6 ms·
There's nothing effective that's going to be done about this. Regimes like that change only when forced by violence or credible threats of violence in their te
by PeterisP 5y ago
There's nothing effective that's going to be done about this.
Regimes like that change only when forced by violence or credible threats of violence in their territory - actual power, not "soft power", it will change only because of large quantities of people in Belarus/Minsk actually make the change happen (as opposed to just asking for change). Looking around, who might make such a change?
1. Western countries definitely won't do that in Belarus, a boots-on-the-ground invasion like that seems totally implausible and would risk escalation into a military conflict with Russia, it's just not going to happen;
2. The Belarus opposition decided to explicitly avoid trying anything and limit their activities to nonviolent protests - last year there were some moments where perhaps they had a chance to overthrow the regime if they tried, but now the regime has succeeded in repressing the opposition (partly through acts like in this article), they can't rally masses as much anymore, so no chances in the short term;
3. Russia has no need to do that, they seem to be satisfied with the current direction and whatever deals they made;
4. Internally, the regime seems stable. Last year perhaps there were some questions on whether all structures of power would support Lukashenka, but that seems to be over for now - but IMHO this is the only thing that can change the country's direction, if the regime stays unified, Lukashenka will get away with all of this (and, most likely, escalate it) for a decade or more easily, the existing regime is stuck and can't change (since as soon as they loosen the grip, they'll end up like Gaddafi), but if a "court coup" happens, they might change the direction.
So all that's on the table is complaining loudly and sanctions that aren't going to be effective in the short term. I mean, the only way how sanctions can work is if they make the economic situation dire enough so that Belarus people actually do revolt, until that, the regime will make sure that the siloviki get their share of the dwindling funds and it won't change their behavior as that behavior is now required for their self-preservation.
- baybal2 5y ago> Western countries definitely won't do that in Belarus, a boots-on-the-ground invasion like that seems totally implausible Why so? NATO completely towers over Belorus army. It has only a single airbase — Minsk, and all its air defence for this city only. More importantly, it's military is critically short of skilled manpower, just like is Russian army (having more vehicles than pilots for them.) Belarus triggering a defence treaty with Russia? Pffff, he can trigger it upon his own head, as did Armenia. Russia will not come when faced with credible force. > but now the regime has succeeded in repressing the opposition (partly through acts like in this article), they can't rally masses as much anymore, so no chances in the short term; Any government in the world can be overthrown by a popular revolt. Any. If you think about things seriously, and reject useless sentimentalism, using power starts make sense. A very obvious benefit of doing so, is that it is the quickest, and easiest way to discredit defeatist voices.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoBecause Russia. And you're right, just back in January an angry mob of traitors invaded the US Capitol building and were looking to install a dictator and kill Congress people and the VP. It can happen anywhere, we're just lucky they were buffoons.
- baybal2 5y agoYou were indeed very fortunate. But when I called US being few years away from the second civil war here 4 years ago, people weren't very kind. Half laughed me out, and another half got me banned. Maybe, sometimes, people have to be told not to take serious political matters of national importance so dismissively.
- hparadiz 5y agoIt's still laughable. Most conservatives are just old people. You think the kids are gonna start fighting their parents? It's not like it's a north versus south thing.
- liaukovv 5y agoInvasion would be completely insane And its not what I want for my country In fact I think the only way to remove Lugabe at this point is to remove Putin first, but since this is not happening before second cold war, my only advice for compatriots fortunate enough is to leave
- baybal2 5y ago1. You tell them not to leave 2. You tell them how to procure, and handle a weapon 3. You teach them squad, and platoon level tactics 4. You get few people with proper military education to run this 5. You call defeatists their names
- aus-lander 5y ago"2. You tell them how to procure, and handle a weapon" Do you think most people in Belorussia would approve? .. and then you complain of the (fabricated) "Russiagate"..
- JumpCrisscross 5y agoMaking an example out of this could well be cheaper than confronting Moscow in the long run. I’m not advocating it. Just saying this wasn’t a risk-free entourage. Levelling a few military air bases while communicating to Russia exactly what’s being done will piss everyone off, but it’s unlikely to escalate. It is also unlikely to spiral.
- owl57 5y agoLukashenko and Putin would love that. No one would longer doubt it when they say that opposition is backed by NATO. As for the spiral, well, Ukraine would probably lose some of its military bases, just because it's apparently no big deal now.
- whimsicalism 5y agoI think as a rule, we should use epistemic humility and look to past instances of intervention unless we have really strong reasons to believe that this would be a uniquely successful intervention.
- sellyme 5y ago> Western countries definitely won't do that in Belarus, a boots-on-the-ground invasion like that seems totally implausible and would risk escalation into a military conflict with Russia, it's just not going to happen I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I just don't understand why so many trillions of dollars around the world are being spent on military power that just sits by and watches dictatorships kidnap protestors from other countries and execute them. Having grown up in the early 2000s and seen some offensively transparent excuses to start military invasions, surely this is a far more justifiable reason for conflict. Is everyone just waiting for Lukashenko and Putin to die and hoping that their successors won't be as maniacal?
- beebeepka 5y agoI don't know what to make of your post. You have "seen some offensively transparent excuses to start military invasions" and yet keep asking these naive questions.
- sellyme 5y agoA plane was travelling between two countries. The head of state of a third country gave the direct order to hijack said plane in order to murder someone onboard. I can't see how you'd interpret that as anything except an act of war. That doesn't seem like an offensively transparent excuse to me. Certainly in comparison to "My fortune cookie said they might have WMDs" or whatever the line was two decades ago that was apparently good enough for the US. I'd say "what does it take, a literal invasion?" but that already happened in Crimea.
- jek0 5y ago> I just don't understand why so many trillions of dollars around the world are being spent on military power that just sits by and watches dictatorships kidnap protestors from other countries and execute them. We make wars to control energy sources, trade routes, etc. The west as happily puts a dictator in place of a democratic government when it's in their interest (or the best interest of the men in power and their supports).