Belarusian Opposition Divided on EU Strategy: Dialogue vs. Sustained Pressure

A stark divergence has emerged within the Belarusian opposition regarding the European Union's policy toward the government of Alyaksandr Lukashenka, intensifying the ongoing debate over the most effective path to democratic change and stability in the region. While one prominent figure advocates for renewed dialogue and conditional engagement, another maintains that only sustained pressure and stringent sanctions will compel the authoritarian regime to change. This internal debate highlights the complex geopolitical landscape and the profound human cost of Belarus's current political trajectory.

A Call for Conditional Engagement

Maria Kalesnikava, a leading opposition figure recently released from prison, has urged the European Union to engage in dialogue with Lukashenka, arguing that Belarus's isolation risks pushing it further into Russia's orbit. According to Kalesnikava, deeper isolation makes Belarus "less safe and less predictable" for Europe. She believes that Lukashenka, described as pragmatic, "understands the language of business" and that easing sanctions could be strategically linked to concrete humanitarian measures, such as the release of political prisoners and the allowance of independent media and non-governmental organizations to operate freely. Kalesnikava pointed to Germany as a nation with historically strong ties to Belarus and noted that past engagement, which saw Belarus rank among the leaders in EU Schengen visa issuance, had fostered a sense of European identity among Belarusians. She cited the United States' recent move to lift sanctions on Belarusian potash in exchange for the release of political prisoners as a potential precedent for the EU to consider. Her perspective suggests that constructive engagement, even with an authoritarian leader, could yield tangible humanitarian improvements and prevent Belarus from becoming inextricably tied to Moscow.

Advocating for Unwavering Pressure

In contrast, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, recognized by many as the legitimate winner of the disputed 2020 presidential election and a leading voice of the opposition in exile, has consistently called for the European Union to maintain and strengthen its sanctions against Lukashenka's regime. Tsikhanouskaya asserts that "The firmness from Brussels matters" and that sanctions are an effective tool to weaken the regime. Her strategy emphasizes the importance of isolating Lukashenka while simultaneously bolstering support for Belarusian civil society and democratic forces. She also frames the situation in Belarus within a broader European security context, arguing that weakening Lukashenka is intrinsically linked to weakening Russian President Vladimir Putin, particularly given Belarus's role as a staging ground for the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Tsikhanouskaya advocates for comprehensive support for Ukraine to ensure its victory, seeing it as crucial to preventing Belarus from becoming a "consolation prize" for Russia. She recently addressed the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, urging continued international pressure to secure a free and democratic Belarus, emphasizing that while Lukashenka may release prisoners due to pressure, he does not do so out of humanity.

A History of Cyclical Relations and Deepening Repression

The relationship between the European Union and Belarus has been characterized by a cyclical "freeze-thaw-freeze" pattern over several decades. Initial diplomatic relations were established after Belarus's independence in 1991, but ties deteriorated significantly following Alyaksandr Lukashenka's rise to power in 1994, with the EU frequently condemning his government's authoritarian and anti-democratic practices. The 2020 presidential election, widely considered fraudulent, and the subsequent brutal crackdown on peaceful protests, marked a critical turning point. This was further exacerbated by Belarus's complicity in Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which led to an expansion of EU sanctions and increased isolation of Minsk.

The human rights situation in Belarus remains dire. Over a thousand political prisoners are currently detained, often subjected to harsh conditions, including prolonged solitary confinement, denial of medical care, and lack of access to legal counsel or family. The Belarusian human rights organization Viasna reports more than 8,000 politically motivated convictions since 2020, with nine political prisoners dying in custody. While there have been instances of prisoner releases, sometimes in exchange for sanctions relief, repression continues unabated, creating a "revolving door of repression" where new political prisoners are regularly detained. These releases are often seen by critics as tactical moves by the regime, rather than genuine shifts towards human rights.

The EU's Enduring Dilemma

The European Union currently faces a complex dilemma: how to balance its commitment to democratic values and human rights with geopolitical realities and strategic interests. On one hand, maintaining a hardline stance and comprehensive sanctions aligns with the EU's foundational principles and the calls from a significant portion of the Belarusian opposition. Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda recently affirmed that the EU intends to extend both individual and sectoral sanctions against Belarus for another 12 months, citing Belarus's role as a co-aggressor in the war against Ukraine and the lack of change in the Belarusian authorities' behavior. Many in the EU argue that engaging with Lukashenka risks granting him legitimacy and undermining the democratic aspirations of the Belarusian people.

On the other hand, some analysts and opposition figures like Kalesnikava argue that the EU's sanctions-only approach has not achieved its core goals of crippling the economy or fundamentally altering Lukashenka's behavior. Instead, it may have inadvertently tightened authoritarian control and deepened Belarus's dependence on Russia. This perspective suggests that a purely isolationist policy could be counterproductive, creating a "strategic blind spot" for Europe. While full normalization of relations with Lukashenka's government is widely seen as unattainable without significant internal reforms, some argue for exploring limited, sector-specific engagement on humanitarian issues or border management to prevent further deterioration and mitigate risks to regional stability. The debate reflects a continuous search for a policy that can effectively address human rights violations while also safeguarding broader European security interests.

Conclusion

The internal division within the Belarusian opposition regarding engagement with the Lukashenka regime underscores the profound challenges facing a nation at the crossroads of Europe. The calls for dialogue from figures like Maria Kalesnikava, rooted in a pragmatic desire to prevent further Russian dominance and achieve humanitarian gains, stand in stark contrast to Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya's insistence on unwavering pressure and sanctions to dismantle the authoritarian system. The EU's current policy, leaning towards continued sanctions, reflects its commitment to democratic principles and its condemnation of the regime's actions and its alliance with Russia. However, the effectiveness and long-term implications of this strategy continue to be debated. The path forward for Belarus, and its relationship with the European Union, remains intricately tied to this delicate balance of idealism and pragmatism, with the fate of numerous political prisoners and the future of regional security hanging in the balance.