Vadim Prokopyev: Tsikhanouski Returned to His Comfort Zone. It's a Low Bar, but I Respect His Choice

Entrepreneur and public figure Vadim Prokopyev, who previously helped Siarhei Tsikhanouski in the USA, and now considers him "just an associate," wrote a column in Deutsche Welle about his attitude towards the path Siarhei Tsikhanouski chose for himself after moving to the USA, and why, in his opinion, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya should listen to her husband's proposals.

Vadim Prokopyev admits that he did not expect diplomatic manners from Siarhei Tsikhanouski but considers his behavior entirely predictable. After Tsikhanouski's release, the author believed that Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya's Office would treat him unfavorably, so he suggested he move to the USA and work there for the benefit of Belarusian interests.

Prokopyev continues to assert that the fate of a free Belarus will first be decided in Washington and only then in Minsk. In his opinion, the proposal to Tsikhanouski was risky but logical: in the USA, freedom fighters are respected, and such a charismatic person could get a chance to become a well-known Belarusian political figure in Washington.

"Having moved to America, though with an unfortunate delay, Siarhei got a decent start. We worked like a racer and navigator. Bright speeches in the European Parliament, the American Congress, and leading universities, a column in The Washington Post, personal meetings with John Cole and Christopher Smith put Siarhei on the political map as a separate player with alternative thinking.

But all this was just a warm-up. Next, Siarhei needed to reach a different level of English, study American politics, and polish his manners by enrolling in a good university. Perhaps too ambitious a task for a person after five years in solitary confinement.

Siarhei chose a different path. He returned to his comfort zone. It seems to me that this is a low bar, but I respect his choice. A blogger, then a blogger. The main thing is that it benefits the cause!" writes Vadim Prokopyev.

Next, he turns to Tsikhanouski's criticism of Belarusian opposition media.

In Prokopyev's opinion, those who criticize the Office indeed often face double standards. However, he does not believe that Franak Viachorka directly calls editors and gives them instructions. He suggests there's no need for this, as corresponding habits and rules of behavior have already formed. Vadim Prokopyev sees the main problem in the very structure of funding for Belarusian media in exile: leading publications depend not on subscribers, but on donors who simultaneously finance both editorial offices and political structures.

The author then reflects on why Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya's Office does not cooperate with Siarhei Tsikhanouski. He believes that the Office fears competition, seeks to maintain exclusivity, and has grown accustomed to a monopoly on representing Belarusian democratic forces. According to Prokopyev, this increasingly resembles not a struggle for the future of Belarus, but an attempt by the organization itself to preserve its existence.

At the same time, the author acknowledges that Tsikhanouski also lacks diplomatic manners. Schoolyard insults and personal attacks help his opponents portray him as a marginal figure. However, despite his bluntness and stubbornness, he reportedly did not deserve such treatment.

The author believes that Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya's Office largely arose thanks to Siarhei Tsikhanouski's political capital. In his opinion, without Tsikhanouski, there would not have been the year 2020, which became an important stage in the formation of national self-awareness.

It was Tsikhanouski, according to the author, who with his audacity, energy, and popular manner of speech stirred broad layers of society in the very center of Lukashenka's political influence. In the author's opinion, forgetting about Tsikhanouski's merits and sacrifice is as dangerous for society as not honoring its poets.

As for Tsikhanouski's proposal to reboot democratic forces, after the release of Viktar Babaryka, Maria Kalesnikava, and other influential political prisoners, the idea of an oversight council with their participation, in Prokopyev's opinion, seems logical. Such a new structure, he suggests, could allow for developing a common strategy, conducting an audit, establishing feedback with Belarusians, and solving the problem of unchanging leadership. A demonstration of unity, according to the author, could also revitalize civil society, which has lost its former activity.

Prokopyev believes that with this proposal, Tsikhanouski demonstrated good political intuition, which the author cannot say about Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. According to him, the Office responded to this serious initiative in its usual manner: experts close to it began explaining why the proposal would not work, while Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya herself remained silent. But, in Prokopyev's opinion, the issue will still have to be resolved, and this is the duty of a person who allows herself to be called a national leader.

At the same time, the author sees in the creation of a unified structure an opportunity to ease the work of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya herself. Her true abilities could be better revealed, and all responsibility would not rest on one person. However, this would require negotiating with donors and changing existing rules.

In Prokopyev's opinion, the unification of all politically significant figures into one organization would help the Belarusian opposition in exile fulfill its mission. But Siarhei Tsikhanouski will not be able to carry out such a reform independently. Viktar Babaryka and Maria Kalesnikava should also listen to his proposal and join this work. The author, however, fears that they may not want to unite with the blunt and loud Tsikhanouski, but considers this a mistake that could lead to missing an important moment.

• 17
• 3
• 10
• 50
• 2
• 1
• 1
• 0