Prokopiev on Tsikhanouski: It's a pity he chose a different path, because I saw the Americans' reaction

— You wrote that you had hopes for Siarhei Tsikhanouski as a representative of Belarusian interests in the USA. Now he has focused on criticizing the democratic forces. Who and how can now promote the Belarusian agenda in America?

— I am sure that you correctly understand my intention: I did not expect Siarhei to start speaking like Kissinger or Brzezinski. His task, in my opinion, was to try to become a recognizable face in the USA. And it cannot be said that there were no prerequisites for this, because his release was a sensation.

Unfortunately, the fuss that happened in the first month after his release, the actions of Sviatlana's Office towards Siarhei, prevented him from coming to America in time. Because you have to strike while the iron is hot. I believe he had a non-zero chance to break into American media immediately after his release. And that would have been a key factor.

Nevertheless, Siarhei managed, thanks to his speeches, to create a certain image in the English-speaking space. Yes, he decided not to go further down this path. I described everything else in my column for Deutsche Welle. But the idea was simple: through recognition, to gain political influence in Washington.

What instruments of our political influence in the USA generally exist? There are formal and informal. Formal ones include working with think tanks, speaking in Congress, working in the media and with experts, American universities, and foreign policy specialists. There is an informal side, where personal connections genuinely allow for progress. In short, it's a complex set of tools.

No one is doing this in the USA. The Belarusian diaspora, which periodically appeals to its congressmen, can only be an adjunct to such a policy. Broadly speaking, we are talking about my old idea from 2023 that there should be an embassy of a free Belarus in Washington. And this cannot even be one person; it is clearly a group of people.

And here we run into the well-known contradiction in the structure of the Belarusian opposition. Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya's Office is accustomed to receiving advice and money in Washington. But if we want progress, then, on the contrary, we need to spend our own resources on influence in America.

— Do you understand why Tsikhanouski did not want to go this way?

— I think this is a very difficult path. Siarhei is a talented and creative person, but such a path requires great effort and self-discipline. It requires a different level of English and he definitely should have gone to an American university. Sometimes it just doesn't align with a person's mood, sometimes it's the consequences of prison. And then, it's quite a high bar.

I believe Siarhei could have succeeded, because I saw him speak before an American audience. He is very persuasive, charming, focused. Siarhei has excellent social intelligence. I saw the Americans' reaction. It's a pity he chose a different path.

The position for a Belarusian representative in America is thus vacant.

• 0
• 0
• 0
• 1
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0