What does Putin get out of this? I feel like such a strong show of support for Lukashenko on this issue (above the existing general level of support) probably has some pretty significant strings attached.
https://estonianworld.com/security/russia-puts-estonia-on-th...
In terms of actual long-term goals, I think, he aims to replace Lukashenko with a new pro-Russia president, so he tries to keep Lukashenko happy in the process (also making him more dependent on Russia internationally), and proving that the two countries are still best allies...
Lukashenko is generally derided for “sitting on two chairs” playing Europe against Russia (while acknowledging his impressive ability to do so for so many years). He also carried the country through the post-Soviet trouble period much better than most other former republics, for which he gets some respect.
Note that he has firmly purged the government of pro-Russian politicians over the years so there are no illusions about his friendship.
I don't think that there's a singular view to Belarus.
Russia needs the countries on its European border. It is completely exposed militarily - flat lands leading all the way to its heartland routinely used by invaders. It already has two NATO countries on its border and another country (Ukraine) that has asked to join. The last thing it needs is a wall of NATO countries pressed up against its jugular.
Having Belarus on side is critical for them.
Nobody, that's who.
I'll tell you what Putin's really afraid of. He's afraid of Russians figuring out that the people in the USSR who wound up aligned with the west are better off than the people who are under Putin. He's afraid of that reality creeping too close to his borders.
(Now, in fairness, it was absolutely absurd that France would invade Russia... until it happened. But if Putin wants buffers big enough to prevent that from happening, then he's going to need to control both Germany and France. There are no buffers big enough to disarm Russia's fears, unless you give them at least all of Europe. And maybe you'd have to give them the whole planet.)
NATO isn't an invading force, of course and is purely a defensive pact which is why they occupied Afghanistan.
Still, my point stands: Is NATO going to invade Russia, using that favorable geography? No. Absolutely not. Zero chance. No NATO country has the stomach for a war of mass casualties, and nobody is stupid enough to think that an invasion of Russia would be anything else.
(The good news is that, after Afghanistan, I don't think that Russia has the stomach for a war of mass casualties, either, and Putin knows it. So he plays games with "little green men" and the Wagner Group, but I don't think he can go much further than that. China concerns me more - I fear that at the moment, maybe they do have the stomach for it, and the temptation to try because they doubt that anyone else has the will to fight enough to give China that kind of casualties.)
Isn’t it the US that constantly invades and occupies countries, not the other way around? It’s the US I fear, it already has bases all over my country.
The whole point of the ratchet games in Eastern Europe is to make it incrementally easier until it becomes a more realistic plan. NATO probably won't have a problem edging further towards Moscow for 70 more years and Moscow will try to stymie them every step of the way.
Once it becomes realistic and winnable there's a good chance they won't need to fight. Russia would likely flip to becoming a client state of the US of its own accord. That is likely the NATO endgame - a series of puppets like Yeltsin in power for good with the labor/natural resource markets opened up for exploitation to American megacorporations, no significant industrial base of its own and a very limited military capacity.
How soon do you think Russia is going to leave the Ukraine? Ever? Are they going to take more if they get the chance? Hard to prove, but it seems likely.
So really, who's playing the ratchet game?
That all happened before the Russian/Georgian war. It followed a similar pattern to many other post Soviet Republics as well as a lot of Latin America.
Russia will leave Ukraine alone if there is somebody friendly to them in power. If not then probably not.
Plus, which adjoining country was Afghanistan invaded from, such that a larger buffer would have helped?
Afghanistan was poor and the government was militarily weak, though, which I guess is why the US figured they could execute a successful military invasion in spite of the geographical unfavorability.
Osama was definitely on to something when he baited the US into a war there. He said the war would be protracted, costly, deadly and unwinnable. $2.5 trillion down the drain and 4,000 deaths later and nothing to show for it - he was right.
The US decided that evidence was not required (& didn't really have any anyway at that point) and invaded.
These are not the actions of a defensive pact acting defensively. They're the act of a country with bloodlust.
They didn't supply troops to Ukraine cos they don't want a direct fight with another nuclear power. This was a defining feature of the cold war. That's why it was called "cold". What makes you think this time is different?
It's much lower risk and much cheaper to play the long game and stir up ethnic tensions along exposed borders and foment ethnic and cultural splits. This being famously effective at building and sustaining the British Empire and also something Russia is trying to do to the US with social media, although with limited success beyond sparking thanksgiving arguments.
You are right, the NATO didn't support the Ukraine with military equipment or even troups, despite of the treaty, because of the fear of things going nuclear. That is also the reason any allegations about the NATO attacking Russia is pure sillyness.
The only "danger" for Russia, or rather Putin, is, that more and more countries want to be independant, especially for improving economic ties to the west, as this brings economic prosperity. It is tragic, how the enourmeous wealth of Russia, thanks to its oil and gas, was wasted for fancy yachts instead of boosting the industrial upbuild of the country.