6 ms·

> 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 ove

> 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 ago
Because 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 ago
  You 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 ago
    It'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 ago
Invasion 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 ago
  1. 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"..
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    Didn't Belarus have mass conscription? IMHO a large portion of Belarus men should have proper training to handle a weapon and squad/platoon tactics from their mandatory army year (or year-and-a-half). They don't have a lot of weapons, though. But if most of them were willing to do that, then the same motivation would apply for the conscripts who currently make up the army and do have all the weapons required, so that would be the scenario of "internal coup" with army turning against Lukashenka; but we as far as we see, neither the army nor the general population are currently eager for violent action, so things would have to get much worse before they might reconsider.
  - prebrov 5y ago
    This is exactly the argument propaganda in Russia and Belarus brings forward again and again — that it’s bystanders and outsiders that attempt to shame people into violence and grave risk to their lives. Historically, majority of popular armed revolts were followed by bloodbaths, and years of economic dismay. Falling of Eastern bloc was a major exception, because USSR, the primary sponsor, crumbled itself. And even then there was Yugoslavia. Dying in the name of freedom is just too much to ask of a normal person. Moving and freeing yourself is a more pragmatic move. Its not that hard to uphold your ethnic identity outside of arbitrarily defined borders, anyway. Foreign invasion, on the other hand, has a much higher potential to galvanise all sorts of radicalists, as it has done every single time, everywhere. So, please, be mindful of your call to arms to people in the faraway lands.
PeterisP 5y ago
> Why so? I'm not talking about the ability, I'm talking about the will to spill your soldiers blood for such a purpose. A boots-on-the-ground invasion is off the table because western countries would consider that price far, far too high for such a goal. I mean, muster a large scale invasion, for what? A couple dead journalists? Looking at other potential interventions, even literal mass concentration camps would probably be tolerated without escalating to an invasion. No, the western political will in this case is definitely limited to sanctions only. They might perhaps assist one side in a local conflict (i.e. the locals provide "boots on the grounds" and any blood to be spilled, while outsiders provide money and arms), this has happened in quite some places, but in Belarus there isn't an ongoing violent conflict between two sides, there's just the state applying small scale police action against individuals, there aren't any "rebel organizations" that would be capable of receiving such support. > Belarus triggering a defence treaty with Russia? We'd expect Russia to come in with force to prevent a pro-western government forming, treaty or not - e.g. if it seemed that Lukashenka would agree to cede power to a pro-western opposition, I wouldn't be surprised at an intervention from Russia even if Lukashenka would object. Once again, such scenarios were discussed and considered credible last year, but weren't "tested" as it turned out differently. > Russia will not come when faced with credible force. Perhaps, but there isn't a credible will to apply force, so any threats of such force would be treated by Russia as obvious bluffs. > Any government in the world can be overthrown by a popular revolt. Any. Of course, but a popular revolt isn't happening in Belarus, the opposition chose (and are still choosing) not to revolt and limit their activities to nonviolent protest - if you'd call that defeatist, I might agree, but that was the initial position and they seem to have succeeded in spreading that doctrine, and it would take time to reverse it. And the lack of practical reaction of people to the state abuse of power and the failure of various attempts at general strikes indicates that the conditions aren't even close to a revolt.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > I mean, muster a large scale invasion, for what? A couple dead journalists? For a one big thing, for honour For not letting a foul CPSU nincompoop spitting in the face of the Whole Western World from the doorstep of Europe.
konart 5y ago
>Belarus triggering a defence treaty with Russia? Pffff, he can trigger it upon his own head, as did Armenia. Armenia did not trigger anything. It was not under attack.
- baybal2 5y ago
  Armenian president was begging Putin to intervene, that's what whole of Yerevan knows.
  - konart 5y ago
    So? Russia had no legal reason to do so. Not to mention this was a lesson to Pashinyan. As for Yerevan - they were almost ready to throw him our of the office when they finally realised they have been lied about their military state and success. Serves them right.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Because 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 ago
You 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 ago
  It'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 ago

Invasion 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 ago
1. 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"..
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Didn't Belarus have mass conscription? IMHO a large portion of Belarus men should have proper training to handle a weapon and squad/platoon tactics from their mandatory army year (or year-and-a-half). They don't have a lot of weapons, though. But if most of them were willing to do that, then the same motivation would apply for the conscripts who currently make up the army and do have all the weapons required, so that would be the scenario of "internal coup" with army turning against Lukashenka; but we as far as we see, neither the army nor the general population are currently eager for violent action, so things would have to get much worse before they might reconsider.
- prebrov 5y ago
  This is exactly the argument propaganda in Russia and Belarus brings forward again and again — that it’s bystanders and outsiders that attempt to shame people into violence and grave risk to their lives. Historically, majority of popular armed revolts were followed by bloodbaths, and years of economic dismay. Falling of Eastern bloc was a major exception, because USSR, the primary sponsor, crumbled itself. And even then there was Yugoslavia. Dying in the name of freedom is just too much to ask of a normal person. Moving and freeing yourself is a more pragmatic move. Its not that hard to uphold your ethnic identity outside of arbitrarily defined borders, anyway. Foreign invasion, on the other hand, has a much higher potential to galvanise all sorts of radicalists, as it has done every single time, everywhere. So, please, be mindful of your call to arms to people in the faraway lands.

PeterisP 5y ago

> Why so? I'm not talking about the ability, I'm talking about the will to spill your soldiers blood for such a purpose. A boots-on-the-ground invasion is off the table because western countries would consider that price far, far too high for such a goal. I mean, muster a large scale invasion, for what? A couple dead journalists? Looking at other potential interventions, even literal mass concentration camps would probably be tolerated without escalating to an invasion. No, the western political will in this case is definitely limited to sanctions only. They might perhaps assist one side in a local conflict (i.e. the locals provide "boots on the grounds" and any blood to be spilled, while outsiders provide money and arms), this has happened in quite some places, but in Belarus there isn't an ongoing violent conflict between two sides, there's just the state applying small scale police action against individuals, there aren't any "rebel organizations" that would be capable of receiving such support. > Belarus triggering a defence treaty with Russia? We'd expect Russia to come in with force to prevent a pro-western government forming, treaty or not - e.g. if it seemed that Lukashenka would agree to cede power to a pro-western opposition, I wouldn't be surprised at an intervention from Russia even if Lukashenka would object. Once again, such scenarios were discussed and considered credible last year, but weren't "tested" as it turned out differently. > Russia will not come when faced with credible force. Perhaps, but there isn't a credible will to apply force, so any threats of such force would be treated by Russia as obvious bluffs. > Any government in the world can be overthrown by a popular revolt. Any. Of course, but a popular revolt isn't happening in Belarus, the opposition chose (and are still choosing) not to revolt and limit their activities to nonviolent protest - if you'd call that defeatist, I might agree, but that was the initial position and they seem to have succeeded in spreading that doctrine, and it would take time to reverse it. And the lack of practical reaction of people to the state abuse of power and the failure of various attempts at general strikes indicates that the conditions aren't even close to a revolt.

baybal2 5y ago
> I mean, muster a large scale invasion, for what? A couple dead journalists? For a one big thing, for honour For not letting a foul CPSU nincompoop spitting in the face of the Whole Western World from the doorstep of Europe.

konart 5y ago

>Belarus triggering a defence treaty with Russia? Pffff, he can trigger it upon his own head, as did Armenia. Armenia did not trigger anything. It was not under attack.

baybal2 5y ago
Armenian president was begging Putin to intervene, that's what whole of Yerevan knows.
- konart 5y ago
  So? Russia had no legal reason to do so. Not to mention this was a lesson to Pashinyan. As for Yerevan - they were almost ready to throw him our of the office when they finally realised they have been lied about their military state and success. Serves them right.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]