Pavel Latushka: Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, Head of the National Anti-Crisis Management, Ambassador
For several months in a row, the topic of Litvinism has been discussed in the Lithuanian-Belarusian infospace. It has even reached the point where some Lithuanian politicians have begun to claim that Litvinism is an ideology followed by Belarusian emigrants and that it poses a supposed threat to Lithuania's sovereignty. They argue that it is an attempt to rewrite Lithuanian history and serves as a precursor to potential territorial claims by Belarusians.
This sounds serious, especially considering the ongoing discussion within the Lithuanian authorities about the possibility of imposing equal restrictions on Belarusians and Russians. The problem is that Litvinism, in this sense, can be used as one of the arguments in favor of implementing such restrictions.
But is there truly a "threat of Litvinism"?
And is the current discussion moving in right direction, where the roots of the problem are traced back to historical depths? Or is this problem artificially manufactured with a very specific objective—to create a conflict between Lithuanians and Belarusians, to provoke animosity, destroy solidarity, and redirect Lithuanian public opinion from supporting Belarusians to skepticism and even hostility? We must remember that Lithuania is one of our closest and most active allies, a country that has welcomed not only Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya but also tens of thousands of Belarusians who have been forced to leave their homeland due to mass repressions, persecution, and socio-economic reasons. These individuals see no prospects for themselves in Belarus under Lukashenko's rule, as the country rapidly stagnates in all aspects of life.
Furthermore, Lithuania is one of the main drivers of increased pressure on the dictatorial regime of Lukashenko, who is known to be Russia's closest ally and co-aggressor in the war against Ukraine. While the majority of the Belarusian people do not support the war and yearn for freedom and democracy, the question arises: Does Russia have an interest in maintaining solidarity between Lithuania and Belarusians, as well as the positive attitude of Lithuanians towards Belarusians that existed even before the events of 2020 but was most strongly demonstrated after them? Or, on the contrary, will Russia attempt to undermine this solidarity and sow discord between the two friendly peoples—Belarusians and Lithuanians? This is especially pertinent during the disgraceful war against Ukraine, which was initiated by Russia with the active support and complicity of the Lukashenko regime. Russia seeks to involve Belarusians in this war, using them as cannon fodder.
We have witnessed how the conflict between Belarusians and Ukrainians escalated with the onset of the war. It is not difficult for us to discern who benefits from such conflicts under these circumstances and whose interests are being fueled. Similarly obvious is the answer to the question of what to do with the sudden emergence of the "problem of Litvinism," which peculiarly coincides with Russian aggression in Europe.
The answer is clear—we must not allow ourselves to be divided.
We cannot allow the aggressor to destroy the solidarity between peoples whom both his aggression and Russia's imperial policy are directed against in principle.
However, to counteract this, we must comprehend how the artificial creation of such conflicts, as in the case of Litvinism, operates.
Within any society and among societies of different countries, there are always certain unresolved problems, misunderstandings, or contradictions to varying degrees—some nearly forgotten and others quite acute—that persist for many years. The Russian Federation is a well-known actor in exploiting such misunderstandings and contradictions as a basis for actively inflaming them for its own purposes, utilizing its entire hybrid arsenal of influence on neighboring countries: anonymous channels, bot and troll factories, lobbyists, and other agents of influence within these countries.
We need not look far for an example — Ukraine.
In 2004, Russian political technologists, including Igor Shuvalov, Marat Gelman, Timofey Sergeev, Gleb Pavlovsky, and others, created a political platform for Yanukovych, resulting in one of the dirtiest political campaigns in recent history. They devised the so-called "Map of Three Classes of Ukraine." Concurrently, there was a surge in hysteria about Ukrainian "Nazism," civil war, and genocide, all aimed at sowing discord.
The question posed by Russian political technologists to the residents of eastern Ukraine was, "Do you want to be 'third class'?"
The ultimate objective was to undermine the country's unity and provide a pretext for annexing the eastern and southern regions. The impact of this campaign is evident today: the presence of collaborators in the occupied regions, international recognition of the Russian-speaking Ukrainians' "problem", and the bloody war waged by Russia, which was justified by exploiting this issue.
Thus, through political technology and IPSO (informational psychological special operation), Russia identified target regions in Ukraine for future annexation and laid the groundwork for subsequent actions.
Ultimately, all the falsehoods and fabricated narratives used by Russia to promote its candidate for the Ukrainian presidency, oppose Ukraine's European choice, incite separatism, and launch aggression against Ukraine in 2014 (with the occupation of Crimea and Donbas) and the all-out war against Ukrainians in 2022, originated from Yanukovych's 2004 campaign.
Now that we understand how these political technologies operate, let's shift our focus to the "problem of Litvinism."
Since the 1990s, there has been a debate between Lithuania and Belarus regarding the ownership of the historical heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. However, both countries have always recognized each other's right to interpret history in alignment with their national interests.
The existence of this discussion is not strange or problematic, as differences in historical interpretation exist in all countries. As long as countries respect each other's sovereignty, such differences never lead to violent conflicts or wars.
However, Russia enters the picture once again.
With the aid of media tools, it creates an artificial illusion that Belarusians consider modern Lithuania a consequence of historical falsification and even harbor territorial claims against Lithuania, based on the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
What is the purpose of this campaign?
It is directed against politically active Belarusians, aiming to create unbearable living conditions for them. Many of them were forced to move to Lithuania after being persecuted by the pro-Russian Lukashenko regime. The objective is to create problems for Belarusians in forced emigration, preventing their unity and impeding their ability to support Belarusian volunteers in Ukraine and the numerous political prisoners in Belarus. Additionally, it aims to hinder the preservation and promotion of Belarusian national identity.
If Russia manages to artificially portray Belarusians as a "threat" to Lithuania, it can destroy solidarity and provoke counterproductive and aggressive actions. This would force politically active and aware Belarusians to leave Lithuania and disperse to other countries, making it harder for them to combine their efforts.
Russia's ultimate goal is to artificially destroy the historically amicable relations between Belarus and Lithuania.
In Lithuania's case, this also serves to sever Belarus's ties with Europe, removing an obstacle on Russia's path to fully occupying Belarus.
What can we do about it?
As Belarusians, we should not involve ourselves in conflicts surrounding the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Lithuania has the sovereign right to interpret its history as it sees fit, just as we, Belarusians, interpret ours. We need to maintain respect for each other's perspectives. We share a love for this shared history, and we must remember who desires to destroy this historical memory—only Russia seeks this.
We should also remember that discussions about dividing Belarus into "pro-Russian Mogilev, Gomel, and Vitebsk" and "pro-Polish Grodno and Brest" are also in Russia's hands. In reality, there are no pro-Russian or pro-Polish regions. There is only a single, indivisible Belarus—a common home we fight to preserve for our sovereignty. We must oppose all enemy forces and their collaborators who seek to fragment and destroy our country.
To our Lithuanian friends, remember that there is only one country that disrespects your sovereignty, fails to recognize your independence, and holds territorial claims against you. And that country is not Belarus. It is the same country currently waging a terrible war against Ukraine. Our joint task now is to remain steadfast and not allow our unity to weaken in the face of the common threat we both share—Russia.
Politicians must think ahead and recognize the real threat of border destabilization. If Belarus disappears, Lithuania will share a border with Russia, not Belarus. This threat originates from Russia and the Lukashenko regime, which has pushed Belarus to the brink of losing its independence.
Historians of both countries do not need to agree on the interpretation of our shared historical heritage. We just need to respect the natural right of our peoples to it. The "problem of Litvinism" is artificial and its roots lie not in the history of the Ukrainian Communist Party, but in modern history. Let's remember how and by whom the conflicts in Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine were ignited. And now — in Lithuania and Belarus. And this is the most dangerous part of our reality today. Let's face it together.
Media specialists, researchers of propaganda and political technologies, analysts, investigative journalists - our joint participation in this confrontation with Russian narrative is very much needed now. I am sure that together we will be able to destroy them and bring the truth to the Belarusian and Lithuanian people. After all, the truth is one of the main and most powerful tools for strengthening the solidarity of our peoples in overcoming the common historical challenge that the aggressive empire is again throwing at us.
Комментарии