Babaryka about himself in 2020: It's not naivety. I don't think anyone expected such a bloodthirsty scenario

"Stop the work of the political prisoner factory"

— After your release, you gave a resonant press conference in Chernihiv and an equally resonant interview with Ukrainian blogger Volodymyr Zolkin. And then you decided not to contact the media. Why are you here today?

— I believe it was our duty of courtesy to give an interview and thank everyone who participated in our release. Especially the Ukrainian side, which, despite being at war, found the opportunity to host a fairly large number of people practically without anything – to provide them with reception, care, and doctors.

Then, like any person who has been in an information vacuum for quite a long time, I needed to primarily focus on my health: analyzing what, where, how, and why. It was necessary to complete legal procedures to go through the entire refugee process: obtaining necessary documents and registrations. And also, importantly, to see what is happening around, to understand how the world has changed and to what extent, and to think about what you can bring to this world.

— On February 17, 2026, Viktar Babaryka – is he a politician, a political activist, an unemployed banker?

— What is meant by a politician? From my point of view, it is someone who has the opportunity to participate in making decisions regarding society. That is, politics is the common good, work to bring some good. If from this point of view a politician, then yes, I am going to do something to try, or rather, not just try, but to continue what was started in 2020. Namely, to build the Belarus we wanted it to be. If we talk about political activism from the perspective of a conversational genre – discussing political topics, then I, for example, don't particularly like such a role. To talk – yes, that's interesting. But to say that this is my main goal – unlikely.

As for a former banker and unemployed – yes, and I can even add: almost a pensioner. According to Belarusian law, I could already retire in autumn. And I became unemployed on May 12, 2020. Therefore, the first and third may be applicable to me, the second – unlikely.

— A few hours before our interview, you published another post, in which you stated that your goal would be "'Non-Russian' (independent) nuclear-free democratic Belarus – a necessary element of European security." You then deciphered almost every word. We would like to focus on two points. You stated that the sanctions imposed against Belarus for complicity in the war and, as a result, the reorientation of sales to Russia "significantly limited our sovereignty." Will you fight for the sanctions to be lifted?

— This is a statement of fact. Why? Because in 2020, and even earlier, I said that Belarus is like a drug addict hooked on Russian energy resources, and this severely limits our capabilities. Now, after [the start of] the war, practically 70% of our product exports go to Russia. That is, we now depend not only on what we produce but also on what we sell to the same country.

And therefore, undoubtedly, the issue of dependence and our sovereignty is primarily an issue of economic dependence. From my point of view, this is a double dependence, and that is actually the most important thing. And I would say that the solution to this problem lies not only, and perhaps not so much, in the sphere of lifting sanctions, but in building relationships with other neighbors differently. Not on the principle that we somehow increasingly pride ourselves on, that "we are left alone, now we know we are surrounded by enemies." I never liked that.

We must try to build a system so as not to be enemies. I understand all the limitations of this, I understand that [Belarus] is an accomplice to aggression. But I emphasize again: this is not exclusively a matter of lifting sanctions. Because in any case, lifting sanctions may be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for us to become economically independent.

— Where does Lukashenka fit into all of this? Is it worth exchanging sanctions for the release of a large number of people while repression continues in the country?

— This is actually a difficult question – where [does] Lukashenka [fit]. Let's separate. The general sanctions approach is as follows (and we often forget about this). There are restrictions aimed at enterprises and individuals actively or passively involved in supporting the war. In my opinion, here [this] raises no questions for anyone: that, of course, to facilitate or simply watch what is being done to continue the war is unacceptable.

And there are sanctions that affect the interests of ordinary people. In this regard (and, as far as I know, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya's Office also communicates this, and that's good), we need to distinguish between the regime and the people. A lot is done not directly [through] sanctions, but as a result of restrictions. That's the problem. Accounts are not opened, or there are passport issues – these are not sanction problems, these are consequence problems. Let's, perhaps, solve the problem of the consequences of restrictions that affect people?

We must understand the capabilities that exist on the side that imposed these sanctions, namely the European Union. This is a common decision of 27 participants who adopt it. Accordingly, this is not America. And thanks to them, the American track is very good. Because it is a common position, it is clearly formulated and much easier to achieve.

But our position, my position, is unambiguous: anything that can contribute and does not affect the interests of uninvolved structures, people, organizations in the war – we can work with that. We must work, choose, talk, and everyone says this.

— You bypassed the question of stopping repression.

— Undoubtedly, this is one of the conditions. We all want to stop the work of the political prisoner factory – this is an unequivocal condition, of course. These are interconnected things. This is not negotiable. There is no other way.

Павялічыць

— The goal of any politician is to come to power. You said in your post that you are a manager. And a manager is a hired executive. Who hired you, what structure will you manage?

— This, from my point of view, is the biggest problem. I believe that the goal of a true politician should not be to come to power, but precisely to propose: what tools can you use to achieve what the people agree upon. Anyone would say: "I want to live in a safe country, I want to be confident enough in my future and that of my children. I must be confident in overall security, that the whole world perceives me normally." And you come and say: "Yes, I know this is the right way. I've heard it and I propose this method." And then you are hired. Just in case: any official and even the president are paid a salary. Can you find out who pays the salary? If the people pay the salary, then, it turns out, they hire him, if I understand correctly. Therefore, in fact, a politician is a hired manager who works in the field of organizing state institutional management systems. But he is a hired manager. And if he fights for a seat, then that, it seems to me, is not the politician the country needs.

You know, my father once told me a very good phrase. What is the difference between capitalism and socialism? I don't know if he made it up himself or read it somewhere. He said it very simply: in capitalism, whoever has money has power, and in socialism, whoever has power has money. So, in capitalism, many people have money, but in socialism, there is only one seat. And so when a person gets into it, he will cling to it, because if he is pulled out of it, from that seat, he will no longer have money. That's the difference.

"It's not naivety"

— Let's go back to 2020. On May 12, you announced your candidacy for the presidential elections. On June 11, searches began at Belgazprombank. And on the same day, in an interview with Artsiom Shraibman for TUT.BY, you said that it was "simply a fear of an alternative, a fear that people will see that things can be different." And in the same interview, you repeatedly emphasized that you were acting within the law, so you had nothing to fear. A week later, you and your son Eduard were detained. When exactly did you realize that the authorities were not playing this chess game by the rules?

— When I was detained, that's when I understood. I think I said this in 2020: I never even thought how weak the authorities actually were not to go out and try, even if dishonestly... That is, everyone was sure that they knew how to count, that they had everything under control. It's not for nothing that I recalled the words of Iosif Vissarionovich [Stalin], who said that it doesn't matter how they vote, what matters is how we count.

And I thought: well, if you already have everything to count correctly, why would you be so afraid? And credit where credit is due, even during this period before my arrest, the then leader of Belarus (let's call him the leader of the authorities) very often said: "I will allow [everyone] to the elections! I will show everyone!" Well, it somehow didn't work out. So I would put it this way: it's equivalent to when a person realizes that if you enter a fight, you will lose, so it's better to break the legs of the athlete who is about to fight [against you]. That's what happened.

— In that same interview with Shraibman, you said that "it's impossible to hold power if you don't have 51%." And that you don't believe there are many people among Belarusian security forces willing to shoot their own people, because "they're not idiots and they understand that sooner or later they will have to answer for it." What was that? An attempt to suggest to Lukashenka the right model of behavior, naivety, or did you really not fully understand Belarusian realities at the time?

— Let's proceed from the fact that what happened in 2020 had never happened before, in any election. As far as I remember, candidates were never imprisoned before, usually they were imprisoned afterwards. That's one. Second, such a surge beforehand definitely hadn't happened either. That is, the case where a non-politician comes into politics did not exist, and we were writing it anew.

This is not naivety. This is simply a clear understanding of how to build a system of conversation with people outside of that seemingly reliable voting system. Because simple mathematics showed that 100 people [in the initiative group for nominating a candidate] to collect 100 thousand [signatures] — that's almost impossible. But we had not 100, but 10 thousand [members of the initiative group]. And these 10 thousand collected not 100, but at least 400 [thousand signatures] (the Central Election Commission submitted slightly more than 364 thousand. — Ed. note). And this use of new technologies, the use of people's desire to live in a different country — this, in fact, led us to be absolutely sure that, having heard the voice of the people...

And these people were not just hypothetical IT specialists, the middle class. This included security forces, teachers, ordinary people working in villages. This was not naivety. And I can definitely say that such a bloodthirsty scenario, I don't think anyone expected. It just never happened before.

— Another quote of yours from that interview: "I am a supporter of evolutionary processes, I am very afraid of the Maidan option and, God forbid, I would not want to be guilty of it." Now, seeing the price Belarusians have paid for this evolution — I mean huge prison terms, killings of protesters, deaths in colonies, torture, forced emigration of a huge number of people — doesn't it seem to you that evolution turned out to be more expensive than the possible Maidan you wanted to avoid?

— I have preserved my values, despite what I went through. Even in 2020, I said: I don't want to call people to the square, but if people go, I believe I must be there. So my position on this has not changed. I know the legend of the Dragon: he who came on blood will never forget its sweet taste. Solving problems with blood is the easiest way. But, unfortunately, also the cruelest.

There is a concept of forced violence, but it does not justify violence itself. I don't really want to talk about it, because since June 18 [2020], I have not been a participant in the events. You can only say what you would have done. Now everyone will be smart, they will tell you how it should have been done. But I, for example, even now say that I do not believe that violence is the right path. For me, it is unacceptable.

— Last question with a reference to that interview, I promise. Back then you also said: "I believe that Russia is interested in a stable, rich, independent Belarus." Immediately after the elections, Putin created a reserve of security forces, which he was ready to use if Lukashenka lost control of the situation. In 2022, Russian tanks drove from our country's territory, rockets flew to Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities. How do you feel now, what should be the relationship between Belarus and Russia?

— Let's rephrase this question a bit. Because when we ask what relations should exist between Russia and Belarus, we somehow imply what relations should exist between Lukashenka and Putin. Let's clarify: which Russia [are we talking about] and what relations should exist in which Belarus? I believe any relations between neighboring countries should be properly organized, mutually beneficial, using exclusively peaceful contacts that are complementary and help each other.

Relations between Russia and Belarus, when neither has dictatorial regimes, should be good-neighborly, friendly. Well, these "brotherly" ones – I would remove that question. Specifically – normal. Good, friendly. As it should be with Europe. We are surrounded by neighbors: Ukraine, the Baltic countries, Poland, Russia. Their [relations] must be equally friendly. But when we talk about the relations between Putin's Russia and Belarus, which currently has, let's say, a truly illegitimate regime, then they can only be as they are – built on violence, lies, and hatred.

— Zolkin asked you whose Crimea it was, and you answered that it was "the most difficult question." Is it still like that?

— It wasn't the most difficult question for me even then, actually. No answer doesn't mean there isn't one. Even then, in 2020, and upon my release - because I didn't give an answer to that question.

For me, it has always been obvious. Simply due to certain circumstances (I can talk about 2020, but I wouldn't want to talk about 2025, because it was still me talking and my responsibility) it's obvious: Crimea legally and justly belongs to Ukraine. Obvious, and this is not disputed and never has been disputed.

And what I really don't like: the meaning of this question (especially today) is only a marker of "us" and "them." But that's wrong. What greatly surprises me: the world has become black and white for us. It's not like that. And to just smear with a marker like this, just this... We constantly want to label people now: are you ours or a stranger? People are different. I agree that during wartime there are no questions. And, apparently, my 2025 answer – it's worse and incorrect. If in 2020 I unequivocally believe I answered correctly (even though the answer was obvious to me then – I tried to joke it off, and that was it, it wasn't so sharp), then in 2025 it was an incorrect answer. Absolutely. But still: the question itself as a marker. The compulsion to label "us-them" – that's what I don't like. But these are the consequences of war.

— On June 18, 2020, you were detained along with Eduard. Did you, sitting in the car or in the investigator's office, imagine that you would only be released almost six years later?

— Definitely not. But after August 9, I already understood that it would be for a long time. How long – I didn't know. in October, at an incredibly important meeting at the KGB pre-trial detention center (Lukashenka came there on October 10, 2020, to meet with detained politicians and activists. — Ed. note), my sentence was announced. It was said: "Babaryka, you'll sit for about 14 years." In fact, the trial was still very far away, but the term had already been named. And I imagined that and therefore understood.

And already in the colony, when I was asked, I said: at best – what is written on my tag: [release date] December 7, 2033. And this was the best option according to my scenarios. But it happened that thanks to – and a huge thank you here, really, I won't tire of saying this – both Trump, and Ukraine, and those who were involved in the process, this term turned out to be much shorter for me and for some part of the people. Unfortunately, not yet for everyone.

— Who do you blame for your son's arrest: yourself or the authorities?

— This question is the authorities' favorite question. The first thing I was told, including at that meeting, was: "How could you jeopardize what is most precious?" To which, I am very grateful to my son, he interrupted and said: "Alyaksandr Ryhoravich, this is my choice." Therefore, I understand my responsibility when I offer people a choice. But I always say that the one who made that choice is responsible.

There's a good movie, "The Matrix," which says: here are two pills. Who is to blame, the one who tells you "here are two pills," or the one who chooses one of the pills? Even though the conditions for taking one and the other are stipulated. When we talked and when I asked my son about me running [for president] and needing him, because he is a very good manager, [Eduard] knew all these things, we discussed this topic.

I, of course, would never in my life have allowed for children to be punished. In no world are either hostages in the form of children, or the punishment of children for their parents considered acceptable. No one could have expected this. But it happened as it happened. So the feeling of guilt – well, it's hard to say. That doesn't mean I don't worry and all the rest. But I will never forget the words that it was his choice.

— Before your release, were you given any conditions, upon fulfillment of which Eduard would be safe?

— Perhaps, unfortunately, [but] throughout my entire time in custody, no one spoke to me about this at all. With the exception of two completely strange figures: at the very beginning, [Yury] Voskresensky came, and in 2024, before the New Year, Pratasevich came. These were only two people who spoke to me during that time from the perspective of "And don't you think?". It wasn't a condition, just questions. Throughout all this time, no one else spoke to me about this topic until the day of my release.

— What exactly did they ask, posing the question: "And don't you think?"

— "Don't you think about writing a pardon request? Because, perhaps, it will somehow affect, it will be easier for you later to fight for your son." I said, and I can unequivocally confirm this: I will sign any papers, even to the point of praising what a genius Alyaksandr Ryhoravich is, if they release my son and the people who are currently being held. Because this is wrong. Life, the fates of others – this is...

As you say "guilt" – no, this is my responsibility. And this is one of my pains – that I am here, and they are there. That Eduard is there, people from our staff are there, people-Babaryka supporters, as they are called. I don't particularly like this word, because it sounds like it's from Lenin's mouth – Leninists. But since they call themselves that – I didn't invent it, so I will use it. These are people who voted not even for me, they voted for themselves. And this is a feeling of responsibility. You live with this, and you can't get away from it. But it's not a feeling of guilt.

Павялічыць

"The first time such treatment: handcuffs, a bag over my head"

— In April 2023, you were hospitalized from the colony; it was known that you had fluid in your lungs. At the press conference in Chernihiv, you said you didn't want to comment on what happened because you don't remember how it happened. Quote: "Woke up, broken rib, torn lung, bilateral pneumonia, and 23 stitches from a skull laceration." You are now in Germany, safe. Have you remembered anything since then?

— No. As I said, I'm used to answering for my words. And if, for example, they tell me that someone is a criminal because they did this, I don't have the knowledge to assert the fact: whether they are a criminal or not.

If they tell me: these injuries could not have been inflicted otherwise than... I say: I don't know if they could have been inflicted or not. Let those who will examine my medical file, which contains everything, clarify this. It's described there, I gave testimony. Therefore, absolutely, both then and now – it's not a question of safety. And the question, as everyone says: "Oh, you're silent because your son is a hostage." Not because of that. I had nothing to say – so I was silent. Same now. I was not afraid then, nor am I now.

The only thing I can add: I was simply told that what happened was calculating my pain barrier. They definitely know that four days of sleeplessness, cold – and I lose consciousness. There were two such cases. One was with minor injuries, and it was also recorded, but without consequences, meaning there were only scrapes, and the second ended as it ended.

— Tell us more about the times you were kept without sleep.

— Well, that's done very easily. They put you in a SHIZO (punishment cell) in a cell with a person, let's call him, mentally unstable. He has a habit: talking non-stop during the day. And during the day in SHIZO, sleeping and lying down are forbidden. At night, he starts chasing the devil, who comes into your cell as a third person. Accordingly, the devil runs around the cell, so he doesn't let you sleep either. And this provokes. There are two expected outcomes: either you can physically suppress him – and you unequivocally, justly get a criminal charge, because that's using violence. Or you have to somehow avoid provocative actions.

— From your lawyers and political prisoners who were released, there was information that in the colony you worked in difficult conditions: sometimes you were forced to be in a bakery at high temperatures, then you were transferred to work in the cold.

— The first place of work was the boiler room. Not for long, though. On the day I received my stoker's certificate, I was immediately transferred to a bread products moulder in the workshop. "Baker's moulder" – that was the profession. Why [was I transferred]? Because the boiler room opened to the outside, and I could communicate with people, and everyone was interested. They, of course, were then sent to SHIZO, but it was an opportunity for communication. So they transferred me there [to the bakery]. And yes, the sanitary norms weren't entirely observed there. It was summer then, and the temperature was very high, although it shouldn't, in my opinion, exceed 27 degrees. And the lawyers raised this issue. We couldn't solve this problem. But that wasn't the most [difficult thing].

But then... It was 2022, autumn after the start of the war. Conditions sharply worsened. I was transferred to what I would call not the hardest, but apparently not the best for health, job – burning wood charcoal. And this is fine dust. I have lung problems since the foundry, where I worked in similar conditions. And here, unfortunately, [came] the only phrase from the medics that somewhat upsets me. They all knew this, and what was said was: "But your life is not directly threatened by this, is it?" One couldn't argue with that, because working there, I wouldn't immediately die, of course. But this was the only phrase, and I believe it was said under duress. I definitely have no complaints against the medics in this regard.

But it actually wasn't long, because then the SHIZO, PKT (Punishment Cell Type), and all this carousel began. So I didn't work there for long. And then all my life was entirely spent, as prisoners say, "under the roof."

— You were in incommunicado for a long time: you didn't receive letters and couldn't make calls. How did it start? Was there any explanation from the administration as to why no one was writing to you?

— No. As I said, no one spoke to me about this. The answers were standard: "Well, they're not writing. We don't know." My attempts to use any mechanisms, starting from complaints, letters, while [I still] had them... Everything was recorded very simply: as long as I had envelopes and the ability to write, they would take my letters – I wrote every week to my sister or friends and a request for a meeting with a lawyer. They take them – and that's it. The only thing, to give credit where credit is due, to my question: "What am I doing wrong?" or "What should I do right?" the answer was: "You're doing everything right, you're doing everything well. You will stay in prison. That's all." And there was another good phrase: "Not everything depends on the colony administration." I don't know how true it was, but I was told that too.

— How did you cope with the experience of not being able to contact loved ones?

— From my point of view, why this incommunicado regime was chosen is because psychologically it's the hardest. That's why I really begged to be put in prison, and they told me: "No, no, no. In prison, there is still some possibility of communication."

— Explain: "begged to be put in prison" – what does that mean?

— I said: "Well, you can't assign PKT (Punishment Cell Type) five times in a row to such a malicious violator. Give me some prison article and send me to prison. Since I'm such a bad hooligan and maliciously violate order, and don't obey the administration." This is logical.

But they told me: "No, you'll be better off in prison." And so they didn't send me there. I don't know whose initiative it was.

It's not easy to go through this. Well, as they also say: it was psychological torture. I don't know its criteria. So when they ask me: "Were you tortured?" – I will say: "I don't know." I was not physically tortured. In the KGB they told me: "You know, Viktar Dzmitryevich, that physical torture is forbidden here?" I said: "Judging by your tone, you regret that very much."

Павялічыць

"For the first time such treatment: handcuffs, a bag over my head"

— How did the release happen?

— It was very strange. I still had a month left on my next term in PKT, I was supposed to be released from there on July 23 [2025]. And all the events had already been carried out. It was the same scenario, it repeated five times: on the day of release, I was put in SHIZO. There [they would hang] another violation on me – and I'd get a new term in PKT. And before that, since another violation was needed, they'd make me some kind of violator.

On June 23, officers come in and say: "Babaryka, get ready." I got ready. I ask: "Where?" — "Let's go." I go out, they lead me to the infirmary, to the medical unit. I had no complaints, but once a year, after that incident in 2023, I was taken for an examination to the republican hospital. They took me to the hospital [in the colony], and there they told me that a miracle had happened — [Siarhei] Tsikhanouski had been released. And everyone: "Soon you will be released too." I say: "No, I somehow don't really believe that." In the evening they unexpectedly tell me: "That's it, leave the hospital, go to the detachment." I don't understand anything at all. That is, it means, not the republican hospital. And why they are sending me [to the detachment], I don't know. There are many conversations there: well, release, everything, hurray-hurray. But people, as far as I know, were warned that there would be problems for any communication with me. And no one says anything, but everyone somehow believes that I will be released. I once again ended up in the hospital — also not very clear why and for what. I was walking from the industrial zone, and they told me: "Babaryka, you are already at the medical unit." I say: "How? I haven't even, it seems, left the industrial zone yet." — "No, you've already been assigned to the medical unit." Well, fine. At the medical unit – that's good. They took me out again, I think, in September to the hospital. I rested there for 10 days...

— In the hospital – that is...

— In the prison itself, it's the medical unit. No one says anything, only rumors spread. On Wednesday (December 10, three days before release. — Ed. note), I still go to the dentist, because teeth are one of the biggest problems in prison "under the roof." And they extract a tooth for me. The consequences are very severe, everything swells up. On Friday, they cut the gum, some horrors. And they say: "We don't have any tools to see what and how, why and [to find out] the reason. Tomorrow, apparently, we will send you to the hospital."

On the night from Friday to Saturday, they wake me up and say: "That's it, let's go." I ask: "Where?" — "To the hospital." Meaning, they're taking me out of the colony. I imagine [that] I'm going to the republican hospital. I come out — all my things are packed. Everything is normal, I didn't pack anything. I was so surprised, I said: "What service, it turns out." Well, and then it was already harsh. For the first time, I received such treatment, it was never so rude: handcuffs, a bag over my head. And we drove for a long time. By the time [on the road] and by orientation, I already understood that they were taking us south. And the thought occurred to me that I was being transferred to some other colony. Apparently, something more severe had happened. And then in the bus, they took off the bag, and I saw officers of the Ukrainian armed forces. That's how my release happened. I didn't even know until that moment that we were being released.

"Maria Kalesnikava and I definitely share the same value system"

— You've been free for more than two months now, and I assume you've been able to form some impression of the Belarusian democratic forces. How do you assess the work of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya and her team?

— My position is very simple. I believe that whatever the truth, even the worst truth told about her, how bad she is, for the fact that she was able to keep the topic of Belarus on the agenda all these six years — I believe she simply deserves a big thank you for that. That is precisely her and her team's greatest merit. Therefore, I will have only one feeling towards her. In mathematics, there is such a concept as "small quantities of the second order." Everything else — that for me is small quantities of the second order. Her merit that she did this and continues to do it — is invaluable. For us, for Belarus.

— Let's talk about the Babaryka supporters, although you don't like that word.

— I like it from the point of view of sound. But in my mouth, it sounds, well, really like "Lenin – Leninists." I like it, and I really like the Babaryka supporters themselves.

— Are you and Maria Kalesnikava one team?

— From my point of view, again, [terminology is] important: what does "one team" mean? Can people united by a common value be considered one team? Apparently, yes. Maria and I definitely share it.

I believe the strength of the Babaryka supporters was in the unity of understanding the system of values and principles of interaction. But this does not mean unity of views and marching in step in the same direction. I believe that the modern correct management system is directed Brownian motion. That is, when leaders set an invisible force field, and people who understand that it's great and join the team move seemingly freely and chaotically. Everyone does everything, but they move in the right and necessary direction, and by colliding, they create additional impulses. This is the ideal system. It seems to me that we managed to do this in 2020, because there were self-sufficient people. And it seems to me that we are succeeding now too. That is, Masha is a self-sufficient person, Ivan Kraŭtsoŭ, Anton Radniankoŭ, and all team members – they are truly well-realized people.

I have already met with many. And I see that even within their communities, there are heated discussions. But they still continue to call themselves Babaryka supporters and say: "We are still together, and we are a team." Well, yes, apparently, we are together and a team, and that's great.

Павялічыць

— You mentioned "Together" yourself. After your detention, your associates announced the creation of the "Razam" (Together) party. What is the fate of the project and was the idea sound?

— From my point of view, the idea of creation... Here again, this problem of analysts. I always believe that decisions made in the moment are almost always made correctly. Because all circumstances are taken into account. Three years later, when circumstances change even along the way, everyone says: "Oh, it should have been done differently." No.

So it is here. The "Razam" party was created under conditions that were not yet so cannibalistic, and with the aim of educating and truly forming leaders who would participate in local elections. Training programs were held. All of this was correct and good. Then it was all suppressed, destroyed, ended, and the story frozen. But the people remained. And now it turns out: everyone says: "No, that was [incorrect]." It was correct.

Not realized? Like the idea of socialism. The idea of socialism is sound, but [during] its implementation, unfortunately, a lot of blood was spilled. But the idea itself is good. Therefore, uniting around a common system of values and the ability to support, to help – it is good.

The question now is – what kind of party can we talk about, where to register it, the risk involved. The idea is frozen, because in today's conditions it is simply not in demand. But that does not mean that people have lost this system of values.

"It's impossible to build anything good when you know you have a neighbor with a bomb behind your fence"

— Maria Kalesnikava gave her first interview after leaving Ukraine to the British Financial Times, and you gave yours to the Belarusian "Zerkalo". You probably had many offers. Why did you choose us?

— Let's step back: the first one I gave was on my personal Facebook (referring to answers to questions sent in absentia by journalist Mikita Mielkaziorau, who died in December 2025. — Ed. note). This was my conscious [decision], because I believe and have always believed: I want to offer [something to] Belarusian people. My audience is there. It is located inside the country, it is located outside the country, and it is united by the name "Belarusians." Therefore, I consider it my duty to speak with Belarusians.

And the sequence is this: those who are my subscribers are the most important to me. Babaryka supporters are the most important to me. This is the most active part of Belarusians. Next are, of course, the resources that, from my point of view, enjoy the greatest authority and influence. And here it's obvious (we conducted an analysis of who [has] the greatest influence), and I'm very glad that this resource is "Zerkalo," the continued history of TUT.BY, and its people. And that's why we're talking here.

— What goals do you set for yourself and the team for the coming year?

— Apparently, a year is the right [time frame]. We want to convince Europe that a non-Russian Belarus is actually a guarantor of its security. Well, not a guarantor – that's the wrong word. It's one of the elements of its security. Non-Russian and nuclear-free. It's impossible to build anything good when you know you have a neighbor with a bomb behind your fence.

[It's important] to come down from grand ideas about what the Constitution of New Belarus will look like – that's good, of course. But perhaps it's time to deal with more down-to-earth problems?

Павялічыць

"From the perspective of maintaining its own power, the regime is optimally designed"

— I guess in mid-2020 you had many, at least acquaintances, among high-ranking Belarusian officials. Did any of them, albeit non-publicly, support you after you ran for president?

— In fact, not entirely the correct premise. Because I tried in every way to avoid acquaintance with the political elite due to, from my point of view, its senselessness. I had a different task. And therefore, as a rule, people who were directly involved in their own areas went to meetings and all engagements. I always – and still – adhere to a principle I formulated long ago: you need to hire smart people and not hinder them from working. So there were few people I directly knew in the political elite. That's one.

Secondly, frankly, I didn't particularly bother about it: who supported and who didn't. Why? Because, firstly, the interval was very small. From May 12 to June 18 – that was a very short story. So everyone was in a state of "wow." And everyone mostly only asked: "But why is this needed and what will it all look like?" It was surprise, I would call it that. That is, not support, but a very big surprise. But a joyful surprise: "Really? Is this for real?" And then, unfortunately, there was no opportunity to provide support.

— Why do you think no one even gave you a friendly pat on the shoulder?

— Oh, it's very simple. Because it's really a shock. "Why?" was the most difficult and incomprehensible question for everyone. This is what, I think, many still cannot [understand]: "Everything was there, so why?" But from my point of view, there's no point in even asking it. Returning to what the correct definition of a politician should be. People don't go into politics for themselves. People go into politics for others.

— Why did none of the people from the government whom you knew support the protests?

— It seems to me that it wasn't their story. It was the story of those very self-made people. For them, it was very important. People who are integrated into the system and hold positions, it seems to me, clearly understand that good ones will be in demand. Well, okay: they didn't have the opportunity to express themselves as they could under the regime. But smart people will come. If I am smart, then, in fact, they will keep me. We must still be here. Apparently, their pain or their dissatisfaction was much less than the dissatisfaction of millions of Belarusians.

— Did you see anyone among the officials, even in 2020, whose statement could have shifted the balance in a different direction?

— No. Lukashenka's regime is built very personally. And when they talk about elites or some other... No. Here, credit must be given: from the point of view of maintaining its own power, the regime is optimally designed. There are no individualities there. Even the statistics (I really hope that, perhaps, everything will still improve), which are announced by state media themselves: the recognition of officials. The leader – 90%, the second person – 3%. Well, this is some kind of savagery!

— Let's imagine that within the next ten years, honest presidential elections will be held in Belarus. Will you participate in them?

— I would rather not, to be honest. Just as I didn't want to in 2020, until the moment the decision was made. For one simple reason. I would very much like for people to emerge who will breathe down your neck and surpass you. Especially over such a horizon – in 10 years I will already be over 70. And I would very much not want new leaders not to have emerged and appeared during this time, who share my values or who do and can do more to achieve them than me. If this does not happen, and if I am able, and if there is an opportunity, then, of course, yes. Because I still want to see the Belarus I want for myself, for my children and grandchildren.

Павялічыць

"Lustration, it seems to me, is an element of revenge"

— Siarhei Tsikhanouski proposes "Finlandization" for Belarus. What is your attitude towards this? Should our country be neutral?

— Belarus must be sovereign and nuclear-free. Thereby ceasing to be a threat, it must demonstrate its friendliness.

And the third question – what should it be like? It seems to me, it would be good to let the Belarusian people speak. Through elections for different positions. Finlandization, Europeanization there, I don't know, something else... This is a different story. What Belarus should be like – let Belarusians choose. This is the correct question and answer. For me, undoubtedly, it is a European country. It is not part of the "Russian world," it is part of no world, it is part of European civilization.

— What is your attitude towards lustration? Is it necessary to punish those who punished you?

— Differently: I believe that people should be punished for committed crimes. This was done, among other things, after the Second World War with Nazi criminals. We must not use revenge. Revenge is for the weak. I am convinced of this. And lustration, it seems to me, is an element of revenge. Therefore, once again: criminals must be punished. But the determination of who is a criminal must be made by authorized bodies that are properly formed and guided by normal principles of international law and laws.

"In April, I'm going to be a grandfather twice over"

— Before your detention in 2020, you were a fairly wealthy man. After the verdict, everything was taken away, some things were already sold at auction, some are still being tried to be sold even after you were released. In connection with this, two questions: were you able to save any of your capital in a safe place, and how are you living now?

— Unfortunately for me and with annoyance for the authorities (but to some extent also to my joy): I have nothing in a safe place. And I never did – that's the truth. Now friends and acquaintances help me, my family helps. And I am going through the standard path of a refugee, namely: I registered with the Job Center (employment center. — Ed. note). I hope to receive assistance and housing compensation. But for now, friends, acquaintances, and family are helping me.

— What is the amount of assistance?

— I haven't received assistance yet, so I can't say. But as far as I remember, it's about 560 euros per month. And some housing compensation – I also don't know, because I don't have a rental contract yet. It turns out it's quite difficult to find one in Berlin. I think it's about 700-something euros per month for an apartment.

— What kind of work would you like to do in Germany?

— The question isn't in Germany, the question is what I can do. I clearly understand a few things that quite limit my capabilities. First: as an employee of the financial sector, which I was involved in for 25 years in Belarus, I'm not particularly useful here, because I don't know Germany's financial sector. But that doesn't mean I can't be useful in building some interesting financial... let's call them, new institutions, which we talked about a lot even in 2019 in Belarus.

What delighted me was that I understood how the financial system in the world is currently structured, and I realized that it hasn't changed much. Technologically – yes, ideologically – not particularly. So I will try and talk about this, maybe [my] ideas will appeal to someone, and I can be useful there as a conditional startup founder.

Second – my age. Everyone understands well: hiring a person of pre-retirement age is also a certain risk. What else can be made of him? And furthermore, I don't yet speak German. I speak English, Russian, Belarusian – but these are not highly in demand. If you work in the financial system or as a manager in Germany, the language is needed. I need time to learn it. And I will certainly do that.

And third – it turns out, toxicity. I understand that if I publicly work with Belarusian business, it might somehow affect those who hire me. As my son once answered the question: "What article?" – he said: "My article is my surname." Exactly the same way, I understand that my surname is not always positive for those I speak with, when talking about the possibility of using my skills and abilities.

— Tell us, what does your typical weekday look like now?

— For me, on one hand, it's not very usual. Because it mostly takes place in communications via Zoom, Google Meet, and so on. This is very unusual, because I'm used to personal interaction. But for some reason, people prefer this format.

The second story is my interactions with the German government authorities. I have to go somewhere, visit places for all sorts of [matters]. Not very often – visiting museums, art galleries, some exhibitions.

The first month I was warming up and so I didn't really want to go outside. I had frozen over six years. And the strangest thing: I read very little. I'm surprised by this. Apparently, because during all these years the number of books was very limited, I've forgotten how to do it thoughtfully.

And it's interspersed – since I'm alone, it's a constant choice: where to eat and what to eat – either traditionally dry snacks, or I have to go somewhere. I really don't like cooking for myself, and that's wrong, but I can't do anything about it yet.

— How is security provided? Do you have protection?

— No, no protection. Just closed [addresses]. In Berlin, I feel very comfortable.

— While you were in prison, your granddaughter was born in Australia. Have you managed to meet her, see your daughter Maria yet?

— I've only managed to get acquainted by using modern means of communication. I saw her. We even tried to talk. But she's a child who, in my opinion, cannot stay still for even five seconds. So, for us, it all happens in a mode where she's doing something, and I'm trying to get her attention. But I understand that she's not very interested in me yet. So for now, we just say hello and that's it.

And yes, according to plans, in April I am to be a grandfather twice over. And, it seems, a grandson is to be born.

But my children are very direct. And when I said: "I'll come in April to hold [the baby] in my arms," my daughter told me directly: "Listen, I'll have so many worries that taking care of you too would be too much. And there's little benefit to be seen from you." And I definitely agree with this, that there will be very little benefit from me if I show up there in April. So for now, my plans are to come somewhere by the end of summer, when I'll have all my documents here and won't be causing much trouble.

Павялічыць

— I want to ask you to formulate a motivational message from Viktar Babaryka. What keeps you afloat and what advice can you give to Belarusians?

— What keeps me afloat is seeing that, despite these six years, despite huge difficulties, people have kept the faith that it's possible to build [a different] Belarus. I agree, many of them are not ready to pay the price that was paid. But they truly believe that it is possible. They may not say it. And for me, this was very strange. In my first month, I had a feeling of absolute hopelessness. They tried to tell me that everything was lost. And at some point, I almost believed it.

And then I saw other Belarusians. They really exist. It's very hard for them. And, surprisingly, I can say that, in my opinion, it's harder for those who remained there. With all the troubles and all the losses. Or differently: not that it's harder – it's a different kind of pain. Living in a state of constant fear is much harder than receiving punishment. In prison, this was very noticeable! Before you are punished, the condemned feels the most terrible. He doesn't sleep, he runs around, he thinks everything through. As soon as he is punished – that's it, it's a given.

And I imagine how people live in this state. No one knows what might happen tomorrow. Whether they will knock or not. Because you didn't do anything. But maybe you just passed by somewhere, and people were standing there with a white-red-white flag. That's it, they recorded you and said: "Well, you were there." You see, it turns out you're an extremist. Or you once liked something somewhere – and five years later they came to you and said: "Oh, it turns out you're an extremist." And I see: humanitarian initiatives, people are involved with birds, cats or something else. And it turns out, they can also become extremists.

Despite all this, what definitely keeps me afloat is that people have not lost this faith. That really supports me greatly.

And I ask everyone very much. This is my message: preserve this faith. Faith is much more important than knowledge. You know that we can do little. But believe that we are definitely, truly trying to do it.

• 11
• 3
• 4
• 15
• 0
• 0
• 1
• 2