Dmitry Bondarenko: 'Just a Few Hours - and Factories Would Have Stopped'

The truth about the events of December 19, 2010 is told by one of the organizers of the Square.

During the five years that have passed since the 2010 presidential election, the opposition was asked for an analysis of what happened in the Square after the "election". Some politicians have argued that this cannot be done while political prisoners are in prison. Now the last political prisoners arrested in December 2010, have been released. Let's begin the conversation.

The person answering the questions of the charter97.org editor Natalya Radina is the head of the election campaign of the presidential candidate Andrei Sannikov, coordinator of "European Belarus" Dmitry Bondarenko.

- The opposition all these years has been blamed that at the Square the leaders had no plan. Is it so?

- No, it is not. Because then we can say that the Maidan in Ukraine is also a random event. Of course, there is some variability in actions, but that day there were two possible basic options: either to go from the October Square to the CEC on Independence Square, or go to the Belarusian television on Makayonka street to require the air for Democratic candidates - to bring the truth about the election results, that the country must have the second round.

Standing in one place that day was impossible, because it was on an ice rink, it was dangerous for people. In addition, on October Square there is a large building of the Palace of the Republic with huge glass windows of a few meters in height. It was very easy to organize a provocation. If somebody broke windows there - and we know that during many demonstrations in Belarus provocateurs do it - there could have been real victims. In addition, through the loudspeakers installed in the square blared Russian pop music.

So I absolutely agree with Statkevich: we had to move. During the movement, the will of the people gathering shows best. And we really showed to the world that 80 thousand Belarusians that day came to protest against election fraud.

I often hear that, say, at the time the Freedom Marches were unsuccessful, as it was just 30,000, or a total of 50 thousand people. Or the Square was unsuccessful, as there was only 80 thousand of them there. Those people who came - they are heroes. They made their choice, they will have something to tell to their children and grandchildren.

And in that situation, opposition leaders did the maximum that was possible to do.

Why did the authorities were forced to start the diespersal? After all, the provocation with the smashing of windows at that time was over, but the people on Square would not leave. Too often we have seen this phenomenon: people came, listened, and then began to leave.

December 19 was different. People began to call family, friends, so there was no radical reduction in the number of participants, on the contrary - thousands more Belarusians rushed to the center of Minsk. Therefore, the authorities realized that a few more hours - and there would be a turning point in the country, there would be a completely different situation, and in the morning the plants and factories would stop. Therefore, it was ordered to disperse the people. Armed blockheads - on that day in Minsk were collected tens of thousands of executioners - were stronger than the civilians.

- It was suggested that the riots on the Square were the Moscow scenario, the purpose of which was the failure of the "dialogue" of Lukashenko with the West.

- A brutal suppression of a peaceful demonstration was the scenario of Lukashenko. In the KGB prison, the colleagues in the cameras that were there before us - the economic, the former employees of law enforcement agencies - said that the so-called wooden "rafts", the additional space to accommodate new prisoners, were made a month before the "elections". The whole prison heard hammering when the beds were made. I do not think they were made by Russian paratroopers. I know it was done by the KGB.

Yes Square crackdown was carried out on Russian money and partly with IMF money and that of other Western banks. They also used the experience of suppression of demonstrations that the Belarusian interior troops and riot police had received training in the Federal Republic of Germany - and we know about this shameful page of friendship of the dictator with the West.

- So who broke the glass of the Government House, because that was the main accusation against the opposition, wasn't it?

- In February 2011, in the KGB prison I was taken in for questioning by an agent. He introduced himself as an employee of the military counter-intelligence of the KGB of Belarus and showed me a video of a group of young people coming to the doors of the Government House and beginning to smash windows. In the video it was clear that all participants of the protest at that time were at the Independence Square in front of the monument to Lenin. A man who identified himself as an employee of the military counter-intelligence, asked me if I knew any of these people, and in particular he was interested in the man who in unnatural voice shouted: "Hey, Belarusians, come here!". I said that I knew none of these people. Then the officer showed me another video, where the same group of young people was moving along Independence Avenue from Oktyabrskaya Square in the direction of Independence Square. He said that the first people to smash windows were an organized group, and it is possible that it is foreign nationals. Perhaps, from Russia or Ukraine.

Counterintelligence people met with me twice more and asked one question: "Are you sure you do not know them? After all, you have organized many protests." To which I answered them that these people are more like disguised secret services, and it is strange that they were not arrested in the Square, or immediately after it. As it turned out, surveillance was conducted of each meter of Independence Square.

In April, in one of the ccells of the "Amerikanka" I was told that there had been a man who was arrested for being the first to hit the glass. My cellmates claimed that this guy was the son of one of the senior officials of the Interior Ministry, he stayed with them a few days, and then was released and he was not even tried.

Later I learned from the press that one of the members of the group smashing the glass was Vitaly Matsukevich. In my opinion, he is the only one of the instigators of the glass smashing who was convicted and was released in summer 2011.

- Let's go back to the "elections". What were their real results?

- In 2010, Andrei Sannikov was the strongest of all democratic candidates. He got more votes than all other Democratic candidates combined. He made it to the second round, which he would have inevitably won.

Lukashenko knew about it, so against Sannikov's team were used the most powerful repressions. Oleg Bebenin, a close associate of the politician, was killed on the eve of the "election", and the Sannikov family was again under pressure.

Naturally, the authorities knew that since Andrei was the strongest candidate and had the strongest team, then he and his team were the main organizers of the Square which had, according to various estimates, from 70 to 90 thousand people.

Maybe someone does not like the truth, but that is the situation.

- Nikolai Statkevich, former candidate for presidency, who was just released, said that he assumes the full responsibility for the organization of the Square.

- Statkevich did play an active role in the Square, but the point is that the Square had to be organized. Mikola is a courageous man, a street fighter, but at the moment he did not have either the resources or the team or any serious partners. It was an individual personal courage and several closest associates.

He went to the polls with a marginal candidate Dmitry Uss, who not only did not bring any additional points, but also spoke against holding the Square.

Mikola had a very good speech during the second broadcast on television. Seven candidates on television urged people to come to the Square. It also influenced the fact that there were a lot of people.

It should be noted that it was our team that for many years had specialized in holding mass protests. The Square was originally for us the main goal of the election campaign, therefore it was no accident that the sound equipment and generators were brought to the Oktyabrskaya Square and Independence Square by our activists.

- You say that Andrei Sannikov won the presidential election. Why do so many journalists and analysts prefer to gloss over this fact?

- For the same reason that some do not want to admit that the most popular independent resource in Belarus is charter97.org. But there are statistics, which are impossible to argue with.

I know that when I was in prison, four foreign ministers wrote an article about the fact that Belarus should have a second round. It is recorded by observers, who conducted exit polls: Lukashenko got about 40%. From the democratic candidates, Sannikov made it to the second round.

When I was released from prison, Viktor Ivashkevich gave me the data from 12 polling stations in Minsk, which were signed by members of election commissions. The actual numbers are as follows: in the first place was Lukashenko - "thanks" to early voting, where almost 100% of the votes were allegedly given to the dictator. In second place by a large margin from the rest was Andrei Sannikov. Then came Neklaev. The data for all polling stations is very similar, and in one of them Sannikov even won, despite the early voting.

As for regions, in the city of Lida, for instance, Sannikov scored 40%. Generally, in Western Belarus in many areas he gained about the same amount, but these figures were not registered by the local commissions – they were leaked to us from the security forces and government officials.

In addition, according to all preliminary online surveys, both Belarusian and Russian, Sannikov won by a wide margin. At the opinion poll organized by Radio Liberty, Belarusian Partisan, whose leaders can hardly be accused of being sympathetic to Sannikov, Andrei still won.

At that time, Internet was used by 3-5 million people, there is a certain representation observed in online polls, and this suggests that Sannikov was the absolute leader among the democratic candidates.

In addition, his popularity was visible to the naked eye in the streets while collecting signatures during the campaign. People were queuing to the candidate Sannikov, he had more meetings across the country, was able to organize more mass rallies of voters, gave more of the interviews to world media.

- And why the opposition could not unite?

- One important point: the decision on the participation of many democratic candidates for the "election" was taken by Lukashenko personally, because it is well known that the signatures were collected only by Neklaev's and Sannikov's teams.

- Why did Lukashenko need it?

- This way they would embroil the opposition, but they were wrong. The authorities only later realized that it was a mistake to provide nine hours of live television performances to alternative candidates, plus the radio.

- One thousand prisoners, hundreds of battered people. Was it worth calling people to the Square on December 19?

- The independence of any country does not come easily, and is not saved easily. As the events in Ukraine showed, Russia will not remain indifferent to what is happening in neighboring countries. And I am confident that the Belarusians still have to defend their independence by force of arms, as do Ukrainians. Russia will not leave us alone. We must be ready for it.

Art of the Belarusian opposition leaders was in the fact that while holding peaceful rallies against the dictator, we at the same time defended independence. Because all of our rallies were held under European and white-red-white flags, with slogans "Long live Belarus!" and "Belarus to Europe".

The generals and FSB agents in Moscow understand that if in seemingly russified Belarus, which is completely under the control of a dictator, there are many people willing to die for their country, then to interfere in its affairs by armed forces is dangerous. Lukashenko's Belarus is actually the only ally of Russia. If you have to fight even with this country - and peace will not work - it will be for the Kremlin a total defeat.

Belarusian opposition can be proud of the fact that in all the years of mass rallies (and there are hundreds), we had no victims. We defended our ideals in a non-violent way.

- You had to go abroad, and today some are trying to divide the opposition into the immigrants and those who remain in the country. What do you feel - an immigrant or an activist of the opposition?

- I had five criminal and 12 administrative cases against me, served one criminal term and had 8 administrative arrests. And I do not want to be a toy for experimentation of the kolkhoz gang. My health is also not the same as in 30 years.

I could stay in Belarus only in one case - if I had an F1 grenade, I would walk around with it, and at the attempt to arrest me, I would blow myself and a few scoundrels who tried to arrest me. To leave was my conscious choice.

Immediately after the release of Andrei Sannikov, we held a press conference. Lukashenko became hysterical, he raved on TV shouting that if we did not shut up, we would go back to prison within two hours.

For me the choice in Belarus today is as follows: either another imprisonment and death, or silence. I chose freedom, the freedom to be myself, the freedom to say what I want and when I want. Am I part of Belarus? Yes. I do not think about anything else other than my own country.

- Many political prisoners after their release were very cautious, afraid to speak frankly. It was obvious that in prison they had gone through a lot of pressure and realized the threat of going back. However, Nikolai Statkevich now speaks with bold enough statements. In particular, he said that on 19 December 2010 in the country there was a power grab...

- Nikolai Statkevich rightly said that he was released not because of some sort of humanitarian considerations dictator who tortured him for five years, but only because the regime urgently needed money.

Lukashenko now very much would like for Statkevich to be silent, but it cannot take against it any action. Because then its power will collapse in few months.

It can be seen that Nikolai in these five years has become even stronger. It is evident that all these 5 years he thought about what he would do in the first hours and days after the release. I would even call Statkevich enlightened. In prison it is possible.

And today, he can become the political leader of Belarus. Millions of Belarusians associated with him their hopes. If we do not help Statkevich today to change the situation in Belarus, then Nikolai and many other former political prisoners will be in a few months in jail. He is now the leader of a spiritual uprising of Belarusians, he is trying to raise the people from its knees, the people who for some time lay down to rest. He is trying to raise the people to fight, raise the people to action. And so he should now be supported by any means.

- What could be the action plan of the real opposition for the near future?

- First - it is necessary to prepare a boycott, because it is absolutely real. All candidates of political parties, who went to the polls, and believed that they would easily collect 100 thousand signatures, faced complete passivity of the people.

Today, none of the candidates, including Lukashenko, was not able to collect signatures for the election campaign. Belarusians said "no." We were robbed by the devaluation, high prices, lack of decent work - and we will not go to vote, will not participate in the games of the state, which robs us.

And the opposition does not have to invent tricks like: Let's go to "election" in the ballot paper write the word of three letters. You just have to register a spontaneous revolt of Belarusians against the pseudo-elections. Forced early voting does not matter, because it was initially not recognized by anyone.

But it is necessary to put on record the non-appearance on the day of voting. This should be done by observers and opposition activists.

Second - we must help Statkevich, first of all, with the confidence and willingness to work together with him.

If in 2010 Andrei Sannikov was the real leader of the democratic forces, today in Belarus such leader is becoming Nikolai Statkevich. This does not mean that we need to approve of all his actions, it is necessary to support him in health endeavors. The idea of non-recognition of farce and demanding new elections is a decent, strong step. But it must be supported by the understanding that it is not going to happen without the boycott, because otherwise there will be simply words against Lukashenko's actions.

We should help Nikolai explain to the Westerners who are trying behind the Belarusian people today to make a deal to recognize the dictator, that they have nothing. That the people of Belarus will no longer be the object of primitive transactions and manipulation, that Lukashenko should not be given loans which we will have to pay. After all, to repay the last IMF loan, Lukashenko had to completely sell Beltransgaz to Russia.

Therefore the main task of Statkevich is to defend the Belarusian people and the Belarusian opposition, and we all have to help him.

- Nikolai Statkevich started calling the names of agents provocateurs and secret service agents who were in opposition before December 19, 2010. In particular, in an interview, he said that Andrei Dmitriev - Chief of Staff of Vladimir Neklaev in the last election - is an absolutely immoral person. Neklyaev made a sensational statement in relation to this figure. What can you say about Dmitriev, who is still in politics, and even participating in the "elections" 2015?

- I here agree with Neklyaev, who saw the light and said that Dmitriev had long worked for the secret services. Nikolai Statkevich believes that he was broken in "Amerikanka" prison. No, this man has for a long time worked for the government and his main task in the previous and current "elections" is an attempt to legitimize Lukashenko. In 2010, Square prevented this.

"Amerikanka” prison" has only 18 cameras and prisoners are supposed to be moved from cell to cell. Moving is always difficult, but thanks to this you get new friends and new information. In some cameras I crossed paths with people who were in the cell with Dmitriev.

For example, no one can accuse me of a great love for Alexander Feduta. But I spoke with young people who were in the cell with him and said: yes, he is overweight, it was hard for him, but he held on, stayed positive, he wrote poetry. In general, these people spoke well about Feduta.

All who were in the cell with Dmitriev spoke very negatively about him and did not call him anything other than a scoundrel. I said that, it was probably so, but he was in the Square already beaten. He was covered in bruises after the dispersal of the Neklaev column. His former cell mates were surprised: what bruises? Dmitriev did not have any bruises, they said. There was only a scratch on his leg - they saw it in the shower. But there was no bruising.

It intrigued me. I did not spread this information, but recently a person was released from prison the "Amerikanka" prison. He shared a cell with Dmitriev. And he confirmed that Dmitriev had no bruises. That is, it turns out that Andrei was at the Square wearing makeup?

Do you think that Vladimir Neklyaev left the “Tell the Truth” campaign just like that? Probably, he figured it out in the end, what kind of person Dmitriev was. Although this insight could have come earlier.

- Nikolai Statkevich believes that the opposition should be divided, because it, I quote, "degraded, and many in opposition are dancing to the authorities' tune." How do you imagine the process?

- Nikolai said that there is now also a "non-oppositional opposition." I believe that the opposition is the people who are involved in the protests, who defend their ideals and show solidarity. These people can be called Belarusian participants of the Belarusian Resistance, the national liberation movement or just democrats.

And the backup dancers, who cooperate with the authorities, security forces and do not stop this - this is not the opposition. I think this separation occurred long ago.

- All three years, while you free, you have had to hear the accusations that you wrote a petition for pardon. I was in the KGB prison and believe that you can only be blamed by the people who do not know what a Belarusian prison is. What would you like once again to say to the people who constantly remind you and Andrei Sannikov about this act?

- I can say what I said right after I was out: I did not have to endure even a hundredth part of what Andrei Sannikov went through. And as his friend and associate, I signed a petition in solidarity with him as soon as I learned about his decision.

Lukashenko knows that he lost the elections to Sannikov. He took revenge on him as an upstart-redneck does to a hereditary intelligentsia man. There was only one plan for Sannikov - he should not come out out of prison alive.

I want to remind you that Andrei Sannikov wrote a petition for pardon on November 16, 2011, and was released only on April 14, 2012, when all the ambassadors of the EU left Belarus, which threatened the closure of all Belarusian embassies in Europe. Remember how Sannikov looked when he was released from prison? He was so exhausted that people simply did not recognize him. But he was supposed to be already "prepared" for the release.

The whole term, starting from December 19, 2010, he was abused, tortured, his family threatened, they attempted to murder him and were purposefully leading him to suicide.

Andrei came out alive, that means he won. Today he is one of the few opposition leaders who openly opposes the dictatorship and defends the interests of the Belarusian people.

It should be understood that neither Andrei nor his team went to the polls for the election. We are faced with the fact that in 2001 and 2006 the candidates were not ready (except Kozulin) to go to the end and to defend the results of the vote.

In 2010, the people rallied around Andrei Sannikov as a man who was willing to burn all the bridges behind him. None of the candidates was going to the polls immediately after his closest associate and friend was killed. None of the candidates was taking part in the elections, when for six months his family had been threatened. In the spring of 2010, I, along with Andrei collected from the main post office a telegram which had death threats to Irina Khalip and their son Danik.

Today, some say that they did not have financial resources. I will say that at the outset, we also did not have money. We lent, pawned the property. Sannikov, in particular, put up his flat, garage and car. Only at the end of the campaign we received some support.

I do not know how the critics would behave in prison with their relatives in the cell next to theirs. History will put everything in its place. But today we can not say that, for example, Nikita Likhovid that during his detention spent all the time in the lock-ups and did not write a petition for pardon is better than Vaclav Havel or Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who once wrote a similar petition.

Moreover, it does not mean that Nikita Likhovid is a better manager or can better run the state than Havel, Khodorkovsky or Sannikov.

Sannikov went into battle, he organized this battle and I am sure he was a winner. The regime has not recovered so far from the blow received in 2010.

Yes, Sannikov was captured, he was subjected to brutal abuse, but he was released from prison not broken. I am proud that I was a member of his team, and was with him in that battle.