Kuchynski — Kastsyuhova: I want to ask you not to rewrite history

We've known each other well before 2020, and I think you know well that I hold no personal malice or irritation towards you or anyone else due to differing views. We've always been able to openly discuss even the most uncomfortable questions. Both with you and your associates.

Therefore, I want to openly ask you not to rewrite history. Especially when it comes to the release of political prisoners and the question of who worked on it.

You write that in 2023-2024, "the topic of political prisoners receded into the background," and their release was supposedly postponed until better times — "until we defeat the regime."

I understand that you write primarily from your own feelings, including as the daughter of a former political prisoner. And when you say that at some point you felt alone with your problem, I'm not going to dispute your feelings. They are absolutely understandable.

But at that time, you and some of your current associates no longer worked in the Office and, naturally, might not have known many details of our work. That's normal. And thank you for everything you did.

You write: "'And the only people who came into my sight and began actively searching for ways to release [them] were Volha Harbunova, Tatsiana Khomich, and Valery Kavaleuski.' I understand you have your own perspective, but let's stick to the facts:

1. Back in December 2023, the first Strategic Dialogue between the democratic forces of Belarus and the USA took place, led by Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya with Toria Nuland and Chris Smith. The issue of political prisoners was central. This very moment became one of the important prerequisites for further work, including the creation of the Coalition for the Release of Political Prisoners, whose tenth meeting took place just last week (three of its meetings also took place in 2024).

2. Speaking of 2024, let's fast forward to April. Tsikhanouskaya was invited to the G7 Foreign Ministers' meeting in Italy. There, discussions took place with US Secretary of State Blinken, Baerbock, Cameron, Séjourné, Tajani, and Borrell. And one of the main topics was Belarusian political prisoners.

We specifically worked to ensure this issue was reflected in the final documents. And on April 19, the G7 Foreign Ministers, in their communiqué, called for the immediate and unconditional release of Belarusian political prisoners. By the way, this happened just before Maria Kalesnikava's birthday. And at that time, we spoke a lot, including about her situation, conditions of detention, and the necessity of her release.

Of course, one can say that statements themselves do not release people. And that's true. But such decisions at the G7 level do not appear out of thin air. Behind them are negotiations, work with governments, and concrete political agreements. And afterwards, one can rely on them when the discussion moves to practical steps.

This is April 2024. When, according to your version, the topic of political prisoners had supposedly already receded into the background.

3. In June, Sviatlana travels to Washington. Meetings take place in the White House with key people in the administration — US National Security Advisors to the President and Vice President, Jake Sullivan and Philip Gordon. And we once again discuss the topic of releasing our political prisoners.

At the State Department, we meet with John Bass and Chris Smith. Of course, Chris deserves a separate mention. Because he was one of the most important people in the entire subsequent humanitarian process. Its architect. His persistence, understanding of Belarus, and ability to advance these issues within the American system played a huge role. Afterwards, we would have a dozen more meetings with him and virtually constant, weekly communication.

4. On June 14, Sviatlana speaks at hearings in the US Congress dedicated to Belarusian political prisoners. Meetings take place with Nancy Pelosi and American senators.

At the same time, Sviatlana receives the Democracy Service Medal from NED. The ceremony is attended by Senator Shaheen, who for many years consistently raised the issue of Belarusian political prisoners with the State Department and the American administration.

5. In the same June, at the G7 Summit of Heads of State and Government, a separate paragraph on Belarus appears for the first time at such a high level in the final statement:

«We also condemn the ill treatment of political prisoners and ask for their immediate and unconditional release». (We also condemn the ill treatment of political prisoners and call for their immediate and unconditional release.)

This is already the level of leaders of the world's largest democratic states. And this is also a result of previous work, including the April meetings.

That is, during the first half of 2024, the topic of political prisoners is discussed at the level of the White House, the State Department, Congress, and the Group of Seven. When, according to your version, the topic of political prisoners had supposedly already receded into the background.

6. In July, Sviatlana is again in Washington. She meets with Congressional leadership, including Hakeem Jeffries. We establish contacts with the teams of Rubio and Vance, as we already understood then that the situation might change in the fall and that support for the Belarusian cause needed to be maintained regardless of election results.

7. Next comes August 1.

A large international prisoner exchange takes place between Russia and Western countries. Vladimir Kara-Murza, Ilya Yashin, and others are released. The exchange also includes a Belarusian element — German citizen Rico Kreiger, who was detained in Belarus.

But there are no Belarusian political prisoners on the lists.

I well remember our expectations. We hoped that our heroes might be included in the exchange, perhaps someone connected with the USA, maybe Ihar Losik or other journalists associated with Radio Svaboda, or other Belarusian political prisoners.

But it didn't happen.

I remember my conversation with a high-ranking White House representative immediately after the exchange. It was one of my most difficult conversations with the American administration. We were truly disappointed, and I did not hide it.

But it was precisely after this that we began to push the question even more persistently: what needs to be done so that future humanitarian processes do not bypass Belarus?

8. And just a week later, an article appears in Politico where Tsikhanouskaya openly speaks about the possibility of practical agreements for the release of people.

Politico describes Tsikhanouskaya's work with the US State Department, recalls the Strategic Dialogue in December 2023, where the issue of political prisoners was key, and writes that Sviatlana is discussing possible future deals that would free members of the Belarusian opposition — «possible deals in the future that would free members of the Belarusian opposition».

At the same time, the State Department, in the same article, officially confirms that the dialogue with Belarusian democratic forces continues and the American side continues to call for the release of political prisoners.

Note: these are not our explanations made in retrospect today. This was the public position of Tsikhanouskaya and the State Department already in 2024. We were already openly talking about possible practical agreements that could lead to the release of people.

And therefore, when you write that the idea of humanitarian releases arose as a way to "stop linking the issue of releasing seriously ill people with the issue of political victory over the regime," I want to emphasize: we were precisely working on practical ways to release people, without waiting for some future political victory, but, of course, not forgetting the importance of working towards systemic changes in Belarus.

9. September 2024 was particularly important.

On September 13, a meeting takes place in Vilnius between Sviatlana and US First Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell.

And there we already discuss not only that political prisoners must be released. We talk about possible practical negotiations with the regime, about scenarios, limitations, and what this process might look like in general.

On September 27, less than two weeks later, a second meeting with Campbell takes place, this time in Washington.

To be clear: the First Deputy Secretary of State of the USA is one of the highest officials in American diplomacy. And two extended meetings in two weeks are not mere courtesy, but confirmation that we were then very intensively discussing the specific details of the humanitarian track, possible steps by the USA, sanctions, incentives for negotiations, and the conditions under which the release of people could be achieved.

I will not disclose all the details of these conversations. Not everything can be made public yet. But I can say unequivocally: in September 2024, very intense consultations were held precisely about practical mechanisms for the release of political prisoners.

Yes, the proposals at that time differed in some details from what we saw in 2025-2026. But the very logic of the humanitarian track and the search for agreements was already formed back then.

10. In November 2024, we meet Chris Smith again in Berlin. In December, I personally travel to Washington, meet with Chris, and also with Director Michael Carpenter at the White House.

On December 5, the second round of the Strategic Dialogue between the USA and the democratic forces of Belarus takes place in Vilnius, co-chaired by Tsikhanouskaya and Smith. Political prisoners, aid to families, rehabilitation of the released, and humanitarian issues are a separate part of the discussions.

I'm not even trying to list everything that happened on the European front, where, I believe, the issue of political prisoners was raised at almost every meeting, including with Macron, Trudeau, Tusk, Metsola, and others. The Belarus-EU Consultative Group also worked.

But one thing regarding the EU and 2024 I'll note separately: The International Humanitarian Fund for Aid to Belarusian Political Prisoners was also established in 2024. Today, everyone already perceives it as something ordinary: over 3 million euros in aid, 15 European countries, real assistance to released political prisoners, their families, rehabilitation, and treatment.

But I well remember how, back in 2022, we first discussed this idea and were rejected. We were told that creating a new international fund was extremely difficult, that new mechanisms, procedures, and funding were needed. And at that time, it was not possible to achieve it.

But in 2024, when practical questions of possible releases of political prisoners began to emerge, when people were released upon completion of their terms or due to other circumstances, we reactivated this work. Tsikhanouskaya traveled to Norway, held negotiations with the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and in the spring, the creation of the fund was announced with an initial Norwegian contribution of 10 million kroner.

I well remember all those 'no, it's difficult,' 'no, it's impossible,' 'it's not done that quickly.' But it was precisely thanks to Tsikhanouskaya's persistent advocacy work and the support of Norwegian partners that the fund was nevertheless created. And today it helps hundreds of Belarusians. This is also a concrete result of the work of 2024.

Yes, after Trump's victory in the elections and during the transition of administrations, some processes slowed down for a certain period, which is logical. But there were developments, contacts, consultations, people in the American system, like Chris, who understood the essence of the issue and continued to work on it. Therefore, the humanitarian track did not have to be started from a blank slate later.

Let me return to another one of your phrases. You write that the choice looked like "reducing pressure" versus "it will somehow work out".

But this is a very simplified description of what was happening. Because in reality, we were precisely looking for ways to free people now, not after some hypothetical victory. And at the same time, we understood that we needed to think about those who remain behind bars, about new arrests, about ensuring that each release is not accompanied by a new wave of repression.

Therefore, the discussion about sanctions and what steps might be taken in response to releases is not a choice between human life and some abstract principles. It's a complex conversation about how to achieve the release of people while not creating conditions in which the regime would simply acquire new hostages.

And, by the way, we also discussed these questions with the Americans back in 2024. Much more was said about 2025-2026. I'll just note that I directly participated in all seven releases we are currently discussing. We met with American delegations, helped organize the reception of released people, and met our heroes and heroines in Vilnius, Warsaw, and Ukraine.

Therefore, for me, this is not some abstract political discussion about merits. I saw this process with my own eyes, participated in it, and personally experienced each release. Each one was a true joy. And at the same time, pain for those who remained in captivity.

And that is precisely why I am surprised by your version of what happened leading up to these releases and who worked on them.

You very rightly write that "people are not obliged to be convenient for you to work for results".

I completely agree. And I would like this principle to work in all directions.

Because Tsikhanouskaya and her team are also not obliged to be politically comfortable for someone for our work to be recognized.

I will never claim that the release of political prisoners is the exclusive merit of Tsikhanouskaya, our Office, or any single structure. That would be untrue.

First and foremost, of course, it is the enormous work of the Americans — John Cole, Chris Smith, and other administration representatives and diplomats who directly engaged in negotiations. It is the work of senators, congressmen, European partners, human rights defenders, families of political prisoners, and civic initiatives. And, undoubtedly, the political prisoners themselves, whose courage and resilience throughout this time did not allow the world to forget about Belarus.

But it is equally unfair to erase Sviatlana and her team from this history.

One cannot present the results of 2025-2026 as if no one did anything before that and everyone was simply waiting for victory over the regime.

I can answer for every one of my words. I have preserved documents, chronology, public confirmations, and much more information that cannot yet be disclosed.

One can have different attitudes towards the Office and Sviatlana. One can disagree about sanctions, negotiations, strategy.

One can criticize, argue, propose different approaches. But that is no reason to pretend that all this work did not exist.

Therefore, I propose that we respect each other's work and do not substitute facts with personal opinions.

Because in this story, what truly matters is not who gains more political dividends. What matters is that people are being released. And that we all together still need to do a great deal more so that the rest are released and no new ones appear,' wrote Dzianis Kuchynski.

• 2
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0