Фото: Reform.by
The Political Sphere Institute for Political Research, together with public opinion research company „Spinter tyrimai“ and Vytautas Magnus University, conducted a study on Lithuanians’ attitudes towards Belarusians. LRT reports on the findings. Respondents were also asked what they know about litvinism and how they view the Pahonia coat of arms.
The study, “Belarus and Belarusians Through the Eyes of Lithuanians: Measuring Sympathy and Challenges,” was conducted in autumn last year and funded by the European Commission. More than 1,000 people were surveyed. The research covered not only Lithuanians living in Lithuania, but also those in Ukraine and Latvia.
Survey participants were asked about ongoing discussions of “litvinism” in Lithuania. It found that 54.8% of respondents had not heard of them, 29% were aware of the discussions, and 16.2% found it difficult to answer.
Researchers also asked how Lithuanians would assess the possible return of the Pahonia coat of arms. 32.1% said they would view it negatively, and a further 15% rather negatively. 3.4% would perceive such a scenario positively, and 15.9% rather positively. 16.4% said the issue was not important to them, while another 17.1% could not answer.
Respondents were asked about their attitudes towards citizens of Belarus and separately towards Belarusians living in Lithuania. Opinions on Belarusian citizens, regardless of where they reside, were divided. 36% of respondents said they viewed Belarusians negatively, 37.2% positively, and 26.6% found it difficult to answer. The level of positive perception of Belarusian citizens in Ukraine was the same as in Lithuania (35.6%), while in Latvia it was higher at 48.6%.
The most negative attitudes towards Belarusians among the three countries were recorded in Ukraine, where 50.4% of respondents reported negative views. In Latvia, 24.8% of respondents expressed negative attitudes.
Negative attitudes towards Belarusians also prevailed in the 26–45 age group, while in other groups attitudes were predominantly positive. Negative views of Belarusian citizens were more frequently expressed by respondents with higher education and incomes above 1,000 euros.
At the same time, attitudes towards Belarusians living in Lithuania differ. Positive assessments accounted for 41.9%, negative for 30.9%, and 27.2% found it difficult to answer.
Respondents also positively assessed the Lithuanian government’s decision to ease entry for Belarusians in 2022. 49.9% viewed the decision positively, 27.1% negatively, and 23% could not answer.
Another question concerned whether Belarusians living in Lithuania pose a national security threat. 25.5% answered yes, 48.8% no, and 25.8% found it difficult to answer.
Researchers also found that only 12.4% had maintained contact with Belarusians over the past year, while 87.6% had not. The study assessed sustained connections rather than casual everyday contacts.
26.8% of respondents supported reducing the number of labour migrants from Belarus. 18.1% believe such migration should be stopped in the future, without reducing the number already in the country. 37.3% think labour migration should continue under the same conditions as for citizens of other countries. Only 3.9% supported promoting migration from Belarus.
When asked about relations with Belarus, 39.9% of respondents chose the option “Not to develop active cooperation, but to maintain contacts with the Belarusian authorities in areas where there is economic interest.” 30% supported a policy of isolation and sanctions. 13.2% backed the development of cooperation and partnership.
Another block of questions concerned Belarusian democratic forces. 75.5% of respondents said they know who Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya is, 14.6% said they do not, and 9.9% found it difficult to answer.
10.1% believe Lithuania should not develop cooperation with the opposition at all. 13.1% support informal and non-public contacts. 31.5% think Lithuania should limit itself to official meetings and statements. At the same time, 22% of respondents support the development of full cooperation and providing support at an official level.