The archival revolution of the late 1980s and early 1990s led to the previously closed field being opened, albeit temporarily, to researchers, and this also became one of the reasons for methodological changes within the former field of so-called Sovietology.[2]

In contemporary Belarus, following the mass protests of 2020, we are not only facing the closure of the field to external research, but also witnessing how the political regime in Belarus, using digital tools and legal (juridical) grounds, is destroying entire collections of materials that could be used as sources on the contemporary history of Belarus (this refers, first and foremost, to the entire period following the collapse of the USSR and the declaration of independence). At the same time, research activities as well as attempts to preserve sources are being criminalized.

What is significant here is the combination of digital tools with other methods of censorship and control. This combination is currently working quite effectively and creating numerous problems for researchers and historians attempting to work with sources such as media or visual materials. This applies not only to historians and researchers outside Belarus, but also to those who dare to collect materials within the country. 

One of the manifestations of digital authoritarianism in Belarus today is not only the imposition of controls over the dissemination of information, but also the destruction of the infrastructure for future historical research. Digital authoritarianism, therefore, not only serves as a means of controlling the dissemination of information or provides tools for legitimizing an authoritarian regime, but also creates its own epistemic regimes, influencing the production of historical knowledge in the present and future. In a broader sense, this concerns the phenomenon of epistemic injustice and the deprivation of a whole range of social groups of the right to produce and preserve knowledge.[3] Authoritarian regimes, with the help of digital tools, can not only control interpretations of history but also, in effect, decide which historical sources have a right to exist.

Studies of the phenomenon of digital authoritarianism typically focus on political control and censorship.[4] Or they describe how the legitimacy of power is constructed in a new type of “information authoritarianism”.[5] In their definition of digital authoritarianism, many authors primarily focus on analyzing the following manifestations: 

“(a) where states and other repressive actors govern through digital technologies and systems, using them to surveil, manage, control, and repress populations, both domestic and foreign; (b) where authoritarianism is being enacted within digital spaces as various actors seek to influence and control narratives and behaviors across apps and platforms; (c) where state and corporate bodies exert control over the regulation of digital systems and their users, and reshape their nature by transforming their modes of governance”.[6]

Belarusian experts from human rights organizations add to this the issue of restrictions on digital rights.[7] For Belarusian historians, this topic is relatively new, although the first publications analyzing practices of digital authoritarianism in the Belarusian context are already appearing.[8] These studies also intersect with analyses of memory politics in an authoritarian context, which reveal the mechanisms by which political actors regulate and select social memory in societies. Linked to this perspective is the examination of various policies and regimes of oblivion,[9] including digital oblivion and its specific characteristics in an authoritarian context.

In the history of Belarus in the 20th century, there were also periods when state policy was oriented toward the selective representation of the past, censorship, restricting access to archives, etc.[10] Studies on the topic of censorship in the mid-20th century within the Belarusian (Soviet) context have also emerged.[11] Today, new research must also include an analysis of the use of digital technologies in this process, in which traditional censorship has lost its significance and has transformed into authoritarian practices of censorship and the destruction of what is known as “big data”.[12]

Belarusian historians in exile find themselves in a situation where historical sources are being destroyed. How exactly is this happening? 

Among the practices already known at this time, the following can be noted:  

1. the seizure of independent media domains and the blocking of access to their content
2. hacking and cyberattacks targeting platforms containing information sensitive to the regime 
3. the labeling of digital platform communication channels (Instagram, Telegram, Facebook accounts, etc.) as extremist
4. the labeling of academic publications and academic institutions present online as extremist
5. the labeling of publishing projects and their digital representations and publications as extremist
6. the labeling of activities on Wikipedia, etc., as extremist
7. control and censorship of existing state archives in Belarus
8. destruction of NGO archives and existing digital collections, etc.

An example of such practices is the destruction of visual materials from the 2020 protest movement. The introduction of administrative and criminal liability for participating in protests led to a situation in which visual materials, including photographs, became the basis for law enforcement agencies to personally identify those who participated in the protests. Posting this material on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and so on posed a threat to the safety of the protesters.

This applied not only to photographs but also to video footage, photo reports in the media, the publication of books containing photo reports, and so on. Some of the material was destroyed by the users themselves as part of self-censorship practices, since law enforcement agencies’ access to users’ smartphones, as well as to personal storage devices, was unrestricted and coercive in nature. This threat led to practices of anonymization, the blurring of faces in already published materials, the creation of hidden archives with restricted access, and, in the worst cases, the destruction of materials. To a certain extent, this also applies to attempts to create archives documenting acts of violence committed by law enforcement agencies against protesters, to record oral histories, and to identify the names of perpetrators and victims.

To implement these practices, not only was the legislation on combating extremism amended,[13] but authorities also began to make more active use of tools that had been in place since before 2020, in particular the “Republican [i.e. nationwide – AB] List of Extremist Materials”.[14] Today, this list includes both academic publications and the digital platform accounts of historians who were forced to leave Belarus, as well as a large number of community channels on social media platforms (Telegram, VKontakte, etc.) that emerged during the 2020 protest movement and thereafter.

Of particular significance is the dismantling, beginning in 2020, of independent media in Belarus. In the report “A Divided Reality: An Analysis of the Belarusian Media in 2024,” the authors note a new phenomenon in the post-protest media landscape:

“… Belarus’s information landscape … has split into two parallel media realities. State media portrayed the country as stable but under external threat, while independent media operating from exile reported on repression, unfree elections, and the gradual loss of sovereignty”.[15]

Paradoxically, this new media reality has now been extrapolated to the past, although it looks much worse: the destruction of the country’s largest independent news portal, TUT.by, in May 2021, the criminal prosecution of its staff, and the seizure of its domain name led to the loss of a vast archive of news covering the entire period of the news service’s existence since 2000. All of the portal’s content has been declared extremist and added to the “Republican List of Extremist Materials.” The same thing happened to a number of national and regional media outlets. The activities of foreign media outlets—such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Deutsche Welle, etc.—were also declared extremist.[16]

Today, an online search for news (which we can also consider a form of source research) covering the period from 2000 to 2025 mostly leads to censored state media websites, and a vast amount of information is missing from them. The lack of access to information is critically important for researchers located outside Belarus. Additionally, state agencies in Belarus responsible for managing and controlling the internet create conditions that limit access for users outside the country (some Belarusian websites can only be accessed using a VPN).

In May 2026, a hacker attack caused the Belarusian online library Kamunikat (which also serves as an archive of media and independent culture) to go offline. Its founder, Jarosław Iwaniuk, promised, however, to restore the site.[17]

Censorship in Belarus may also affect existing state archives, which hold various types of documents, including those on Belarus’s recent history. One of the latest trends is the appointment of representatives of law enforcement agencies (such as the KGB) as directors of these archives.[18]

Outside of Belarus, initiatives dedicated to preserving digital archives have only just begun to take shape over the past five years.[19]

Thus, the problem today lies not only in the restriction of freedom of expression or access to information—a situation typical of authoritarianism. Digital authoritarianism in modern Belarus is increasingly becoming a tool for interfering with the very possibility of future historical research. The destruction of digital archives, the criminalization of their storage and use, the displacement of independent sources from the public sphere, and their replacement with state narratives mean that it is no longer just present-day knowledge of the past that is subject to control, but also future knowledge of the past.

For historians in exile, this creates a fundamentally new situation: whereas previously the main problem was access to existing archives, today there is a risk that the historical sources themselves will disappear. This is precisely why preserving the digital heritage of independent media, civic initiatives, and research projects is becoming not only a technical or archival task, but also one of the key forms of resistance to epistemic violence and a prerequisite for the future writing of Belarus’s contemporary history.

About this publication

This analytical paper was prepared within the project Belarusian Historical Scholarship in Exile: Current State and Challenges, implemented with the financial support of the EU4Belarus: Support to Advanced Learning and Training (SALT II) programme, funded by the European Union.

The paper forms part of a series of analytical publications examining the current state, key challenges and future perspectives of Belarusian historical scholarship in exile. While informed by discussions held during a closed expert seminar, it reflects the analysis and conclusions of the author(s).

The views and opinions expressed in this publication are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the European Union, the EU4Belarus: Support to Advanced Learning and Training (SALT II) programme, the International Centre for Ethnic and Linguistic Diversity Studies (ICELDS), or the Belarusian Institute in Prague.