Due to the ongoing repressions in Belarus, this year it was decided to focus on the practical potential of the Forum. Thus, the new format included four working sessions / workshops, with the possibility of having Belarusian, Russian, and English as working languages. During the workshops, the participants were invited into think tank settings to work out suggestions on vibrant issues in their area of expertise.

New format of workshop

was introduced in Vilnius and Warsaw. In September and October accordingly the representatives of the civil society met to discuss such topics as

• “Belarusian identity in the 21st century”
• “Keeping Belarus on the agenda”
• “Belarus and Russia’s war against Ukraine”
• “Gender and queer rights aspects in the Belarusian context”.

Anastasiya Khamiankova (Imaguru Startup HUB) and Jakob Wöllenstein (KAS Belarus) facilitated the working process in Vilnius, Kamil Kłysiński (Centre for Eastern Studies) and Julia Mickiewicz (Fem Group of the Coordination Council) joined as facilitators in Warsaw. Reports on the workshops’ outcomes are available on our website, both in English and German. 

Minsk Forum XXI in Brussels

took place in November, in the premises of the Mission of Democratic Belarus. During the first part of the day collective work was facilitated by Palina Brodik (Free Belarus Center), and the final meeting with Parliamentarians was moderated by Alena Aharelysheva (Fem Group of the Coordination Council).

Participants focused on civil society, media, gender, politics, and culture. They emphasized the need to overcome the split between Belarusians inside and outside the country and highlighted the cultural component of civil society as essential for its implementation within Belarus. The media group discussed strategies to overcome competition, address funding issues, and engage with Big Tech. The meeting with European parliamentarians emphasized the need to position Belarus as an independent country, not a vestige of the Soviet Union, urging the EU to recognize Belarus’s potential for democratic transformation.

During the Klausur in Berlin

Belarusians living across the globe gathered to discuss pressing challenges which Belarusian civil society is facing under the dictatorship of Lukashenka and the hybrid occupation of the country. The meeting, held at Europäische Akademie Berlin, adopted a format inspired by the history of the Catholic church’s conclave. Aleś Čajčyc (German-Belarusian Society) and Ina Valitskaya (RAZAM e.V.) facilitated the work during these three days in December. 

The exchanges among participants, drawn from a variety of backgrounds and professional domains, presented both challenges and fruitful outcomes. Numerous individuals shared their personal experiences and opinions, underscoring the imperative for open and honest dialogue concerning these crucial issues. Regarding the facilitation methods different techniques were employed, for example: 

• design-thinking, encouraging participants to step into the shoes of their target audience or beneficiaries;
• breaking down the question in the group; 
• breaking down the topic in different working groups;
• brainstorming sessions, silent debates; 
• world cafe. 

When speaking about Belarus in 2023, one must acknowledge today’s representations of the county, which include two types of dividing lines separating them: 

• Geographical: inside the country vs. in exile and in diaspora; 
• Political: the regime vs. “the new Belarus”. 

Though it makes concrete planning of actions more complicated, understanding this fragmentation of society is necessary for detailed analysis of the current socio-economic and political situation. And on the question which with every year after 2020 becomes more obvious, – Is there one Belarus or two Belaruses? – there was no consensus.

The Minsk Forum Conference held in Berlin

under the theme “Raising the Belarusian Voice in Europe”, marked the culmination of a series of events following working sessions in Vilnius and Warsaw and meetings with European parliamentarians in Brussels. Despite the challenges posed by the Lukashenko regime, the Forum emphasized the commitment to maintaining the Minsk Forum’s identity and returning to Belarus in the future.

Various panels addressed critical issues, including political developments, economic conditions, and the role of civil society. Discussions highlighted the need for international collaboration to support political prisoners, counteract information warfare, and preserve Belarusian culture. The conference underscored Germany’s ongoing support for Belarusians striving for a free and independent Belarus integrated into Europe. The detailed report can be found on < our website >, and the video streams are available on our youtube-channel. 

The most relevant parts of the democratic Belarusian context today: 

• Though according to Chatham House research most Belarusians do not support Russian military aggression or Lukashenka’s regime, Belarusians abroad might be struggling to convince foreign authorities in their protest against either the regime or the war in Ukraine; 
• Post-2020 Belarusian democratic forces gained their legitimacy, and now it might be the time for structural development and European integration efforts;
• There is a need of step-by-step strategy for resolution “In support of a democratic Belarus in the European family” implementation;

Political prisoners in Belarus

During the meetings in Berlin the problem of political prisoners was considered one of the most urgent ones. Their number is only growing, and currently at least 1,484 political prisoners are being held in Belarusian prisons in appalling conditions. It should be considered a humanitarian catastrophe in the center of Europe. 

1) Problem of the release of political prisoners

One of the significant problems in the release of political prisoners is that there is still no special group in the EU working on this issue. Political prisoners in the context of Belarus should be considered as hostages of the regime. Among the propositions of participants were:

• divide of political prisoners according to different lists (humanitarian, etc.) for step-by-step release (a certain European country can undertake moderation);
• “shuttle diplomacy” with personal guarantees (Merkel – Khodorkovsky example); 
• introduction and removal of sanctions, the “carrot and sticks” system;
• involvement of diaspora, NGO, media company;
• exchange of hostages / prisoners between Belarus and other countries;
• a call to action for civil society, democratic structures, and EU countries to initiate the development and adoption of a resolution in the European Parliament focusing on the support of political prisoners. This resolution would include key demands:

a) Demands for release: Immediate and unconditional release of political prisoners who have been unjustly detained for their activism and dissent.

b) Improving detention conditions: Advocating for improved conditions of detention, addressing issues related to human rights violations, and ensuring prisoners’ access to fair legal proceedings.

c) Future and release conversations: Initiate dialogues about the future of political prisoners and the potential for their release, ensuring that their rights are respected and upheld.

2) Support and rehabilitation of political prisoners at large

It is necessary to problematize the rehabilitation of former political prisoners, since the release of them doesn’t only mean a victory, but also certain challenges ahead. Today, according to the data of the social policy representative of the United Transitional Cabinet, we already have about 1,400 “former” political prisoners. The number of existing rehabilitation and resocialization programs will soon be insufficient. 

An important matter in this regard is the expansion of guidelines on how to support political prisoners from abroad. The necessary information should be adapted for different European countries, e.g. Solidarity without borders: a guide on supporting political prisoners from abroad.

Though the situation of former political prisoners who remain in Belarus and who have gone abroad should be considered separately, as their needs are different, for both former political prisoners in Belarus and outside the country medical, psychological and financial help is an absolute necessity. Also, after release, people need legal advice, employment or study, which can be a problem in Belarus. The situation with mentoring for political prisoners, which is difficult to implement domestically, is very difficult. It is necessary to systematize support for political prisoners who have been released (with or without serving their sentence).

Belarus and Russian war of aggression in Ukraine 

The topic was mainly discussed during the workshop session in Warsaw, though it was impossible to avoid the topic during other Minsk Forum events. The main ideas proposed by the participants are: 

• There is a need for a Belarus-centric agenda in public discourse, highlighting the hybrid occupation of Belarus by Russia and advocating for a nuanced differentiation of responsibility. 
• The key message should be that Belarus is not an aggressor state; Belarusian civil society should be separated from the Lukashenka’s regime in media narratives. Public discourse should consistently use wording that distinguishes between these entities. It is essential for Belarusians, when assessing the role of Belarus in the present war, to balance self-criticism with appeals to the historical experiences of other nations facing authoritarian regimes. Belarusian mass media should also emphasise public manifestations of solidarity of the Belarusian people with Ukraine.
• Individual and targeted sanctions on regime officials should be introduced. The imposition of sanctions requires taking into account a large number of factors in order not to isolate Belarus and complicate the life of the «ordinary citizens» of the country.
• Long-term and stable financial support for Belarusian civil initiatives abroad, recognizing the challenges faced by Belarusians who have left the country, should be implemented. 

Civil society 

The key take-aways on the topic of civil society during the events of Minsk Forum XXI: 

• There is a need to acknowledge the political agency of civil society and different contexts from which it comes.
• The split between people inside and outside the country should be overcome, as they are parts of the same chain and shouldn’t be separated. Democratic Belarusians inside and outside the country share the same aim and goal.
• The cultural component of civil society is essential, with cultural projects becoming more tangible for implementing civil society inside the country.
• The problem of mobility became even more obvious with the restriction of travel and humanitarian visas in Poland and Lithuania for Belarusians. The promotion of the New Belarus passport is crucial for the community.
• Politicians should make a clear distinction between Belarusian civil society and Russian opposition; otherwise, attempts to unite them only reinforce the Russian imperialistic narrative.
• One of the fundamental ideas, brought up during Minsk Forum XXI is that the change in Belarus will most likely commence from within the country itself. Despite the challenges and oppression, thousands of activists continue their struggle against the authoritarian regime within Belarus.
• There is a need for systematic and flexible support to be provided to unregistered NGOs and democratic activist groups within Belarus.
• There is a need to establish an institution to aggregate the needs of socially vulnerable groups in Belarus.

Gender equality and LGBTQI+ rights

should be non-negotiable components of Belarus’s path toward democracy and human rights. Concerted effort should be directed by Belarusian society, democratic forces, and independent media to elevate these issues to their rightful place on the agenda. Recommendations regarding potential methods and tools for reshaping the prevailing status quo:

• In conferences such as the Minsk Forum that pertain to the themes of the future of Belarus and transformative democratic changes within it, it is deemed imperative to incorporate gender as an imminent value and a feminist perspective as a common framework across various domains, including politics, social issues, national revival, culture, ecology, economics, and others. There also should be a gender balance in the composition of the participants. 
• More extensive discussion on the broader human rights agenda, encompassing the rights of gender and other minority groups, is advocated for among political figures, representatives of civil society, and within the media.
• In the media, it is recommended to present more positive instances that counter arguments such as “now is not the time.” Moreover, media personalities and opinion leaders who are willing to challenge gender and sexist stereotypes should be invited.
• It is of paramount importance to adopt an inclusive, compassionate, and unified approach among democratic Belarusian politicians. 

Belarusian culture and identity

The question of Belarusian identity in the 21st century, in times of discrimination and criminalisation of the Belarusian language in the country, and the spread of Russian colonial power is of crucial importance. Currently, over 140 cultural figures are imprisoned, with sentences of up to 9 years each. The realm of culture is distinctly targeted in Belarus’s internal policy, marked by severe repression. Therefore, the reduction of budgets from donors, caused by the remark about the lack of visibility of how cultural activities affect life in the country, is especially felt in this sphere.

Two main areas of thought, participants paid their attention to: 

• Discrimination of the Belarusian language and culture within Belarus, and the ways to preserve it; 
• Belarusian nation-building and identity: how culture and mindset can be revitalized in Belarus, and preserved abroad. 

Two key messages for Belarusian culture media-representation formulated during Minsk Forum XXI are: 

• “Protect Belarusian – protect European”: by helping Belarus European countries are preventing the spread of “Russian world”; 
• Belarus is not “entering” Europe but “returning” to Europe: Belarusians should formulate positive messages. 

Results of the work include following ideas / propositions:

• the emphasis on solving the problems of Belarusians as a whole, rather than focusing solely on individual activist agendas;
• innovative ideas, including content formats both for Belarusians inside the country and living abroad; they should promote Belarusian culture, history, and achievements while avoiding political topics;
• the diversification of financial and decision-making, there is a huge demand inside and outside the country, as well as online;
• reappropriating the traditional festivals for wider distribution (e.g. Dažynki);  
• creating Belarusian-language educational content for children;
• leveraging media space to promote the Belarusian narrative;
• preserving Belarusian identity among those abroad;
• supporting cultural experts and creators;
• working on diversified and stable funding, as well as the institutionalization of Belarusian culture.  

Belarusian and international media agenda

During the meetings in four European cities the representatives of civil society actively discussed how Belarus should be seen and be presented through Belarusian and international media-channels. Keeping Belarus on the international agenda is even harder during the Russian-Ukrainian war, Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other catastrophes of today. Nevertheless, among the possible solutions are exploring target groups, their interests, and strategies for international attention, emphasizing tailored storytelling and brand management. Recommendations to the media outlets include creative engagement formats, networking, and building alliances.

Emphasizing the importance of combating propaganda and promoting Belarusians’ own agenda, participants of Minsk Forum XXI suggested the following as important steps towards media stability: 

• creating and maintaining Belarusian-centric discourse; 
• creating and supporting initiatives to inform Belarus in different countries (on site);
• supporting grassroots media-initiatives, both inside and outside the country;
• creating entertaining and / or non-politisiced content;
• studying Belarusian media consumption;
• launching a Board of Trustees in media;
• supporting Belarusian Center for Strategic Communications, which is being under development by the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, namely the Representation on National Revival;
• supporting educational programs for journalists and other media-workers; 
• working on stable funding for media;
• formulating positive messages: Belarus is not “entering” but “returning” to Europe; national identity, connected to choice not to (want to) live in a dictatorship: democracy, freedom, peaceful protests; strong engagement from civil society; successes despite dire circumstances;
• lobbying for the interests of Belarusian independent media in BigTech. 

During Minsk Forum XXI some Belarusians came to the consensus that Belarus needs something similar to an enhanced “brand management strategy”, though the term “brand management”, as coming from marketing language, can be highly disputed. Storytelling about Belarus should also be tailored to specific audiences.

On the website you may also find the working papers of Dr. Hanna Vasilevich (“Belarus in the context of the war in Ukraine – discussion paper”), and Anatol Fedarau (“On the problem of political prisoners and the ways of its solution”). 

When the war erupted in Ukraine, Belarus and its people were inevitably drawn to the midst of the situation. The regime led by Lukashenka allowed Russian troops to be stationed on Belarusian soil. As a result, Belarus is often perceived as a co-aggressor in this war, although Belarusian troops have never participated in the atrocities in Ukraine. Furthermore, the Lukashenka administration accepted Ukrainian children into Belarus under the pretext of their protection from war and providing them with medical treatment. This has led to the accusations of Lukashenka of war crimes and suggests that this person should face an international arrest warrant, similar to Putin.

Despite the involvement of the Belarusian regime in this war, there remains an important question regarding how to address Belarusian society on a broader scale, and more specifically, with regard to those who fled the country to avoid imprisonment for their political opposition to the Lukashenka regime and the war in particular.

In any conflict, multiple perspectives must be considered. In this specific case, we can identify the following voices:

‒ Russian propaganda,

‒ the Ukrainian discourse seeking for military and financial aid,

‒ the international community advocating for peace in the region, and

‒ Lukashenka’s propaganda has limited reach beyond the country’s borders.

What is conspicuously absent from this public discourse is a distinct vocal resonance from Belarusian civil society. From the first day of the war, the office of Sviatlana Cichanouskaja and other democratic factions released formal statements censuring the aid that Lukashenka’s regime had bestowed upon Putin while affirming that Belarusians robustly endorsed Ukraine in their legitimate struggle.

However, these statements articulate two competing narratives:

1. Belarusians prioritize Ukraine, overlook their own needs, and promote the Ukrainian voice to be heard.
2. In many instances, Belarusian democratic leaders accept and often promote the discourse of Belarus as a co-aggressor state, thus inevitably sharing the responsibility for assisting attacks against Ukraine.

Despite the support provided by Belarusian society and democratic forces in Ukraine, their actions at the expense of their own people have created grounds for further discussion and potential criticism.

One of the key issues surrounding the sharing of responsibility for Belarus, within the context of its society, is the de facto legitimization of Lukashenka’s actions as an elected president. This contradicts the central idea behind the 2020 protests as well as all other protests that preceded them. In the current circumstances, it is evident that the Lukashenka regime lacks legitimacy. Therefore, the question of shared responsibility is called a question.

The second crucial aspect to consider is whether the Lukashenka regime operates independently or whether Belarus should be considered under occupation due to the heavy Russian military presence. It reveals the discrepancy between purely legal definitions that are quite conservative and the objective reality of the hybridization of wars and threats.

It is clear that placing responsibility for Lukashenka’s actions solely on Putin is inappropriate. Nevertheless, for some time, Lukashenka’s choices have been affected, and at times authorized, by the leadership of the Kremlin. Furthermore, in 2020, concerns were raised about the potential deployment of Russian military forces to handle the protesting situation (as was later the case in Kazakhstan). Therefore, one can describe the current situation in Belarus as a “hybrid occupation” of Russia.

As a result, Belarusians must first address the question of what responsibility Belarus should bear for its participation in the war: as a country, as a regime/administration, or as a civil society.

This distinction is crucial from several perspectives:

‒ to avoid associating the regime with the state and its people.

‒ to maintain a Belarusian agenda at the EU level, it is important to highlight the struggles of the Belarusian people and the crimes committed by their own government, primarily against their own people.

However, it would be challenging to keep Belarus in the focus of the European agenda while repeatedly discussing Belarus in the connotation of the co-aggressor. Moreover, according to the Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX):

the question of whether an act of aggression has been committed must be considered in light of the circumstances of each particular case.

This means that in the case of Belarus, the illegitimacy of Lukashenka and de facto hybrid occupation should be taken into consideration when addressing limitations that would affect the Belarusian population within and outside the country.

In the future, when the war is over, there might be claims from Ukraine to bear the responsibility for stationing Russian troops and weapons fired from Belarusian territory. When the time comes, the case of Belarus should be addressed through the prism of international examples of aggression and collaboration with aggressors, both in contemporary and historical contexts.

However, this is not what Belarusian democratic forces should focus on. The core agenda of democratic forces is as follows:

– differentiating Belarus and Russia when addressing possible limitations imposed on the citizens of these two countries,

– Basic survival of Belarusians within and outside the country, especially in the case of those forced to flee due to political repression.

– Timely effective countering of the challenges caused by legal amendments introduced by the Lukashenka administration (discontinuation of issuing new passports via embassies, etc.).

Dr. Hanna Vasilevich is Chair of the Board at the International Centre for Ethnic and Linguistic Diversity Studies (Prague)

01 December Berlin

Belarus and the War:
How Firm is Russia’s Grip?

The conference was opened with welcoming remarks by representatives of the organising party Dr Sabine Fandrych (Secretary General, Friedrich Ebert Foundation Berlin) and Dr Hanna Stähle (Chair of the Board, German-Belarusian Society), as well as high-level politicians Dr Tobias Lindner (Minister of State, Foreign Ministry of Germany) and Valery Kavaleusky (Representative for Foreign Affairs in the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus).

Minister Lindner pointed out that despite the involvement of the Lukashenka regime in the attack on Ukraine, Germany distinguishes between Belarus and Russia and will continue to calibrate the sanctions applied to both countries.

Mr Kovalevsky reminded the audience that the EU provides extensive support to the Belarusian civil society and applies sanctions to the Lukashenka regime, but could do more on reducing Russian influence in Belarus. After the opening speeches, the politicians answered several questions from the audience. These touched upon the sudden death of the former foreign minister of Belarus Vladimir Makei and the practical meaning of the EU’s declared non-recognition of Lukashenka’s legitimacy.

Panel discussion I — Politics

Germany and Europe Siding with Belarus: Roadmap for Further Support of Democratic Movement

Knut Abraham (MdB CDU, Member of the German Parliament) and Dr Nils Schmid (MdB SPD, Member of the German Parliament) were invited as panellists. The discussion was moderated by Katsiaryna Kryzhanouskaya from Deutsche Welle, Belarus-Team. However, the panel seemed to rather be a conversation than a discussion, since the parliamentarians did not so much present alternative views as complement each other.

Kryzhanouskaya, in a deft journalistic manner, addressed questions to the politicians while making no secret of her interest in the all-around support of democratic Belarus. The role of the Belarusian democratic forces in advancing positive changes in the country was paid the most attention.

For example, Dr Schmid emphasised that his colleagues and he are well aware that the opposition forces now have little opportunity for concrete action inside Belarus, but he considers the activity of Belarusians in exile as an area where persistent efforts can and should be initiated. The politician also pointed out the importance of retaining the hope for a potential power transfer and cited Poland and its Solidarity movement as an inspiring example: “Belarusians have already had two years of struggle behind them. This struggle is not in vain!” 

Abraham noted that he often hears about different conflicting groups within the opposition movement, which, in his view, is counterproductive in the current situation. Focusing on the political impact on various population groups in Belarus, primarily through media outreach, is what, he believes, would be a much more useful utilisation of opposition resources than mutual recriminations and grievances. One of the most important tasks of the opposition today is enhancing visibility and developing visiting diplomacy, i.e. a more frequent presence in the political reality with all its meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on, the parliamentarian believes.

Kryzhanouskaya also shared an opinion that people in Germany generally have no idea about the massive repressions that continue in Belarus and asked what should be done to make the German media write about Belarus again. Abraham’s answer left no illusions: the politician specified that the media jump from one topic to another, and it is impossible in a democratic society to control it: “Of course, it may be frustrating for people from Belarus, but the media function the way they do”.

Schmidt, in turn, shattered another conceit, this time about political prisoners and the possibility of their immediate release in exchange for some bonuses for Lukashenka: “Political prisoners in Belarus are not a bargaining tool anymore. Today, we cannot enter into a dialogue with Lukashenka because of his support for Russia in the war”. 

Panel discussion II – Economy

Current State of the Economy in Belarus, Impact of Sanctions and Prospects for Development

The speakers in this panel included: Yulia Miadzvetskaya (doctoral researcher, University of Tübingen), Dr Lev Lvovskiy (Research Fellow, BEROC), Sierz Naurodski (Representative in Baltic countries, ABBA), Robert Kirchner (Senior Advisor and Deputy Team Leader at the German Economic Team). The discussion was moderated by Stefan Kägebein (Regional Director Eastern Europe, German Eastern Business Association). 

Without going around the bush, Mr Kirchner immediately pointed out that the economic situation in Belarus was disastrous. The GDP dropped by 4.7%, just like in the 1990s. The only two productive sectors at the moment are agriculture, where the situation depends on the harvest that cannot be controlled, and the IT industry, which is still in stagnation despite the observed expansion, with growth rates dropping significantly.

Mr Kirchner’s predictions for the future are also bleak — even more stagnation in all areas is likely to be seen. The price freeze imposed by Lukashenka does have its short-term positive effect, but it is not a long-term solution: store shelves are emptying and exports are increasing only with one partner — Russia. As for the exchange rates, according to Kirchner, the situation is rather stable, and the microfinance situation looks the most encouraging against the background of everything else. 

Dr Lvovskiy believes that in 2021, Belarus experienced a kind of miracle in terms of foreign trade because, for some reason, sanctions did not work and there was a positive trade balance. In 2022, the sanctions finally took effect de facto. As for the qualitative trends in the development of the Belarusian economy, Dr Lvovskiy outlined the following: 

• The state attempts to introduce and increase mini-taxes — for example, for picking mushrooms, collecting data, or crossing the border. At the same time, there is no increase in the general big taxes — Lukashenka tries to avoid it as much as he can. 
• Belarus is losing its status as an IT country. This sector has always been small compared to others, but it has been constantly growing, posing attractive employment opportunities and giving hope for the future. Over the last year, some 11,000 IT specialists left the country, which makes up 7-10% of the total number of people employed in this field. 
• Economic policy is characterised by instability — people do not feel optimistic about the future, and they do not buy things. Business people are skeptical: they observe high inflation and are not sure about tomorrow, because the rules of the game are constantly changing and the prospective regulations of the National Bank, the banks that give loans, and other major financial operators are not clear. 
• The oil business, which faced a critical situation back in April-May, has somewhat recovered, most likely due to the support of Russia. Potash is sold only to China. At the same time, according to opinion polls — and this is what Dr Lvovskiy considers an unexpected result — people say that they feel good about the current economic situation because they expected a complete collapse, but the failure was only partial. 
• A mass of information is concealed by the government. Even the situation with the budget is unknown because the National Bank has stopped publishing its reports. In general, the state tries to produce positive news and convince the population that the situation is controlled — not only stable but actually improving. 

Miadzvetskaya provided a more detailed presentation of the situation with economic sanctions imposed on Belarus and called what it a “sanctions mini-revolution”. The listing criteria have recently been updated. The EU finally began to include those who support Russian aggression or the use of migrants as a hybrid war weapon.

While noting the positive effect of these sanctions in terms of putting economic pressure on the regime, Miadzvetskaya believes that the EU will have to work hard to calibrate the sanctions to be able to distinguish between ordinary Belarusian citizens who are primarily affected by the sanctions and those who permanently support the authoritarian regime as well as have close business affiliations with it; and to differentiate between sanctions against Belarus and Russia, as many of them are now overlapping.

Naurodski supported Miadzvetskaya’s ideas about the necessary calibration of sanctions and cited as an example the situation with foreign banks, which are very reluctant to open accounts for Belarusians abroad. By doing so, according to Mr Naurodski, the banks demonstrate that they do not make a difference between the people loyal to the authoritarian government and political dissidents who have to start their life from scratch in new countries.

Another shade of the Belarusian economic trouble is the energy crisis. “Belarus is suffering from an energy crisis. For now, the state has oil and gas, and people can heat their homes, but there are certain problems”, Mr Naurodski is convinced, because Ukraine has now stopped buying oil from Russia, but still buys it from Belarus. Belarus, in its turn, buys oil from Russia and resells it to Ukraine. When the war is over, Ukraine, according to Mr Naurodski, will start buying oil from Azerbaijan or the EU, and this will further marginalize the already unpopular Belarusian exports.

The economic discussion can perhaps be summed up by the words of Dr Lvovskiy who described the economic situation in Belarus as “definitely bad, but much better than everyone expected”.

Panel discussion III — Society: Understanding Belarus — Belarusian Identity, incl. Presentation of a New Study

Philipp Bikanau (independent sociologist), Henadz Korshunau (Senior Analyst at the Center for New Ideas), Andrei Kazakevich (Director, Institute for Political Studies “Political Sphere”), Maryia Rohava (Independent Researcher specialising in Belarusian area studies), and Natallia Vasilevich (theologian, moderator of Christian Vision for Belarus working group) were invited for the discussion. The talk was moderated by Zmicer Lukashuk (Editor at Euroradio, author and moderator of the programme on national identity “Idea X”).

To set the tone for the discussion, a recent sociological research “Belarusian National Identity in 2022: Experience of Quantitative Research” by Bikanau, supported by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, was presented. The main conclusions of the research are as follows: 

• Belarusian identity is at a crossroads with socio-political conflict and contestation over values that strongly influence society’s national projects.
• Foreign policy preferences stem from attachment to one of several national identity projects. Despite this, Belarusians show a strong commitment to neutrality.
• The nature of the Belarusian regime and its foreign policy orientation will deepen divisions within society. The ways Belarus overcomes these divisions will shape the country’s future image.

Describing the changes that have occurred in religious communities since 2020, Vasilevich noted that vertical stratification is observed, and grassroots initiatives and specific individuals, rather than religious institutions per se, are beginning to play a more significant role. She also noticed that horizontal connections are being established within religious communities, similar to urban protest movements, but distrust of one another is growing within units such as parishes.

Kazakevich criticised Bikanau’s study and shared insights from a yet unpublished study that he had been involved in conducting, namely: 

• The increase in migration from Belarus to the EU started in 2017-2018, rather than in 2020. In the last five years, people have been leaving Belarus mainly for economic reasons. Media attention to political migration creates a false impression of the overall scale and causes. The absolute majority of migrants are not politically or socially active people, but just workers in the logistics, construction, and manufacturing industries. The number of IT specialists who decided to leave Belarus is growing, but on the whole, quantitatively it is not a large group of people. 

Kazakevich also questioned the fact that all those who left the country are opponents of the regime, and is convinced that diaspora narratives will soon have to be revised to make them systematic and aimed at different categories of migrants. 

Answering Lukashuk’s question about whether it is true that many Belarusians in emigration avoid full integration into the local society and rather stay in the circles of “those who have left”, Kazakevich replied that he shares this assessment: while previously people used to leave following the offer of their employer, now they migrate with the assistance of Belarusian communities. He also believes that, to some extent, it can be seen as shaping a Belarusian identity, and is enabled by the support infrastructure in place that covers a wide range of needs: from choosing a bar to getting a job.

Rohava also shared new study data — soon to be published — about state violence-associated trauma. She noted a division in public discourse between those “who left” and those “who stayed”. Korshunau added that such a schism could potentially be very dangerous, but so far there is no split at the level of mutual trust. 

The closing remarks on the future of German-Belarusian relations were provided by Prof Rainer Lindner, founder of the Minsk Forum and member of the Advisory Board of the German-Belarusian Society. Alina Koushyk, member of the United Transitional Cabinet of Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya, responsible for National Revival, ventured a look into the future of her home country and its place in Europe.

Summarising the results of the conference and answering the question stated in the title, it would be reasonable to claim that Russia’s influence on Belarus is still significant. By making the territory of Belarus available for Russian military strikes against Ukraine, Lukashenka drags the country into war and makes it an even bigger pariah on the world political scene, which only aggravates the deplorable state of the economy that is struggling to survive — largely thanks to the monetary injections from Russia and preferential prices of energy resources. Should Ukraine win the war, all possibilities for the current government of Belarus to somehow improve its political image will vanish — the country is likely to face an even bigger crisis. Many people have already chosen to leave, and researchers say the reasons for this departure are a mix of politics and economy.

Germany continues to assist the Belarusian struggle for democracy in various ways: democratic forces and civil society structures receive support for their activities, the German Embassy still works in Minsk and provides an opportunity to apply for visas — both humanitarian and Schengen ones; German embassies in other non-European countries readily accept applications from Belarusians for humanitarian visas.

However, one should not count on more: the German government does not intend to negotiate the release of political prisoners with Lukashenka, and entry on work visas will not be facilitated in the near future either, not least because of the large influx of refugees from Ukraine who also want to take vacant jobs.

As for the efforts of the Belarusian democratic forces, the EU in general and Germany in particular, in return for their financial support, expect a clearer political agenda, where an important part is assigned to supporting Ukraine’s fight against imperial Russia. However, due to the ever-present internal conflicts, as well as the inability to directly influence the daily life of Belarusians who live inside the country, there is a risk that these forces will lose much of their support among the population and become marginalised — therefore, the whole hard-won road to freedom will have to start from scratch one day.

Knut Abraham is a German jurist, diplomat and politician from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and a Member of the German Bundestag. He served in the German Foreign Service from 1998 and held various positions there. From 2011 to 2015, he was Consul General and Head of the Law and Consular Section at the German Embassy in Washington D.C.. From 2015 to 2018, he headed the Division for Bilateral Relations to the Countries of Central, Southeastern and Eastern Europe, the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia at the German Federal Chancellery. From 2018 on, he was Counsellor at the German Embassy in Warsaw. He became a member of the Bundestag after the last general elections in 2021.

Philipp Bikanau

Philipp Bikanau is a Belarusian independent sociologist. Philipp has over five years of experience of managing large-scale research projects on social and political topics for various international organisations such as World Bank, UNICEF, OECD, FES and others. In recent years, one of the focus points of his research has been the quantification of the Belarusian national identity. He has been managing and authoring research on this topic since May 2020.

Sabine Fandrych

Dr. Sabine Fandrych is a German political scientist. Since January 2021, she has been the Managing Director of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and designated Executive Member of the Board. Between 2000 and 2010, she worked for FES and GIZ in Angola and Ethiopia. From 2010 to 2016, she headed the Fritz Erler Forum, the Baden-Württemberg Regional Office of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Stuttgart. In 2016 she moved to FES Bonn, initially as Deputy Head of the Department at the Political Academy, which she has headed since the beginning of 2017. On 1 January 2021, she joined the management of the foundation and took a position of an Executive Board Member on 1 July 2021.

Stefan Kägebein

Stefan Kägebein joined the management of the German Eastern Business Association (2007 – ongoing) after his studies. He implemented and developed projects in cooperation with business associations in Moldova and SEE with respect to structural development and service development (2007-2012). From 2012-2014, he served as the Programme Director of the Zoran-Djindjic-Internship Programme of German Business for the Countries of the Western Balkans and developed the Internship Programme of German Business for Ukraine, where he served as Programme Director from 2014-2018. Since autumn 2016, he serves as the Head of the Working Group Digitalization at the German Eastern Business Association, and took over responsibility for the countries Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine as Regional Director Eastern Europe in October 2018.

Valery Kavaleuski

Valery Kavaleuski is the Representative for Foreign Affairs in the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus. He was appointed to this position on 9 August 2022. His professional background includes national diplomatic service with specialization on bilateral relations with the US and human rights in intergovernmental organizations. Prior to joining Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya’s team in December 2020, Kavaleuski worked in the World Bank Group in Washington, DC. He graduated from Belarus State University (BA in International Relations), Kozminsky Academy (Executive MBA) and Georgetown University School of Foreign Service (MS in Foreign Service).

Andrei Kazakevich

Andrei Kazakevich holds a PhD in Political Science. He is the Director of the Institute for Political Studies “Political Sphere” and a Research Fellow at the Lithuanian Institute of History. He is an analyst and political scientist, specialising in Belarusian and Eastern European politics and foreign policy, the judicial system and post-war political history. He is also the Editor in Chief of the Belarusian Political Science Review and the Journal of Political Studies Palityčnaja Sfiera and Head of the Organising Committee of the Annual International Congress of Belarusian Studies. His analytical and scholar publications appeared in Belarusian, Russian, English and Polish.

Henadz Korshunau

Henadz Korshunau is Senior Expert at the Center for New Ideas (CNI). He joined the CNI in September 2021. From 2018 to 2020, he served as the Director of the Institute of Sociology at the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. He resigned from this position for political reasons. Prior to this post, he worked as a leading researcher, Head of Department and Scientific Secretary of the Center for System Analysis and Strategic Developments of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus and as an Associate Professor at the Department of Sociology of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Belarusian State University. He has authored about 100 scientific publications.

Robert Kirchner

Robert Kirchner has been an authorized signatory at Berlin Economics since 2007. He is the Deputy Team Leader of the project “High-level government consultation on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action”, which includes Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Kosovo, Armenia, Georgia and Uzbekistan. After studying economics at the University of Potsdam and at the Warwick Business School, he worked as a research assistant at the University of Potsdam for five years. His research and consulting focus on macroeconomics and the financial sector, with a particular focus on transition economies. In addition, he is involved in numerous other economic policy consulting projects in Eastern Europe, South Caucasus and Central Asia. 

Alina Koushyk

Alina Koushyk is a Belarusian journalist, coach, TV host and director. She has a degree in history and has created numerous social projects. For the past 15 years, she had worked at Belsat TV, where she was the host of the Belsat Studio, PraSvet and 54% shows. In addition, Alina co-founded the Center for Belarusian Solidarity in Warsaw and InBelKult 2.0 as well as a club of Belarusian women in Warsaw. She initiated the Belarusian business map www.bymapka.me. She became a member of the Belarusian United Transitional Cabinet with responsibility for National Revival on 16 September 2022.

Katsiaryna Kryzhanouskaya

Katsiaryna Kryzhanouskaya is a journalist who is originally from Belarus. She has lived in Germany since 2010. She heads the Department for Social Media and In-Depth at the Russian Service of Deutsche Welle in Bonn. She speaks Belarusian, Russian, German and English.

Rainer Lindner

Prof. Dr. Rainer Lindner is Member of the Advisory Board of the German-Belarusian Society and Founder of the Minsk Forum. He was Chair of the Board of the organisation from 2000 to 2019 and was in charge of the Minsk Forum from 1997 to 2019. Since 2020, he has been Chair of the Board of Heine + Beisswenger Group, Fellbach. He is also Chair of the German-Ukrainian Forum and the Caspian Europe Forum e.V. From 2016 to 2020, Lindner was CEO Central & Eastern Europe/Middle East & Africa at Schaeffler AG. Before that, he was Managing Director of the Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations from 2008 to 2016. Between 2005 and 2008, he was a Research Associate at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP). Lindner graduated from the University of Tübingen, where he also obtained his doctorate. In 2005, he successfully completed his postdoctoral research (Habilitation) at the University of Konstanz, where he has held an adjunct professorship since January 2008.

Tobias Lindner

Dr. Tobias Lindner has been Minister of State at the Federal Foreign Office since 8 December 2021. From 2002 to 2007, he studied technical economics at the University of Karlsruhe. From 2007 to 2011, he was a research fellow at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. In 2011, he was awarded a doctorate in economics. He has been a member of the German Bundestag since 2011. His regional competence covers transatlantic relations, relations with Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine, the Asia Pacific region, the Near and Middle East and Latin America. He focuses on security policy issues and is committed to the further development of the rules-based international order, to the strengthening of the United Nations and to a feminist foreign policy. He advocates for a strong role for Germany in civilian crisis prevention, humanitarian assistance and peace mediation. Tobias Lindner also works on structural issues such as the digital transformation, gender equality, diversity and budget issues.

Zmicier Lukashuk

Zmicier Lukashuk is an editor and anchor at the European Radio for Belarus (Euroradio.fm), an independent Belarusian multimedia broadcaster. He is also the author and host of IDEA X, a weekly show on Euroradio, which features chats with prominent Belarusians on historic and cultural identity and the nation-building idea for Belarus. Zmicier has worked with Euroradio since 2007. His prior work experience included spells at such Belarusians print and broadcast media as Čyrvonaja Zmiena and Radio Station Bielaruskaja Maladziożnaja. He also received professional awards: The Sviatlana Navumava Prize, several Free Word Awards from the Belarusian Association of Journalists and other domestic and awards from other international journalism contests.

Lev Lvovsky

Lev Lvovsky is a senior research fellow at BEROC. He graduated with a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Iowa in 2017. Lev frequently comments on the economic news in Belarusian and international media. His research focuses on Macroeconomics, Labor Economics, and Gender Economics. 

Pavel Matsukevich

Pavel Matsukevich is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for New Ideas and a former diplomat, having served as the Charge d’Affaires a.i. of Belarus in Switzerland from 2016 to 2020. Before, he worked as the Head of the Division of Protocol Events at the State Protocol Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He also worked at the Embassy of Belarus in Germany and gained experience as an analyst at the Department of Foreign Policy Analysis at the MFA. Pavel graduated from the Faculty of International Relations at the Belarusian State University.

Yuliya Miadzvetskaya

Yuliya Miadzvetskaya is a doctoral researcher at the University of Tübingen and a visiting research fellow at the Hague Programme on International Cybersecurity. Prior to this, she worked at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, the College of Europe, and the legal service of the European Parliament. She holds an LL.M in European law from the College of Europe. Her research interests lay at the intersection of EU (cyber)security, sanctions, and data governance. She also regularly writes on Belarus, her country of origin.

Sierž Naurodski

Sierž Naurodski graduated from the Belarusian State Economic University with Honors Diploma in 2002 and acquired his Master degree in Economics at the University of Warsaw in 2003. In 2007-2022, he was the President of CASE Belarus, a part of CASE Network, engaged in CASE research projects in Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova. Since 2021, he is a Senior Economist at CASE. Since 2022, Sierž advocates for the development of Belarusian business in Lithuania, Latvia & Estonia as ABBA Country Manager in the Baltics. Sierž had consultancy contracts with UNICEF, UNDP, World Bank as well as he advised the governments of Poland, Belarus and Georgia. Among his research interests are structural changes in the economy of Belarus and other countries of Central and Eastern Europe, financial system reform, increasing efficiency in social services provision, and public administration reform.

Maryia Rohava

Maryia Rohava is a researcher specialising in Belarusian area studies. She was a doctoral research fellow at the University of Oslo working at the intersection of the authoritarian regime and identity politics in Belarus. Her previous research on Belarusian identity politics was published in East European Politics and Societies, Nations and Nationalism as well as Osteuropa Zeitschrift.

Nils Schmid

Dr. Nils Schmid has been a Member of the German Bundestag for the Social Democratic Party (SPD) since September 2017. He serves as a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Since 2018, he has been the spokesperson on foreign affairs for the SPD parliamentary group. Additionally, he is a member of the Franco-German Parliamentary Assembly. From 1997 to 2017, Nils Schmid was a Member of the Baden-Württemberg Regional Parliament. In 2009, he was elected chairman of the Baden-Württemberg regional branch of the SPD, an office he held until 2016. From 2011 to 2016, he served as Baden-Württemberg’s Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs and as Deputy Prime Minister of Baden-Württemberg.

Dirk Schübel

H.E. Ambassador Dirk Schübel is the EU’s Special Envoy for the Eastern Partnership. From 2019 until recently, he served as Head of the EU Delegation to Belarus. Prior to this, he held the same post in the Republic of Moldova and was Head of the Political, Press and Information Section of the EU Delegation to Ukraine. In between, he worked as both Head of Division for Russia and as Head of Division for the bilateral relations with the Eastern Partnership in the European External Action Service. Before his EEAS commitments, Amb. Schübel worked in the European Commission’s DGs dealing with Transport and Energy, Enlargement and also Trade. He started his professional career in the German Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He holds a degree in Foreign Trade and International Commercial Relations.

Hanna Stähle

Dr. Hanna Stähle is Chair of the Board of the German-Belarusian Society. She studied in Minsk, Passau and Moscow. She is currently Head of Foresight and Innovation at Philea – Philanthropy Europe Association. Previously, she worked as an Aide to the Secretary General of the Association of German Foundations in Berlin, Robert Bosch Stiftung in Stuttgart, Dafne – Donors and Foundations Networks in Europe in Brussels and was Research Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Higher School of Economics in Moscow. In 2018, she completed her PhD in Slavic cultural studies at the University of Passau (summa cum laude). In 2021, her book “Mediatization of Orthodoxy: Russian Church in the Digital Era” was published by Routledge.

Christian F. Trippe

Dr. Christian F. Trippe is Deputy Chair of the Board of the German-Belarusian Society. He has worked for Deutsche Welle in various positions since 1993, now he is the Head of the Eastern Europe editorial offices. In early 1999, he became head of the DW studio in Moscow, from 2002 he was head of the capital city studio in Berlin, from 2007 to 2014 he was studio head in Brussels, then in 2016-2017 he served as Ukraine correspondent and was based in Kiev.  He studied history, politics and English in Cologne, interrupted by a one-year of study in Vienna; his dissertation deals with the Weimar Republic. 

Natallia Vasilevich

Natallia Vasilevich is a theologian, political scientist and lawyer from Minsk. Since August 2020, she has been serving as a moderator of the “Christian Vision” group, which unites pro-democratic theologians, clergy and lay activists of major churches in Belarus. She holds an M.A. in Political Science from the Belarusian State University and an M.A. in Ecumenical Studies from the University of Bonn, where she is currently working on her doctoral thesis on the Christian social ethos. She has taught human rights at the Belarusian Law Institute.

The Minsk Forum 2022 took place for the twentieth time. The main event was organised by the German-Belarusian Society in cooperation with the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and was held in Berlin on 1 December 2022.

This was preceded by events in Vilnius, Warsaw and Brussels. The Belarusian diaspora was offered another opportunity for exchange on 2 December at the IAC conference rooms.

Programme

9:00 Arrival, registration & welcome coffee

The event is moderated by Dr. Christian F. Trippe, Deputy Chair of the Board, German-Belarusian Society

10:00 Welcome addresses

Dr. Sabine Fandrych, Secretary General, Friedrich Ebert Foundation Berlin

Dr. Hanna Stähle, Chair of the Board, German-Belarusian Society

10:10 Keynotes

Dr. Tobias Lindner, Minister of State, Foreign Ministry of Germany

Valery Kavaleusky, Representative for Foreign Affairs in the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus

11:00 I. Panel| Politics

Germany and Europe at the Side of Belarus: Roadmap for Further Support of the Democracy Movement

Knut Abraham, MdB CDU, Member of the German Parliament

Dr. Nils Schmid, MdB SPD, Member of the German Parliament

Moderated by Katsiaryna Kryzhanouskaya, Deutsche Welle, Belarus-Team

12:30 Lunch

13:45 II. Panel| Economics

Current State of the Economy in Belarus, Impact of Sanctions and Prospects for Development

Robert Kirchner, Senior Advisor and Deputy Team Leader at the German Economic Team

Sierz Naurodski, Representative in Baltic countries, ABBA

Dr. Lev Lvovskiy, Research Fellow, BEROC

Yulia Miadzvetskaya, doctoral researcher, University of Tübingen

Moderated by Stefan Kägebein, Regional Director Eastern Europe, German Eastern Business Association

15:15 Coffee break

15:45 III. Panel| Society

Understanding Belarus – Belarusian Identity, incl. Presentation of a New Study

Philipp Bikanau, Independent Sociologist, Presentation of study

Henadz Korshunau, Senior Analyst at the Center for New Ideas
Andrei Kazakevich, Director, Institute for Political Studies “Political Sphere”
Maryia Rohava, Independent Researcher specialising in Belarusian area studies
Natallia Vasilevich, Theologian, moderator of Christian Vision for Belarus

Moderated by Zmicer Lukashuk, Editor at the Euroradio broadcast, author and moderator of the programme on national identity “Idea X”

17:30 Closing Remarks

The Future of German-Belarusian Relations: 20 years Minsk Forum

Prof. Dr. Rainer Lindner, Founder of the Minsk Forum, Member of the Advisory Board of the German-Belarusian Society

The Future of Belarus in Europe

Alina Koushyk, Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, Representative for National Revival

18:00 Get Together