Regimes like that change only when forced by violence or credible threats of violence in their territory - actual power, not "soft power", it will change only because of large quantities of people in Belarus/Minsk actually make the change happen (as opposed to just asking for change). Looking around, who might make such a change?
1. Western countries definitely won't do that in Belarus, a boots-on-the-ground invasion like that seems totally implausible and would risk escalation into a military conflict with Russia, it's just not going to happen;
2. The Belarus opposition decided to explicitly avoid trying anything and limit their activities to nonviolent protests - last year there were some moments where perhaps they had a chance to overthrow the regime if they tried, but now the regime has succeeded in repressing the opposition (partly through acts like in this article), they can't rally masses as much anymore, so no chances in the short term;
3. Russia has no need to do that, they seem to be satisfied with the current direction and whatever deals they made;
4. Internally, the regime seems stable. Last year perhaps there were some questions on whether all structures of power would support Lukashenka, but that seems to be over for now - but IMHO this is the only thing that can change the country's direction, if the regime stays unified, Lukashenka will get away with all of this (and, most likely, escalate it) for a decade or more easily, the existing regime is stuck and can't change (since as soon as they loosen the grip, they'll end up like Gaddafi), but if a "court coup" happens, they might change the direction.
So all that's on the table is complaining loudly and sanctions that aren't going to be effective in the short term. I mean, the only way how sanctions can work is if they make the economic situation dire enough so that Belarus people actually do revolt, until that, the regime will make sure that the siloviki get their share of the dwindling funds and it won't change their behavior as that behavior is now required for their self-preservation.
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.
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.
It's not like it's a north versus south thing.
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
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
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.
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.
Lots of keyboard warriors here. It would do good for them to fix their own proper first.
>"Dying in the name of freedom is just too much to ask of a normal person"
They do not mind as long as it is not their own life.
Everything you say is true. However, what about the people who are left behind, who are too old or too poor or too weak to free themselves?
Sometimes you take one for the team in order to help everyone else. Even in the face of fear, the threat to yourself and your family, pragmatism, and common sense, you must take up arms to fight the oppressor and secure your country's future.
It is this sense of duty and honor that raises us above the animals and allows us to bond together and fight a common foe, yet even animals will fight to defend their house, families, and freedom.
> 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.
Again, all you say is true. However, there are more examples.
The nation of Texas was born from violence and revolution.
Santa Anna attempted absolute rule over the citizens in the Mexican states. He first tried to peaceably seize all arms from the Mexican states. After some initial resistance, Santa Anna was successful in subduing the other two Mexican states, but those obstinate Texians would not be quelled easily.
The Texians, as well as two other Mexican states, didn't give them up, but resisted[1].
In Gonzales, Texas, the Mexican army tried to seize a small cannon and the Texians, armed only with the small cannon and muskets, erected a flag that said "Come and Take It". They were successful that day, but, as you point out, then the bloodbath still came, at the Alamo and other bloody battles. As you know, the Texians fought hard against tyranny and were ultimately successful; they won independence from Mexico to form The Republic of Texas.
Nearly one hundred years earlier, the United States was born from a popular armed revolt.
As with Texas, the U.S. only declared independence as a last resort, and after the colonists attempted to negotiate with their oppressors and resolve their differences. The Declaration of Independence was followed by multiple written warnings and documents.
Even most patriotic Americans are not aware of everything that transpired. There, again, the British army attempted to seize the arms of the citizenry before armed revolt broke out. It took literally years before the Americans took up arms, and multiple documents to King George warning that the situation was untenable, even at grave risk to the authors of those documents.
For example, The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms[2] preceded The Declaration of Independence. Everyone knows the first line or two of the Declaration of Independence, but the full Declaration reveals in detail why the King's subjects were revolting and the "repeated injuries and usurpations"[3].
Thomas Jefferson put it most eloquently in the Declaration for Independence in 1776, after years of negotiation with the Crown had failed.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [the pursuit of rights endowed by the Creator, that is: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
-Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence: July 4, 1776
A revolution that is grounded in prudence and common sense looks beyond the awful but short-term war to a future of freedom, for generations to come.
1. https://guncite.com/journals/haltex.html
2. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-issues-...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_I...
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.
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.
I mean, you might be able to convince me that the world should work that way, but it definitely does not work that way right now.
Armenia did not trigger anything. It was not under attack.
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.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I just don't understand why so many trillions of dollars around the world are being spent on military power that just sits by and watches dictatorships kidnap protestors from other countries and execute them.
Having grown up in the early 2000s and seen some offensively transparent excuses to start military invasions, surely this is a far more justifiable reason for conflict. Is everyone just waiting for Lukashenko and Putin to die and hoping that their successors won't be as maniacal?
I can't see how you'd interpret that as anything except an act of war. That doesn't seem like an offensively transparent excuse to me. Certainly in comparison to "My fortune cookie said they might have WMDs" or whatever the line was two decades ago that was apparently good enough for the US.
I'd say "what does it take, a literal invasion?" but that already happened in Crimea.
We make wars to control energy sources, trade routes, etc. The west as happily puts a dictator in place of a democratic government when it's in their interest (or the best interest of the men in power and their supports).
It's very clear how this played out in Libya, for instance, if you read the leaked Hillary Clinton emails. [0]
If you were around during that time, you should know that for most people, the justifications being bandied around were much less "offensively transparent" at the time. Just look at public opinion, headlines, etc. - opposition to intervention was a massive minority opinion. Most people believed about the WMDs, etc.
Now, opinion has shifted quite substantially - so why is it surprising that people are skeptical of intervention?
Personally, as a citizen of the US, I would fight tooth & nail against any deployment of troops over this. In no way am I confident fewer people would die or be harmed with intervention.
It is very straightforward. Very straightforward.
Just like in Cambodia, or Rwanda, or North Korea, or many, many other examples - as a rule, the world does not intervene with violent regime change just because a regime is abusing their people. Like, nobody in power batted an eye when Saddam gassed Kurds in his territory, intervention happened only when he invaded Kuwait. I'm not even sure if I have seen a single exception in 20th-21st century history; it feels like humanitarian aspects have been only used as a pretext or justification if there were other politic/economic reasons that mattered more than that.
Libya 2011 was a civil war/revolution, the "boots on the ground" were locals, western nations weren't willing to risk their own soldiers in an actual intervention and it's highly debatable whether the civilian abuse was ever a reason for the western support (aerial and otherwise), IMHO it was essentially about oil.
Syria is again a good counterexample - Assad's totalitarian suppression of human rights and torture of opposition was notorious and one of the triggers for the uprising in 2011, but noone considered an intervention before 2011 or at that time for these reasons - Assad's regime is a clear demonstration that no, the world is not going to intervene just because your police is e.g. literally pulling fingernails off highschoolers who have been reported as criticizing the regime. The west was ready to intervene only a few years later in 2014, when the civil war had already raged for years and again it seems to have been done for entirely different reasons e.g. Islamic State, geopolitical tug-of-war with Russia and, again, oil - those things matter for likelihood of intervention, unlike just abusing your civilians.
Afghanistan and Vietnam are obviously irrelevant, IMHO noone is seriously asserting that preventing regime atrocities against their own people was the main driver for these wars, other reasons were clearly dominant there.
So in my view all those are just examples that the world is not going to do anything serious just because a dictator is murdering or torturing internal opposition. They may invade for various other reasons, and they may opportunistically support one side or the other once some conflict or revolt is already happening (war doesn't seem as horrible if it's all done by someone else's people fighting and suffering), but as long as the totalitarian state is in control, nobody is going to come and bust the oppressed out of their prisons just to help them.
I don't think the evidence is there to support that Libya was "essentially about oil." There is evidence for that possibly being a major motivation for France, but that was only one of multiple large players in the intervention. Libya was invaded with UN security council authorization pretty explicitly focused on humanitarian concerns.
Your timeline on Syria is wrong. Sure, much more extensive intervention began against ISIL in 2014, but there was support for early rebel forces in Syria starting in 2012.
I am not claiming that such things should be left with no response. In fact, I suspect this might hasten Lukashenko's downfall (quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi), but he is just taking a page from the "western civilization" playbook. My 2c.
I seem to remember there’s a term for what you’re doing in your post…
There is a huge difference between diverting an international flight and terrorising one’s own citizens. The latter is a humanitarian crisis. The former is a threat to me and my family. That’s a material difference.
At the very least, Belarusian air space and air access rights should be curtailed. It would also be reasonable to scramble NATO assets to protect those airways.
Nobody proposed NATO air dominance over Belarus. What I proposed is restricting international flights through Belarusian ATZ, denying Belarusian flights international overfly, escorting international flights that get close to Belarus with armed NATO platforms and denying neighbouring airspace to Belarusian armed platforms.
Would they actually do anything more than that?
That also makes me worried, because they're a nuclear nation and when someone is cornered or has nothing left to lose they can become seriously dangerous.
So what? Do you remember what had happened to MH17? So what?
You're not going to get a lot of people on your side suggesting we do to Belarus what we did to Japan.
Look at Putin - doesn't matter what he does, his retinue does what they want. They are enjoying super-yachts, parking them without any issues in European ports, their kids are still “almost gods” and do whatever they want.
The western world gratefully takes the money from dictatorship regimes, and they don't give a shit where money comes from.
While it happens, dictators will not stop. As soon as dictators lose their establishment support, they’ll be overthrown.
All of the “sanctions” are so ridiculous, that it looks like these sanctions were made to calm down the own citizens, not to stop this devastating money flow.