Asta Skaisgirytė, chief foreign policy adviser to Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda, has defended the Belarusian opposition’s use of the knight on horseback symbol, featured on mock passports, amid criticism from conservative politicians who claim it resembles Lithuanian symbols.
The symbol, known as Vytis in Lithuania and Pahonia in Belarus, originates from the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Skaisgirytė emphasized that Belarusians have a historical right to use the symbol, noting its significance during the shared history of the Grand Duchy, which included present-day Belarus. “They have nothing else, to be honest. All their other symbols are Soviet,” she stated.
The mock passport design was shared on social media by Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, sparking debate. While the document is not officially recognized, Tsikhanouskaya has been advocating for it as a form of identification for Belarusian emigrants who cannot obtain new documents due to political reasons.
Conservative members of Lithuania’s Homeland Union–Lithuanian Christian Democrats have urged Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys to ensure that Belarusian documents do not feature Lithuanian symbols. Former Defence Minister Laurynas Kasčiūnas expressed concern about the use of the Vytis on these passports.
Skaisgirytė dismissed the conservative criticism, highlighting past collaboration between Tsikhanouskaya’s office and the former government. She described the passports as symbolic markers for Belarusians abroad who support democratic ideals, clarifying that they are not official travel documents.
Foreign Minister Budrys reiterated that the Lithuanian government is not involved in the creation of these passports. He underscored Lithuania’s support for a democratic Belarus, noting that the Vytis is not featured on the opposition’s passport and warning against propaganda attempts to sow discord between Lithuanian and Belarusian democratic forces.
The Lithuanian Interior Ministry confirmed that the Belarusian opposition’s passports hold no legal validity and stated that no Lithuanian authorities are involved in the initiative. This clarification comes after a previous controversy last year when a mock-up of the passport incorrectly depicted the border between Lithuania and Belarus, which the opposition later rectified.
Remigijus Motuzas, chair of the Seimas Committee on Foreign Affairs, expressed concerns over the passports, suggesting they might represent aspirations linked to Lithuania’s statehood. However, he advocated for dialogue with Tsikhanouskaya’s office to understand their intentions better.
As the debate continues, the Lithuanian government maintains its position of supporting democratic forces in Belarus while distancing itself from the passport initiative. The use of historical symbols remains a sensitive issue, reflecting the complex interplay of history, identity, and political aspiration in the region.