Interview with Veroniсa Tsepkalo on the Causes of Division and the Loss of Trust
On how the 2020 revolution was betrayed, who turned the struggle into a business, and why Belarus needs a parliamentary republic — candid, sharp, and unfiltered.
Prepared for publication on Belsat TV,
based on questions submitted by the channel.
Belsat: 1) Why hasn’t there emerged an “opposition to the opposition” that the mainstream would actually listen to? Why are there no forces, independent of Tsikhanouskaya’s Office, the United Transitional Cabinet, and the majority in the Coordination Council, that could say: “The Office/Cabinet/CC are doing this and that wrong” — and get a serious answer? Or ask “Where is the money?” — and receive a detailed report?
Let’s start with definitions. What you’re calling the “mainstream” is in fact a small group of foreign grant recipients who never challenged the regime and have no real influence inside the country.
This so-called “mainstream” held a primary election in 2020 to select a single opposition leader, in which no more than 70 people participated nationwide — and not one of them stood up to the regime. Opposition is not about having the right slogans for Western donors or about holding some position abroad. It is about personal courage — the willingness to stand up to the system for your values, despite threats to your freedom, health, or life. Not like Viachorka, who said he stayed out of Belarusian politics because “they might shoot.”
Opposition means those who challenged Lukashenko from within the country — not those who "fight" from abroad under the protection of foreign security services. It means those who spoke the truth inside Belarus, addressed people directly, held public meetings — not read from a teleprompter. It means those who stayed with the people despite pressure, arrests, surveillance, and threats.
For me, the opposition is Mikalai Statkevich, Valery Tsepkalo, Viktar Babaryka, Siarhei Tsikhanouski, Andrei Sannikau. The opposition — or as you call it, the “mainstream” — is also me and Maryia Kalesnikava, who ran our campaigns based on ideals and values, not for money, selfies, or cookies from Biden. Opposition means choosing to stand with the people — when it’s dangerous. It’s not those who spoke up from abroad, or like Latushka, who “fought” the regime by scribbling in a notebook while publicly praising the dictator. That is hypocrisy — the behavior of people without honor or conscience.
If you consider Tsikhanouskaya’s Office and its affiliated structures — the Cabinet, the Coordination Council, NAU and others — to be “the opposition,” then what do they have to do with democratic legitimacy? Did Belarusians vote for Tsikhanouskaya’s Office? For NAU? They hadn’t even heard of these entities. Where was NAU during the mass protests against violence, for the release of political prisoners, for free elections? They never showed up. And you call Latushka’s fight — scribbling in a notebook — “mainstream”?
Let’s not distort the meaning of things. While abroad, this small group enriched itself materially — while millions of Belarusians lost their freedom, their homeland, their jobs, and some — their lives.
The creation of such structures is a betrayal of everything people fought for in 2020 — a betrayal of the values that brought people to the streets, and for which many paid with their lives.
It’s a perversion of public engagement, of a shared struggle that defines real politics. It’s a betrayal of the Belarusian people by those who worship the golden calf of Western grants — and that is no “mainstream.”
People didn’t take to the streets for “offices,” CCs, or some vague foreign-funded initiatives. They marched for democracy — for clear, shared goals: the release of political prisoners and the holding of new elections. Any pseudo-structures created without public participation or consent must not only be rejected — we are obliged to call them what they are: frauds profiting from the suffering of Belarusians.
While people were sacrificing themselves for the ideals of freedom and democracy, while tens of thousands were imprisoned, grant recipients appeared out of nowhere and said, “Here we are.” And with renewed energy, they began profiting off people’s suffering. For such individuals, the more political prisoners there are, the more funding they receive "to help" political prisoners.
So let’s call things by their name: Tsikhanouskaya’s Office and its affiliated structures are business projects built on profiting from the struggle and suffering of Belarusians. From abroad, this small group enriched itself materially, while millions of Belarusians lost their freedom, their homeland, their jobs — and some, their lives.
If you truly want an honest and sincere account of the Belarusian revolution of 2020 — from someone who was directly involved and had the courage to stand up to the regime, not from someone hiding in a cozy office with a notebook — read the publications by Valery Tsepkalo: “Belarus. The 2020 Revolution: From Hope to Betrayal” (Belarus 2020: A Chronicle of Truth – belaruswomen.org). This is not just a chronicle of events — it's the story of an entire nation's tragedy and determination to rise against lies and violence in order to defend its right to choose its own future. Valery began writing in part to prevent the distortion of history that your so-called “mainstream” — backed by millions in Western grants — is now trying to rewrite. His work is also a call to preserve memory, so that the Belarusian people do not repeat the tragic mistakes of the past.
Let me remind you once again: in 2020, the unification of the campaign teams was based on two clear and simple principles:
- The release of all political prisoners
- The holding of new, free, and fair elections
At rallies across Belarus, speaking to thousands, we consistently emphasized:
“We are participating in this campaign not for power, not for personal gain — we are fighting for democratic change. And that is impossible as long as political prisoners remain behind bars and real political, social, and economic programs cannot compete in open elections. Let Belarusians decide whose program speaks to them — and who they trust.”
For some, the leader in 2020 was Siarhei Tsikhanouski; for others — Valery Tsepkalo, Viktar Babaryka, or Mikalai Statkevich or Andrei Sannikau. Each of these people, in different years, was barred from running in elections.
On August 9, 2020, Belarusians were not voting for Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. You will not find a single case in modern democratic history where people voted for someone with no political background, no experience, no accomplishments. They were voting for the right to choose their own leaders — through honest, open elections.
But as soon as Sviatlana left the country, we witnessed her rapid transformation — straight out of the fairy tale about the goldfish. Instead of an open campaign office, where Belarusians could come and continue working together, there appeared the Office of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, headed by a Lithuanian citizen. It was he, apparently, who assembled a team of people whom Sviatlana neither knew nor could have known — people who had spent their entire lives living off Western grants, never holding real jobs, and preferring to stay far away from actual political processes inside the country.
These people took no risks in Belarus. Their only “achievement” was the ability to secure grants and report on them properly. Those who had stood by us through the most difficult moments — like Oleg Moiseev — were simply expelled, like the old man in the fairy tale who was sent to the stables. Today, he lays tiles in the apartments of Lithuanians.
Almost immediately after leaving the country, Sviatlana declared herself the “national” and “democratic” leader, claiming that it was she who had “raised” Belarusians. But this does not reflect reality. Before receiving support from our campaign and Babaryka’s team, she existed in the political space merely as a cardboard figure, having held not a single live meeting with voters.
Why didn’t she call herself a leader while she was still in Belarus? Because neither I, nor Maryia, nor the people would have accepted such a declaration. People would have simply turned away — seeing yet another egoist. Then she was surrounded by “leaders” like Viachorka or Latushka — the latter of whom praised Lukashenko publicly with a level of enthusiasm unmatched even by state propagandists like Azaronak or Muzavoshchyk.
But that is not even the main point. Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya’s declaration of herself as the “national and democratic leader” drastically narrowed the social base of those who stood for change. Not everyone who fought for free and fair elections saw her as their leader. It is one thing to take to the streets for the right to choose, for the release of political prisoners, for the chance to vote for the person you consider worthy. It is quite another to risk everything for an Office that unilaterally appointed itself the center of political life.
This step marked the starting point of the democratic movement’s collapse — the betrayal of the very principles the people had rallied behind became fertile ground for strengthening the regime.
The original dilemma — “Lukashenko or free elections” — was replaced with a new one: “Lukashenko or Tsikhanouskaya.” This substitution turned everything upside down. People saw that on the other side, the same schemes and manipulations were in play: one set of promises, but entirely different actions once access to resources appeared. For many, this became a signal that deception existed not only within the system, but also among those who had promised to change it.
All the structures created by Tsikhanouskaya’s Office are not genuine civil society initiatives. They are entities appointed and controlled by the Office. And that would be bad enough. In reality, they are closed, opaque structures conducting financial activities behind the people’s backs. On the surface, they promote useless or even harmful initiatives — such as the so-called “passport” that would not get you across a single border, the “Peramoha” plan, or fundraising for Stryzhak under the guise of helping political prisoners.
These structures are not just useless — they are harmful. They are formed in backroom deals, without public involvement. Corruption thrives. And all of it discredits democracy itself — its principles of transparency, accountability, and responsibility.
They do not solve the problem of political prisoners. They offer no real mechanisms to help Belarusians.
They aggressively reject any suggestions from outside their circle. Sviatlana met with Biden, with European leaders, smiled for photos — but not once have I heard any specific steps result from those meetings. It creates the impression that the existence of political prisoners is actually convenient — because it brings in millions of dollars and euros to BySol and ByHelp. Without political prisoners, that cash flow would dry up.
And these so-called "organizations," if we can even call them that, are in reality personal accounts of a few individuals. There is no board, no oversight committee. Not a single clear financial report has been presented about how the money is received or spent. No one knows how much actually reaches the prisoners — and how much goes to salaries of those supposedly "distributing" the aid.
Belsat: 2) Could the Coordination Council, in its current or reformed form, become a platform for such constructive criticism? Why did some forces not even run in the CC elections, and why did others fail to gather enough votes?
First of all, it’s important to remember: the leadership of the original Coordination Council (CC) is currently imprisoned in Belarus. At the time, a principled decision was made — only those physically inside the country could be members of the CC. That’s why the current Coordination Council is no longer the structure that was created to facilitate dialogue with the authorities. The similarity in name is misleading. Just as a counterfeit brand is not the original, today’s CC cannot be considered a continuation of what was formed in 2020.
In reality, the Coordination Council has turned into just another grant-funded structure. This became especially clear after the scandal involving its spokesperson — whose name, by the way, I had never even heard before the incident. Melnikava’s actions gave a definitive answer to the question of the Council’s future. If Maryia Kalesnikava went to prison for the sake of the Council, Melnikava — stole money. When the leader is the first to abandon ship, taking everything they can with them — that speaks for itself.
Of course, there are decent people in the Coordination Council — individuals who joined with a sincere desire to bring about change. But the majority of participants are entirely dependent on Tsikhanouskaya’s Office. They signed so-called non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), under which criticizing the Office or its activities can result in a fine of €30,000. Such NDAs may be appropriate in high-tech corporations to protect trade secrets — but they are absolutely unacceptable in politics, where transparency and openness are fundamental principles.
The time to deal with these NDAs will come — and I am confident that it absolutely will. Just as the moment will come when funds like BySol and ByHelp will be required to undergo independent audits. Today, they claim they cannot disclose who received assistance — allegedly for security reasons. But once Belarus becomes a democratic country — and I have no doubt that it will, much sooner than many think — all transfers, reports, and receipts will have to be submitted to independent auditors. Otherwise, criminal cases will need to be opened, in accordance with European legal standards, under articles related to fraud, misappropriation of funds, and violations of financial transparency requirements.
I am convinced that Belarusians who signed these illegal NDAs must break free from the shackles imposed on them, stop being afraid, and openly speak about what has happened — and is still happening — inside the Office. It is time to ask direct questions to the so-called “national and democratic leader” — including about the arrangements for which she received money from Lukashenko.
Belsat: 3) Why hasn’t an alternative platform — an “opposition to the opposition” — emerged?
For example, in 2021 and 2022, the Forum of Democratic Forces was held; this June, other groups organized the “Assembly of the Concerned”; in 2023, Zianon Pazniak intended to create a Security Council together with the Kalinouski Regiment and other forces; and Vadzim Prakopieu called for the creation of a “Belarusian mafia — without crime or shootouts, but with taxes and elections.”
Why haven’t these initiatives developed into platforms uniting those dissatisfied with Tsikhanouskaya’s Office, the United Transitional Cabinet, and the Coordination Council — into true alternative centers of power?
To create alternative platforms, financial resources are essential. Even organizing a small conference requires funding — venue rental, coffee breaks — and that’s just the bare minimum.
Our family has already paid a high price — 17 years in prison for Valery, and 12 for me. In Belarus, we lost everything we had earned over a lifetime. The apartment and house where our underage children were registered were sold at auction. The regime sold absolutely everything — even our children’s personal belongings and toys. We would gladly invest our own resources in organizing events, but we simply don’t have that opportunity.
That is why, to organize the Forums in 2021 and 2022, we turned to friends abroad, who covered the costs of venue rental, catering, and other organizational expenses. Access to funding is available only to those who have long been entrenched in the grant system and know exactly where to apply. Yet these very people are not interested in real change in Belarus. True politics means being with the people, not sitting in cozy offices, traveling abroad, staying in five-star hotels, dining in restaurants, and attending diplomatic receptions. This is their natural habitat — which is precisely why they strive to discredit and label those who genuinely want change, doing everything possible to keep the situation from improving.
Now let’s talk about effectiveness. In any business project — and Tsikhanouskaya’s Office, as we see it, is exactly that: a business project — funding allocations (and we’re talking about €300 million, according to statements from American and European officials) must be tied to KPIs — key performance indicators.
This is standard practice used to assess how successfully objectives are being achieved.
So what results do we see after five years of the Office’s work — the very Office that managed these funds? How many political prisoners have been released? How has life improved for Belarusians forced to flee the country, despite the “national leader’s” meetings with heads of state?
Any business project with such catastrophic inefficiency —with 300 million gone to waste (not to mention the personal enrichment of certain individuals)— would have been shut down long ago. An investigation must be carried out, and if fraud is uncovered, those responsible must be held accountable.
Remember Elizabeth Holmes from Theranos — she was also a “star,” sat at the same table with Biden, and appeared on the covers of Forbes. And now she’s in prison for fraud. And that is how it should be.
Our time will come too — when everything will fall into place. But it will happen in a future democratic Belarus, where all of this will be investigated by honest prosecutors — together with their European counterparts.
As for the proposals made by Vadzim Prakopieu, I would prefer not to comment on them. At the forum, he suggested “making Tsikhanouskaya a queen with the right to appoint a prime minister, like in England.” First of all — that’s not how it works in England. And second — I believe that Belarus should be a parliamentary republic, without any kings, queens, or similar figures. The president should be a purely ceremonial figure, as in modern parliamentary democracies like Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, and others.
Belsat: 4) Who do you see as a potential leader of the opposition to the “opposition mainstream”?
Who is doing enough to earn relatively broad support from Belarusians or the trust of a significant number of international partners? And have you personally been able to do anything since the 2020 elections and protests that you would consider an accomplishment in the context of the democratic movement?
The Belarusian example clearly shows what happens when power is concentrated in the hands of one person — the leader inevitably transforms into a dictator and a tyrant.
That is precisely why I support a parliamentary form of government in Belarus. We don’t need just one leader — we need many leaders, many viewpoints, and real political parties. We need a parliament where debates can take place and different perspectives can be discussed. Thousands of Belarusians have made invaluable contributions to the future of our country. To repeat the path of one-man rule would be a historic mistake — and would devalue the sacrifices of all those who have suffered for Belarus’s future.
Today, the emergence of new leaders inside Belarus is impossible — for obvious reasons. For now, we must consider as leaders those who, at various times, have dared to challenge the totalitarian regime at the risk of their freedom — and even their lives. I have already named them. That is why I want all of them to play a key role in the future of Belarus — to be part of the parliament, not a rubber-stamp body, but one that forms a real government. They should be part of a coalition government where everyone can work together to discuss the country’s development strategy, propose, and implement projects — in the economy, social policy, and beyond. There will be more than enough work for everyone in the Belarus of the future!
In the meantime, alongside my main work, I continue to run the Belarus Women’s Foundation, which was established in 2020. I have donated all of my international awards — more than €11,000 — to Belarusian women who were forced to flee the regime. This is documented in the financial reports of the Belarus Women’s Foundation.
Together with the volunteers of the Foundation — which continues to operate to this day — we meticulously document the regime’s crimes against humanity and maintain statistics on female political prisoners. We have launched a wide range of initiatives to support Belarusians. You can find detailed information about all of them on the Belarus Women’s Foundation website. All of this has been done solely thanks to the dedication of our volunteers, for whom I am immensely grateful. Five years on, despite a complete lack of funding, the team has not given up — and that deserves enormous respect and gives hope that there are still many people who truly care about Belarus’s future.
We are not giving up. We continue on our path — even though it is difficult and full of obstacles. We believe, and we are doing everything we can to return home — to our beloved Belarus — to rebuild it, to make it flourishing, strong, and prosperous — a country each of us can be proud of, not one we speak of with shame or lowered eyes when asked about our nationality.
Published here:
15.08.25: Belsat - Каманды Бабарыкі і Цапкалы разышліся з Ціханоўскай.