Vilnius Ends Top-Tier Security for Tsikhanouskaya, Office Suspends Work

Vilnius, Lithuania – The operational headquarters of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, the exiled leader of the Belarusian democratic opposition, in Vilnius has temporarily ceased its activities following a decision by Lithuanian authorities to significantly reduce her personal security detail. This strategic shift, effective November 1, marks a departure from the high-level protection previously afforded to Tsikhanouskaya, equating her security protocol with that of a head of state, parliamentary speaker, or prime minister. The responsibility for her safety will now transition from the elite Leadership Protection Service to the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau, which will provide security measures based on a general assessment of threats to an individual, rather than a guest of state of presidential stature.

The decision has prompted an immediate response from Tsikhanouskaya’s team, with her press service confirming the temporary closure of the Vilnius office. A portion of the staff has shifted to remote work arrangements while new security algorithms and protocols are being established. Dzianis Kuchynski, Tsikhanouskaya’s diplomatic advisor, clarified the situation on an opposition platform, attributing the changes to an overhaul in the security system. He refrained from divulging specifics due to safety concerns, noting that a core operational team remains in the office while others work remotely. Kuchynski stressed ongoing consultations with Lithuanian partners to finalize the new security framework, which will then inform future operational decisions for the office.

Despite the downgrade in security, Kuchynski conveyed assurances from Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys that Lithuania’s resolute stance against the regime of Alexander Lukashenka remains unwavering. Budrys reportedly reaffirmed Tsikhanouskaya’s status as an official guest of the Lithuanian government, with no alteration to her recognition as the de facto elected leader of Belarus. Kuchynski pointed to Tsikhanouskaya’s recent high-level meetings, including dialogues with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the European Political Community summit, as evidence of her continued international recognition and status. However, he implicitly acknowledged that the reduced protection came as a surprise to Tsikhanouskaya and her associates, indicating a subsequent effort to assess risks and secure alternative or supplementary safety measures.

The move has not been universally welcomed within Lithuania. Gabrielius Landsbergis, the former Lithuanian Foreign Minister, publicly criticized the current government’s decision on social media, labeling it a “fundamental retreat” from Lithuania’s democratic principles and suggesting it could implicitly pressure the Belarusian opposition leader to leave the country. Conversely, Lithuanian Prime Minister Inga Ruginene asserted that security has not been withdrawn but merely adjusted to reflect current threat levels, praising the security services for their continuous assessment and adaptation of protective measures. This adjustment is significant given that sources from Lithuanian broadcaster LRT estimate Tsikhanouskaya’s previous security arrangements, including round-the-clock physical protection, escort vehicles, housing, and VIP airport access, cost the state approximately 1 million euros annually.

Vilnius has yet to provide an official explanation for the timing of this apparent shift towards an “economy regime” in Tsikhanouskaya’s protection. This lack of transparency has left many within the Belarusian opposition perplexed, though some strive to project an image of normalcy. Meanwhile, Zianon Pazniak, a veteran figure of the Belarusian opposition and a vocal critic of Tsikhanouskaya, openly welcomed the development. Pazniak views the diminished authority of Tsikhanouskaya’s office as a positive catalyst, potentially opening new avenues for other Belarusian national initiatives in exile. He believes it could foster self-organization, embolden diverse cultural, educational, and political groups, and ultimately pave the way for a more robust national solidarity and organized Belarusian movement, while also curbing rhetoric supporting economic sanctions against Belarus and distancing from the “Russia-friendly” trajectory he perceives in Tsikhanouskaya’s approach. This unexpected development thus not only reconfigures the immediate operational landscape for Tsikhanouskaya but also underscores underlying tensions and divergent strategies within the broader Belarusian opposition movement.