In his domestic rhetoric, Lukashenko is blaming forces from Poland, Holland, Ukraine, and various liberal groups from Russia (Open Russia and Navalny were named) for using “Belorussian children as cannon fodder” to carry out a color revolution.
The Belorussian elites remain consolidated for now, but there are now signs that many of them are hedging their bets. For instance, the head of the Central Electoral Commission, Lidia Ermoshina, who rubber stamps Lukashenko’s 80% results, has recently emphasized that she was not present at opposition candidate Tikhanovskaya’s meeting with two senior security officials, where she filmed her call for the protesters to go home and after which she immediately fled to Lithuania. Clearly, trying to build up a case that she disassociated from the regime, in the event it collapses.
Metaculus now giving 52% chance Lukashenko remains President on Dec 31, 2020 (down from 75-80% before August 13). So, not an unreasonable course of action.
However, an important note. We should also not rush to proclaim that Lukashenko has lost control over the security apparatus. Some overly enthusiastic people on Twitter were doing that after videos of OMON “laying down their shields” and protesting girls with flowers embracing them. This doesn’t mean anything. From the Telegram chatter, they simply received a command to behave less aggressively towards what are, in the end, non-violent protesters.
The big news has been the handover of the 32 Wagnerites to Russia.
(There were Telegram rumors that there was an under carpet struggle over their fate, with Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei – a representative of the pro-Western vector – wanting to hand them over to the Ukraine, while the representative of the siloviks and national security advisor Viktor Lukashenko (relation: Luka’s eldest son) insisted on sending them back to Russia).
So, in the latest stage of Lukashenko’s decades-long “multivector” saga of playing off Russia and the West, he is now in the position of banking on the kremlins bailing him out… though why they should do that just on account of Lukashenko releasing political hostages is up in the air.
In a phone call between Lukashenko and Putin just a couple of hours ago, Russia’s reaction seems non-committal:
Alexander Lukashenko informed Vladimir Putin about the developments following the presidential election in Belarus. Both sides expressed confidence that all existing problems will be settled soon. The main thing is to prevent destructive forces from using these problems to cause damage to mutually beneficial relations of the two countries within the Union State.
In connection with the return to Russia of 32 people who were previously detained in Belarus, a positive assessment was given to close cooperation of the relevant agencies in this regard.
They also agreed on further regular contacts at various levels, and reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening allied relations, which fully meets the core interests of the fraternal nations of Russia and Belarus.
For now, I see no signs that Russia intends to materially interfere to prop up Lukashenko.
But presumably there are intense quiet discussions about the practicalities, approaches, and advisability of flash executing an Anschluss in the couloirs of the Kremlin.
There are reports that the EU will decide on anti-Belarus sanctions on August 27-28 in Berlin and intend to press Minsk for a rerun of the elections.
I do not think that latter demand is realistic. If the elections are rerun, the apparatus will be too demoralized to falsify in favor of Lukashenko, while his real popularity will be even further in the doldrums. 95% chance he will lose.
Lukashenko is also refusing outside intermediation. That is also reasonable. After all, so far as is officially concerned, he is the one and only legitimate President. Accepting intermediation would put that status under question.
Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.
If you are new to my work, start here.
Russia needs to tread very lightly. For now the US seems to have the PR advantage in terms of being “for the people” and against the Lukashenko regime. In particular they seem to be backing Tikhanovskya who seems to have thrown her cards in with anti-Russian factions.
From the Kremlin point of view an ideal solution would be to have a genuinely popular candidate who also has the support of the elites / deep state who decides to move closer to Russia or at worst distances him/herself from joining an anti-Russia movement. Whether there is (a) such a candidate and (b) any path to get there is the question.
Meanwhile letting the status quo run with Lukashenko in charge which neither the Kremlin or the Belarus populace care for would only worsen the mood/PR against Russia.
A final question is whether Russia wargamed out this scenario which was widely expected even before – Lukashenko falsifying elections; suppressing protests; the US and its lackeys jumping on the bandwagon to back their favored opposition candidate – or, like with Ukraine, either just winging it or has decided it has no choice but to let events play out beyond their control.
It seems that are subtle contacts between the KGB and the FSB. I think the best course of action is to disappear (Pinochet or Argentinean junta style) foreign (Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians,…) provocateurs and send them to Russia (the Vorkuta gulag seems a nice place) to slowly deflate riots.
What makes you think that Poland or NATO will be willing to accept a Russian annexation of Belarus, Russian troops on the Polish border under Belorussian “invitation”? If that happens then maybe NATO will also rush troops to Minsk, under “invitation” of the Belorussian opposition? Again what makes you think Poland will accept Russian troops on its border? Or maybe Poland will do the job itself? I mean its military is more than enough to deal with whatever the Belorussian military can throw at them (not to mention that if this happens then the Belorussian military may be split down the middle as well), and even with Russian intervention (which will bring on the whole of NATO), the Polish military will be able to last for a considerable amount of time.
Plus Russian troops on the Polish border will cause Poland and all of the other Eastern European states to massively increase military spending and go back to universal conscription. plus I am sure if this happens then Poland will be looking at whether it is possible to get its own nukes as well. I know that this is a pro-Russia blog, but sometimes people should try to consider views other than their own and put themselves in another sides shoes you know?
Yanukovich accepted foreign mediation and we all know how it turned out. Luka understands that losing face like Yanuk did will be his undoing.
NATO would be nuts to do something this overtly aggressive. As was said in one of the other Belarus threads, Belarus is practically a St. Petersberg-tier strategic priority for Russia. The U.S. equivalent would be Putin invading Nova Scotia.
I’m not ruling out NATO doing something idiotic, of course.
But unless they have other plans that a Russian war would advance that are worth the cost, I don’t see how getting their hooks into Belarus provides enough net benefit to justify the enormous risk and the virtual certainty of provoking Russian hard-power reaction either immediately or as soon in the future as Russia feels viable given its position.
If I am the Polish president, I cannot see how Russian troops on the Bug due to a Russian military intervention can be tolerated. SO Russian military intervention into Belarus or annexation outright would be a red line. And if I am the president of Poland I will bank on the assumption that once Polish troops start engaging the Russians then NATO or at least the US will intervene and will not just allow the Poles to be defeated. Failing that, Russian troops on the Bug will surely bring about a massive increase in Polish defence spending, from 2% of GDP to 5%, and will result in universal conscription and full mobilization of the Polish population, given how much the left dislikes the Russians as well, there will not be any problems getting bipartisan support and uniting the country for once. Also I will be looking at the possibility of acquiring a nuclear deterrent if Russian troops on the Bug do turn out to be a reality, since that mean having Russian troops on 2 flanks. I am just saying that, If the Russians were in that position they would not tolerate NATO troops 50 miles from Smolensk either. Why should I accept Russian troops a couple of dozen miles from Warsaw exactly? Will China accept American troops on the Yalu?
NATO troops in Belarus just would be wiped out.
If you were the Polish president, you would breakfast a turd every day. The Russian Army, Navy and Air Force is now at the borders of Poland in the exclave of Kaliningrad, with a lot of Kalibr missiles. Any imbecility from NATO and it would be a matter of minutes (less than two minutes in many cases) the entire blow up of the whole of Polish Forces. So the most interested in doing nothing is precisely the Polish president. All bark and no bite. Polish regime is very fragile, as all Western regimes are. Think about Chile. And the EU is a house of cards, you can bet your life they will see Poland downing to hell before moving a finger (as they are seeing UK).
War is not an option, NATO will lose in all scenarios and the only option will be escalate to nuclear war. That’s why they are using the methods they use, if war were feasible, Luka would be dead now under an humaritarian NATO action, as Gadaffi is. They didn’t hesitate.
Russia could invade the entirety of Ukraine in a couple of days at most, and NATO would move not a finger, as they did not with Osetia or Abkhasia. It would be anyway a total failure for Russia doing that, but for very different reasons that you are saying.
Having Russian troops in an enclave surrounded by NATO countries that can only be resupplied by sea is different than having Russian troops 100 miles from Warsaw in a country where they can be resupplied by land from Russia. I think that NATO enlargement was a mistake and the Ukraine and Belarus should be neutral buffer states between NATO and Russia, that being said, I do not see how having Russian troops on the Bug should be tolerated. If that happens, then if I were Poland I would definitely be start a nuclear weapons programme.
Russia will do whatever it takes to prevent NATO troops in Belarus. So NATO troops in Belarus would automatically mean a Russian military response. If the Polish military is as strong as you say, then it will mean further escalation, perhaps into the Baltic states, perhaps nuclear strikes.
It’s even worse if NATO wins in Belarus, because then Russia will immediately escalate to nuclear.
Since Russia tolerates American troops just 150 kilometers from its second biggest city, Poland will also have to tolerate Russian troops 200 kilometers from Warsaw. Especially since it’s not in a position to deny it, nor to develop nukes.
All these reasonings are void. Russia can hit Poland from her own territory, if Kaliningrad is a Russian base is because it has to be defended, not any other reason. Missiles can be launched from ships simply twelve miles away from Polish shore and it’s pretty clear that NATO cannot even grant control of the Baltic Sea. The core is Poland is a frontline, and they are happy to be such a thing because they truly believe they can easily extort money to their capos, that corrupt they all are.
All these countries politically imploted with the fall of Communism and are in the hands of retarded people that never dreamed of seeing themselves in such position. That the West is happy with them also speaks for itself, it’s not very different of Luka and Russia. But the same Russia needs Luka removed, the West also needs people with brain in the head in Poland and friends. But, the problem is finding Germany-friendly economic vassals who don’t eat at the same time American shit.
I can save them the time: that possibility is zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons
NATO should only send troops if a Russian military intervention is imminent, failing that, Russian troops on the Bug means that Poland should have its own nuclear deterrent. Aside from the Baltic states, no NATO country has Russian troops on its border, that should not change.
Well if Poland decides to start its own nuclear weapons program what can the EU and NATO do, especially when you have Russian troops on the Bug, the most that the EU and the US will do is make some sad smiley faces on Twitter, especially since they just decided to do nothing to prevent Russians troops sitting a hundred miles from Warsaw. Also for once, you can expect the pozzed Polish left to go along with this, along with a drastically expanded Polish army and military budget, I do hold on to my forecast that even alone, the Polish army will last a lot longer than its Ukranian counterpart in a conflict with Russia.
Good point, and an undervalued lesson of Maidan.
Sanction the hell out of them? Set off a color revolution? Their options are many.
Norway is a NATO country and shares border with Russia. Always shared, since Norway’s independence in 1905 or so. Yes, firstly Russian Empire, then USSR (Russian SFSR anyway) and currently Russia. By the way, you can go from Norway to North Korea through Russia solely. Of course there are NATO troops on Norwegian side and Russian ones at the other side.
Poland shares border with Russia, not a short one. Look a map of Kaliningrad Oblast.
Many other NATO countries don’t share a direct border, but they are uncomfortably near to Russia. For instance, Turkey, and in fact there is a Russian (CSTO) base in Armenia with obviously Russian troops. Syria’s Tartu base is minutes away from British-NATO airbases in Cyprus.
NATO chose to move closer to Russia. Indeed it did.
Iran’s maximum pressure sanctions are based on the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Surely what’s good for the goose is yada yada yada.
Some very strange ideas.
A Polish attack on Belarus will constitute direct aggression against Belarus, with Lukashenko fully within his remit to invoke Russian military aid under the provisions of the CSTO and Union State.
And while it is unacceptable to have Russian troops at Polish borders, it is apparently fully acceptable to have NATO troops within a two hour drive of Saint-Petersburg. Powerful neocon “your country is so close to our bases” take.
To be honest already Yanukovych could’ve known that. I felt it was a bad idea for him real time as it was happening. I didn’t like him, to be honest, there was even way less to like in him than in Lukashenko.
The Americans made sure that countries like Taiwan or South Korea didn’t acquire nuclear weapons. Do you think they’d just let Poland have them?
And flaunting it:
https://guidetopetersburg.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nato-1024×660.jpg
Then you had better instincts than me. I remember feeling disgusted by this at the time, thinking the EU a neutral party to this conflict. Boy, was I wrong …
Has sanctions ever stopped a country whose political leadership is determined to get nukes? It did not stop Pakistan, Iran, or North Korea. And even without nukes you can expect a massive expansion of the Polish military and other Eastern and Central European militaries if you ever get an annexation or Russian troops on the Polish border.
You have noticed that fasicism has on the whole been rolling back?
That would be with tactical nukes. It would be followed by European Russia turning into a radioactive desert. Even the Stavka might not be that stupid.
Any thought on the suggestion that Putin is put in the position to consider the reaction of some CSTO members, whose societies are less free than Belarus’, if he were to sharply criticize the Belarusian government?
Poland is probably more similar to Taiwan or South Korea than it is to North Korea or Iran, but I don’t think any argument could change your mind.
What portion of the Hungarian population has the same opinions as yours with regards to foreign policy and Russia? Especially if Belarus gets annexed or Russia deploys its military to Russia? At the very least I would expect a massive increase in the militaries among Eastern European militaries near Russia if that happens.
Why the large difference in terms of attitudes towards Russia between Czechs and Slovaks, is it because of 1968?
I support an increase in military spending regardless. I don’t think my views are typical. But I think I have a way better grasp of geopolitics than most people.
People don’t understand that the “Russian aggression” of the past several years was managing a strategic retreat (losing Ukraine and getting Crimea as a consolation prize and preventing a Ukrainian NATO membership). Belarus has firmly been in the Russian sphere of interest for over two decades, any NATO encroachment there (after Ukraine) will only result in a violent Russian reaction. I don’t know how many people in Hungary understand that, but I’m fairly sure that it will help continue and increase the recent trend of increasing military budgets.
It would also be followed up by a Russian nuclear strike on core NATO countries. It’s pretty interesting to observe a Dollar Auction. The other guy is always irrational, while you yourself never. In your mind.
Remember the scenario starts with NATO moving into Belarus, which was previously firmly in the Russian sphere of influence. So it’s not Russia who would start the hypothetical confrontation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction?wprov=sfti1
I doubt it. Russia can wipe out armored NATO brigades in Belarusian lands by conventional strikes, simply because the war scenario is near the Russian core. Just think in massive MLRS and SRBM salvos; like in Donbas but on an order of magnitude higher scale.
First, none of them was a Wagnerite. Second, their “suspicious” behavior manifested itself in the fact that they stayed sober. Third, Belarus security had no reason whatsoever to arrest them. Finally, fourth, one of the 33 was not sent to Russia, ostensibly because he also held Belarus citizenship.
Putin needs either to send Belarus to Hell (it’s trip there would be faster than even Ukraine) or replace Luka with someone sensible and not let him run to Russia (unless this is the condition of him transferring power to someone sensible “voluntarily”). By rights, Luka deserves to be hanged by the balls.
Russia has enough of its own scum, why would it need to import more? They should be sent back where they came from and banned from entering Russia or Belarus for life.
LOL. NATO in general, and Poland in particular, is not capable of anything except raising stink. Remember 2008 Georgia? Twelve years later Abkhazia and South Ossetia did not rejoin Georgia, and never will. Considering that stink level is close to max as it is, they can’t even raise that level.
If you look at a map you can claim that Belarus was in the Polish or Lithuanian sphere of influence before it was in the Russian sphere of influence?
What troops can Poland send to Belarussia? Guys it is not 1985 anymore. There are only ONE country, which can move thousands of tanks, hundred thousands of troops around Europe. And it is Russia. NATO is cover for Naval superpower – USA. USA would never be involved in ground war with Russia or China.
Also Poland is not industrious country. They do not have even running nuclear plant. Dreaming about nukes 🙂
It’s irrelevant. What is relevant is the present situation, which is that it’s firmly within the Russian sphere of influence. NATO troops moving in there would be perceived, not entirely without justification, a military attack on Russia herself.
Agree 100%. Classic case of mistaking reaction for action. Mr. Scientism, the other day, had a Twitter thread along these lines:
If only
Well Russia could always do with some cheap labor in Siberia
To say nothing of its hypersonic missiles. There’s a very real possibility that the American carrier groups are indeed “floating sarcophagi.”
You send the provocateurs back to their home countries and these countries will send them to Russia and Belarus again to make troubles.
I’m not saying they should be dump to the sea, like the Argentine junta did. Just disappear them in a good old gulag.
Yes,… but we are talking about a land scenario in Belarus.
In 1939 Polish leadership had already bet on the interference of France and UK. We all know how justified that bet was. The US is the only NATO country with military capabilities worth considering. Never in its history the US sent its troops to die for the aborigines.
Why should Russian taxpayers spend money on feeding and guarding this scum? Russia has better ways of spending its resources.
Slave labor is not justified economically. That’s why the slavery was abandoned in history. It is especially useless when those slaves are scum.
I think NATO enlargement was a mistake from a Western perspective, however it made central Europe more stable, and being in a military alliance and also being in the EU prevented relations between Hungary and Romania from really going downhill.
The credible threat that the US is willing to risk itself getting nuked in order to prevent Tokyo and Seoul getting nuked is the thing preventing both countries from getting nukes, there are actually opinion polls showing that a majority of South Koreans are actually in favor of getting nukes. And finally since this is a pro-Russian blog so I naturally expect the people here to be biased, just like when I go to Steve Sailer’s blog I expect it to have a pro-US bias, and when I go to a Scuderia Ferrari forum I expect it to have a pro-Ferrari bias, it just comes with the territory. For all that matters, I think the people here tend to overestimate Russian military capabilities and underestimate NATO because this is a pro-Russian blog.
If the accusation is that NATO militaries do not have experience fighting peer competitors, when was the last time that the Soviet or Russian armed forces fought a first rate industrial power with a first rate army that is near its peak in a total war situation? 1943? Maybe the quality of the US armed forces has declined for the past 20 year, frankly there is no way to know for sure, and a lot of it seems to be anti-US wishful thinking by people who have a chip on their shoulders frankly, and the PLA also has pretty much zero combat experience for the past 40 years also.
If you are indeed correct that the US/UK would respond to tactical nuke usage against their invading forces with wanton atomic genocide, then it becomes morally incumbent upon the rest of the world to launch preemptive disarming strikes against those dangerous rogue regimes.
Well, it’s not my idea…
So, dump them into the sea.
But the reason that an Anschluss worked in Crimea and (sort of) the Donbass was that the new Ukrainian regime was pro-Western whereas these two regions remained pro-Russian. In contrast, are there actually going to be any parts of Belarus that are going to significantly deviate from the national average in regards to their political views in the event of a successful color revolution in Belarus?
As for taking over the whole country, I’m unsure that Belarusians would actually be willing to replace Luka’s dictatorship with a Russian dictatorship; they might prefer Belarusian democracy.
Such rhetoric is counterproductive.
Though, considering your crypto-svidomy agenda, perhaps that’s by design.
I REALLY don’t see NATO using nukes first over any part of the former Soviet Union, including the Baltic countries. That said, though, if Russian troops will be in Belarus first, then NATO could argue that it is simply responding to Russian aggression in Belarus. Though, again, it is likely to do so by non-nuclear and possibly even non-military means such as severe Western sanctions on Russia.
Who knows, maybe the Russkies would cut a deal with a third-party interested in recovering some of its lost territory.
@Karlin
Grow up kid and get your head out of the Marvel Universe of foreign policy.
Lukashenko ain’t going nowhere. There is no revolution. It was over before is started.
You think you’re smart because “water is wet” Belorussian vote was rigged. Excuse me, what the f—- do you know??
What you and the crustaceans at Open Society and DOS can’t get through your brainy crainies is that if you push Russia out of Europe, you will simply hand it to the Kadyrovs and Karimovs. Then, you’ll get the proper beating lukoderms regularly receive at the hands of the superior Southern races. You’ll have the Eurasia foot on your throats, and your drivel about youth rebellion, economic re-orientation, and a post-realist Eastern European order, will push you right back to where the Mongols left you.
Young, dumb, and naive. You have no clue what Washington/Brussels are after. You just think the Baltics are cooler because they get to vote for the latest dildo dressed up as a presidential candidate. Oh, and implanting a chip in your brain. Sums up this drivel.
Joggers filling up US ranks and ships crashing does not instill confidence.
Are you actually replying to Karlin? Your ramble seemed an extremely emotional total non-sequitor.
It does not matter what “pro” any blog is. As soon as the war goes nuclear, it’s the end of the world as we know it. As Einstein rightly said, “I don’t know what WWIII will be fought with, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones”.
Come again? Did you mix up names and addresses? Or is it even worse?
I doubt “the sticks and stones” stuff is technically true. Probably not many nukes targeting Africa, and they have small arms factories. The AK-47 is here to stay.
Note how many protesters anti-Lukashenko in Minsk are carrying the white-red-white flag.
The protests in Minsk are such a liberal-nationalist, young, pro-Western kind of people. These movements – who are shouting slogans like “Беларусь – в Европу” – will be a lot less easy to manage if they would become a demographic for which the powers answer, than Lukashenko and his present government.
https://vimeo.com/447932628
The sensible option (from a Kremlin perspective) will be to support Lukashenko. But to support him not too much visibly, especially considering how unpopular to support him too openly would be with many people in Russia.
My country and most others are pretty damn authoritarian moving toward totalitarian under the pretext of the phony “pandemic”* right now. Don’t care whether you want to call it fascist or something else, it is a freeking police state.
https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/
In any event, the commenter makes a suggestion that is not plainly unreasonable. Hopefully the Russia-Belarus union state comes to full fruition soon and peacefully, with both branches of this same people expelling or eliminating foreign provocateurs.
A NATO member providing military support to Belarus at the government’s invitation is not an act of war. It has already happened. British forces have provided training to the Belarus army.
What if Russia sends troops to Belarus after Lukashenko sends an invitation, the opposition decides to make a stand and fight, you get street battles pitting the opposition against the Russian army in Belorussian cities like in Hungary in 1956, the opposition declares the Russian incursion as an invasion, and then also invites in NATO troops to defend Belarus from the Russians?
They won’t last and NATO will not come.
No NATO country would invade Belarus. They would get invited before the shooting started.
In practice, in Ukraine, although the US voted substantial funds to arm the Ukrainian army, approximately none of that money was actually given to Ukraine. In time, Russia assassinated the Novorussian leaders and Novorossiya is slowly sliding back to Ukraine. Once Putin is gone, the new elite will have to dig itself out of its economic mess. Concessions will be made. The EU sells stuff Russia can’t make anyway. The Chinese are why Russia needs import substitution.
This man has been taking mind altering substances. An early success at mushroom picking? I know a forest near Nizhny Novgorod. Was he there? I was in Tarusa recently. That’s another good place.
More military equipment, missiles, and anti-missile systems, perhaps. But a sustained big buildup of troops would be a neat trick given that Poles (like nonMuslim Russians) are an aging people with a suicidally low total fertility rate. (1.35 in 2017). That is a death-spiral number.
Poland’s population been very slowly declining for the past 20 years, and the decline will soon accelerate badly, given the declining number of women in their safe childbearing years.
Ukraine, Plummeting population supposedly 43 million but likely well under 40 million. In any event, it’s losing more than 200,000 people net every year, median age approaching 42
Slovakia: stagnant population under 5.5 million, heading for a BIG drop given a median age approaching 42 and TFR 1.41
Czech Republic: barely growing population 9.7 million, heading for a HUGE decline given median age 43.3 and TFR 1.45
All three Baltic countries, already tiny, are dying out rapidly.
Estonia: Median age 43.7.
Lithuania: Median age 44.5.
Latvia: median age 44.5.
Throw in Austria with median age 45 and TFR 1.47.
Where are the youngish men for a big troop buildup?
The only way Russia’s Slavic or Germanic neighbors and near-neighbors could sustain a troop buildup would be to import proportionally large numbers of young non-Europeans as mercenaries or settlers, or by creating a robot force.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/343rank.html
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/poland-population
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
Both countries have a mutual defence treaty – that means an invasion of Belarus would mean war with Russia.
Plus both countries have an EU like open border allowing trade/employment/residence by citizens of both countries, so Russia would be quick to enter Belarus to protect its own citizens.
US/NATO have lots of options here.
1st thing they should do is draw the Russians in.
How?
Flood Poland, the Baltics, and the Ukraine with Patriot missile batteries and armored infantry divisions. This surrounds Belarus except for its rear flank bordering Russia.
Under this military pressure, either Lukashenko will be removed and replaced with a new pro-US regime, or the Russians will invade to prevent this and rule directly or install one of their puppets.
In response to a Russian invasion, the US/NATO should deploy naval blockades of Russia’s key maritime chokepoints: the Barents, Baltic, and Marmara seas, along with Vladivostok in the east.
There’s no need to use tactical nukes. If necessary, a naval bombardment of Vladivostok would render it useless as a port for Russia’s Pacific fleet.
There are Russian troops on the Polish border right now, not to mention the Baltic Fleet. Look at a map and find Kaliningrad.
If anything Russia annexing Belarus provides Polish nationalists a pretext to demand Brest be put under Polish “protection.”
You seem to think that anything weaker than Russia is “not worth considering.” You need to understand that military forces do have additive properties, even if coordination or logistical issues will subtract a lot from the result. European NATO has a stronger air force than Russia (at least on paper), for example. A war wouldn’t be a cakewalk for Russia.
It has happened many times, like in Korea or Vietnam. There could also be a mistaken belief in the American leadership that they are invincible and that the appearance of their troops would automatically deter the Russians. A similar theory was used in 1939, that the British security guarantee would automatically deter the Germans.
NATO countries have committed acts of aggression (including non provoked full scale invasion) against third parties, yet they didn’t think this has created a right for Russia to “respond” militarily. But however clever the NATO arguments will be, at the end of the day Russia will still do whatever it takes to prevent Belarus from falling into a western orbit.
No matter how clever the argument, Russia will do whatever it takes to prevent Belarus from entering a western orbit. If it takes nuclear war, then nuclear war.
Any NATO leader not recognizing this reality (and thinking that a small number of British troops participating in some training exercises in Belarus is the same as a lather number of troops entering the country to prop up a newly installed government) is just fooling himself and leading his country and the world to catastrophe.
“No matter how clever the argument, Russia will do whatever it takes to prevent Belarus from entering a western orbit.” – First of all there is a third option which is somewhat meta stable but workable of having Belarus as a neutral nonaligned country between Russia and Europe. Though obviously this solution would be disadvantageous to Russia as cultural influence of the West having greater seductive power than Russian influence in long run would turn Belarusians to be pro West. Then while it is true that armchair nationalists like Karlin can’t imagine Belarus not belonging to Russia, I do not think that this is the case for people in higher echelons of power in Russia who are very familiar with calculus of the realpolitik. So I doubt that they think in terms of “whatever it takes”. The armchair nationalists are basically losers who project their impotence on the might of Russia’s army and nuclear forces but people in higher echelons of power have real power and real wealth which they want to keep and exercise meaning they want to have access to the West. The armchair nationalists that flocked to this site on the occasions of Belarus events all they have is a laptop and a nationalistic t-shirt and possible a dog that responds to commands in Russian.
That’s pretty hilarious. I remember how after NATO expanded into the Eastern European countries and moved military forces to the Russian border, the US State Department complained about the “provocation” of Russia conducting military exercises within striking distance of NATO forces.
Most of people who protest and rally in the streets, are some tens of thousands of young people, and nationalists, with excess time, excitement and energy .
Most of all young people in Belarus (over 60% of people in their 20ies, according to polls), want to join the EU. So there are some real things with this particular demographic (the younger generations) which Lukashenko has limited possibilities to satisfy even if he wants to (e.g. nothing about his government structure could allow it to ever be candidate for EU membership) .
Of course, (from a Russian government perspective) it is preferable Lukashenko and his government continue in power.
This isn’t the same as saying to send soldiers from Russia, which would be providing oil or dynamite to the protesters’ fire. Anger of protesters is already now being fueled with fake news about foreign intervention – e.g. the fake story about Serbian mercenaries.
Protesters’ rhetoric typically fuelled by anger against the security services.*
In this delicate and fragile kind of situation – probably Lukashenko can calm the situation effectively, if he was able to provide economically popular policies and measures. To increase salaries, pensions, etc. The best option for him is to “make it rain” financially.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CD6laI1H1_b/
In terms of numbers in street protest in Belarus – it has still been not that large protests relative to the population, and there is a lot of noise from small nationalist groups. I mean from the aerial view compare Grodno (great majority of the city population is not interested in protesting), with Catalonia (where there were really larger independence protests, of a large proportion of the total population).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S8b1pTxBmo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St2iDMy4vm8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=aNLtf9F5VTI
Today Luka’s supporters will hold a rally in Minsk 2 hours before the opposition.
The opposition is afraid: tut.by is already declaring (implying) that Luka is blackmailing state employees, and that supporters will also be bused from other cities, i.e. they fear the crowd size so they are trying to delegitimize it ahead of the event.
My anecdotal evidence is this: Luka has around 35-40% support in the country (generally weak to moderate, tends toward noncommitment, but it’s there), obviously it’s considerably smaller in the capital (like Orban in Budapest, PiS in Warsaw, even Euromaidan was made up of pro-EU proto-liberal imbeciles, contrary to Russian media portrayal, the nationalists were, and are, just disposable cannon fodder used for their aggressive potential). Official Belarusian state TV reports on YouTube – a mouthpiece of the government – have around 25~30% likes (to 70~75% dislikes), and based on those numbers, plus on the fact that the internet skews younger, urban, and the opposition is always more vocal when they are not in power, 35-40% support for Luka is a reasonable guesstimate.
On May 9, tens of thousands attended the Victory Day parade. Dozens attended the “anti-parade” of the exilee’s husband blogger. Just the fact that he held it, despite Belarus having suffered more than any other nation per capita, including more than Russians, if memory doesn’t fail, Belarus lost like a quarter of its population to the Nazis, it just shows that the alleged election “winner”, or at least her husband, despises the metapolitics of WW2 remembrance (which Belarus shares with Russia), just like Ukrainian svidomites. A huge red flag. Imagine if Jews were to abandon holocaustianity and seek to bury or outright prohibit its remembrance. Again, a huge red flag from the supposed winner’s husband. The Russian language itself and the Union State are obvious next targets.
I know for some years that the oppositionist website tut.by is hugely popular and anti-Lukashenko, but from the little I have read, it doesn’t appear to be Russophobic, but I can’t confirm because I have seen its front page, google translated, only a few times. Can anyone confirm what its bias is like toward Russia?
Colonel Cassad, himself no fan of Luka’s multi-vector approach, thinks Russia will probably get a base in Belarus if Lukashenko pulls through. Luka’s own son, Viktor, seems to prefer Russia to the West.
Considering that your comments in this thread are considerably more lucid, but no less irrational, than JT’s, should we just assume that you have a preference for amphetamines over hallucinogens?
Says the guy who was advocating for Russia to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons from the safety of his armchair. At least people who live in Russia have some actual skin in the game. Furthermore, events since (well, actually before) 2014 show that Russia is willing to sacrifice its Western ties in the name of geopolitical ambition.
While it is true that there are “people in higher echelons of power in Russia who are very familiar with calculus of the realpolitik”, the good news is that Putin is an armchair nationalist himself.
https://www.oldskull.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Putin-portrait-photography.jpg
Possibly. My estimate is that it’s 30%, but whatever, 40% is not impossible.
Luka’s eldest son is indeed pro-Russian (rumors it was him who insisted on transferring the Wagnerites back to Russia). But his youngest son Kolya supports the opposition, as Luka himself lamented (I doubt he would make it up). Reflecting the wider societal generational divide. The main interesting question is the extent to which Kolya’s oppositionism is zmagar-tilted (if at all).
Nuclear war favors the US/NATO.
NATO formally rejects the “no first use” policy and reserves preemptive nuclear strikes as an option.
Russia’s population is concentrated in the Volga drainage basin. The Volga basin contains Russia’s main population centers, cities, reservoirs, irrigation, and dams.
Nuclear strikes on the Volga basin would be devastating.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Volgarivermap.png
You yourself provide the counter-argument against it: such a constellation would inevitably lead to Belarus entering the western orbit. Let’s not forget that Belarus under Lukashenko was already moving away from the Russian sphere. But I don’t think this will dominate Russian strategic thinking on the issue. It merely removes the argument that letting Belarus drift further away from Russia should provide some kind of acceptable modus vivendi for Russia, because quite obviously it won’t.
But you don’t even mention the most important consideration for the Russian leadership, which is to stay in power (and preferably popular) in Russia itself. The takeaway lesson from Ukraine is the Russian public is very sensitive to (real or perceived) humiliation, while it very much values the expansion of Russian borders and (real or perceived) humiliation of NATO and the USA at the hands of Russia.
For that reason, the Russian leadership will do whatever it takes to prevent Belarus drifting into the western orbit. For them, the (real or perceived) alternative will be losing power within Russia, which will not be accepted. At the same time, annexing Belarus or at least making it a puppet regime will certainly be perceived as a way to shoot Putin’s approval ratings back to record high levels.
The risks will probably be discounted even more than certain commenters discount the risks of a NATO intervention, since it’d be a deep NATO incursion deep into the Russian sphere of interest.
So at the end of the day, your arguments are pretty clever, but it doesn’t matter how clever the argument, it will still likely lead to a military confrontation.
Well it favors China as the laughing third guy in this fight.
Well, not quite.
Russia is willing to sacrifice its Western ties in the name of its independence and sovereignity.
This would be a true statement.
Russia will either be sovereign or it will cease to exist.
This is my observation watching these Telegram videos.
Today in Minsk the crowd paying tribute to a dead protester was rather lame, in the low thousands. I really thought they were going all in, they didn’t.
Talks about lustration or “not forgetting what the security forces did”, which is pervasive among the ideological crowd (the instagram girl you posted is an example), is in a sense good for Russia in that the Belarusian siloviki are aware that they have no friends other than Russia and they are damned big time if the other side wins. Again, the security apparatus won’t rebel against a Russian base or further unification, and this matters, as in the end might is right. The same girl, in North Vietnam, 5 months ago: https://www.instagram.com/p/B-KZkg6H6rW/
The white-red-white flag is not the country’s flag, only svidomites (the Belarusian equivalent) display it, so she’s not new to the ‘scene’, but is an ideological person for likely a long time. Biased and not representative of the population.
I hate to sound like a 1960s liberal, but does nuclear war ‘favour’ anyone?
Of note: in the first two days of protest, on Aug 9 and 10, the security forces acted with rigor, there were many blameless victims for sure, I watched the random attacks, but that did help in cutting down to size the violence thereafter. During those two days, I saw several videos of attacks on law enforcement, and this is – guess what – never mentioned among the opposition (they were mentioned for sure, when they cheered on the attacks, then conveniently forgotten).
After detaining thousands, indeed the number is very expressive given the country’s population size, the third day of protest was peaceful. From Aug 11 on, they started releasing those who were detained but I think (if they are smart) they kept the troublemakers, and those can’t be released because they will spearhead any violent seizure of government building. My fear is they will release the ringleaders and violent thugs. Do the authorities know who’s who among the detainees? That’s an important question.
A reminder that Official Polish BS position is that Russia put a bomb ( WTF, in Poland?) on the plane carrying the President and 90 other Poles in 2010. Military response of Poland to this attack on the state?….
Not sending VVP a bottle of wine for his birthday.
“I saw several videos of attacks on law enforcement” – Very likely they were the members of the law enforcement to motivate the response of the law enforcement to mass arrests and beatings. Now the provocateurs seems to be called off and the demonstration are peaceful, people are hugging policemen and giving them flowers.
Luka effectively said that the protestors were those with criminal records or unemployed! To me it looks about 30% of protestors are thugs, 45% hamster scum and 25% normal people genuinely concerned about his length of time/whole election process/direction of country…. with these normal people so good-natured they will believe any BS from opposition and western journalist imbeciles about ” brutal” “sadistic” “torture” from law enforcement against “peaceful” and “fun” protestors…. just as Berkut in Kiev were disgracefully smeared.
Young men in law enforcement are going to react with adrenaline to provocateur and thugs who are also acting on adreneline and en masse. They should not be unilaterally condemned for it – nor the (perfectly understandable) actions be blamed on the state itself when it’s individuals reacting to stressful situation with serious chance of harm (like driving vehicles at police)
I think he hit the correct tone on the factory strikes- saying practical effect on economy from them without outright condemnation
Lukashenko’s supporters are gathering in Minsk:
https://strana.ua/img/forall/u/0/92/%D1%80%D1%8B%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C(2).png
I read a shitload of buses are coming from the regions. He’ll put up a good show for sure.
How close are residential buildings? Lukashenko will probably speak to supporters.
I’m not being paranoid. JFK, Maidan, snipers – you know the score.
Iran still has no nukes, not even a nuclear program and the smoking laptop was sourced from Israel.
US MSM infotainement: Winning.
What makes you think that this explanation is “very likely?”
It would perhaps not be a very bad outcome for Russia. To Russia Lukashenko is probably worth more as a martyr than as a problematic and unreliable politician.
A healthy crowd, much better than the American-style extras, holding signs with random slogans apparently directly out of The Last Degeneration: Director’s Cut.
Lukashenko’s cryptic zmagarism to his supporters in the rally today (machine translation):
Given his phone talk with Putin during the protests regarding “Russian support”, he’s saying that new elections may lead to civil conflict, Russia will be invited, and Belarus will cease to exist.
This is exactly how I see it. He still wants Belarus to be independent, but if shove comes to push…
Of course Belarus won’t cease to exist if it unites with Russia, in the literal sense of the Russian understanding of nation. Belarusians the nation (i.e. the East Slavic inhabitants) will continue to exist, basically nothing will change in regard to the narod, but living standard will improve a little, and they will be more secure than ever, as Putin & Co are not hostile to their race/nationality, unlike the increasingly Bolshevik West. You can expect all kinds of hostile NGOs to pop up if the country falls to the opposition, especially if Russia does not intervene and create a statelet. If the oppo wins and the country is not mired in conflict, like Ukraine, the process of homoglobalization will be faster.
In other words, Belarusians have the most to gain. It would strengthen Russia. Ukraine would be almost encircled by Russia, weakening its position (to be annexed into Rus’ in the future). Russia has to start making overtones to white Americans and from there it’s only a matter of time before the country becomes the new America, just better. This can be a Russian (and Chinese) century, there’s so many opportunities not being taken advantage of.
It would take Russia 2-3 days to conquer all of Belarus. NATO won’t even be able to respond in time
Belarus is just across Moscow, the Russians can easily concentrate armored brigades and air squadrons nearby and overrun the country within days. NATO won’t even have to respond. It will be like the German invasion of Denmark, over in a day.
Anyone who thinks that Jewish elites in New York would risk getting nuked for the sake of Belarus or Ukraine needs to get their head checked
Who is he? Lukashenko doesn’t care for Belarus. The only thing he cares about is Lukashenko. So he wants to preserve his own power. This means an independent Belarus, since anything else implies a reduction or cessation of his power.
As for Putin, he probably accepts an independent, but Russia-aligned Belarus for the time being, but if it’s impossible, he will simply move in and annex it.
I don’t think they would, but there’s also the kind of hubris and misrepresentation of the situation (and underestimation of the risks) which can be seen in many of the comments above. Also the decisions might be made too quickly, without said elites had the chance to even realize the danger (let alone provide input).
My experience with rich people so far is that they show little signs of understanding geopolitics better than your average educated normie. As a result, they might think the same thing Hillary seemed to think in 2016, that establishing a no-fly zone above Russian controlled skies was just a matter of political will.
The opposition rally in Minsk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zafcQ1A1Zn4
Watch full screen. Larger than Lukashenko’s, as expected, but for all the hype the opposition put on it, they promoted it saying, basically, that it’s today or never, doesn’t look like the final straw that breaks the camel’s back to me.
10-15 thousand people at most, the spacing outside of the corners at the intersection makes it look larger than it really is, and of the four places, most concentration is on the lower-left side.
The footage I have searched of Minsk bring this place called “Stela”, most of the protest is focused here I think.
Sorry, but this sounds like the type of hopium filled post that would be more at home over at the Saker’s blog. It may be incomprehensible to many of us here, but it’s a mistake to underestimate the allure of the globohomo cargo cult to Eastern Europeans, especially the younger ones (those willing to beat and, be beaten by, OMON) and we do so at our peril.
In reality, Russia has few good choices in the short term. If it backs Luka, even nominally and without force, it risks alienating large swaths of Belorussian society for a generation. Using force would only compound the problem. The Western partners are already trying to conflate Russia with support for the regime, it would do well to avoid falling into this trap. Belarus is not Ukraine, there are no ethnic fissures to exploit.
Though I think Putin will likely move in if he thinks the new government is likely to be anti-Russian.
I agree that backing Lukashenko can be a losing strategy. If all hope is pinned on him, then it’s bad. But I don’t think Russia is unprepared this time. Annexation on the invitation of Lukashenko is a possibility, but there are alternatives involving the opposition.
If Russia could talk to and convince the blogger’s wife to share a government of national accord/unity, kinda like Israel is doing, then Russia could go further later, and offer her to preside (whatever nominal position, Russia will always be the real ruler) over an unified state called Rus’, there would be no will to resist it among the population.
“Hi there gal, wanna be queen of this huge and strong country?” point finger at the map
Actually, she’s the kind of person that would take the offer, it’s her hubby who’s a shithead. I seriously think Russia should talk to her, and of course Luka and his entourage must continue in the government, as a guarantee against possible adversarial moves.
I think this argument is mostly semantic, I would retort that sovereignty to Russia means being a great power with a global presence. Certainly there are historical, cultural and geographical factors which lend legitimacy to such an understanding. Whether this is good or bad, right or wrong, is in the eye of the beholder.
Exactly what I’ve been trying to say for a while on here now and constantly people keep denying that GloboHomo “can’t happen here.” I’ve heard many different theories on how the East cannot become like the West, ranging from women’s physical features to Slavic people being more intelligent and cynical, apparently.
Yet for all purposes, what we are seeing in Belarus is nothing short of a colour revolution and we know how this is going to play out. I was reading a Lithuanian commentator say how the EU immediately needs to back the opposition, stuff billions of Euros into the country and essentially allow freedom of movement for Belarusians.
I get it, people want a better quality of Life, we are all Human. But replacing Lukashenko with the opposition will just kill Belarus off in a very short space of time. Millions of young people will flock to the West, the nation will become impoverished with the state run industries being heavily privatised and the country will look like another East German ghost town within two decades.
There is no long term planning behind this, just “Democracy, Freedom, Money.” In the end, nothing good can come from this.
Many countries that do not have nuclear weapons today, are capable of aquiring such in a short period of time, for example Japan. If Poland is not one of these countries allready, it could aquire such capabillities. The justification could be entirely civilian and legal, with little to no opposition in Western countries. Then Poland could quickly aquire nuclear weapons for public opinion, national posturing or as a hedge against, what Poland might consider lackluster allies.
Oh how naive you are. My svidomy friend in US has this titushka mentality. He blames all antifa attacks in US on Trump agents. I am sure government uses provacatuers but it is just as likely for opposition to use muscle against pro government plankton and cops.
Germany’s militart spending would also probably jump significantly. While at the same time pulling out of Nordstream 2. After such a event Nato would probably demand more cohesivness and a stronger posture.
Blackpilling is wrong here. Minsk has a population of almost 2 million. The place they chose for the protest, to make a big picture, has perhaps 25,000 people.
You don’t have to believe me, search for Минск on YouTube, and choose the Last Hour in the search options, to get recent footage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqdo56ANERo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkL2JSsumY
Guesstimates and new videos are welcome.
Always search for aerial view, because you can properly examine the spacing between participants. Are people packed like sardines? Are they distant from one another? You can see that they are rather comfortably distant, except in the places closer to the highway.
This was touted as the last hurrah, and it’s clearly not. 25,000 is about 1.25% of the city population, let be liberal with the numbers and say it’s 2%, so almost 40,000 people. The overwhelming majority are sitting it out. This is NOT a victory for Lukashenko. I don’t claim it to be. But for reasons, people are afraid or, most likely, have second thoughts about the opposition
Maybe something like (albeit some clear differences) Puerto Rico’s relationship with the US.
It does not work like that. If Russia takes over Belarus the population will be integrated into Russian info sphere like Donbass.
It was mentioned somewhere that Slavs are also susceptible to globohomo with that I agree. Unfortunately there is no short term solutions to this other than outbreed and outcompete the fags.
Hungary was also on a similar list. But these countries are so integrated into the western world, that they cannot much keep such things a secret. There was a way they could stop the nuclear programs of South Korea and Taiwan, and they had a very advanced nuclear industry, South Korea being able to build its own nuclear reactors, for example. They also have very reasonable fear of a conventional attack as well as a nuclear strike against them, and America would have a hard time protecting them from either. Yet their nuclear programs were shut down. And you think Poland would be allowed to build nukes? I very much doubt it.
Anyway, I like Poles and I wouldn’t be fundamentally opposed to a nuclear armed Poland, it’s just that I don’t think it’s going to be allowed.
But if the alternative is a pro-West Belarus, it’s still going to be the better choice for Russia.
On a nitpicking note, most of them don’t (get). Of the three baltustans, only Lithuania has direct presidential elections.
This is also the demonstrations of “support” have been pretty negligible in Riga – it’s hard to whip up outrage about something people have no first-hand experience of.
(Riga, Wednesday afternoon, across the street from Belorussian embassy)
https://cdn.diena.lv/media/2020/08/3/large/ed7158a8cff1.jpg
https://cdn.diena.lv/media/2020/08/1/large/deaea36cd29b.jpg
Yes. A blockade comes between sanctions and war. The US and Canada get to dump grain into the Middle East too. In fact, just dump the grain. No need for warships.
Well, in favour of Lukashenko, the anti Brexit movement managed 2 million marchers (at the upper bound) in London while the Brexiters struggled for 200k but more (just) people voted Brexit.
In your fantasy world, maybe. Please don’t destroy the respect I have always had for you despite the obvious political differences.
A blockade is an act of war in and of itself. Not to mention the probably messy implementation: what are you going to do to blockade running Russian or, say, Chinese, ships which refuse to stop and need to be rammed or sunk? Will you actually open fire at these ships? What about tankers and the resulting oil spills and fires?
That’s some strange and deranged fantasy of waging war without actually waging war.
Minsk, aerial view, guesstimate 25-35k, note the generous space between rally goers in most areas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqdo56ANERo
Brest:
https://rusvesna.su/sites/default/files/miting_brest.jpg
I think that biggest problem for the Poles is who is going to supply the missiles? Didn’t Trump say that Japan and Korea can be allowed to have nukes early in his term?
This seems to be difference between K and R type of population. Rs are more prone to shows of numbers because they frankly have nothing else going on. Also young people same thing nothing going on, failure to launch.
What are you smoking. There are more examples of Tiananmen in the world then the other way around. Don’t mistake last 10 years of fake and gay color revolutions for how the world really works. There is a reason why you did not see one in Russia for example. There they would be put down with fire arms if they manage to get the physical muscle on the streets. Because at the end of the day people that rule decide on political changes. All color revolutions of the last ten years succeeded due to elites splintering. Also examples of China style Tiananmen has happened just last year and this year in Lebanon/Iran/Iraq.
Lol thanks, this is a great picture.
Half the signs are in English, the lady in high heels with ‘Belorussian Lives Matter’ is probably the US Embassy employee who called the TV crew (guy on the left) because while high heels look great on camera, their staying power at protest is an hour tops.
Meanwhile, sneaky babushka saboteur in the center (grey sweater) is holding a hand made sign in Russian that says “Батька – наш президент”. (Lukashenko – our President”).
I thought there was a ‘не’ in there somewhere, but if you look at how squished ‘President’ is, i don’t think there’s room for a negative.
This is awesome. Lesson to neoliberal maidanuts anywhere – always be be afraid of sneaky Russian babushka saboteurs. Well done grandma.
And some people here may think that countries such as Belarus, Hungary, or Poland may naturally belong in Russia’s sphere of influence, just like Viet Nam, Thailand, Cambodia, Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines should belong naturally in China’s sphere of influence, but I am sure the people in those buffer states would have a different opinion.
It seems that the opposition threw all its cannon fodder into the streets. It seems that it is not enough to achieve the coup.
If young people in Belarus chanting they want to join the EU, they are unrealistic fantasists to the extent that even with change of government, a Belarus membership in EU would at best be accepted by EU only many years in the future.
But the object of desire itself is quite a rational, “non-cargo cult” one to pursue: standards of living and career opportunities are a lot higher in Western Europe, and EU membership allows almost effortless opportunity to live in any country you want, and to access freely local health/educational infrastructure of that country.
So it is easy mock about the young protesters in UK who want to not lose EU membership, as English youth live in one of the world’s wealthiest countries, where there are sometimes more high salary job positions in skilled professions, than qualified people applying for those jobs. Those are English youth who simply don’t want an inconvenience of a visa application when they are on vacation, or were frustrated by the expensive native educational system and want to continue going to university for free in Sweden.
On the other hand, something like EU membership to young people in Belarus? Then aspect to mock is unrealistic belief that EU would accept their country while they are still young, rather than the motive – because for many young people such a EU membership would of course increase potential career opportunities, and this is even for skilled professionals who already can qualify for things like “critical skills employment permit” in countries like Ireland.
And young graduates in countries like Belarus probably don’t even imagine some of the easy employment situations that can be viewed in Western European countries like Ireland, and the low level of competition for a lot of jobs that exists, which despite excellent conditions and packages for those jobs.
Protesters are a small proportion of the total population of the city, as you can see also that mostly they are young adults. The majority of protesters’ faces look like in ages 20-30.
One reason it should be easier to manage this kind of situation in Belarus, other things equal, because the aging population profile of the country. Although this wasn’t sufficient to save Ukraine, which also has this population profile.
Only around 11,5% of the population of Belarus are in the age category of 20-29. Young people (who are more likely to support the opposition) go into the street, while the old people (who more likely to support Lukashenko) are watching on television or in their jobs.
https://i.imgur.com/QNPBkhM.jpg
Compare in somewhere like Egypt, in 2011. In Egypt, there were 19% of the population in the age category of 20-29. Mubarak was playing with a higher difficulty level setting for demographics, other things equal.
https://i.imgur.com/R9qkUBf.jpg
Similar in Syria.
https://i.imgur.com/fE3pln9.jpg
Although perhaps you can infer that adults in those countries should have less free time for revolutionary activity other things equal, as they have on average more often larger families to feed.
When it comes to the EU and UK youth, it is actually surprising but many of them did not benefit from EU membership. Very few studied abroad in EU countries as the programmes to do so were never really encouraged in the British education system. I would even go as far as to say that 98 percent of young students actually went to British universities rather than EU ones…
I know this because I tried to enquire back in the day of going to an EU university so I could study for free. The options were simply just not available and all of the directions kept pointing me towards UK education. Makes sense though the UK authorities would do this as they want to keep as many debt slaves as possible…
Now in regards to the youth and working abroad in EU countries, once again this is a sham. I could count on my hand the amount of young people that actually did this. Once again, that 98 percent figure I quoted earlier stayed in the UK, working in local jobs rather then going abroad.
The only thing the youth of Britain actually profited from as a majority was cheap sunny holidays to Spain and Portugal. Oh and buying larger amounts of cheaper tobacco and booze to bring back home (which I successfully did when in the Czech Republic – was great!).
In my own perception, the Brexit situation came in several waves
1) Older people with nostalgia for the glory days who voted to leave.
2) Skilled labour who were economically pressured by EU migration
3) Alt Righters who wanted to see Europe burn
4) Apathetic majority youth who didn’t really understand the EU and did not bother to turn up to the polls
5) A strong youth minority who were absolutely supportive of EU membership
6) Middle income people who didn’t want to push the boat and voted to stay in
7) Welfare class who wanted to just punish the government and voted to leave
So many factors in what actually happened.
I think it doesn’t help understanding to conflate many different types of claims.
Based on geopolitical realities, Russia cannot lay claim to NATO member states, since trying to enforce those claims would mean a world war. On the other hand, Belarus has been in the Russian sphere of interest for decades (or centuries), so a NATO incursion there would mean a world war, whereas a Russian annexation would be just something the Russians do in their own sphere. (They’d have to be mindful what their other allies like Kazakhstan would think about that.)
Then there’s the cultural and genetic argument. The Belarusians are certainly pretty close to the Russians, while the Poles or the Hungarians… not really.
I think by conflating possible Russian claims to Belarus and Hungary you are manipulating the issue. But let me mention that by overstretching NATO we might actually destroy it, and then we might need to worry about a Russian sphere of influence in Poland.
Ironically, Brexit will mainly be a benefit for young workers in England.
After Brexit, the youth of Poland will not anymore flood into England, and work in the supermarket or cafe. This clearly means less competition for these jobs for the native youth, and potentially higher salaries.
There was also a vast Spanish/Italian youth working in England, especially in cafes, restaurants, hotels – as a result of the lack of jobs in Spain/Italy. On the other hand, especially Spanish/Italian youth were a large part of the consumption in cafes.
I can remember still in 2017-2018 to sit in the cafe in England, perhaps with the laptop for several hours in the early afternoon – it was completely clear that the majority consumers were speaking Spanish. EU membership was adding a such a vast Latino youth gastarbaiter population into the English city, which is almost all appears now to have disappeared (partly because of economic recovery in Spain).
There are still a lot of Spanish/Italian skilled professionals, but this is some kind of small minority of the previous gastarbaiter wave.
Putin should not support that rat, without heavy concessions.
“On paper” is the key. Toys don’t win wars, people do. NATO troops with all their super-duper ridiculously expensive toys are afraid to venture outside of their bases in Afghanistan, whereas Taliban, which is at least a hundred times weaker on paper, controls most of the country. You’d say part of it is because the Empire wants to maintain credible deniability of its role in opium trade. Yes, opium production dropped to virtually zero under Taliban, and flourished under US-installed “democracy”. But that’s only part of the equation, and not the dominant one. The dominant part is fighting spirit.
Judging by the war in Syria, particularly several episodes where Russian officers were left to decide for themselves, Russia still has men who can win wars. The same Syrian experience also showed that the Empire and its sidekicks don’t. In fact, when American brass discusses military matters, they despise their NATO “allies”, but respect and fear Russians.
You guys need to realize that Old Europe as a fighting force is spent. Even Germans showed that they are incapable of defending their womenfolk from rapefugees. And don’t tell me tales about woke laws and woke police. Men with any dignity would beat the hell out of rapefugees first, and only then think about consequences. The joke that Putin is the last German man is not far from the truth.
So, if you want to be protected, you must only rely on yourselves. What’s more, Slovaks are too sensible to fight Russia: remember what happened to Slovak corps that Hitler sent to the Eastern front? Czechs surrender to anyone before the war even starts. In 1938 there was exactly one (!) small Czech army unit that resisted Nazi invasion. They are heroes against unarmed civilians, like Sudeten Germans in 1945 or Gypsies today, but that’s the limit of their fighting spirit. So, only Poles and Hungarians remain. You be the judge of their qualities. I’d say that the only thing that goes for you is that no one except the Empire wants to occupy your countries. And even the Empire wants to have its military bases, but not the rest of the country.
That’s a misconception. In Korea the Empire wanted to show the USSR and China that expanding by force is not an option they have. Korean war ended in a draw. In the process the US troops murdered a lot more Korean civilians than the other side.
Vietnam war was not about the aborigines, either. It was about oil in the seas. The US murdered, maimed, and poisoned by chemicals more Vietnamese civilians than anyone in pretty violent history of that country. Not to mention that Vietnam war ended with rooftop evacuation. Importantly, the Empire evacuated mostly its own, leaving aboriginal bootlickers to their fate.
Delusions and silly hopes that someone will protect you are dangerous. You are in it by yourselves, and should act accordingly.
Except, not really:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/immigration-uk-non-eu-countries-091000220.html
Brexit has been and would always have been a failure as long as the national government’s policies are determined by pathetic lapdogs and traitors.
That’s classics: you aggressively moved your country too close to our bases. The same “argument” is used in case of Iran.
Nuclear war is the end of this civilization. It will kill you and your family. It does not favour any block except perhaps some regions on the southern hemisphere. Maybe New Zealand will be the next hegemon, a few decades after, preaching self-righteous slogans to bring over Argentina and Chile to support the invation of Vanuatu?
I have to admit, I am reading the Polish comments and coverage with glee – the absolute madmen still dream about Internarium, Commonwealth, eastern “Poland” etc. – this turn of events has them deeply concerned and resorting to all sorts of unhinged theories for the purpose of coping with the possibility of Russia strengthening and taking back Rus’ parts.
Re-settled Pale of Settlement usual suspects are doing their usual antics worldwide, as expected.
Shout out to our favourite Welsh sheepshagger, as well.
But the best spectacle has been the resurfacing of deranged Belarusians=Litvins=Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Zmagars all over the Internet.
Orban, as an intelligent and shrewd individual, has demonstrated the ability to be on the winning, rising side/team.
Natural Hungary is still an option, if the right sponsors and allies are found, mirroring those the Romanians had, for example.
China’s nuclear arsenal is dwarfed by the US and NATO’s nuclear arsenals.
China depends on Russia for energy.
Russia is China’s only significant ally.
The US/NATO would win a nuclear conflict with Russia. The Putinist regime would be destroyed and replaced either with direct NATO administration or a pro-Western Russian regime.
Russian territory would be incorporated into the NATO security architecture.
China would lose a critical ally and energy source. It would be completely surrounded and isolated, with only North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran as allies, countries which are more detriments than assets as allies.
I did not know that inmates of lunatic asylums have Internet access. Thanks for opening my eyes!
Even if US/NATO managed to win warhead exchange somehow, installing NATO administration would require land invasion of Russia. “Hey, lets invade Russia, what could possibly go wrong” are the famous last words of many people.
US logistics could barely handle the Iraqi surge in the mid 2000’s when they had to do brigade level rotations. In case you haven’t noticed, Russia is slightly bigger than Anbar province. US Army will disintegrate simply trying to patrol the irradiated wasteland, and that’s before Russians will even fire a shot. Iraq cost well over a $trillion. In Russian case, simple equipment maintenance and brigade rotations will run into the $10’s of trillions. And that’s not counting actual combat.
As for relying on air power, it took US Air Force 3 years to bomb ISIS out of middle east. And that’s ignoring Russian bombings and ground actions. Without competent ground action, US Air Force would probably be still bombing ISIS, and they are just a bunch of crazy jihadists.
Let that sink in. Three years of bombing against some crazy people with no air defense or air force to deliver some questionable results. Against some more or less competent military with air defense, it will be what, 30 years? You can hardly call this a strategically relevant branch.
And all of this assumes that not a single Russian nuke ever reaches the US, which is just silly. I mean, even ISIS was able to strike in the US via various followers, and ISIS never gave Americans space rides.
American ruling clique is infested by a dishonest lying bastards – never to be trusted. They have grip on the whole society and making every president their puppet (Kennedy or Nixon disagreed). Iran learned the very fact hard way.
Big mistakes were made at the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it was presided over by a drunken fool Yeltsin, US puppet. Northern Kazakhstan is inhabited by Russians, East Ukraine is inhabited by Russians, Belarus belongs to Russia like Texas belongs to US. The borders within Soviet Union under communism were not important (could have been changed without any fuss like Crimea to Ukraine in 1954), but as we learn now, were extremely important at the dissolution.
What is stopping Russia from annexing Northern Kazakhstan?
As Hyperborean has pointed out, the victory could be short lived. Unfortunately the Johnson cabinet is filled with committed globalists who still want to keep the global steam train running by inviting millions of non-EU migrants in to fill the void caused by the EU migrants leaving.
Unlike Trump who is a true Populist, Johnson is nothing of the sort. Yet I am starting to see the signs of people in the UK truly getting fed up with the status quo of mass immigration and it’s not just the whites but also the third generation non-white population.
I think that after Brexit, if nothing changes within the foreseeable future, the UK is going to continue down the path of more Populism until whoever takes the reigns of power truly takes a hard national economic stance which benefits the local population.
I meant that Poland could create the base and capabillity for building nuclear weapons, not build nuclear weapons. Poland would then be able to build nuclear weapons if they feel that no one will stand by them.
Perhaps the justification could be that nuclear energy is more environmently friendly than coal and gas.
Now Kazakhstan is sovereign country under the international rules of the UN…annexation is more difficult than within the Soviet regime. However, referendum is possible and would have better chance than Catalans had. Russia in their difficult journey of improving their economy has to phase Anglo-block mean spirited envy and backstabbing (pathological) to hinder their progress. See the Nord Stream project.
This has to be the fakest of fake news:
https://twitter.com/franakviacorka/status/1294908760880816129
Similar scenario in Banderastan where filth like Radio Svoboda and other CIA garbage like Gromadske given huge respect even with, paradoxically, high viewership of Russian TV (including news) at the time.
Have you come up with this brainless nonsense all by yourself or Bolton whispered that in your ears. Do not use “US/NATO” term, just US because NATO is US foreign policy instrument and the loyalty to US of its members in the case of a conflict is on very shaky grounds.
Before the numerous Siberian silos are detected and eliminated the US cities would burn to ashes. There would be nothing to fight for. Do you think that the WWIII nuclear conflict would bypass US soil like the two previous WW? Answer me boy.
Unlike Trump who is a true Populist, Johnson is nothing of the sort
BoJo has just announced plans for a ban on TV advertising of sausage rolls, fish fingers, marmite, mustard, and tomato sauce (ketchup) before 9pm. This is globalist tyranny against the working class! At what point will the British people launch their own Maidan?
Agent provocateurs to steer demonstration into riots and to motivate police to be harsh is a standard operating procedure. I am comfortable with the very likely tag particularly when you look at the very civil and mature behavior of the demonstrators once the trouble makers were take out of the equation, i.e., were called off. Who was behind them is a good question. Soccer hooligans who like to fight with police are well known to security apparatus and often used by police or they could have been cadets from police or military academies from other regions or one can speculate that they were some sort of Wagnerites.
South Korea had the base already, but its weapons program was shut down. That’s because even if you have everything it still takes at least a year to build the weapon. Not to mention the issue with delivery systems.
The Poles are perfectly capable of building nukes and delivery systems, unless they are shut down by the Americans and the EU. Which is to say, they will never in the foreseeable future build nukes. I like them and I’d be happy with Polish nukes, but it’s just not going to happen.
Secret police agencies sometimes try these tactics, with mixed success. The agents provocateurs are often too enthusiastic about their role and are thus difficult to distinguish from the real thing, especially if their violence gets successful. There’s the widespread theory of the Bolshevik leadership having contact with the Tsarist secret police. It didn’t work out all that wonderfully for the secret police or the Tsarist regime in general.
Anyway, it’s most likely not what we were seeing. The most violent thugs getting severely beaten up fits the facts better.
” difficult to distinguish from the real thing” – That’s the whole point.
You didn’t get my point.
Which was that using such agents provocateurs is too clever by half. They will behave exactly like thugs would, which is to say they will butcher Lukashenko and his siloviks all the same, and will be just as enthusiastic trying to do so.
Here’s one example. This guy was basically who unleashed the 1905 revolution. The people who used him as an agent provocateur were just too smart by half.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Gapon?wprov=sfti1
I got your point. It does not apply here. We are talking about provocateurs whose job is to delegitimize and criminalize an ongoing protest not to start the protest or revolution. Imagine you have church ladies demonstration against littering on the streets and you infiltrate it with people who will ostentatiously litter.
Kazakhstan is a friendly country, annexation would achieve absolutely nothing except international condemnation and total ruination of Russian relations and influence in the whole of Central Asia.. this site attracts so many WN retards…