Security Downgrade Implemented
The Lithuanian government has confirmed a reduction in the level of personal protection for Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, the exiled Belarusian opposition leader residing in Vilnius. The decision, which came into effect on October 1, 2025, was publicly announced around October 7-8, 2025, and is attributed to a combination of cost optimization and a reassessment of the existing threat level. Lithuanian authorities emphasized that Tsikhanouskaya remains an official guest of the state and that Vilnius's stance toward the Belarusian regime led by Alexander Lukashenko remains unchanged.
Details of the Protection Shift
Previously, Tsikhanouskaya's security was handled by the Dignitary Protection Service (VAT/DPS), the agency responsible for safeguarding top Lithuanian officials, including the president, prime minister, and parliament speaker. Since her arrival in Lithuania in 2020, she had received round-the-clock protection both within and outside the country.
Under the new arrangement, her protection has been transferred to the Criminal Police Bureau. This bureau typically provides security for witnesses and victims, rather than public figures at the head-of-state level. The change is expected to allow for a review of security costs, which previously amounted to approximately €1 million per year. This annual sum covered round-the-clock physical protection, escort vehicles, housing maintenance, and the use of VIP terminals at airports. Specifically, VIP terminal expenses were €129,000 in 2024 and €92,000 in 2023.
Reaction from Tsikhanouskaya's Office
The decision has prompted a strong reaction from Tsikhanouskaya's team. Her adviser, Dzianis Kuchynski, stated that they were informed of the changes on October 1, the very day they took effect, leaving little time for preparation. This short notice forced the temporary suspension of the office's physical operations in Vilnius, with most staff moving to remote work.
Kuchynski underscored the ongoing threats faced by the Belarusian democratic movement, noting that 'security is not a luxury but a matter of survival.' He highlighted that Lukashenka's regime continues 'intimidation and repression even beyond Belarus' through various means, including attacks on property, disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks, and death threats. Furthermore, Tsikhanouskaya has reportedly been informed that she must vacate her secured housing within 2-3 weeks, after residing there for five years.
Official Statements and Criticism
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys confirmed that the decision was based on a security situation assessment and risk analysis. Prime Minister Ingrida Ruginienė stated that the protection is 'adjusted to reflect today's realities' and that Tsikhanouskaya remains under an appropriate level of security. Despite the change, Lithuanian authorities maintain that their support for the Belarusian opposition in exile remains strong.
However, the move has drawn criticism, including from former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, who described it as 'a betrayal.' Landsbergis argued that the decision 'effectively forces Tsikhanouskaya's family and her office to leave Lithuania,' and that Tsikhanouskaya has been 'a symbol of the fight against tyranny.'
6 Comments
Africa
While every country needs to manage its resources, the symbolic impact of this move cannot be ignored. It risks undermining the morale of the Belarusian opposition, even if the government claims continued support.
ZmeeLove
They're still protecting her, just differently. It's not a full withdrawal.
Habibi
Reassessing security threats is a valid government function, but moving her to a witness protection unit seems inappropriate for a head-of-state level opposition leader. The optics are terrible.
KittyKat
Lithuania has done its part for years. This is a pragmatic adjustment.
lettlelenok
This sends a terrible message to other dissidents seeking refuge.
ytkonos
It's true that Lithuania has been incredibly supportive for years, and costs do add up. However, downgrading security for such a prominent figure could be perceived as weakening resolve against tyranny.