Non-violence is only effective where the oppressor is vulnerable to moral pressure. In many cases, the oppressor is not.

(Not stating my personal examples, too contentious, but I'm sure you could find your own).

If you had a study showing that in over 300 carpentry projects hammers were used twice as often as screwdrivers, would that convince you to hammer in a screw?

My point is that violence may not be a good fit for every situation, but that doesn't mean it never is. Gandhi was an effective non-violent protester, against the British in Africa when backed by large numbers. How effective would Gandhi have been protesting against the Nazis?

I don't know anything about Belarus, so I don't know anything about what is or isn't justified, it just seems wrong to me to suggest that violence is categorically less effective. Political violence is a tool and like any other has moments where it should and shouldn't be used.

As far as I can tell, though, unmasking isn't really coded as violent in the sense that the writer suggests.

Huh? Tell that to Ukrainian at first peaceful protestors. Which then turned into mildly violent, then hard violent (from the govt side largely) in the end, including what Ukraine now calls the 100 in Heaven ?

How ineffective was that protest?

Non-violent protests didn't work too well against the Nazis. There are exceptions to every rule.

Would nonviolent protest against Hitler have been twice as effective as the war?