"Contact Us": Prakopieu wrote a column for "NN" in which he justifies Tsikhanouski's presence in the US and asks for money

Vadzim Prakopieu

What practical sense do human rights hearings in the US Congress have? There might not be a direct effect from such hearings. However, their significance should not be underestimated.

The release of Belarusian political prisoners is a fragile process and largely depends on the political conjuncture.

The American administration can lose interest in Lukashenka at any moment. Special envoy John Koole can cease active involvement. Lukashenka himself is also capable of making a mistake and disrupting the negotiation line if he decides to raise the stakes or makes an unnecessary move.

Under such circumstances, the Belarusian question needs a permanent representative in the US — a conditional "duty lawyer" who will keep the topic of hostages and political prisoners on the American agenda, not allowing it to dissolve among other foreign policy crises.

In my opinion, Siarhei Tsikhanouski is best suited for this role.

He is already known to American politicians. Congressman Christopher Smith, who chaired the hearings, began the session by noting: he follows Siarhei Tsikhanouski and has read his publication in The Washington Post.

In a political context, this is not just a gesture of politeness, but a demonstration of attention and readiness to perceive Tsikhanouski as a significant participant in the conversation.

Tsikhanouski does not shy away from sensitive topics and can formulate thoughts simply. And these are precisely the qualities needed in a situation where people's fates depend not only on diplomatic negotiations, but also on political pressure, publicity, and attention.

Below are excerpts from Siarhei Tsikhanouski's speech in the US Congress:

"There are only three realistic ways to free the remaining hostages:

— foreign military intervention;

— capture of regime representatives abroad for forced exchange;

— or coercive diplomacy led by President Donald Trump.

As a realist, I strongly support the latter option."

Павялічыць

Vadzim Prakopieu and Siarhei Tsikhanouski.

"Lukashenka needs President Trump much more than President Trump needs Lukashenka. This asymmetry gives the United States tremendous leverage and special envoy Mr. Koole."

According to our information, he is actively trying to attract American business: he offers to acquire a stake in national airlines, invites participation in potash mining, promises electricity for data centers from the Belarusian nuclear power plant. He is convinced that the current US administration thinks transactionally, and he is betting on this.

Lukashenka positions himself not only as an intermediary with the Kremlin but also as an informal communication channel with other authoritarian regimes.

All this gives the United States serious leverage — if used strategically and consistently."

Tsikhanouski also informed the congressmen that he has additional recommendations, but these are better discussed confidentially, rather than within public hearings.

It can be assumed that this refers to possible vulnerabilities of Lukashenka and his entourage. Potential levers of pressure indeed exist, but their use requires political will on the part of the US.

This political will can and must be supported. Moreover, this has to be done under difficult conditions: Belarus is not among the priority directions of American foreign policy. Or, as Donald Trump might say: "Belarus is not the hottest country in the world."

Despite the State Department's statements about supporting the democratic aspirations of Belarusians, the reality is that for now, the American administration in Belarus is primarily interested in Lukashenka's own connections and capabilities.

Regarding the country, many American politicians have a persistent notion: the Belarusian problem supposedly has no independent solution and is part of a broader conflict with Russia.

This narrative objectively hinders the prospect of a free Belarus and requires consistent refutation.

How is this possible? Through informal personal diplomacy, speeches in Congress, work with the expert community, constant media presence, and a realistic political strategy.

Such lobbying requires serious resources.

It is important that the Belarusian representative in the US does not depend on grant funding, as this inevitably creates a conflict of interest and limits independence. In addition, the Trump administration clearly shows an aversion to the "NGO industrial complex" and related politicians.

In our case, Siarhei Tsikhanouski's renown and biography play a positive role. As does the fact that he is supported by Belarusian businesses in exile.

"Free fighter. Financially independent" — this is the best characteristic for a reputation in the US.

It is also important to consider the broader context. US resources are not unlimited, and the key challenge for Washington today is forming in the Pacific region.

Hence the legitimate question: isn't promoting the Belarusian agenda in the US a secondary task by default?

We are now living in a liminal zone. One era has ended, and another has not yet begun. I believe that the rules of the new world order will largely be formed in Washington. The US, being protected by oceans, can physically guarantee its security, but economically it cannot afford isolationism.

liminal

The Monroe Doctrine does not exhaust the new US foreign policy.

Actions in Latin America are rational and look like strengthening the "backyard" before the main stage of confrontation in a new Cold War.

At the same time, the US, contrary to widespread assessments, is not leaving Europe. Rather, they are "re-educating" Europe, striving to compel European allies to take more responsibility for their own security. This explains the pressure on NATO countries and the demand to bring defense spending to 5% of GDP.

The interests of a free Belarus must be promoted simultaneously in Europe and the US.

My personal experience of the last five years shows: if Washington is not ready to act, then significant decisions cannot be achieved in Kyiv, Warsaw, or Vilnius. Such is the geopolitical reality.

Conclusion: if we truly want to create a sustainable Belarusian lobby in the US, a systemic organization of the process is necessary. Siarhei Tsikhanouski has demonstrated that he can be the frontman of such a project. In startup language, the MVP works.

Therefore, I will take advantage of the attention of "Nasha Niva" readers and appeal to representatives of Belarusian businesses in exile: contact us. Siarhei Tsikhanouski has a plan, and he is open to suggestions.

Vadzim Prakopieu.

February 5, 2026.

Washington.

• 28
• 2
• 40
• 20
• 0
• 0
• 2
• 0