Outraged attendees at the Reshape 2025 conference voiced criticisms, labeled Tikhanovskaya as a dictator, and critiqued the outcomes of five years in exile.
The "Revitalize" summit, organized for the fifth consecutive year by the "Think Tank for Creative Minds", was held with the support of the Green Cross Foundation. In her opening remarks, the director of the "Think Tank for Creative Minds", Olena Rudnyk, stressed that the summit had gathered people passionate about Belarus' future and willing to invest their time and energy into it.
Every year, Rudnyk recognizes three major themes discussed at the conference:
- The mere mention of 2020 provokes an allergic reaction: "stuck in the past agenda", "memories and fixation that act as a resistance to moving forward".
- Tomorrow's leaders will originate in Belarus, and we are not needed in the process.
- The world has overlooked Belarus, considering it insignificant.
She believes that these ideas reveal signs of fatigue, despair, and emotional trauma. Rudnyk encourages people to shift their perspectives:
- Past memories should serve as fuel rather than a breaking force.
- Future leaders will be inspired by the diaspora's experience.
- Not all of the world has neglected Belarus.
Rudnyk underlines the importance of making informed decisions and maintaining hope for the future.
What's recent history brought us?
The first panel debate revolved around the democratic movement's developments in Belarus over the past five years. Four speakers were divided into pairs: Senior Advisor to Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya's office, Franyk Vecherko, and political scientist Alina Kliouka, challenging Speaker of the former Coordination Council Andrei Dorofeev and Vice-Speaker of the Coordination Council Eliza Sazonchyk.
Vecherko shares that, over the past five years, Belarus has been through several phases: enthusiasm, trauma, survival, and understanding that "no one but us will make changes, Tsikhanouskaya won't solve our problems for us, we won't go back to 2019". During this period, democratic forces have acted reactively due to external factors but focused on healing wounds, pushing forward solutions for not only their own problems but also those of people within Belarus and in exile.
He underscores that Belarusians are fortunate to possess infrastructure, political, and civic potential that other countries lack, such as Venezuela, Burma, and Russia. The primary goal is to protect this potential as the situation deteriorates. Instead of dwelling on despair and complaining, Vecherko encourages everyone to focus on finding solutions.
Prokopchik describes the current predicament as the "Belarusian opposition hydra": protest, emigration, endless waiting, intangible hopes, empty promises, and pressure on the regime. Although similar events occurred fifteen to twenty years ago, Prokopchik laments the lack of willingness to "do things differently."
Belarusians in exile have projects that make them comfortable, but it's challenging to convey visions of national identity to everyday people in Belarus struggling to afford necessities. Prokopchik emphasizes that the objective is not just to demonstrate that Lukashenko is unjust but to create a Belarus worth living in. Prokopchik criticizes the Tikhanovskaya Office for disregarding media coverage of Coordination Council elections and labeled her comments as hurtful.
Kharisova advocates a return to 2020, when "Belarus woke up", realizing that change was achievable, and a significant portion of the population supported it. Despite the harsh truth, dictatorships like China and Iran learn from each other, Kharisova points out. Belarusians discovered a sense of self-worth and the importance of human dignity during this time, truly experiencing that democracy was not just an abstract concept. In 2022, Belarusians understood that neutrality did not work when Russian rockets flew over Ukraine from Belarusian territory.
Belarus, although stumbling, retains hope, and cannot become the "second Switzerland": it will have to choose the civilizational path in which Belarus will be diverse, safe, and connected.
Egorov admits that, looking back, Belarusians have not grasped several crucial lessons in the last five years. Egorov asserts that the political crisis in Belarus has ended, leaving only one dominant force: the Lukashenko regime. Now, Egorov suggests, is not the time for escalation, asserting that "we are few, we have no power". In response to criticism, Egorov argues that nitpicking won't lead to success and belittles the contributions made by Tsikhanouskaya.
In response to criticisms, Vecherny asserts that "we understand that everything is wrong and that we have lost", but contrary ideas on how to restore hope and enact real change are scarce. While there have been minor successes, such as saved individuals from Interpol or facilitated visas, Vecherny sees the resistance as capitulation, recognizing Lukashenko's victory and a potentially impending "Azerbaijanization of Belarus," or compliance with the current regime. The question remains: "Do we still have the strength to continue the fight?"
Egorov accuses criticism of being dismissed with "What are you picking on us for?" He acknowledges the existence of proposals but argues that incremental steps won't solve the underlying issues and places ultimate blame on Tsikhanouskaya for a lack of initiative.
Prokopchik shares her frustration at hearing "what do you propose?" since she believes that she is already implementing solutions rather than merely discussing them. She encourages everyone to recognize both achievements and setbacks, accepting accountability for shortcomings instead of shifting blame to others.
Kharisova points out that Belarusians have yet to learn to empathize with one another, criticizing Tsikhanouskaya's Office for not genuinely supporting coordination with Belarusian media during the Coordination Council elections.
So, what should we do?
Vechorka encourages maintaining contact with international partners, as self-financing is idealistic; shifting the focus of civil society efforts from diaspora support to engaging Belarusians directly; amplifying the reach of information campaigns; supporting initiatives within Belarus across all sectors; and continuing to apply pressure on the Lukashenko regime to push for the release of political prisoners.
Egorov calls for projects and campaigns that unite thousands, or even tens of thousands, in collective actions. He proposes a "Belarusian Basel program" that includes supporting Belarusians within Belarus, establishing diaspora organizations, fostering national identity and culture, creating modern Belarusian projects of global significance, and securing international support for their implementation.
Kharisova stresses the importance of addressing the concerns of people within Belarus alongside the needs of the democratic movement.
Discussions of future plans and visions for Belarus continued across subsequent conference panels (read more).
Vechorka evaluates the Belarusian democratic movement's past performance with a score of "five-six." He praises international connections as essential, but acknowledges that they could have been more effective.
Regarding Western Interest in Belarus
The discussion regarding Western interests in Belarus featured the representative for Belarus and the director of the regional office "Dialogue Eastern Europe" of the Green Cross Foundation, Christopher Forst, Polish diplomat Martin Wojciechowski, program manager Olga Nemanezhina, and the ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to Poland and Belarus, Jennes de Mol.
Forst highlights the importance of viewing Belarus as a sovereign nation rather than just a region of Russia. There is still disagreement on this point among key decision-makers. Belarus is also perceived as a threat to European security, rather than just a victim of dictatorship.
From 2015 to 2019, Western knowledge of Belarus was minimal, rarely appearing in mainstream media. In 2020, much was learned during the protests, though Western reactions to the situation were decisive. From 2020 to 2021, unexpected events required immediate responses. In 2022, it became apparent that Belarus is important for security and a pressing issue for the West. Western leaders are aware of Belarus, Forst assures, but they struggle to balance limited resources and their ambitions, deciding how best to protect their interests with minimal resources.
De Mol mentions the unexpected nature of the 2020 protests and the government's even more surprising violent response. In 2022, perceptions shifted due to the attack on Ukraine from Belarusian soil, although in 2019, Ukrainians named Lukashenko the most popular foreign leader in polls.
In de Mol's opinion, Tsikhanouskaya is doing an excellent job maintaining Belarus in the spotlight, but sustainable change in Belarus can only be achieved from within. The current war in Ukraine makes Belarus a secondary concern for the West. In Europe, Belarus is seen as "very European," while in Russia, it is viewed imperialistically as "their own." There is no viable solution to these contrasting perspectives. The problem lies with how the international community and Belarusians themselves react to Russian influence, as Russia may consider Belarus a part of its territory.
Nemanezhina discusses the difficulties encountered when providing support to Belarus, such as dwindling American support and the allocation of scarce European resources to Ukraine. Previous initiatives have lost relevance, and new creative ideas that people will want to support are needed. Nemanezhina also notes that Russia stopped making territorial claims against Poland and Lithuania after they joined NATO.
Wojtechowski, author of "Europe's Choice for Belarus – A Lost Opportunity?" believes Belarus has not squandered its chance, as the idea of a democratic Belarus remains appealing.
Power, Wojtechowski explains, stands on strength, interests, and values, with values being added only recently in the last century. Values are the least powerful of the four pillars.
Democratic forces in Belarus have relied primarily on values, making them a potent weapon. However, Wojtechowski urges the consideration of the balance of power and interests. He doesn't subscribe to the notion that change in Belarus is impossible with the current situation, as no one could have predicted the bloodless collapse of the Soviet Union or Poland's regain of independence after numerous setbacks.
"Black swans" may still occur in Belarus, coinciding with the current feelings of sadness and confusion in the population, but the democratic idea remains alive.
- The recent history of Belarus has led to discussions about the democratic movement's developments, with a focus on finding solutions for the future and engaging Belarusians directly.
- Vecherny encourages channeling international partnerships, focusing on initiatives within Belarus across all sectors, amplifying information campaigns, and continuing to pressure the Lukashenko regime to release political prisoners.
