11 ms·

I'm talking about an action that an individual can take. Is it enough in the grand scale of things? No. Does it make a positive difference in a day-to-day life

by iyn 5y ago

I'm talking about an action that an individual can take. Is it enough in the grand scale of things? No. Does it make a positive difference in a day-to-day life for people in Belarus? Yes it does (e.g. knowing where the local meeting is happening, where the thugs are etc.). Can you do more? Always.

baybal2 5y ago
Roughly speaking, $1m is enough to feed, and arm a force of a 1000 with small arms only for 1 to 2 months, with men under arms being responsible for their own livelihood beyond basics. That's a very small amount of time. And without a training, and heavy arms, none will be a good match even against Belarusian standing army. The challenge is to use up money in the shortest, and most impactful way possible. The longer men stay in the field doing nothing, the more money is burned on canned food, and toilet paper rather than diminishing enemy fighting power. Yes, individuals can arm a significant amount of volunteers, and even keep inflicting the damage for a few weeks. A battalion of complete war rookies can do things if it strikes first, attacks softer targets other than standing military, and focus on high cost/opportunity operations like enemy's command chain, and political leadership. But in the larger scheme of things, even $1m is a pocket change on the scale of nation states, and completely pales to what a military of even smallest European states can do both force, and material wise. Yes, get your politicians involved, get your state involved. Even a third grade caucus can easily dish out 8 digit sums in US without even blinking.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Two can play this game. Look at Podnistria or Donbas. Belarus split between a Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 2.0 and a Totally-Not-Russian-Puppet-State, with several thousand young men's graves in between, isn't any better than Belarus today.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    One side will have the definite firepower advantage, enough to deal with other be it puppet, not puppet or whatever. You choose what this side will be. Russians have nothing in their coffers they can spare for a puppet project when there will be a battle hardened army a day away from Moscow. It's the best way for NATO to put Russia on defensive. A solid wall of steel from Baltic to Azov to seal it shut from Europe.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      "It's the best way for NATO to put Russia on defensive. A solid wall of steel from Baltic to Azov to seal it shut from Europe." Can you see the problem with NATO? European countries are unlikely to finance the effort, our armies are for the most part underinvested and their deployment capacity very limited. France has some capabilities, but it is also bogged down elsewhere (Sahara), because the Islamist threat is more acute for Paris than whatever Russia does. USA and UK have two decades of nation building behind them and whatever fighting spirit is left, is reserved for a possible confrontation with China. Also, both of them are naval powers, while Belarus is a landlocked country. Not to say that they are unable to fight on land, but it is a disadvantage for them. If you like The Lord of the Rings, we are sort-of similar to Gondor just prior to the war. Not enough power and will to hold Mordor in a siege. The good news is that Russia is fairly strained and it is not a full Mordor either. More like a group of orc chieftains from the Misty Mountains.
      - baybal2 5y ago
        I very much see this very problem with NATO. It's exactly because of this NATO's best move is to commit to one defence line. Even if depleted, and under invested. The power of EU NATO members combined will be more than enough in this scenario to hold a line with a few choke points in between plains, and impassable forests.
        inglor_cz 5y ago
        IDK. "Holding the line" scenarios in last 100 years generally ended up badly for the defenders: expensive and ineffective. Modern wars are all about movement, maneuver and sudden concentration of power in a spot chosen by the attacker. If the recent Nagorno Karabakh war is of any use as an example, Russians and Russian-trained officers were unable to hold their positions against killer drones. Drones are cheap and their destruction in combat does not fuel anti-war sentiments at home, unlike a stream of coffins draped in flags. But given that Russians are not stupid, they are probably working on some anti-drone strategy as well.

by iyn 5y ago

baybal2 5y ago

Roughly speaking, $1m is enough to feed, and arm a force of a 1000 with small arms only for 1 to 2 months, with men under arms being responsible for their own livelihood beyond basics. That's a very small amount of time. And without a training, and heavy arms, none will be a good match even against Belarusian standing army. The challenge is to use up money in the shortest, and most impactful way possible. The longer men stay in the field doing nothing, the more money is burned on canned food, and toilet paper rather than diminishing enemy fighting power. Yes, individuals can arm a significant amount of volunteers, and even keep inflicting the damage for a few weeks. A battalion of complete war rookies can do things if it strikes first, attacks softer targets other than standing military, and focus on high cost/opportunity operations like enemy's command chain, and political leadership. But in the larger scheme of things, even $1m is a pocket change on the scale of nation states, and completely pales to what a military of even smallest European states can do both force, and material wise. Yes, get your politicians involved, get your state involved. Even a third grade caucus can easily dish out 8 digit sums in US without even blinking.

inglor_cz 5y ago
Two can play this game. Look at Podnistria or Donbas. Belarus split between a Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 2.0 and a Totally-Not-Russian-Puppet-State, with several thousand young men's graves in between, isn't any better than Belarus today.
- baybal2 5y ago
  One side will have the definite firepower advantage, enough to deal with other be it puppet, not puppet or whatever. You choose what this side will be. Russians have nothing in their coffers they can spare for a puppet project when there will be a battle hardened army a day away from Moscow. It's the best way for NATO to put Russia on defensive. A solid wall of steel from Baltic to Azov to seal it shut from Europe.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    "It's the best way for NATO to put Russia on defensive. A solid wall of steel from Baltic to Azov to seal it shut from Europe." Can you see the problem with NATO? European countries are unlikely to finance the effort, our armies are for the most part underinvested and their deployment capacity very limited. France has some capabilities, but it is also bogged down elsewhere (Sahara), because the Islamist threat is more acute for Paris than whatever Russia does. USA and UK have two decades of nation building behind them and whatever fighting spirit is left, is reserved for a possible confrontation with China. Also, both of them are naval powers, while Belarus is a landlocked country. Not to say that they are unable to fight on land, but it is a disadvantage for them. If you like The Lord of the Rings, we are sort-of similar to Gondor just prior to the war. Not enough power and will to hold Mordor in a siege. The good news is that Russia is fairly strained and it is not a full Mordor either. More like a group of orc chieftains from the Misty Mountains.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      I very much see this very problem with NATO. It's exactly because of this NATO's best move is to commit to one defence line. Even if depleted, and under invested. The power of EU NATO members combined will be more than enough in this scenario to hold a line with a few choke points in between plains, and impassable forests.
      - inglor_cz 5y ago
        IDK. "Holding the line" scenarios in last 100 years generally ended up badly for the defenders: expensive and ineffective. Modern wars are all about movement, maneuver and sudden concentration of power in a spot chosen by the attacker. If the recent Nagorno Karabakh war is of any use as an example, Russians and Russian-trained officers were unable to hold their positions against killer drones. Drones are cheap and their destruction in combat does not fuel anti-war sentiments at home, unlike a stream of coffins draped in flags. But given that Russians are not stupid, they are probably working on some anti-drone strategy as well.