes within the Eurasian Economic Union and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Prospects for the development of Belarusian-Russian relations"

Every political prisoner is a shame for the Lukashenka regime, but our pride! — Sergei Tikhanovsky said: I will be in prison for as long as the Belarusian people allow me. I, Pavel Latushka, a citizen of Belarus, will not allow Sergei Tikhanovsky, Nikolai Statkevich, Igor Losik and everyone who heard the verdict of the so-called court today and all those who are already in Belarusian prisons stay there as long as the regime wants. I will resist and resist this as much as I have the strength and energy. — I call on all Belarusians in February, when Lukashenko calls his "referendum", to go to the polls and vote against this crime, to show that we are strong and we will not allow Sergei Tikhanovsky, Nikolai Statkevich, Igor Losik, Viktor Babariko, Maria Kolesnikova, Maxim Znak and other worthy, courageous Belarusians were imprisoned. All in our hands! — Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, Marina Adamovich, Daria Losik, families and friends of political prisoners — we are with you! Every political prisoner is a shame for the Lukashenka regime, but our pride! And our pride cannot be broken. Our will to freedom cannot be taken away. We will fight. Belarus and Belarusians will be free!

Pavel Latushka answers popular questions about the action plan What question will they actually ask us in the "referendum"? What if we just ignore the "referendum"? Will it help? Will the actions of the citizens of Belarus in the "referendum" be recorded in any way? We have already documented fraud in the 2020 elections. Why repeat yourself? Why is a "referendum" now impossible in Belarus in principle? The answers to these and other popular questions about the "referendum" and the strategy of the democratic forces for it are in the new video of the head of the NAM Pavel Latushka.