"Threat to colleagues' security." Zazulinskaya explained why "European Choice" stopped trusting Mamaeva
There are claims, but they will not be publicly specified.
Alexandra Mamaeva (left) and Olga Zazulinskaya (right). Collage: Nasha Niva
The "European Choice" list commented on the decision to issue a vote of no confidence in Coordination Council delegate Alexandra Mamaeva.
As a reminder, last week the faction had a falling out — they tried to show Mamaeva the door, and she herself called this decision unfair and non-transparent. According to her, the decision was made without her participation, without access to the materials on which the accusations were based, and without the opportunity to provide explanations. She also stated that she sees signs of political struggle within the list in this story.
In a comment to "Nasha Niva," another CC delegate from "European Choice," Olga Zazulinskaya, presented the other side's version.
"Unauthorized copying and transfer of confidential information to third parties"
According to Olga Zazulinskaya, the main reason for the vote of no confidence was security concerns.
"The reason was Alexandra's repeated breach of confidentiality: unauthorized copying and transfer of confidential information to third parties, including materials from initiatives and working groups, as well as personal data of individuals who asked for their names and data not to be used in public or other materials that could be disseminated. Alexandra Mamaeva herself confirmed her intention to distribute this information to anyone she deemed necessary. This created a direct threat to the security not only of colleagues but also of other individuals not involved in the activities of the faction and the "European Choice" list," she stated in a written comment.
According to Zazulinskaya, during the discussion of this issue, the meeting participants agreed on complete confidentiality of the conversation:
"It is important to note that at the beginning of the last meeting, where Alexandra was informed of the facts on which the vote of no confidence was based, absolutely all participants were warned that the meeting was held under conditions of absolute confidentiality, and everyone agreed; this is recorded in the meeting minutes. But Alexandra, the next morning, began to make confidential information public, thereby violating conditions that no one else violated."
To the question about evidence of transferring internal information to third parties in "European Choice," Zazulinskaya replies that such confirmations exist, but she does not intend to make them public:
"Alexandra was presented with specific instances, including those concerning members of the "European Choice" list. We will neither announce publicly nor publish these materials, as they concern the safety of those people who entrusted us with their materials. However, specific facts were brought to the attention of all list members. You must understand that we live in a time when security is paramount. I always say: we are at war; we must take care of ourselves and our security."
"Collective work presented as personal"
Another group of claims concerns the authorship of documents and reports.
According to Olga Zazulinskaya, within the list, claims repeatedly arose that the results of joint work were presented as Mamaeva's personal achievements.
"Numerous documents and reports that Alexandra prepared and presented as her own, though in reality they are the result of collective work. But ultimately, collective work is presented as personal, colleagues are not mentioned at any level of communication," Zazulinskaya states.
"She left the meeting herself"
She also responded to accusations regarding the procedure.
Alexandra Mamaeva claims that she did not have the opportunity to review the materials and respond to the claims. However, Zazulinskaya argues that the situation looked different.
According to her, Mamaeva was present at the meeting and actively participated in its first part.
"At the beginning of the meeting, Alexandra was asked several times if she had the opportunity to be present at the meeting and participate. She confirmed that she did. Moreover, in the first half of the meeting, when another topic was discussed, she actively participated in the discussion.
All materials were read out to Alexandra, and furthermore: she was given the floor so that she could calmly and reasonably respond to each point. Alexandra refused to comment and left the meeting herself. Everything is recorded in the minutes," says Olga Zazulinskaya.
What's next for Mamaeva's mandate?
After the vote of no confidence, the question arose whether "European Choice" would seek to deprive Mamaeva of her mandate in the Coordination Council.
Olga Zazulinskaya replies in the negative. At the same time, the list notes that they do not see any possibility for Mamaeva to represent "European Choice" in the fourth convocation of the Coordination Council.
"This decision concerns the "European Choice" list. Alexandra is a delegate of the 3rd convocation of the Coordination Council, and we are not going to and cannot deprive her of this mandate. However, her representation on the "European Choice" list in the 4th convocation of the Coordination Council is not considered possible. I should note that before the first meeting, there are no active CC-4 delegates, nor are there factions in the statutory sense; there are lists. No one can change the election results, but the mandate arises after the first general meeting," noted Olga Zazulinskaya.
Alexandra Mamaeva was a delegate of the 3rd convocation of the CC and head of the CC's International Commission, participating in the creation of People's Embassies of Belarus. Since 2015, she has lived in Slovenia. In November 2025, she stated that she had faced recruitment attempts by the KGB.
In the elections to the last convocation of the CC, Alexandra Mamaeva was fifth on the "European Choice" list. In the sixth position on the list was Alina Kharisava, who, as it turned out, was transmitting information to agents of Lukashenka's special services who were posing as employees of the Security Service of Ukraine.