On the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week, the political future of Belarus—and its fraught relationship with the United States—took center stage as exiled opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya issued a stark warning. According to The Associated Press, Tsikhanouskaya cautioned that President Alexander Lukashenko, often called “Europe’s Last Dictator,” is attempting to mislead U.S. President Donald Trump through calculated gestures, such as the release of political prisoners. Her admonition comes just days after a notable shift in U.S.-Belarus relations, with President Trump easing sanctions on Belarus in exchange for the release of some detainees.
The deal, finalized in September 2025, marks a significant moment in the complicated dance between Washington and Minsk. The agreement allows Belarus to repair and purchase parts for its Boeing aircraft and other planes—an important concession for a country whose aviation sector has suffered under years of Western sanctions. In his remarks, President Trump praised his personal rapport with Lukashenko, stating that he had a “wonderful talk” with the Belarusian leader and expressing eagerness for a future meeting. “I look forward to another meeting,” Trump said, signaling a willingness to further thaw relations with a regime much of the Western world continues to shun.
Yet, beneath the surface of diplomatic pleasantries, human rights advocates and opposition figures warn that the situation in Belarus remains dire. While more than 50 prisoners were freed in the most recent release, and over 300 in total throughout the past year, Lukashenko’s government is still holding approximately 1,200 political prisoners as of late September 2025. This list includes prominent figures such as Nobel Peace Prize laureate Ales Bialiatski and several top opposition activists. For many, these numbers paint a grim picture of ongoing repression rather than genuine reform.
Tsikhanouskaya, who fled Belarus in 2020 after challenging Lukashenko in an election widely condemned as fraudulent, knows this cycle all too well. That election, which handed Lukashenko his sixth term in office, sparked the largest wave of mass protests in Belarusian history. The government’s response was swift and brutal: peaceful demonstrations were met with force, tens of thousands were arrested, and even more were driven into exile. “I suppose that it’s the intention of Lukashenko to fool President Trump,” Tsikhanouskaya told The Associated Press. “He wants to buy a Lamborghini for 2,000 Euros, taking a lot and not giving anything.”
Her analogy underscores a deep skepticism about Lukashenko’s motives. While the West may see the release of prisoners as a sign of progress, Tsikhanouskaya and other opposition leaders argue that these gestures are merely transactional, designed to extract concessions from the U.S. without addressing the underlying issues. “That’s why we need consistent and irreversible changes, not to let this regime take more and more and more hostages to sell them for higher price,” she emphasized. In her view, the regime’s approach amounts to a “revolving door”—for every prisoner released, many more are jailed, perpetuating a cycle of repression and negotiation.
Despite this, Tsikhanouskaya thanked President Trump for securing the release of some prisoners, but she urged the U.S. not to “pay too much” for what she described as a small number of freed individuals relative to the scale of the problem. She also called on the administration to keep pushing for the release of all detainees while the opportunity remains, warning, “people are dying in prisons.” Her plea is a sobering reminder of the human cost behind the headlines and diplomatic agreements.
The U.S. State Department, for its part, has welcomed the recent releases but maintains a measured stance. “We view Belarus’s recent release of these political prisoners as another constructive step toward improving our bilateral relationship. There is much more to be done, and we hope to see continued progress,” the department said in a statement. It added, “We will continue to explore opportunities for pragmatic engagement with Belarus where it is in the United States’ interest to do so.” This carefully worded response reflects both a recognition of incremental improvements and a reluctance to overlook the regime’s ongoing abuses.
Meanwhile, the broader geopolitical context is shifting. On Tuesday, September 23, President Trump surprised some observers at the U.N. by expressing confidence that Ukraine could reclaim all territory lost to Russia following President Vladimir Putin’s 2022 invasion. This marked a dramatic shift from Trump’s earlier calls for Kyiv to make concessions to end the conflict. Tsikhanouskaya commented on this development as well, saying, “It looks like President Trump believed in Ukraine, believed that they can win this war and hopefully it will become actions, not words. And of course, we also see that President Trump might be disappointed by Putin.”
For Belarus, these statements and diplomatic maneuvers are more than just symbolic. The country remains at the crossroads of East and West, its fate intertwined with the ambitions of both Moscow and Washington. Lukashenko’s regime has long relied on a delicate balancing act, leveraging its strategic position to extract concessions from larger powers while maintaining a tight grip on its own population. The current round of prisoner releases and sanctions relief appears to be another chapter in this ongoing strategy.
Yet, as Tsikhanouskaya and other exiled leaders point out, the fundamental dynamics inside Belarus have not changed. The regime continues to arrest and detain dissidents, and the risk of further crackdowns looms large. The opposition’s call for “consistent and irreversible changes” is not just a slogan but a demand for the kind of systemic reform that would make such transactional diplomacy unnecessary.
For now, the world watches as the U.S. and Belarus navigate this uncertain terrain. The stakes are high—not only for the political prisoners still languishing behind bars, but for the future of Belarusian democracy itself. As the diplomatic chess game continues, the voices of those who have suffered under Lukashenko’s rule serve as a reminder that real progress will require more than temporary deals and symbolic gestures. It will require sustained pressure, genuine engagement, and above all, an unwavering commitment to human rights.
In the end, the question remains: will the latest thaw in U.S.-Belarus relations lead to lasting change, or is it just another move in a long-standing game of political brinkmanship? Only time—and continued vigilance—will tell.