More stories

  • in

    With a Neutral Stance on Ukraine, Viktor Orban Pulled in Voters

    BUDAPEST — Savoring the election victory of a rare European leader who has not condemned him as a war criminal, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Monday congratulated Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary for winning a fourth term and said he looked forward to an expansion of “partnership ties.”At a time when Russia’s relations with the European Union and the United States are unraveling over the war in Ukraine, Hungary, a member of the European bloc, has mostly sat on the fence in response to the Russian invasion, in part to avoid upsetting a natural gas deal cemented by Mr. Orban during talks with Mr. Putin in Moscow shortly before Russia invaded.A thumping victory in Sunday’s election for Mr. Orban’s party, Fidesz, suggested that the Hungarian leader would stick with a policy strongly endorsed by voters.But following a vote that independent election observers said was unfairly tilted in the governing party’s favor, there is also growing pressure on Mr. Orban to change course or risk not only alienating Hungary’s allies but losing billions of dollars in badly needed funding from the European Union for failing to uphold the rule of law.Guy Verhofstadt, a prominent liberal in the European Parliament, described the election as “a dark day for liberal democracy, for Hungary and the E.U., at a perilous time.”Mr. Putin got more mixed news from elections Sunday in Serbia, where Aleksandar Vucic, the country’s populist pro-Russia president, won re-election, according to preliminary official results issued on Monday. But it looked as if President Vucic could lose his increasingly authoritarian grip on power after his governing party failed to win a clear majority in Parliament.The Kremlin congratulated Mr. Vucic nonetheless, calling for a strengthening of what it described as a “strategic partnership” in the interests of “brotherly Russian and Serb people.”Aleksandar Vucic, Serbia’s pro-Russia president, won re-election on Sunday, but could lose his grip on power after his governing party failed to win a clear majority in Parliament.Andrej Cukic/EPA, via ShutterstockMr. Orban’s Fidesz party has been divided over how to respond to Russia’s aggression, with its more traditional nationalist wing, steeped in the history of Hungary’s own past suffering at Russia’s hands, uncomfortable with cozying up to Mr. Putin.But its hopes that Mr. Orban, who went from being an anti-Kremlin liberal firebrand in 1989 to Mr. Putin’s closest partner in Europe, might again change direction after the election seems to have been diminished by the scale of his party’s victory. It won more than two-thirds of the seats in Parliament while an openly pro-Putin, far-right party, Our Homeland Movement, secured enough votes to enter Parliament for the first time.“Putin is right. Ukraine is getting what it deserves,” Janos Horvath, a supporter of the far-right party, said after casting his vote. Ukraine, he said, echoing a favorite Kremlin talking point, mistreats its ethnic minorities, including Russians and Hungarians, and “must be stopped.”The crushing defeat of Mr. Orban’s opponents, who campaigned on pledges to show more solidarity with Ukraine and Hungary’s allies, makes it unlikely that Hungary will now join NATO and the European Union in condemning Mr. Putin over his military onslaught or in supplying weapons to help Ukraine defend itself. Hungary, unlike Poland, has steadfastly refused to let weapons pass through its territory to Ukraine.While increasingly isolated from his foreign allies, Mr. Orban won strong domestic support for his neutral stance on the war, turning what had initially threatened to become an electoral liability into a vote-getter. He did this through relentless misrepresentation of his opponents’ position, deploying a vast apparatus of loyal media outlets to convince voters that his rivals wanted to send Hungarian troops to Ukraine to fight against Russia, something that nobody has suggested doing.Supporters of Mr. Orban’s Fidesz party on Sunday.Nanna Heitmann for The New York TimesAt the opposition’s final rally in Budapest on election eve, Fidesz activists masquerading as journalists presented the opposition’s main candidate, Peter Maki Zay, with a white T-shirt emblazoned with a red target, shouting that this was what Hungary would become if he won. A video of the encounter was later posted online by Fidesz-friendly media outlets, which repeatedly cast the election as a choice between “war and peace.”Russia-Ukraine War: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3Russian atrocities. More

  • in

    With Ukraine Invasion, Hungary’s Leader Softens His Embrace of Russia

    Facing an election on Sunday, Viktor Orban plays neutral peacemaker while campaigning against the “gender insanity” that he says is creeping in from the West.DEBRECEN, Hungary — The towering memorial, erected on the battlefield where the Russian imperial army routed Hungarian troops, mourns Russia’s 1849 victory over “brave homeland defenders.” It is a reminder of how, for centuries, the Hungarian psyche has been shaped and scarred by the specter of Russian domination.“There has been a constant fear of Russia,” said Gyorgy Miru, a history professor in Debrecen, a Hungarian city near the border with Ukraine where the battle took place.Under Prime Minister Viktor Orban, however, this fear has turned into a trusting embrace. Mr. Orban, a political bruiser who revels in defying what he scorns as liberal conventions, has for years looked to Russia as a reliable source of energy and its president, Vladimir V. Putin, as a beacon of no-nonsense nationalism and muscular leadership, emulating in a milder form the Kremlin’s stranglehold on media and its one-party system.Amid the agonies inflicted on neighboring Ukraine over the past five weeks by Moscow, Mr. Orban’s stance has left many in Hungary and beyond dismayed and angry that a nation with such a long and painful experience of Russian aggression could fall so far out of step with the rest of Europe.Facing an election on Sunday against an unusually united opposition, Mr. Orban has cast himself as a neutral peacemaker who does not want to fan the war by sending weapons to Ukraine or to hurt Hungarian interests by imposing a ban on Russian oil imports.“As a historian, I am surprised and shocked,” Professor Miru said, recalling that Russian troops not only crushed Hungary’s 1848-49 revolt against imperial rule by Austria but also an anti-communist rebellion in 1956.The memorial in Debrecen remembering Hungarians killed by Russian troops in 1849.The New York TimesIn a speech in Budapest on March 15, a national holiday to mark the start of the 1848 revolt, Mr. Orban turned what is usually a solemn occasion into an election rally featuring a call to arms against liberal values and Western solidarity against Russia over Ukraine.He vowed to “stop at Hungary’s border the gender insanity sweeping across the Western world” and to protect Hungarian national interests against the competing interests of Russia, Ukraine, the United States and the European Union. “We must represent our own interests, calmly and bravely,” he said, without mentioning Russia’s invasion.Mr. Orban has hardly applauded Russia’s military onslaught, which his government describes as “aggression.” But neither has he criticized Mr. Putin nor joined Poland, Britain, Germany and other European countries in helping Ukraine defend itself.Irpin, Ukraine, on Friday. Previous weeks of fighting between Ukrainian and Russian forces has damaged the city, which is northwest of Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital.Daniel Berehulak for The New York TimesHis opposition to a ban on Russian oil has infuriated Poland, whose conservative governing party previously stood shoulder to shoulder with Hungary in Europe’s culture wars. It was enough to lead the Czech defense minister, Jana Cernochova, to declare last week that she was “very sorry that cheap Russian oil is now more important to Hungarian politicians than Ukrainian blood.”The Czech minister canceled a trip to Hungary for a planned gathering of the Visegrad Group, comprising four previously close Central European states. Poland and Slovakia, the other scheduled attendees, also stayed away.The leader of Poland’s governing party, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Mr. Orban’s closest ally in the European Union, has tried to calm the rift, but even he has expressed dismay at Hungary’s fence-sitting on the war in Ukraine. “We view Hungary’s attitude with criticism, and we hope that it will become more involved,” Mr. Kaczynski told a conservative Polish weekly.Suspicion of Hungary over its ties to Moscow is so intense that some now see Mr. Orban’s nation, a member of NATO since 1999, as a weak link in the alliance.An exercise with NATO special forces troops in 2019 in Hungary. Some now consider Hungary a weak link in the alliance. The New York TimesAsked about Hungary’s hesitant support for Ukraine, Gabrielius Landsbergis, the Lithuanian foreign minister, lamented that “unwavering trust in some of our allies could be an unfortunate victim of Russia’s war against Ukraine.”Instead of rallying to help Ukraine, Mr. Orban has gone on the offensive against it, claiming on Friday that it had “made a pact” with his election rivals. This followed an earlier claim by his foreign minister, Peter Szijjarto, that the Ukrainian foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, recently called Ukraine’s ambassador in Budapest to “consult on the possibility of influencing the election results in Hungary” in cahoots with the opposition. Mr. Kuleba responded by accusing his Hungarian counterpart of “inventing nonsense” for “short-term benefit before the elections” and “destroying the long-term relationship between us.”Mr. Orban, hailed as a hero by many American conservatives, has taken broad steps in recent years to use his power to erode democratic norms, but his moves to revise election laws to benefit his party and mute critical voices in the media have been especially notable as the vote nears on Sunday. Opinion polls suggest Mr. Orban’s Fidesz party will again win, though it may fall short of the two-thirds majority in Parliament that had allowed Mr. Orban to rewrite the Constitution and turn Hungary into a semi-autocratic state.At a closed-door meeting on Thursday in Slovakia of nine regional foreign ministers, Mr. Szijjarto complained irritably that Hungary had been misunderstood and denied it was siding with Russia, according to a minister who was present.Seeking to rally Mr. Orban’s base ahead of the election, Mr. Szijjarto traveled the previous day to Debrecen and visited a campaign office for the Fidesz party. Asked as he was leaving whether Hungary’s policy toward Russia had left his country isolated, he shouted, “No, no, no,” and rushed out of the building to a waiting limousine.Hungary’s foreign minister, Peter Szijjarto, center, on Wednesday in Debrecen.The New York TimesFamous across Hungary as the place where anti-imperial rebels issued Hungary’s declaration of independence in 1849, Debrecen has long been associated with Hungarian nationalism. The city, said Robert Hermann, a leading Hungarian scholar of the 1848 revolution, “is our Philadelphia,” a reference to the city where rebellious American colonies declared their independence from Britain in 1776.Hungary, he added, was never as passionately hostile to Russia as Poland was, in part because Russian troops who fought in Debrecen and other rebel strongholds in the 19th century tended to treat Hungarian captives relatively well. But wariness of Moscow, amplified by its brutal crushing of Hungary’s 1956 anti-Soviet uprising, he said, still runs deep, particularly on the right.Under Mr. Orban, however, “distrust of Russia on the right went into the background,” Mr. Hermann said, as Fidesz, despite its strongly nationalist tinge, embraced a view of Russia that had previously been confined to the left. Describing himself as a “liberal nationalist,” Mr. Hermann said he had been “very confused” by Mr. Orban’s sharp tilt toward Moscow after he took power in 2010.Also confused has been Debrecen University, which in 2017 awarded Mr. Putin the title of “honorary citizen” as part of Hungary’s courtship of the Kremlin. A week after he invaded Ukraine, it issued a statement that avoided criticizing the Russian leader but subtly declared his title void, since he had not visited in person to collect it.Ukrainian refugees on Thursday at a shelter in Budapest.The New York TimesDespite first making his name as an anti-Moscow firebrand who in 1989 demanded that 80,000 Soviet troops then in Hungary go home, Mr. Orban has repeatedly spoken in recent years of the need to get along with Mr. Putin. In an interview with an Italian newspaper in 2018, he acknowledged that “in the past, we Hungarians have suffered a lot under Russia.” But he added that “it needs to be recognized that Putin has made his country great again” and that he should not be viewed as a devil “with hooves and horns” but as a leader who “rules a great and ancient empire.”Mr. Orban’s outreach to Mr. Putin has been driven in part by close cooperation on energy. Russia lent Hungary $10 billion to finance the construction of a nuclear power plant by a Russian company and provided it with natural gas at favorable prices. But there has also been a political dimension, with Mr. Orban looking to Moscow as an ally in the struggle against progressive ideas seeping in from Western Europe. Like Mr. Putin, Mr. Orban has often spoken about what he sees as the threat posed by gay men, lesbians and transgender people and their advocates.Supporters of Mr. Orban in Szekesfehervar, Hungary, on Friday during the rally.The New York TimesWhile Poland has been plastered in recent weeks with Ukrainian flags and other signs of solidarity with its eastern neighbor, streets across Hungary have been decked with placards trumpeting the need to “protect our children.” Alongside a vote on Sunday for Parliament, Hungarians are also being asked to vote on a series of inflammatory questions, like, “Do you support the promotion of sex reassignment therapy for underage children?”In early February, as fears mounted of a coming Russian invasion of Ukraine and European leaders warned of severe sanctions if an attack occurred, Mr. Orban visited Moscow to cement his country’s energy ties with Russia. For his efforts, he secured a promise from Mr. Putin that Hungary, unlike other European countries, had no need to worry about running short of natural gas.Mr. Orban described Mr. Putin’s security demands as “normal” and sanctions as pointless. The Russian president returned the favor, telling Mr. Orban that while Russia did not usually take sides in foreign elections: “You have done so much in your work on the Russia track, both in the interest of Hungary and Russia. I hope our cooperation will continue.”After Russian troops invaded Ukraine, Hungary joined fellow members of the European Union in imposing sanctions on Moscow, but it has since refused to let weapons destined for Ukraine pass through its territory and resisted efforts to impose restrictions on Russian energy imports.With television stations and many print outlets controlled directly by the state or by government-friendly tycoons, Hungary’s governing party, Fidesz, has shifted its nationalist base away from its traditional fear of Russia toward the belief that Mr. Putin stands on the same side of the barricades in defending traditional values.Outside the House of Terror, a museum in Budapest focusing on the fascist and communist governments in 20th-century Hungary. The museum is also a memorial to the victims.The New York Times“Thanks to Orban’s media, Putin is now more popular in this segment of the population than the American president or the German chancellor,” said Zoltan Biro, a Russia expert at the Corvinus University in Budapest.Speaking outside the Fidesz election headquarters in Debrecen this past week, Tibor Tisza, a taxi company owner and enthusiastic party supporter, said he had visited the local memorial to Hungarians killed by Russian troops in 1849. But he said he felt no ill will toward Russia because it “finally has a real, powerful and patriotic leader” who battles to protect children and national interests just as Mr. Orban does.Mr. Tisza said he regretted the bloodshed in Ukraine but, echoing a theme regularly promoted by Fidesz-friendly news media outlets, accused Kyiv of harboring Nazis and restricting the rights of both ethnic Russians and ethnic Hungarians to live in peace.He added that he was not against Ukraine but did not want Hungary to get sucked into its war with Russia. “If my neighbor’s house is on fire,” Mr. Tisza, “should I set my own house on fire, too?”Tomas Dapkus More

  • in

    The Battle for the Mural — and the Future of Belarus

    Listen to This ArticleAudio Recording by AudmTo hear more audio stories from publications like The New York Times, download Audm for iPhone or Android.As his family slept, the man spent his nights planning. There were about 40 security cameras among the three buildings in central Minsk, maybe even more. He had long ago calculated their blind spots. He knew there was only one place in the shared courtyard they didn’t see. It took him a day to map out the best approach. The group had decided that they would act in the evening, when there would be enough people on the street so that their actions would not arouse suspicion but not so many that someone would be likely to report them to the police. He wasn’t afraid for himself as much as for the rest of them. If they got caught, it would be his fault.They positioned their spotters to watch for the Belarusian security services, the siloviki. They agreed on a plan to create an emergency diversion if they arrived.On the morning of Feb. 25, he took a white piece of cloth the size of a flag and painted it quickly. It would take four hours to dry. When it was ready, he folded it deliberately, carefully aligning the fabric to make sure it would take the least amount of time to unfurl. He attached carabiners to the corners and put it in a bag.As he made his way to the fence next to the utility shed, the man felt only anger — a voice in his head that demanded to know how can a person be afraid to do something like this? When he reached the fence, he hooked up the carabiners, then threw the cloth over the top. It unfurled in seconds. He fastened the bottom and stepped back. Weeks of planning ended in minutes. In the purple light, the banner was ethereal and simple — the logo of their group, a peace sign and the words NO WAR.An hour and a half later, a minibus with tinted windows arrived. Plainclothes officers stormed out and tore down the banner. The next morning, investigators from the local branch of the Ministry of Internal Affairs arrived. They started collecting security footage from the buildings as well as nearby stores and combing over the tape. The man believed they wouldn’t be found. They had followed protocol and stuck to the route.They had been shouting for more than a year and a half that their country was a dictatorship, that Belarus was under occupation, that everything would be disastrous if Aleksandr Lukashenko were not stopped. No one had listened. There were more than 1,000 political prisoners in detention; sentences for those who opposed Lukashenko’s regime stretched into decades. Now Russia had launched an assault on Ukraine, and Lukashenko had sold their country to the Kremlin as a giant military base.If they had overthrown Lukashenko, the man thought, probably none of this would be happening. Vladimir Putin would not have had the strategic assets to be able to carry out this war — no support from the northern flank, no airfields for refueling planes, no silos to keep the missiles. If the world thought Belarusians to be collaborators, he needed to show they were anything but. They had been fighting against this for far longer than people realized. They had taken far greater risks than people knew.Sept. 3, 2020 Repainting the mural in the Square of Change in Minsk.Yauhen AttsetskiOn weekday mornings, the elevators in Diana Karankevich’s building were so crowded with young parents bringing their children to school, she often took the stairs. With 20 floors, the prefabricated high-rise had loomed over the nearby squat, beige Soviet-era buildings in the New Lake neighborhood almost as soon as construction started around 2011. By the time everyone moved in, the new development’s three identical buildings on the intersection of Smorgovsky Tract and Chervyakova Street teemed with young, upper-middle-class families. The appeal of buying there was obvious — it was a 10-minute drive from downtown Minsk, with a supermarket across the street and good schools nearby. It was a short walk to the Belarusian capital’s largest park and the shores of the big lake that locals in the landlocked country referred to as the Minsk Sea.Before 2020, whether because of Belarus’s long Soviet hangover or their busy, phone-absorbed lives, most people in the buildings never knew their neighbors. Diana, a 30-year-old nail technician who had worked in a beauty salon on the first floor, was an exception. Outgoing and opinionated, she was always saying hello to someone. From the apartment she shared with her mother and her then 5-year-old son, Timofey, Tima for short, Diana could see the road that led to the three buildings’ shared courtyard, where there was a small, multicolored playground surrounded by benches. In the afternoons, the congestion reversed — the same parents bringing their children home, sometimes stopping at the swing set or the seesaw.On Aug. 6, 2020, Diana was walking Tima home from kindergarten, through the verdant birch trees of a smaller square nearby called Peoples’ Friendship Park.“Why are there so many people?” Tima asked, confused.“Because they came out,” she answered absent-mindedly.It was a few days before the August 2020 presidential elections, which until recently Diana and pretty much everyone else in Belarus had expected to be the sixth straight election President Lukashenko would win through a combination of voter apathy, oppositional disarray, electoral suppression and outright fraud. But for the first time in his 26 years in power, the usual script of the regime’s election interference had gone awry.A few weeks earlier, the opposition united around a single candidate: Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, a 39-year-old housewife married to a popular video blogger, who had surprised even herself by registering to run for president after her husband was disqualified on charges that were largely viewed as political. Tsikhanouskaya, whom many just called Sviatlana, had rocketed to a level of popularity unheard-of since Lukashenko himself came to power in 1994 in the only free elections Belarus had ever held.Sviatlana had called for a rally in Friendship Park, one of the few venues to allow political gatherings in Minsk, but the city authorities refused to issue a permit. They had announced a musical concert in honor of “Railway Troops Day” instead. When Diana heard, she could only laugh. There had been no railway troops in Belarus since 2006. It was exactly the kind of absurdism Belarusians had become inured to over the years.Diana noticed that the regime’s concert was sparsely attended, the cordoned-off area empty aside from the state-employed D.J.s and a few pensioners, the kind who came to every Lukashenko rally, waving the red-and-green flag Lukashenko had resurrected from Soviet times. The rest of the park, however, was unusually crowded. Diana thought maybe they were hopefuls waiting for Sviatlana to show up. Diana was leading Tima away when a loud cheer went up. Maybe she came after all? Diana moved closer and heard lyrics from a song that anyone who grew up in the former Soviet Union knows by heart:Changes!It’s the demand of our hearts.Changes!It’s the demand of our eyes.Aug. 6, 2020 The D.J.s Vladislav Sokolovsky and Kirill Galanov, who inspired the mural in the Square of Change.Nadia BuzhanThe rock band Kino’s 1986 song “Changes” was a famous anthem across Eastern Europe that presaged the Soviet Union’s collapse. It was blocked from Belarusian radio airwaves during past periods of protest. The crowd cheered louder, emboldened by one another’s enthusiasm. Diana pushed forward with Tima in her arms. The two young D.J.s stood with their arms raised above their turntables in silence, unflinching, as the music blasted. One had his fingers up in a V for victory with a bit of white cloth — the color of the opposition — wrapped around it; the other had made a fist around a white bracelet.Journalists surged forward: “Whose idea was this?” “Aren’t you scared?” “You’re not afraid of losing your job?”The D.J.s replied that they were just doing what they thought was right. Almost immediately, they were arrested. Roughly a week later, residents woke up to a large black-and-white mural of the D.J.s with their arms raised.Diana would eventually learn it had all been an accident — the mural was never meant to be there. Some guys had wanted to stick it on the wall where the D.J.s played the song, but the cops drove by, and they lost their nerve. Since they had everything ready to go, they glued the mural to the first safe place they encountered — their buildings’ own playground.But if it had started as an accident, perhaps the rest of it was fated. If the mural had been placed elsewhere, Diana thought, maybe it would have vanished. Maybe when the authorities decided to paint over it, as they had so much other revolutionary graffiti, no one would have stopped them. But the residents of the newly named Square of Change noticed. The mural meant something to them, and they would ensure it would come to mean something to the entire nation.For more than two decades, Belarusians had existed in an equilibrium of quiet authoritarianism. If the repressions didn’t directly touch them, most people tolerated them. The country’s national anthem started with “We, Belarusians, are a peaceful people,” and a common proverb to describe the national psyche was “maya hata s krau” — which translates roughly to “my house is on the side.” Whatever is happening outside my family is none of my business. But over the course of 2020, a country whose history and identity never much interested a majority of people who lived there became something they would sacrifice their lives for. Before the battle over the mural became a symbol of the nation they would call New Belarus, there were just three nondescript buildings in the middle of a city of two million, a courtyard set around a children’s playground: swings, a seesaw and a roundabout, surrounded by benches.Diana Karankevich and her son, Tima, at their home in Warsaw.Emile Ducke for The New York Times In 1991, the year before Diana was born, the leaders of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine negotiated the end to the U.S.S.R. at a hunting lodge in western Belarus. Diana’s compatriots were among the least interested in independence — 83 percent of Belarusians had voted against it. Still, they emerged one day into a new reality of seismic proportions; their state, their ideology and all the order they knew had melted away. As an only child after perestroika, Diana was allowed to do whatever she wanted, too young and too loved to realize the real toll of the upheaval running through the former Soviet empire.Diana grew up on the outskirts of Mogilev, a city roughly 120 miles from Minsk, due east toward the Russian border. Her neighborhood, the Eighth, was split — half was cop territory, with a police academy and officer housing, and the other half, where she lived, was called banditski. In the chaos of the 1990s, she recalls, everyone knew that if a cop came to the bandits’ side, it would end poorly. Her parents straddled the new divide neatly — her mother worked for the state, while her father worked the corner. He tried everything to get in on the new economy. He drove plush toys from Smolensk, Russia, hawked meat at an open-air market and thumbed stacks of rubles on the black-market currency exchange.Their family, like most Belarusian families, spoke Russian at home. Belarus had not existed autonomously within its present borders before it belonged to the U.S.S.R. It had been part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania — sharing its medieval capital, writers and historic heroes with present-day Lithuania and Poland — before being absorbed into the Russian empire. In 1918, an independent Belarusian state was declared and existed for a few months, before being swallowed into the Soviet project.During World War II, Belarus was the center of hostilities between the Nazis and the Soviets — at least two million people were killed on Belarus’s land. Minsk was bombed so brutally, the Wehrmacht had to wait for the fires to subside so they could enter the city. Whether because of extermination, displacement or deportation, by the end of the war, Belarus was missing half its population. Under Stalin, Belarus underwent rapid industrialization, urbanization and Russification. The capital was rebuilt and later awarded “Hero City” status for its suffering in what the Soviet Union called the Great Patriotic War. By the mid-1980s, only a third of the country spoke Belarusian in daily life.After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, a new generation of leaders rose in the former republics, but Belarus remained under old Soviet nomenklatura rule even after independence. Though the red-and-green Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic flag was swapped for the red-and-white flag of the Belarusian National Republic that existed for a few months in 1918, previous institutions other than the Communist Party remained intact.Belarus’s leadership was slower to embark on market reforms than Russia or Ukraine, whose torturous adventures into unfettered capitalism in the ’90s Belarusians watched with trepidation. In Belarus, too, as the economy was liberalized, standards of living dropped, while criminality climbed. Diana didn’t remember the food lines, but her grandmother often told her that while life in the Soviet Union was difficult, it was stable, and the people were kinder.Lukashenko made his entrance into this morass. The former head of a small collective farm, he was elected to Parliament in 1990 but remained unknown until he became head of an anticorruption committee three years later. He shot to fame after giving a speech denouncing high-level corruption on the floor of the legislature when he was 39. Lukashenko presented himself as a mix of everyman populist and cherry-picked Soviet-nostalgist, bellicose and bombastic. He defeated Prime Minister Vyacheslav Kebich with 80 percent of the vote in the 1994 presidential election.Almost immediately after taking power, Lukashenko began to impose autocratic rule. He censored state media; he closed Belarus’s only independent radio station and several newspapers. Lukashenko stripped powers from the Parliament. He oversaw a referendum to resurrect Soviet national symbols and made Russian a state language. In 1999, Belarus and Russia signed a treaty that committed them to merging into a confederal state at some future point. (At the time, President Boris Yeltsin of Russia was so sick and unpopular, Lukashenko believed he might head the eventual union.)While Putin’s Russia worked hard to rehabilitate discredited Soviet symbolism, Lukashenko’s Belarus easily revived his favorite old Soviet traditions — unpaid working Saturdays called subbotniks and holidays like the Great Patriotic War’s Victory Day on May 9. By the end of the ’90s, Lukashenko controlled all executive and judicial authorities, the Central Election Commission, unions and the military and law-enforcement structures. Through a 2004 constitutional referendum, he abolished presidential term limits.In some ways, Lukashenko’s autocracy outgrew even the U.S.S.R.’s model. Belarus had no ruling party, no place to incubate rivals or create factions — the elites existed at Lukashenko’s pleasure. The president made all key personnel and economic decisions, including the appointment and dismissal of heads of cities and districts, lower-court judges and directors of major factories. The K.G.B. was never disbanded. Instead, “curators” were placed in important institutions.Because Belarus was slow to privatize, oligarchs never had much of a chance to materialize. Half of the economy remained under state control. Lukashenko instituted a short-term job-contract scheme in the state sector, which was used to target anyone who became too political. Placements in institutions of higher learning were similarly weaponized. Independent journalists were jailed intermittently and then released, the steady two-step of a repressive state.By the time Diana was in seventh grade, even she could sense it. Every year, the same droll history class on the first day of school — the Belarusian flag is red and green, the president is Lukashenko, they would intone. “Lukashenko, Lukashenko. Will we ever hear someone else’s name?” Diana joked, drawing laughter from the other students.Lukashenko’s was a soft authoritarian system, with the requisite window dressings. If you were a private nonpolitical citizen, you were unlikely to encounter the K.G.B. There was little fear of serious consequence for an ordinary citizen making a joke. People could openly talk about hating the president in cafes; they could make fun of his often nonsensical ramblings. They could mock his mustache, his combover and his rural accent.There were small, unpopular opposition parties, which were allowed to rent office space in the capital. They registered for elections. There was no personality cult — no portraits, streets or statues dedicated to the Great Leader. Instead, the regime relied on technicalities, like an article in the criminal code covering insults to the president, which it used to persecute critics. The authorities rarely shuttered publications outright, preferring to impose crippling fines instead.But most crucially, for well over a decade, Lukashenko was genuinely popular. A level of propaganda undergirded his rule, reinforcing the perception of a social pact in which the state would provide for the citizen. Lukashenko relished his supporters’ calling him Batka — Father. Most experts agree he would have won elections without rigging them. Belarus’s economic growth hovered in and around the double digits. The economy was buttressed by money the state earned refining duty-free Russian oil and gas and reselling it. Excluding the Baltics, Belarus was the former Soviet republic with the highest standard of living. Belarus’s per capita G.D.P. was nearly twice that of neighboring Ukraine. Life expectancy was higher than in Russia.For a long time, Belarusians had some faith in their justice system. Everyone knew there were two parallel tracks — cases involving the government and everything else. The country had escaped much of the petty corruption of the post-Soviet neighborhood — under Lukashenko, the traffic police did not make it a practice to shake down drivers; the bureaucracy didn’t operate on bribes. Courts ruled relatively impartially in civil cases. Even the political cases had a certain logic to them. Independent lawyers fumed at the sentences for activists and politicians, and international human rights groups slammed politically motivated verdicts, but only those in the “opposition ghetto,” as it was called, received outlandish sentences.The opposition itself was not very popular, embroiled in its own internal scandals — often tarred by the regime as being made up of nationalists, fascists or hooligans. They were in a minority anyway. Most citizens steered clear of anything political, and many believed what their TVs told them. Diana did her best to avoid her high school boyfriend’s brother, who she knew traveled to Minsk to attend protests. She would see people on TV scuffling with the police and throwing Molotov cocktails. “Aren’t you afraid of him?” she asked her boyfriend. What if he’s hiding something in his room, like a grenade? She tried to make sure they didn’t cross paths.When she got to university in Minsk, where she studied materials science, Diana realized she had been fooled by state television. In 2011, runaway inflation struck the country — there was a major currency devaluation, and the regime imposed price controls on basic goods and food. People in Minsk gathered to clap in civil disobedience. Diana was curious and went out to watch. The assembled were absolutely peaceful, she marveled, nothing like how they were portrayed on TV, but nearly 2,000 people were detained, more than 500 of whom were given five-to-15-day sentences.The authorities responded with their usual farce — they banned applause unless directed at veterans. They arrested a one-armed man for clapping. They accused a deaf and mute man of shouting anti-government slogans. When people started to protest by flash mob, the authorities banned standing around doing nothing in a group.Diana graduated in 2014 directly into a process-engineering job at Minsk Gear Works, part of the Minsk Tractor Works — one of Belarus’s largest manufacturers. Every morning at work, Diana opened Tut.by — the country’s most popular news portal — and read the headlines over coffee. She couldn’t open other independent media on the government computers, but Tut.by was allowed. The portal was started in 2000 by the businessman Yuri Zisser, often referred to as Belarus’s Steve Jobs, and was read by 62 percent of the population, reaching people across the political spectrum. The regime had invested heavily in telecommunications infrastructure and left most of it alone, focusing efforts on television propaganda.The year Diana started her job, Ukrainians staged mass protests that toppled the government after President Viktor Yanukovych bowed to Russian pressure and halted plans for an economic-alignment agreement with the European Union. Taking advantage of the chaos, Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula. Fighting broke out with Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. It was nonstop news in Minsk, with everyone glued to the daily developments.Lukashenko, who often played Russia and Europe against each other for his own gain, did not recognize the annexation of Crimea and refused to join the Kremlin’s boycott of the West. Since Putin’s election in 2000, relations between the two presidents had been strained. Russia subsidized the Belarusian economy and by extension kept Lukashenko in power, but Lukashenko rarely made it easy for the Kremlin. Belarus was an important transit country for Russian gas exports to Europe, and Lukashenko knew Putin was loath to see political instability along the border. For years, Putin had pushed for closer ties, economic and military, based on the 1999 union agreement, but Lukashenko balked. Though Belarus agreed in 2014 to join Russia’s version of the E.U., the Eurasian Economic Union, Lukashenko stalled Russian demands for a new air base in Belarus. He wavered on extending leases on two military facilities.Watching the 2014 invasion of Ukraine, Lukashenko seemed to decide that an overreliance on the Kremlin could lead Belarus to the same fate. He flirted with the European Union and the United States and began a limited political liberalization, marketing Belarus as a Slavic Switzerland — a neutral country where negotiations and peace talks, like the Minsk Accords for a cease-fire in eastern Ukraine, could be held. Most Belarusians agreed — they didn’t want to be part of the E.U., nor did they want to merge with Russia. The status quo was fine.Lukashenko began to tolerate more expressions of Belarusian national identity, encouraging the Belarusian language, elements of pre-Soviet history and national symbols, like traditional embroidery on the national soccer team’s uniforms. For the first time since the 1990s, he gave a speech in Belarusian.In 2018, after a three-year state-subsidized maternity leave, Diana found it difficult to go back to the factory. Most people just sat around doing nothing but drinking tea and living the Soviet adage, “We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us.” She had divorced her husband, a college boyfriend of two and a half years, and was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease shortly after Tima was born. She needed a job that could provide her with paid time off and sick leave.The first vacation she took, Diana and Tima went to Cyprus to sit by the sea. She was on her hotel balcony while Tima napped, when she read an article on Tut.by about the average salary in Belarus. She was shocked to learn that it was three times what she was making as an engineer at a state factory. She had been doing nails on the side ever since university, having fallen in love with it when she got her first manicure for high school graduation, and thought she could make more as a full-time nail technician in the private sector. The first thing she did when she got back to Minsk was put in her notice.Sept. 2, 2020 A gathering in the Square, not long after the election fixed in Lukashenko’s favor gave way to widespread protests.Yauhen AttsetskiDiana had been active on her building’s Telegram group chat as soon as she moved into her apartment in 2018. People were polite, willing to help out when asked — like when she had a problem with her radiator or needed to borrow a carrot to finish making soup. In March 2020, when Covid hit, Lukashenko dismissed the virus as “psychosis” that could be treated with a shot of vodka, a tractor ride or a sauna visit. There was no lockdown, and citizens were left to fend for themselves. The residents’ chat exploded with news — true and false. When people began damaging the elevator by using their keys to press the buttons, other residents implored them to use their knuckles. Arguments broke out.Stepan Latypov, who lived on the 16th floor, chimed in. He explained that he was an arborist and took it upon himself to message the group with information. Hospitals were running out of supplies, infection rates were spiking, doctors were being silenced for speaking the truth and deaths were being covered up. Stepan, an outgoing 41-year-old divorcé with a pet hedgehog, posted photos of oxygen cylinders and explained that he had three in his apartment. If anyone needed them in an emergency, they could write to him.Vasili Logvinov, a 38-year-old computer programmer on the 13th floor, followed along avidly. He and his wife had a toddler. Vasili had never really bothered to meet any of his neighbors before but was relieved to learn that there was someone in the building they could trust.In April 2020, a group of activists started ByCovid-19, a crowd-funded volunteer initiative that raised 370,000 euros to purchase 450,000 pieces of personal protective equipment, oxygen cylinders, oxygen splitters, pulse oximeters and more. The regime could have blocked the effort in a pen stroke, but instead the Health Ministry coordinated with ByCovid-19. State TV praised their work. It was the largest and most successful civic action that Belarusians had ever coordinated.Covid was the great equalizer — it was impossible to stay detached, to maintain maya hata s krau. The regime must have sensed that something was amiss, that the social contract Batka had relied on for so long was fraying.After the elections were scheduled for August, a handful of new candidates with no political experience announced that they would run. Sviatlana’s husband, Sergei, the populist video blogger, traveled the country talking to ordinary citizens, documenting poverty and highlighting the failures of the regime. He carried around a slipper and shouted, “Stop the cockroach!” Diana found him crude, and like many young professionals, she preferred Viktor Babariko, the chairman of Belgazprombank. Vasili, the coder, preferred Valery Tsepkalo, a former diplomat who started Hi-Tech Park in 2005, Belarus’s successful version of Silicon Valley.No one understood where these neophytes had come from. Rumors swirled that they were Russian plants sent to remove Putin’s disdained ally. After Lukashenko distanced himself from Russia in the wake of the Crimean annexation, Moscow had shown its ire. The Kremlin tried to increase the price Belarus paid for oil, while Belarus tried to raise gas transit taxes. Lukashenko repeatedly complained that the Kremlin was trying to bully Minsk into a union with Russia. As relations deteriorated, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo became the highest-level U.S. official to visit Belarus in decades. When the presidential campaign began, Lukashenko openly accused Russian oligarchs and “higher” people of interference. He detained 33 mercenaries from a Kremlin-linked security contractor, the Wagner Group, whom he claimed had been dispatched to depose him.By mid-July, all three candidates had been removed from the ballot — two were in jail, and one fled the country in anticipation of his own detention. The campaigns united under Sviatlana, who was running on three demands — release of political prisoners, curtailed powers for the president and free elections. Charismatic and earnest, she was adored for her image as a Decembrist’s wife — women who had given up their lives and followed their husbands to exile in Siberia.The day of the vote, Diana waited in line for hours at her polling place. Sviatlana’s Telegram channel had asked supporters to come with a white ribbon so independent observers could keep track of them. Around her, everyone was wearing white bracelets, some made of torn shirts, even medical gauze. A platform called Golos, a word that means both vote and voice, asked everyone to take photos of both sides of the ballot paper and then upload them to the platform, which would provide an alternative poll count. Diana took photos of her ballot as Golos requested.The next day the Central Election Commission announced preliminary results that Lukashenko had won with 80 percent. Golos later tabulated that Sviatlana won at least 56 percent of the vote. If the results had been less lopsided, perhaps nothing would have happened, but now there was a general feeling of indignation: Did they really expect people to doubt their own eyes? Did they really think Belarusians would accept this outrageous figure meekly? In seven years of relative liberalization, as Belarusians like Diana had come of age, they had forgotten what totalitarianism was capable of.September 2020 Police officers and opponents of President Aleksandr Lukashenko at the Square in Minsk, Belarus.Valery Sharifulin/AlamyFor three days, the wide boulevards and tidy parks of downtown Minsk were full of protesters, most of whom had ventured into the streets for the first time. They were met by riot police, tear gas and stun grenades so loud the residents could hear the echoes in their homes. The authorities cut off the internet — the only way to understand what was happening was to go outside.One of Diana’s neighbors, a mother in her 40s, drove downtown with a friend. On one corner, she watched five siloviki beat one unarmed protester. On another, she saw two young men running away as the siloviki sicced dogs on them. At a junction, a silovik in full riot gear was running after someone; when he missed the protester, he started beating the mother’s car instead. She curled into a ball and waited for the assault to end. She had never had a reason to fear the siloviki before.Nearly 7,000 protesters were arrested in four days. Hundreds were beaten and tortured. Lukashenko called protesters “drug addicts” and “prostitutes.” Human Rights Watch documented prolonged stress positions, electric shocks and threats of rape. The group counted broken bones, cracked teeth, skin abrasions, inflicted electrical burns, kidney damage and traumatic brain injuries. It was an unprecedented level of brutality by the regime. On the fourth day after the election, hundreds of women carrying flowers formed a chain in the central market in Minsk, twisting Slavic misogyny in their favor. The siloviki didn’t know what to do — could they beat the women or arrest them or what?That night, Stepan messaged the building chat that they should do something, but there was so much fear, no one knew what would be safe. They decided to shout “Long live Belarus! Leave!” from their windows. The next night, Diana joined a small group gathered by the building entrance. Everyone was timid and anxious, but they shouted and waited. Nothing happened. The night after that, they ventured to the children’s playground and shouted slogans from there. The following day, they called to their neighbors to join them.In mid-August, the buildings woke up to the D.J. mural. Stepan messaged the building chat that everyone should come to the playground. Residents arrived with thermoses. They hung red and white ribbons on their fence and began to gather for tea every night. A few mornings later, the building chat pinged with a message:“The mural was painted over.”“The paint is not very good!” someone replied. “Looks like the municipal workers saved money and mixed the paint with water!”“Let’s wash it off!”Diana was already at the salon, but Vasili joined a dozen others with rags and water. The paint rubbed off easily. The D.J.s re-emerged from the gray background.In the chat, meanwhile, others were composing a letter:Dear Citizen of the Republic of Belarus constantly painting over the current mural with persistence worthy of another use,We appreciate your hard work, whether you work under compulsion or out of personal conviction. After all, we ourselves had to work hard to build these beautiful houses, playground and this exit from the parking lot that our authorities dislike so much. We appreciate all work and even though we don’t agree with you, we want you to be happy. It hurts to see the camera recordings where you have such a sad face. Smile. Go to the coffee house at 62 Chervyakova Street. There is paid coffee and cookies for you and your comrade. Every labor should bring joy. (Thank you for putting down a tarp.)— Tenants of the yard.They hung it next to the mural and waited.By the end of August, Lukashenko’s system seemed to be teetering. Hundreds of thousands of citizens had joined weekly Sunday marches demanding a recount. State-run factories held walkouts. Siloviki publicly handed over their badges. State-TV journalists resigned or even dared to air segments devoted to the protests. On a visit to Minsk Wheel Tractor Plant, Lukashenko was greeted with loud boos and shouts of “Leave!” He appeared shaken and vowed that they would have to kill him first.One Sunday march, Lukashenko reportedly took to the skies in a helicopter, buzzing over the crowds. He returned to the presidential palace and stalked the grounds brandishing a Kalashnikov with his 15-year-old son, Nikolai, wearing a bulletproof vest and condemning the “rats.”Neighborhood and building courtyard chats had proliferated around Minsk to coordinate smaller actions. Residents of Diana’s building sewed giant red-and-white flags and hung them off the balconies, spanning four floors. Then Stepan, the arborist, strung up a home-sewn red-and-white flag between two buildings, using children’s socks stuffed with uncooked rice as weights. Almost immediately, a fire truck arrived to take it down, but the firefighters couldn’t figure out how to get on the roof. They sat in their truck all night, waiting. By morning, one line had sagged, and they were able to cut the rope. But they still couldn’t get on the second building’s roof to cut the line on the other side, so they left to find a door cutter. Stepan quickly pulled the cut side back up again. When the siloviki returned with the fire truck, dressed in all black, the whole group stormed the building. “Look, it’s Special Operation Flag!” residents taunted on their neighborhood chat.And so it became a routine. Each time the municipality painted over the mural, the residents came right back down to wipe the paint off. Whenever they cut down the ribbons on the fence, the group put them back up again. One day in September, the residents had to wash the paint off twice in one day. At some point the authorities seemed to tire of cutting the ribbons and a man came with a blowtorch and burned them instead. Someone had made a Square of Change sign in the same style and lettering as all the street signs in Minsk, white letters against a blue background. When the authorities knocked it down, residents nailed it back.People had started making pilgrimages to the Square, taking photos of themselves against the famous backdrop. Visitors left gifts — candies, honey, cookies and notes of support. They came from other parts of Belarus or as far away as Moscow and Vilnius. A Belarusian American from Florida visiting Minsk came to take a photograph. Someone programmed “Square of Change” into Yandex — the Russian Google Maps equivalent, which is widely used in Belarus — and it was official.The Square became its own universe. It had a Telegram channel, an Instagram account and a Facebook page. There were Square of Change sweatshirts and stickers. Dozens of residents would gather there every evening. Unlike the Minsk streets or weekly citywide Sunday marches, where people continued to be detained, the courtyard felt safe, like an island of freedom where residents could create the community they had long been denied.Sept. 11, 2020 Police officers near the D.J.s mural during patrols in the Square.Yauhen AttsetskiOne day in the middle of September, the authorities returned to the mural. This time, Stepan and a few others stood in front of the booth, blocking their access. Stepan asked the officers wearing balaclavas to identify themselves. “If you show your credentials, we will, of course, follow the orders of any policeman,” Stepan repeated loudly and calmly, his hands behind his back. Two siloviki in ski masks grabbed him and carried him away. Residents blocked the police car with their bodies and filmed the whole encounter. “Take off your mask!” they shouted. “Show your face! Introduce yourselves! This is our children’s playground!” An unmarked van pulled up, and a group of men in green, wearing ski masks, ran out. They grabbed Stepan, threw him in the van and sped off.That night, the residents gathered to discuss what happened. Diana thought maybe he would be held overnight, maybe for a few days at most. But the following week, Stepan was still in detention, and state television ran a program saying prosecutors knew he was planning to poison the police. They accused him of being the organizer of the Square of Change and said they found chemicals and murderous plans in his house.Everyone was incredulous. The group decided that they would show the authorities who the real organizers were. They printed masks with Stepan’s face on them and took photos: “We are all Stepan Latypov,” they posted on Instagram.But the initial optimism was fading. Peaceful marches were shrinking as attendance became more dangerous. During the postelection melee, Sviatlana had been detained and forced into exile in Lithuania. From Vilnius, she had started calling herself the “leader of democratic Belarus.” A quasi-state had reconstituted itself around her as other political figures, NGO workers, campaigners and civic activists fled or were driven out of the country to Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania or Poland. Those who had not fled were arrested; there were no protest leaders left in Minsk.Putin had publicly congratulated Lukashenko on his victory soon after the election, but his patron had made no other large-scale moves of support. Pragmatists knew their fate was tied to Moscow. Given the personal animosity between the two leaders and the rumors that the opposition candidates were actually Kremlin-approved plants, people thought perhaps Putin would withdraw his support for Lukashenko. Sviatlana and the opposition had taken pains to paint themselves as Russia and E.U. neutral. This had nothing to do with wanting to join the E.U. or NATO, they said — they just wanted free elections.But in mid-September, Lukashenko and Putin met in Sochi, and the Kremlin extended a $1.5 billion loan, cementing continued support for Lukashenko’s regime. Lukashenko dug in and reshuffled the security services, promoting hard-liners, and quickly began making overtures to Russia. Some of the gestures were performative — floating the removal from the Constitution of the country’s neutrality — but others were more concrete. He released the Wagner mercenaries, and the Russian National Guard reportedly signed a cooperation agreement with Belarus’s police force to combat “terrorism and extremism.”Everyone was sure there were siloviki sitting in the open chats, monitoring them. We should start a new secret chat, everyone whispered to one another when they met in the playground. But no one wanted to be the administrator; it was too dangerous. “I’ll do it,” Diana decided. She was tired of hearing everyone repeating the same thing without taking action. The secret chat quickly ballooned with enthusiasts. Diana thought it was getting too big to be secure; she had to be able to trust everyone in the chat. I am Diana, the chat administrator. I want to hear from each of you, privately or publicly. I need your real name and your photo, for security. Don’t be shy. She uploaded a photo of herself and sent it. She tried to meet everyone in person, either at the playground or on a walk. She wanted to find out who they were, what they wanted to accomplish and what skills they had that could help the Square. When it was done, about 60 people remained.Sept. 15, 2020 Constantly painted over and restored, the D.J.s were forever re-emerging as residents of the Square organized against the authorities. Yauhen AttsetskiEvery Sunday at 7 a.m., Diana wrote out the instructions: “Good morning, guys. Today is a day to be responsible. We are going to a march. Whoever isn’t going, cheer for those who are going. Those who are going: The first thing we do is clear all our history, then wipe our pictures. Good luck to everyone. We’ll meet again tonight.” She would delete the whole chat before she left the house and resurrect it at 5 p.m. with a dummy poll, something like: “How would you rate the weather? 1 to 10?”Diana previously assigned everyone in the chat a number, and whatever question she posed, each person had to reply with his or her assigned number. If someone responded with another number or didn’t reply at all, Diana assumed that person had been compromised in some way and would remove him or her from the group chat. Every night before midnight, Diana would ask everyone to check in with their numbers.In the chat, they operated as a democracy, debating future actions, voting on ideas. Diana was a natural leader, stern when she needed to be, unafraid to speak her mind, even if nearly everyone in the group was older than she was.By October, three months after the election, 16,000 people had been detained. There were 101 political prisoners. Diana instituted safeguards for the chat. If they attended a protest, they should let her know, so she could make sure they made it back. She kept a record of their screen names hidden on a piece of paper in her apartment for that day. At night, she would rip it up into small pieces.Sept. 15, 2020 Stepan Latypov, who after opposing the Belarusian authorities attempted suicide during his trial and was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison.Ulf Mauder/picture-alliance/dpa/AP ImagesThe Square of Change continued to flourish. The members gathered there every evening. They held concerts and performances nearly every night. One evening, residents watched a video of the D.J.s thanking the Square. After the D.J.s’ arrests and a 10-day sentence, they had fled the country. Another night, Sviatlana called in. By November, the residents had added Saturday fairs to the weekly repertoire, bringing food, small items like handmade soaps and art for the kids. Diana had delegated many of the roles — managing content for their Telegram channel and Instagram account, creating the nightly performance schedule. There was even someone in charge of keeping track of the thermoses.In her apartment, Diana kept a prepacked bag she called a “panic suitcase” filled with items of first necessity to bring to those who were detained. She found a friend who never seemed to mind being woken up in the middle of the night to drive her to detention facilities. When someone was released, the group always greeted them with a cake made by a sympathetic pastry chef with icing that read: Hero of the Square of Change.On the night of Nov. 11, Diana heard that someone had written “Lukashenko is a sucker” in marker on the parking booth, and she went down with acetone to remove it. She hated when people did vulgar things on the Square. Roman Bondarenko, a 31-year-old store manager whom everyone called Roma for short, came up to Diana beaming. “I quit my job!” He announced happily. An interview for his dream graphic-design job earlier that afternoon had gone well. “Now I will come to the courtyard every day!”Diana first met Roma after someone speculated in a chat that he was a tihar, a plainclothes policeman, because of the way he dressed, always in black, with his hood pulled over his head. Plainclothes police officers had a habit of monitoring protests. At an earlier gathering on the Square, Diana confronted him.“Are you a tihar or not?” she asked.“Me?” He turned toward her, incredulous, his blue eyes wide and earnest. “I’m Roma! I’m not a tihar!” Roma would eventually persuade them of his sincerity when they saw him teaching their children to draw at a Saturday fair.That night by the booth, Vasili trotted over to them. “We need to leave now,” he said sharply. “Unmarked vans have arrived.” Everyone knew that meant trouble, and they decided to split up for safety. As she walked, Diana noticed strangers on the Square. They were wearing hats, hoods and face masks. After getting into a car with a friend, she messaged the chat: Guys, there are buses in the courtyard. Please do not go out. We will redo the ribbons. Let’s not go out. Everybody got it?Everyone agreed.One woman did not see the messages. She came back from the store with her child and confronted the masked men. Another woman walking by joined her. Roma watched from a window.“I’m going out,” he wrote in the chat.Seven minutes later, he wrote again. “Come out.”No one replied. Diana had the feeling something weird was going on. “Guys, what is happening?” she wrote. “Why is it so quiet?”“There was a fight, some people ran away,” they replied.“Was anyone taken?”Residents had access to the buildings’ security cameras, and they started uploading and poring over the footage. In the videos, Diana watched the masked men taunt Roma. It was clear to her he wasn’t there for a fight. Trying to protect the women, he stood with his hands in his pockets. The men started to beat him and carried him away. Diana wasn’t overly worried. It seemed like the usual detention. They would need to locate Roma and bring him the panic suitcase.They called the precinct a few times and were told there was no one by the name of Roman Bondarenko there. When they called again, they were told Roma had been there, but he had started to feel sick and was sent to the hospital. When they called the hospital, no one picked up. Diana thought maybe they broke his arm or leg when they loaded him into the bus. “We should go there and bring him some stuff,” she wrote the chat. “Give me five minutes.”A carful of them arrived at the hospital at 2 a.m. After a few tries and incorrect names, the receptionist told Diana that Roma was in surgery. But when Diana called the surgery department, they told her Roma wasn’t there.“What the hell?” Diana raised her voice. She was tired and angry. “I didn’t get this number off the top of my head! The registrar told me that a Roman came to you. All day today everyone is telling me they didn’t admit Roma.”The receptionist at the desk beckoned to Diana, passing her another number. Diana looked at her with exasperation.“I made a mistake,” the receptionist said uncomfortably. “He’s not … in surgery.”“Then where?”“Neurosurgery.”Diana started shaking. She didn’t want to think about what that meant. She took a minute to collect herself. When she called neurosurgery, she learned that Roma had been in the operating room for several hours.“He was admitted in what state?” Diana asked.“Unconscious.”“Thank you.” Diana hung up. They sat down in silence.Nov. 14, 2020 A memorial in the Square for Roman Bondarenko, who died after he was detained by the police.Yauhen AttsetskiRoma died at 7:10 p.m. the next day. All day the large Telegram channels and media carried his story. The group had left the hospital vowing that what happened to Roman Bondarenko in his own backyard would be everywhere. They spent the twilight hours finding Roma’s family to inform them. They also contacted every journalist and channel they could. By evening, the Square was crammed with people holding a vigil more crowded than any previous event.The following day, there was a minute of silence. It felt as if Minsk froze all at once. As soon as it was over, cars started beeping, and the city wailed in unison. Even more people thronged the Square with candles and flowers. “We won’t forget, we won’t forgive,” they chanted through tears.The authorities denied responsibility for Roma’s death, saying he had been killed in a fight, while Lukashenko told reporters Roma had been “drunk.” In response, someone leaked a copy of Roma’s medical records, which stated that he had no alcohol in his system. He had died of a hematoma.Telegram channels began calling for a Sunday march through the city that would end at the Square. Others called for an occupation like the one the Ukrainians had in 2014. The residents of the Square thought this was a terrible idea. “The Square is surrounded on two sides by a metal fence,” they wrote to everyone. “It will be easy for the police to trap everyone and arrest them all.” No one listened. Chat members started patrolling their own courtyard asking people to remove tents and take supplies somewhere else.That Sunday, the march was enormous. Diana watched from a balcony as people flooded the route. In the afternoon, lines of siloviki moved toward the marchers, cutting them off at different intervals. They were kettling the crowds. Diana rushed downstairs to the entryway just as people started running into the courtyard. Residents had opened the three buildings’ doors and started letting people inside, ushering them up the elevators and the stairs. “Guys, run!” Diana shouted as she watched the black wave of riot police rolling in from one side, then another. Streaks of color raced by her, hurrying through the door. She slammed it shut at the last second.But the security services soon managed to get in and started going from apartment to apartment. “They’re here,” someone would message. “They’re here too,” another would add.Since Diana had been the last one upstairs, she hadn’t taken anyone in. She, her mother and Tima sat with the lights off in silence. Her mother was terrified, but Diana wasn’t scared. Since Roma’s death, she had felt nothing but fury. “Why should we be afraid? We are in our own apartment.” Diana turned on the lights and started making noise.The chat pinged with stories. People had taken up to 20 people per flat. Some refused to open their doors. Others opened them with great theatrics.“Are there people here?” the siloviki asked.“Yes, one behind the couch, and two in the closet.”The siloviki thought they were kidding and left.Another called her priest. She explained to the seven people she was sheltering that they were congregants of such and such church on such and such street. She taught them some prayers and streamed an online sermon. When the police knocked, she opened the door.“What is this!” The officer asked, looking at the people seated in the living room.“We’re listening to the word of God,” she explained. She pushed her screen toward the officer. “Hello!” the priest bellowed.A portrait of Roman Bondarenko at his mother’s apartment. Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesTwo journalists from Belsat TV, an opposition station based out of Warsaw, were livestreaming from the 14th floor. The police flew a drone above the building to find them. They cut the door off the apartment and detained them. They would be sentenced to two years in prison, the first time criminal charges would be applied to journalists covering protests. Around 100 people took shelter in the basement. They spent 16 hours hiding without heat, light and food.Some officers simply carried people to police vans, while others took the opportunity to punch and kick those they detained. Diana thought about the system that killed Roma. For so many years, they had all been part of it, paying their taxes or working directly for the state. Diana knew each person had just been trying to survive. Then they woke up and constructed the most beautiful version of their country, not just the people of the three buildings but all those people who felt this New Belarus in their hearts. When would they be able to live in that country?The morning after the march, residents woke to a police patrol that would stay on the Square 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for nearly five months. A pair of officers stood at each building, and three pairs walked the children’s playground. The mural had been painted and repainted so often no one could say exactly how many times, but they thought it was at least 18. Now it was gone again.The police patrolled the courtyard through the winter snow and spring rain, checking people’s identification papers to make sure they were building residents. All the while, the secret chat continued to agitate. Neighborhood marches were instituted. Members of chats met with other neighborhood chats and went on short, clandestine walks. The residents of the Square staged covert actions in their stairwells, filming five floors of people, their backs to the camera, lined up with a view of the courtyard police patrol in the distance. They took photos behind the parking booth with the white-red-white flag, just under the siloviki’s noses, and posted them online. On the 12th of every month, they released a video to commemorate Roma’s death on their channels. They fantasized endlessly about resurrecting the mural.The cost of even small protests was rising. By April, there were more than 350 political prisoners. What was previously a five-to-15-day administrative detention was now indefinite pretrial detention with possible criminal charges that carried years of prison time. But if they had put their hands down, mourned and kept silent, what would have been the point of Roma’s death? Diana asked herself. No, they had to keep fighting, putting up stickers and posting photos. Small symbols had grown larger. These ciphers mattered.On April 8, 2021, the residents woke up to an empty Square — the patrols had vanished. So they started to plan. If the first few times they put up the D.J.s they had done it mostly in the open, they knew better now. They met in the parking garage at midnight on May 8, the eve of the Great Patriotic War’s Victory Day. They all had taken their own routes there to avoid the security cameras. Each one had a task — some were on lookout, others would put up ribbons, some would work on the flag and others would draw the mural. They changed into matching white hazmat suits in the parking lot, wore gloves to hide their fingerprints and grabbed the supplies. They wore headphones, tuned to the same channel and waited.When they received the signal, Diana and Vasili walked straight to the booth’s wall. Even if someone had screamed at her, Diana was sure she wouldn’t have noticed; her ears were thudding with the sound of her pulse. The D.J. stencil was big. Diana held it for Vasili, and he held it for her. He had climbed the wall and hung off a metal pipe above her. It was as if they were one unit, a mechanism working in tandem. Diana did the bottom and threw the canister up to Vasili, who grabbed it midair and began to paint. He dropped the canister down to her, and she caught it with one hand. The adrenaline hit hard, the kaleidoscopic sensation of being outside her body. They were done in four minutes.The ribbons were up, the flag was raised, the mural was repainted. They went back to the parking lot, changed and exited the way they planned. They would all walk around the neighborhood for a while, taking different routes, arriving home at different times through different entrances. They were giddy; no one had seen anything. A few hours later, photos of the mural were everywhere — on the news, on Telegram, on Tut.by. The Square of Change had returned.They were caught the following week. One participant, who went by Tanya, had violated protocol and gone home straight from the parking lot. Her face was everywhere on the security-camera footage. On Friday at 7 a.m., plainclothes police officers arrived at her door. She held them off for an hour, stalling by calling the police on the police.As word spread through the chat, people panicked. If there was one thing they were sure of, it was the ability of Belarusian security services to break the weakest link — they knew Tanya had a child with a disability, so it wouldn’t take much. They were all worried they would be next. Some started clearing their apartments of anything incriminating. Diana disconnected her buzzer to give herself time to think. She needed to be normal; she needed to take Tima to kindergarten. She went to the bathroom to take a shower. As she turned on the water, she started wiping her phone. There was pounding on the door.Diana opened it in her towel, half naked. “Hello, I’m in the shower,” she said. “Come in or stay out there, but I have to get dressed.” She went back into the bathroom and cursed to herself. She erased the chat and her contacts. She unsubscribed from opposition Telegram channels. She came out of the bathroom with a clean phone.The two men said they were from the criminal investigations department. “You know why we are here,” they said. They told her to call Vasili. She told them she didn’t have his contacts. She was showing them her clean phone when an alert flashed. It was a message from Vasili: “Someone is knocking on my door.”One of the men took Diana’s phone. “Open it, everything is fine,” he typed, and he hit send. Diana was furious but had little recourse. One of the investigators was talkative, bantering about this or that, while the other stood masked and silent in the entryway. They told her she would be coming to the station.Russia-Ukraine War: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3The state of peace talks. More

  • in

    Stream These Three Great Documentaries

    This month’s nonfiction picks include a surprising look at a World War II veteran and a fresh dive into footage shot during the first year of Putin’s presidency.The proliferation of documentaries on streaming services makes it difficult to choose what to watch. Each month, we’ll choose three nonfiction films — classics, overlooked recent docs and more — that will reward your time.‘The Emperor’s Naked Army Marches On’ (1987)Stream it on the Criterion Channel.Whatever convinced the director Kazuo Hara that it would be wise to trail Kenzo Okuzaki, the subject of “The Emperor’s Naked Army Marches On,” it’s a rationale that probably shouldn’t be repeated, if it ever could be. Yet it resulted in one of the most jaw-dropping documentaries ever filmed. Screening as part of a collection of movies by Hara (whose wildly voyeuristic “Extreme Private Eros: Love Song 1974,” another excellent streaming choice, shows his ex-wife giving birth on camera), “Emperor’s Naked Army” has won praise from some of nonfiction filmmaking’s biggest names. Errol Morris put it on a list of his 10 favorite documentaries, saying: “I think it’s every interviewer’s dream that in the middle of an interview, when your subject is not forthcoming, you get up out of your chair and just beat them to a pulp. Of course, that never happens — except in ‘The Emperor’s Naked Army Marches On.’”The pugnacious interviewer — the man who physically pins men down during interrogations — is not Hara but Okuzaki. A World War II veteran, Okuzaki, at the time of filming, had spent more than a decade in prison for crimes that included murder and firing a slingshot at Emperor Hirohito. Now released, he is on a monomaniacal mission to learn more about the fates of some of his fellow Japanese soldiers who were killed in New Guinea after the war. The circumstances sound increasingly outlandish the more we hear, even as Okuzaki’s quest appears more unhinged (and at times darkly comic) in its single-mindedness. He even recruits people to role-play as relatives of the victims.With Hara tagging along as an observer and, by extension, perhaps an unwitting abettor, the reedy, loquacious Okuzaki, typically dressed in a suit, confronts potential witnesses and perpetrators and matter-of-factly demands that they talk, politely informing one that he came there prepared to beat him up if he does not. “When I committed a murder or when I shot at the emperor, I didn’t try to escape,” Okuzaki barks at another. “I took responsibility. But you didn’t. I hate irresponsible people.”“The Emperor’s Naked Army Marches On” is a journey alongside madness, an ethical quagmire and a uniquely volatile movie, one that has been difficult to stream stateside until now.‘Enemies of the State’ (2020)Stream it on Hulu.It’s difficult to describe this paranoia-suffused documentary directed by Sonia Kennebeck (and executive-produced by Errol Morris) without giving too much away. A second viewing is completely different from a first. “Enemies of the State” tries to untangle the case of Matt DeHart, an American who fled to Canada in 2013 and claimed that the F.B.I. had him physically tortured, ostensibly because he had stumbled on a bombshell revelation after spending time in hacktivist circles. His supporters were inclined to group him with Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, even though he never made his purported findings public. In the movie, only his mother, Leann, claims to have seen the files he found.But at the time DeHart fled to Canada, he had been indicted on charges of producing and transporting child pornography in the United States, in a case that he suggested had been concocted. And while some coverage of DeHart has noted the difficulties of verifying certain details — the story involves minors (on the one hand) and national security (on the other) — by the end of the film, Kennebeck has not only indicated what she thinks is true, but has also raised potent questions about confirmation bias. The movie suggests that the various agendas of DeHart’s supporters inclined them to view him in certain ways. Kennebeck prods viewers to question their own trustingness, pushing them to doubt certain interviewees, then to believe them and vice versa, and even to be skeptical of what they see. (Re-enactments synchronize original audio recordings with the lips of actors.)To say more would reveal too much, but “Enemies of the State” explains the saga with a clarity other accounts have lacked.‘Putin’s Witnesses’ (2018)Stream it on Ovid.Credit goes to the Museum of the Moving Image for introducing me to “Putin’s Witnesses,” which it screened earlier in the month. In this eerie documentary, the director, Vitaly Mansky, who was born in Lviv, Ukraine; studied film in Russia; and now lives in Latvia revisits footage he shot during the first year of Vladimir Putin’s presidency, beginning with Boris Yeltsin’s resignation on Dec. 31, 1999, a decision that elevated Putin to the position of acting president. In narration, Mansky says he started shooting the movie as P.R. for Putin’s campaign in the March 2000 election — although Putin portrays himself as being all-business, above doing the unsubstantive work of advertising or participating in a televised debate. At the same time, Mansky points out, he was always on TV. And part of what can be seen in “Putin’s Witnesses” is how people around him manufactured and softened his image. The director says he himself proposed that Putin pay a cuddly on-camera visit to an old schoolteacher in St. Petersburg.Yet Mansky sees things in the material that didn’t jump out at the time. He reflects on watching Putin with then-Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain in the czar’s box at the Mariinsky Opera House: “It’s hard to picture the feelings of the guy raised in a St. Petersburg communal apartment, having joined the elite of the world at breakneck speed.” Mansky also spends time with Yeltsin and his family on election night and on the subsequent New Year’s Eve. Yeltsin looks increasingly perturbed at how much distance his chosen successor has put between them. Elsewhere, Mansky introduces various movers and shakers at Putin’s campaign headquarters on election night, then notes that the majority eventually either joined Putin’s opposition or were dismissed. (One of them, Anatoly Chubais, left his post as Putin’s climate envoy last week, reportedly over the war in Ukraine.)During his first year as president, Putin continues to act vaguely chummy with Mansky even as the faint rumblings of autocracy begin to be felt. Late in the movie, Putin praises the concept of being an elected leader instead of a monarch because it means a person like him can serve as president, then retreat into civilian life. “Everything you do with the state and the society today you will have to face in a few years as an ordinary citizen,” he tells Mansky. “It is a good thing to remember before taking a decision.” Those are chilling words now. More

  • in

    Ted Cruz Knows Which Side He’s On

    Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. I think many Americans would give President Biden reasonably high marks for his handling of the war in Ukraine so far. His speech in Poland, in which he said, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” may have been provocative, and it might have his advisers scrambling to soften it, but it was right, and the right message to send about what should become of Vladimir Putin’s foul regime.Yet Biden still reminds me of George H.W. Bush, who handled the big foreign policy crises of his day with aplomb but wound up as a one-termer. What do you think of the comparison?Gail Collins: Hey, isn’t it interesting to recall that when Bush was fighting to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991, the big American ally was Russia? Those were the days, I guess. Just noticed that a Gallup poll found that right after the war, Bush had an 89 percent approval rating.Bret: Bush had the advantage of not having to face down a nuclear-armed adversary — thanks to an Israeli strike on Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor a decade earlier.Gail: And yet he got defeated for a second term by Bill Clinton. We could discuss the possibility of Biden suffering a similar fate — perceptions of a bad economy trump strong foreign policy. Except that Clinton’s genius was in portraying himself as a Democrat who normal Republicans didn’t have to fear. Very, very doubtful the next Republican presidential nominee is going to be able to turn that trick.Do you really think Biden would be walloped if people actually had to compare him to Trump, one on one, presuming the two of them ran again?Bret: I continue to have a hard time believing that Biden intends to run again, when he’s 81. I also don’t think Trump’s going to run — he’s damaged himself more deeply than he probably realizes with his imbecile praise of Putin and his continued election denialism.Gail: This scenario presumes Trump bows to reality. Hehehehehe. Sorry, continue.Bret: Fair point.Assuming your hypothetical turns out to be right, I’d probably place a small bet on Trump winning a rematch, awful as that is. I know Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were able to turn their presidencies around after difficult starts. But both men were naturally gifted political figures in a way Biden just isn’t. Both men were in touch with the center of American politics in a way Biden should be, but isn’t, because he steered too far to the left in his first year. And both men were sailing into calmer seas, economically speaking, as they prepared their re-election campaigns, whereas I don’t see inflation being tamed except at the price of a very steep recession.Would you bet on Biden in a rematch?Gail: Yeah, but I don’t think Biden is going to run. Although he’d be crazy to formally announce this soon and turn the bulk of his presidency into a lame-duck limp.Bret: Don’t agree that he should wait to announce, but that’s an argument for another time.Gail: And I don’t think his problem is steering too far to the left. His problem is that he doesn’t — never did have — that political genius for selling the country, or even his supporters, on a big message.Bret: Give ’em hell, Harry, he is not. But it looks like he’s trying with his plan to tax the very rich. Which … well, what do you think of it?Gail: Ah, Bret, our most reliable, perpetual disagreement. Yeah, given the fact that the richest Americans are now paying an effective tax rate around 8 percent, I would say a minimum of 20 percent on households worth more than $100 million is not a burden.Bret: Probably won’t get past the Senate, may be ruled an unconstitutional wealth tax by the Supreme Court and is reminiscent of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was supposed to hit only a handful of high-flyers in the 1970s but wound up taxing far less wealthy people. But the proposal could still be … popular. Anything else you’d like to see him do?Gail: I’d also be happy to see him lead a quest to control prescription drug prices: Let Medicare negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry and cap the cost of certain medications, like insulin. It’d be a debate people could really get into.Bret: I think job No. 1 for Biden is to make sure Putin experiences unmistakable defeat in Ukraine. A stalemated truce in which Russia steals more of Ukraine’s coastline, ports and energy riches will only entice Putin to create further crises so that he can “solve” them in exchange for Western concessions. I also think we should accept more than 100,000 Ukrainian refugees; we should welcome as many who want to come here with open arms.Gail: We should talk more about the refugees long term, but of course the immediate challenge is to support them in every way possible.Bret: If Romania can take in more than half a million refugees, we can take in at least as many.Gail: Not going to argue, but right now back to domestic matters …Bret: Biden’s other big task is doing what he can to ease the burden of inflation. We both know that’s mainly a job for the Fed. But the government can still ease all kinds of regulatory burdens that constrict supply chains, like employing members of the National Guards to make up for the trucker shortage. I’m also in favor of the proposal from Maggie Hassan and Mark Kelly — both Democratic senators — to suspend the federal tax on gasoline for the rest of the year, though I would only reinstate it once the price of gasoline falls below $3.50 a gallon, no matter whether that happens before November or after. Gas taxes are really regressive once you stop to think of the bite they take out of the pockets of working-class people who drive back and forth to work.Gail: Short-term gas price relief would be great, as long as it’s combined with long-term plans to fight climate change with energy-efficient cars and more mass transit. Although I know the latter tends to cause many conservative conservatives to shudder.On a completely different but totally fascinating topic: Ginni Thomas. Wife of a Supreme Court justice and now revealed as a very aggressive, deeply crazy activist in the Trump-really-won sideshow.Should we worry about her? Is she dangerous or just astonishingly weird?Bret: Depends on whether you think that being a fever-swamp conservative is dangerous, weird or just the depressing new normal. “All of the above” is also a possibility. Mrs. Thomas attended the “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6. She urged the Trump team to feature Sidney Powell, the lawyer with bizarro theories about voting machine fraud. And she wrote Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff, some texts right after the election was called for Biden, telling him to “stand firm” against “the greatest Heist in our History.”All of which says to me that I’m glad I’m not the one who gets to hang with Ginni Thomas, but de gustibus non est disputandum, as they used to say. Do you think her behavior should require Clarence Thomas to recuse himself in some cases?Gail: If they get an overturn-the-election case, or even anything relating to the Jan. 6 riots, I would say he’d either have to recuse or be impeached. Otherwise it’s hard to imagine enough pressure building. But I’d be happy to hear I’m wrong. What do you think?Bret: He’d have to recuse himself in those kinds of cases, because the appearance of a conflict of interest is now overwhelming. That said, if every public official were on the hook for nutty things done or said by spouses or family members, it would probably have unintended consequences nobody would like. For instance: Hunter Biden.Gail: I will refrain from dipping back into our Hunter Biden argument except to point out that some experts think he’s getting a reasonable price for his artwork these days. Lips sealed …Bret: But speaking of the Supreme Court, did you watch the Senate hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson? How do you think she did?Gail: Better than great.Bret: Agree. I don’t think her confirmation is in any doubt, especially now that Joe Manchin has come out in her favor, but I enjoyed watching her politely making mincemeat of Ted Cruz, who is a one-man reminder of why sentient people hate politicians. If Republicans were wiser, they’d register their disagreements with some of her positions but vote to confirm her on the principle that she’s fully qualified to serve on the high court. But … they won’t.Gail: Also watching the dreaded Marsha Blackburn asking Jackson to define “woman.” Glad we agree that Republicans aren’t wise.Bret: In the meantime, Gail, it looks like we have a new superinfectious sub-variant of Covid to keep us awake at night. Forget Omicron, now we’ve got Omigod.Gail: I’m going with Dr. Fauci’s theory that it’s not something to get frazzled about. Unless, of course, you haven’t been vaccinated, in which case there’s probably not any point in having a conversation.But I am appalled that Congress didn’t approve the $15.6 billion Biden wanted for tests, treatments and research on vaccines for new variants. If I’m going to side with the throw-away-masks crowd, I’m also going to side with the fund-the-support-system gang.Bret: If we’re going to start thinking of Covid as a relatively normal illness, maybe we need to stop treating it like a national emergency. What do you say we argue about this another day?The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    Dispatch From Hungary: Can This Man Oust Viktor Orban?

    BUDAPEST — On Tuesday, the day that the prime ministers of Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia traveled to Kyiv to show solidarity with a besieged Ukraine, Viktor Orban, the prime minister of nearby Hungary, trumpeted his neutrality at a sprawling rally in Budapest.“We cannot get between the Ukrainian anvil and the Russian hammer,” he said. He accused the Hungarian opposition of trying to drag Hungary to war and vowed to send neither troops nor weapons to the battleground.State-aligned media — which, in Hungary, is almost all media — had been blasting out Kremlin talking points for weeks, and it was easy to find people in the crowd who echoed them. An older man in a traditional black Bocskai jacket described Russia’s invasion as “just” and Volodymyr Zelensky as “scum” before blaming George Soros and the Freemasons for the war. A middle-aged woman expressed sympathy for Ukrainian refugees but accused Ukraine of provoking Russia by oppressing Russian and Hungarian speakers. “You don’t wake a sleeping lion,” she said.Hungary’s opposition — which appears, for the first time in over a decade, to have a shot at ousting the authoritarian Orban — held a rally in Budapest on the same day, on the opposite side of the Danube.I’d met the opposition candidate for prime minister, Peter Marki-Zay, the mayor of the southern Hungarian town of Hodmezovasarhely, the day before, as he worked on his speech. One of his central points, he said, was that Hungary must decide between two worlds: Vladimir Putin’s Russia or the liberal West. “Putin and Orban belong to this autocratic, repressive, poor and corrupt world,” Marki-Zay told me. “And we have to choose Europe, West, NATO, democracy, rule of law, freedom of the press, a very different world. The free world.”Recently, the political theorist Francis Fukuyama made a number of highly optimistic predictions about how Russia’s war on Ukraine would play out. Russia, he wrote on March 10, faced outright defeat, and Putin wouldn’t survive it. Further, he wrote, “the invasion has already done huge damage to populists all over the world, who, prior to the attack, uniformly expressed sympathy for Putin,” including Donald Trump and Orban. The Hungarian elections on April 3 will be an early test of this theory.Just as Israelis from across the political spectrum united to get rid of Benjamin Netanyahu, Hungarians of many different ideological persuasions are working together to defeat Orban, a hero to many American conservatives for his relentless culture-warring.Hoping to neutralize Orban’s demagogy against urban elites, the Hungarian opposition has united behind Marki-Zay, a 49-year-old Catholic father of seven and a relative political outsider.Marki-Zay, who lived in Indiana from 2006 to 2009, often sounds like an old-school Republican. He favors lower taxes and a decentralized government. “We want to give opportunity and not welfare checks to people,” he told me.He believes in Catholic teachings on gay marriage, abortion and divorce but doesn’t think they should be law. “We cannot force our views on the rest of the society,” he said. “One big difference between Western societies and certain Islamist states is that in Western society, church doesn’t rule everyday life.” Some on the left might blanch at the gratuitous invocation of Islam, but part of Marki-Zay’s skill is using conservative language to make case for liberalism.In the coming elections, Marki-Zay is an underdog, but the fact that he’s even in the running is a remarkable development in a country with a system as tilted as Hungary’s. Hungarian electoral districts are highly gerrymandered in favor of Orban’s party, Fidesz. Gergely Karacsony, the left-leaning mayor of Budapest and a political scientist, said the anti-Orban forces would probably need to win the popular vote by three or four percentage points to achieve a parliamentary majority. (By contrast, in the last elections Fidesz was able to win a two-thirds majority with 49 percent of the vote.) The opposition has had to contend with a near blackout in the mainstream media; Marki-Zay said he hasn’t been asked to appear on television since 2019, while Orban has unleashed a barrage of propaganda against him.Fidesz, he said, has convinced its base that the opposition “will take away their pensions, will cancel the minimum wage,” will send their children to fight in Ukraine and will “allow sex change operations without the consent of parents” for kindergartners. These voters, said Marki-Zay, “are just frightened. They hate. I meet such people every day during this campaign. People who are just shouting profanities. You can feel the hatred, and you can see in their eyes how fearful they are of Orban losing the election.”But plenty of voters are still reachable via social media and door-to-door canvassing. Marki-Zay puts his chances at about 50 percent, and while other analysts I spoke to thought his odds were lower, no one wrote him off. A big question is whether the crisis in Ukraine will make voters prioritize stability or turn Orban’s relationship with Putin into a liability. In a recent Euronews poll, 60 percent of respondents said Hungary has gotten too close to Russia and Putin, but that doesn’t mean the issue will determine their vote.Even if Orban wins another term, Peter Kreko, the director of the Political Capital Institute, a Budapest-based think tank, thinks Orban’s dream of creating a right-wing nationalist bloc in Europe is dead. The war in Ukraine has driven a wedge between him and the nationalist government in Poland, which favors an aggressive response to Russia.And a history of pro-Putin sentiment has suddenly become embarrassing for some of Orban’s European allies. Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s far-right National Rally — who received a nearly $12 million loan from a Hungarian bank tied to Orban — has been put on the defensive over campaign fliers showing her shaking Putin’s hand. Matteo Salvini, the head of Italy’s right-wing League party, was humiliated during a visit to Przemysl, a Polish town near the Ukrainian border, when the mayor confronted him with a pro-Putin T-shirt like one that Salvini once wore in Moscow’s Red Square.There was supposed to be a Hungarian version of America’s Conservative Political Action Conference this month, but it has been postponed until May. In Budapest, many speculated that American Republicans weren’t as keen as they once were to be seen with Orban. “Right now, I think because Orban has so much aligned himself with Russia, I think it’s detrimental to his international image as well,” said Kreko. “And he might win one more round, but I think he just will not be able to fulfill all his authoritarian dreams.”At the opposition rally, which drew tens of thousands of people, a band played a Hungarian version of Patti Smith’s “People Have the Power,” and Smith, who performed in Budapest last year, sent a video greeting. Ukrainian flags dotted the crowd.Bogdan Klich, the minority leader in Poland’s Senate, watched from backstage. He hoped that a Marki-Zay victory would be a blow to anti-democratic forces in his own country. “There is a chance that illiberal democracy, that was presented and unfortunately implemented by Viktor Orban here, will be replaced by traditional European and Atlantic values,” he said. “I mean the rule of law, the respect for human rights and civil liberties, independence of judiciary, etc. This is what we need here in Hungary, and in Poland.”Orban’s rise to power marked the beginning of the authoritarian populist era. If he somehow falls, it might mark the beginning of the end of it.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    Emmanuel Macron Goes Low-Key, Finally Declaring Bid for Re-election

    With a war raging in Europe, the incumbent French president leads in polls and is betting that the French won’t want to change horses in the midst of the Ukraine conflict.PARIS — President Emmanuel Macron declared his candidacy for a second five-year term in the presidential election next month, formalizing his decision with a low-key letter in several newspapers that exhorted the French to let him guide “this beautiful and collective adventure that is called France.”The serene tone of the letter, appearing just a day before the deadline for candidates and 38 days before the first round of the election, reflected the growing confidence of a leader whose stature has grown in several ways since the onset of the crisis in Ukraine.But with a short letter that provided few details on his plans for the country, even as it made clear that the war in Ukraine would not allow him “to run the kind of campaign I would have wished,” Mr. Macron, a centrist, risked being seen as floating heedlessly above the fray on his diplomatic mission to save Europe.“If the gravity of the international situation demands a spirit of responsibility and a dignified opposition, the French people cannot be deprived of a true democratic debate,” Valérie Pécresse, the center-right candidate for the Republicans, declared. “Emmanuel Macron must be held accountable.”The fact is, however, that war in Europe has pushed everything aside, even this election, to the great frustration of Mr. Macron’s opponents. “It’s been months now that the President Macron has been at the service of the candidate Macron,” said Anne Hidalgo, the socialist candidate and mayor of Paris whose campaign has never gained any traction.It has been clear for many months that Mr. Macron was going to run — he told Le Parisien, a daily, in January that “there is no false suspense. I want it.” But he judged that allowing his opponents to dangle while refusing to engage them would play in his favor, especially if he was engaged in matters of war and peace.Although Mr. Macron’s frenetic diplomacy and repeated conversations with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin — he spoke to him again today for 90 minutes — failed to prevent a war, he has been praised more for having tried than he has been criticized for having an exaggerated or naïve faith in his powers of persuasion. If anything, it has added to his stature.Polls show Mr. Macron, 44, with a comfortable lead over his opponents, gaining 28 percent of the vote in the first round of the election on April 10, up from 25 percent last month. Marine Le Pen, the perennial far-right candidate, trails him with 17 percent, Ms. Pécresse at 14 percent, and Éric Zemmour, the upstart anti-immigrant nationalist, at 12 percent.Marine Le Pen, the perennial far-right candidate, on a political show Thursday.  She has been forced to retreat from her adulation of President Vladimir V. Putin. Christophe Archambault/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesNo candidate on the splintered left of the political spectrum appears to have a serious chance of reaching the second round on April 24. The two leaders in the first round face each other in the runoff.The president’s one clear admonition to the French was that they must work harder. “There is no independence without economic power,” he said. “We must therefore work harder and lower the taxes that weigh on work and production.”That sounded like early Macron, the bold reformer of 2017 who pushed to free up the state-centric and regulation-heavy French economy. Then the Yellow Vest movement disrupted his plans, and the Covid-19 crisis turned the free-market champion into a “spend-whatever-it-takes” apostle of state intervention.It was unclear how the French, for whom an appropriate balance between work and leisure is an important feature of life, would respond to being told to work harder. The phrase seemed to contain a clear hint that Mr. Macron would return to his stalled attempt to reform the French pension system, which drew the longest transit strike in France’s modern history.“After five years, Macron sends us a letter,” Fabien Roussel, the communist candidate whose lively campaign has drawn some attention, said in a post on Twitter. “But the rising bills come every month. So do stagnant wages and pensions.”Whether economic arguments will gain any traction is, however, doubtful as long as the bloodshed in Ukraine continues.The war was humiliating to Ms. Le Pen and Mr. Zemmour, Mr. Macron’s opponents on the far right, both of whom had expressed high praise of President Vladimir V. Putin and were forced into awkward retreats from their adulation. It had a similar effect on Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who has also been sympathetic to Russia’s grievances and critical of NATO. He leads the hard left and is polling behind Mr. Zemmour.Another way the war has favored Mr. Macron has been its galvanizing and unifying effect on Europe, delivering the “Europe-puissance,” or European power, of which he has been the leading supporter.President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and Mr. Macron in Moscow last month.SputnikThe 27-nation European Union, which rarely achieves unity, has come together on a wave of outrage at Mr. Putin’s brutality. It has provided over a half-billion dollars in aid to Ukraine to buy weapons and related supplies, so breaking a taboo. It has imposed sanctions aimed at causing the “collapse of the Russian economy,” in the words of the French economy minister. It has banned Russian civil aircraft from European airspace.Learn More About France’s Presidential ElectionCard 1 of 6The campaign begins. More

  • in

    ‘I’ll Stand on the Side of Russia’: Pro-Putin Sentiment Spreads Online

    After marinating in conspiracy theories and Donald J. Trump’s Russia stance, some online discourse about Vladimir Putin has grown more complimentary.The day before Russia invaded Ukraine, former President Donald J. Trump called the wartime strategy of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia “pretty smart.” His remarks were posted on YouTube, Twitter and the messaging app Telegram, where they were viewed more than 1.3 million times.Right-wing commentators including Candace Owens, Stew Peters and Joe Oltmann also jumped into the fray online with posts that were favorable to Mr. Putin and that rationalized his actions against Ukraine. “I’ll stand on the side of Russia right now,” Mr. Oltmann, a conservative podcaster, said on his show this week.And in Telegram groups like The Patriot Voice and Facebook groups including Texas for Donald Trump 2020, members criticized President Biden’s handling of the conflict and expressed support for Russia, with some saying they trusted Mr. Putin more than Mr. Biden.The online conversations reflect how pro-Russia sentiment has increasingly penetrated Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, right-wing podcasts, messaging apps like Telegram and some conservative media. As Russia attacked Ukraine this week, those views spread, infusing the online discourse over the war with sympathy — and even approval — for the aggressor.The positive Russia comments are an extension of the culture wars and grievance politics that have animated the right in the United States in the past few years. In some of these circles, Mr. Putin carries a strongman appeal, viewed as someone who gets his way and does not let political correctness stop him.“Putin embodies the strength that Trump pretended to have,” said Emerson T. Brooking, a resident senior fellow for the Atlantic Council who studies digital platforms. “For these individuals, Putin’s actions aren’t a tragedy — they’re a fantasy fulfilled.” Support for Mr. Putin and Russia is now being expressed online in a jumble of facts, observations and opinions, sometimes entwined with lies. In recent days, commenters have complimented Mr. Putin and falsely accused NATO of violating nonexistent territorial agreements with Russia, which they said justified the Russian president’s declaration of war on Ukraine, according to a review of posts by The New York Times.Others have spread convoluted conspiracy theories about the war that are tinged with a pro-Russia sheen. In one popular lie circulating online, Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump are working together on the war. Another falsehood involves the idea that the war is about taking down a cabal of global elites over sex trafficking.In all, pro-Russian narratives on English-language social media, cable TV, and print and online outlets soared 2,580 percent in the past week compared to the first week of February, according to an analysis by the media insights company Zignal Labs. Those mentions cropped up 5,740 times in the past week, up from 214 in the first week of February, Zignal said.The narratives have flourished in dozens of Telegram channels, Facebook groups and pages and thousands of tweets, according to The Times’s review. Some of the Telegram channels have more than 160,000 subscribers, while the Facebook groups and pages have up to 1.9 million followers.(It is difficult to be precise on the scope of pro-Russian narratives on social media and online forums because bots and organized campaigns make them difficult to track.)Maidan Nezalezhnosti, or Independence Square, in Kyiv this week. The square was the center of Ukraine’s 2014 revolution.Brendan Hoffman for The New York TimesThe pro-Russia sentiment is a stark departure from during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union was viewed by many Americans as a foe. In recent years, that attitude shifted, partly helped along by interference from Russia. Before the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Kremlin-backed groups used social networks like Facebook to inflame American voters, creating more divisions and resistance to political correctness.After Mr. Trump was elected, he often appeared favorable to — and even admiring of — Mr. Putin. That seeded a more positive view of Mr. Putin among Mr. Trump’s supporters, misinformation researchers said.“Putin has invested heavily in sowing discord” and found an ally in Mr. Trump, said Melissa Ryan, the chief executive of Card Strategies, a consulting firm that researches disinformation. “Anyone who studies disinformation or the far right has seen the influence of Putin’s investment take hold.”At the same time, conspiracy theories spread online that deeply polarized Americans. One was the QAnon movement, which falsely posits that Democrats are Satan-worshiping child traffickers who are part of an elite cabal trying to control the world.The Russia-Ukraine war is now being viewed by some Americans through the lens of conspiracy theories, misinformation researchers said. Roughly 41 million Americans believe in the QAnon conspiracy theory, according to a survey released on Thursday from the Public Religion Research Institute. This week, some QAnon followers said online that Mr. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was simply the next phase in a global war against the sex traffickers.Lisa Kaplan, the founder of Alethea Group, a company that helps fight online misinformation, said the pro-Russia statements were potentially harmful because it could “further legitimize false or misleading claims” about the Ukraine conflict “in the eyes of the American people.”Not all online discourse is pro-Russia, and Mr. Putin’s actions have been condemned by conservative social media users, mainstream commentators and Republican politicians, even as some have criticized how Mr. Biden has handled the conflict.“Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is reckless and evil,” Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, said in a statement on Twitter on Thursday.On Tuesday, Representative Adam Kinzinger, a Republican from Illinois who was censured recently by the Republican Party for participating in the committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, criticized House Republicans for attacking Mr. Biden, tweeting that it “feeds into Putin’s narrative.”Understand Russia’s Attack on UkraineCard 1 of 7What is at the root of this invasion? More