Belarus Opposition Divided Five Years After Uprising

Five years after the mass protests that challenged Alexander Lukashenko’s rule, the Belarusian opposition gathered in Warsaw for the annual “New Belarus” conference on August 9-10, an event marked by deep internal divisions and a pronounced lack of a clear strategy forward. While organized by Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya’s office, the United Transitional Cabinet, and the Coordination Council, the conference was boycotted by several prominent opposition figures, exposing the growing rifts within the movement.

In her address, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya struck a defiant tone, insisting that the struggle was far from over. “We are marking five years since the beginning of our peaceful revolution. And this revolution is not yet finished,” she declared. “As long as we are together and continue the fight, we have not lost.” Tsikhanouskaya expressed hope that future peace negotiations over Ukraine could “open a window of opportunity for Belarus as well,” reinforcing her message that while victory has not been achieved, defeat is not an option.

However, this message of unity was undermined by sharp criticism from within the opposition’s own ranks. Zianon Pazniak, a veteran leader of the Belarusian independence movement, urged a boycott of the conference, harshly describing Tsikhanouskaya’s office as a “rotten log lying in the path of the movement for a free Belarus.” The internal strife was further highlighted when well-known blogger and critic Siarhei Piatrukhin was physically barred from entering the event by security.

The conference revealed a strategic crisis, particularly concerning the reliance on Western sanctions. Discussions showed that many activists are in disarray over the future of this policy, especially given the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency in the United States and its potential impact on international relations. The confusion boiled over when Ivan Kravtsov, Secretary of the Coordination Council, questioned whether sanctions on Belarus would be lifted in tandem with any future easing of sanctions on Russia. He was met not with a clear answer but with accusations of promoting an appeasement strategy.

While the United Transitional Cabinet issued a call for a “national dialogue for a peaceful resolution,” the document offered no specifics on who would participate, acknowledging that such a roundtable is only conceivable during a “transit of power.” Tsikhanouskaya herself voiced fears that Belarus could be overlooked in broader geopolitical shifts. “Our task is to present Belarus as an independent case, not an appendix of Russia, and to defend our rights,” she told journalists, worried that sanctions on Minsk could be lifted as a byproduct of a deal with Moscow.

Political analyst Alexander Klaskovsky offered a sobering assessment of the situation, describing a pro-democracy movement within Belarus that has been forced into silence and an exiled community largely preoccupied with basic survival. “The opposition’s foreign headquarters continue to operate, but they are not working miracles,” he noted. “While Tsikhanouskaya and her team persistently remind Western players about the Belarusian issue, new hotspots and crises are gradually pushing it to the periphery. Sanctions have not proven to be a magic tool to compel the dictator to change.”