NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On February 20 2023 22:43 Harris1st wrote: I was under the impression that every NATO member has access to long range artillery + Russia + Asian countries. I could be wrong here.
I think that South Korea has one of the largest, if not the largest artillery fleet.
~4k towed artillery pieces, ~4k self-propelled artillery, ~600 rocket artillery vehicles in addition to over 2k main battle tanks. It's one of the best armed countries in the world. And the above numbers are just for units currently in service.
Edit:
There are some recent videos on YT where someone is interviewing Polish medic helping in Ukraine at the front lines.
It's audio only and sadly there are no captions so not much use for people who don't speak Polish. There are some wild stories in there though, like a fight between 3 Ukrainians against 12 Russians, they all ran out of ammo and started using axes - one of the Ukrainians was the only person alive at the end of it. Or how 12 of Ukrainian spec-ops deleted Russian column of 28 vehicles in 19 minutes. Or how all female soldiers on the Ukrainian side carry a spare grenade because it's better to blow yourself up than to be captured by the Russians.
It's hard to process such stuff really, it's so out there...
It might be a mistranslation but in his speech today Putin declared that Russia will stop participating in the treaty that holds Russia and the US to reducing their nuclear arsenal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START).
On February 21 2023 19:59 schaf wrote: It might be a mistranslation but in his speech today Putin declared that Russia will stop participating in the treaty that holds Russia and the US to reducing their nuclear arsenal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START).
13:45 Russia suspended participation in the Strategic and Offensive Arms Treaty. It doesn't exit, it just stops.
I'm confused. What does that mean? Is Russia going to start producing nuclear weapons beyond the limits set in New START? If so, what's the difference between "stopping" and "exiting" (or "breaking", seeing as it has been ratified until 2026)?
So they are basically just saying "we won't break the New START treaty, but you'll have to trust us" rather than allowing the inspectors that the treaty allows for to do their jobs. Seems you can produce new nukes without testing as long as you follow tried and tested designs in tried and tested facilities? So suspending is functionally the same as withdrawing. It's just diplomatically more palatable?
Belarus didn't join Russia's war efforts, and Ukraine isn't going to attack Belarus. This is fake news without sources. It's something that could eventually happen under very strange circumstances, but it's not a realistic threat and it's certainly not happening right now.
I think Ukraine has enough problems as is without opening another front. If anything it would more likely be Belarus attacking Ukraine but from what I've read so far Belarusian army isn't really that keen on going on the offensive.
On February 21 2023 20:53 Manit0u wrote: I think Ukraine has enough problems as is without opening another front. If anything it would more likely be Belarus attacking Ukraine but from what I've read so far Belarusian army isn't really that keen on going on the offensive.
Yeah, Putin would need to put some massive pressure on Lukashenko for that to happen.
Lukashenko currently has a nice autocratic dictatorship going on, and it seems to be mostly stable. As it currently looks, he can probably coast that dictatorship forward until his eventual natural death.
He also sees what is currently going on in Ukraine. I think losing a few 100000 people in a pointless war that is not even his own is one of the few things that could easily destabilize his dictatorship, and he isn't stupid enough not to know that.
On February 21 2023 20:53 Manit0u wrote: I think Ukraine has enough problems as is without opening another front. If anything it would more likely be Belarus attacking Ukraine but from what I've read so far Belarusian army isn't really that keen on going on the offensive.
Yeah, Putin would need to put some massive pressure on Lukashenko for that to happen.
Lukashenko currently has a nice autocratic dictatorship going on, and it seems to be mostly stable. As it currently looks, he can probably coast that dictatorship forward until his eventual natural death.
He also sees what is currently going on in Ukraine. I think losing a few 100000 people in a pointless war that is not even his own is one of the few things that could easily destabilize his dictatorship, and he isn't stupid enough not to know that.
Agreed. And Russias military has enough to do with pushing one front. So Putin military pressure on Belarus does not seem viable either. Putins normal reaction would probably be the ol' "if you are not with us you are against us"
On the other hand, if he doesn't help, the next time there's protests that threaten to turn into a full-scale rebellion, it's totally possible Putin doesn't send Russia's army to bail him out and Lukashenko risks getting overthrown. Nevertheless, I think that's unlikely too. Would Putin really risk his buddy Luka getting overthrown in a rebellion? What's the chance of the next Belarus government being as pro-Russian as Luka?
So all in all, I don't think Belarus will join the war in any greater capacity than they already have (logistic support).
Wouldn't Belarus joining the war be a suicide move... as the majority of the populace is not only against it, but don't like Lukashenko to begin with. So why kill off his hardliners who would have to be sent, as there is no guarantee anyone else sent would fight.
On February 21 2023 23:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Wouldn't Belarus joining the war be a suicide move... as the majority of the populace is not only against it, but don't like Lukashenko to begin with. So why kill off his hardliners who would have to be sent, as there is no guarantee anyone else sent would fight.
Yes, that is why he hasn't done it despite no doubt a ton of pressure from Moscow.
Also assuming some of the rumours around the start of the invasion were correct the Belarus military was supposedly ordered to join but flat out refused.
On February 21 2023 23:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Wouldn't Belarus joining the war be a suicide move... as the majority of the populace is not only against it, but don't like Lukashenko to begin with. So why kill off his hardliners who would have to be sent, as there is no guarantee anyone else sent would fight.
Yes, that is why he hasn't done it despite no doubt a ton of pressure from Moscow.
Also assuming some of the rumours around the start of the invasion were correct the Belarus military was supposedly ordered to join but flat out refused.
That deserves a peace noble price, if it is indeed the case. Of course, more context would be needed...
Luka has actually done a pretty amazing job for Belarus. They absolutely would be facing the same genocidal attacks as Ukraine has if they had aligned west. Capitulation is not an unreasonable choice as a tiny nation without allies bordering a fascist nuclear power. And yet despite being occupied and losing any real independence he has more or less kept his people out of Putin’s war and has played both sides.
If I were living in Belarus I might actually vote for him. A western leader would get our cities leveled with hundreds of thousands of dead. Best case scenario the army somehow holds until western support and there’s a brutal multi year proxy war, most likely scenario is conquest and annexation which was worse than Luka.
He’s not doing it out of any great humanitarian or patriotic beliefs, he’s a quisling, but results matter.
On February 22 2023 01:32 KwarK wrote: Luka has actually done a pretty amazing job for Belarus. They absolutely would be facing the same genocidal attacks as Ukraine has if they had aligned west. Capitulation is not an unreasonable choice as a tiny nation without allies bordering a fascist nuclear power. And yet despite being occupied and losing any real independence he has more or less kept his people out of Putin’s war and has played both sides.
If I were living in Belarus I might actually vote for him. A western leader would get our cities leveled with hundreds of thousands of dead. Best case scenario the army somehow holds until western support and there’s a brutal multi year proxy war, most likely scenario is conquest and annexation which was worse than Luka.
This is nonsense. Belarus does pretty much all the bad shit russia does, just at a smaller scale (since its a smaller country) and less competent. Including the murder of enemies in other countries. Lukaschenka could not ally with the west because he would have to give up a lot of the things that are keeping him in power. Not to mention that the belarussian - russian relations are a alot more complex than being allies. Belarus under russian rule would not be much different from what it is now
On February 22 2023 01:32 KwarK wrote: Luka has actually done a pretty amazing job for Belarus. They absolutely would be facing the same genocidal attacks as Ukraine has if they had aligned west. Capitulation is not an unreasonable choice as a tiny nation without allies bordering a fascist nuclear power. And yet despite being occupied and losing any real independence he has more or less kept his people out of Putin’s war and has played both sides.
If I were living in Belarus I might actually vote for him. A western leader would get our cities leveled with hundreds of thousands of dead. Best case scenario the army somehow holds until western support and there’s a brutal multi year proxy war, most likely scenario is conquest and annexation which was worse than Luka.
This is nonsense. Belarus does pretty much all the bad shit russia does, just at a smaller scale (since its a smaller country) and less competent. Including the murder of enemies in other countries. Lukaschenka could not ally with the west because he would have to give up a lot of the things that are keeping him in power. Not to mention that the belarussian - russian relations are a alot more complex than being allies. Belarus under russian rule would not be much different from what it is now
Please don't start glorifying budget putin.
Sure, he’s a shitbag and deserves to go the way of Gaddafi. I don’t support or approve of the guy. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that Belarus is not in a position to fight fascist Russia and that capitulation is likely saving the Belorussian people from the fate of Mariupol. And that of all the potential quisling leaders of Belarus he is perhaps the least useful to Putin.
Switch Luka out for another president of your choosing. Do things get better for Belarus? There’s a very narrow tightrope between getting the Mariupol treatment and having your sons walk through a Ukrainian minefield for Putin’s vanity and Luka seems like exactly the kind of weasel who can walk it. He lacks the backbone to resist fascism and the loyalty to support his patron. He’s too cowardly to fight a losing battle with Putin but also too cowardly to fight for Putin.
Belarus under Russian annexation looks like the alphabet republics in Ukraine. The youth indoctrinated from children to be sacrificed on the altar of fascism. There’s a generation of young teens from 2014 in the alphabet republics who are all now dead. Luka professes just enough loyalty to keep his people from that fate.
Ukraine is large, populous, and easy to supply for the west. It has good defensive geography and a decent military. It still capitulated in 2014 because that was the right choice. Georgia capitulated in 2008 because that was the right choice. You gotta pick your moment when it comes to fighting expansionist fascist nuclear powers.
On February 22 2023 01:32 KwarK wrote: Luka has actually done a pretty amazing job for Belarus. They absolutely would be facing the same genocidal attacks as Ukraine has if they had aligned west. Capitulation is not an unreasonable choice as a tiny nation without allies bordering a fascist nuclear power. And yet despite being occupied and losing any real independence he has more or less kept his people out of Putin’s war and has played both sides.
If I were living in Belarus I might actually vote for him. A western leader would get our cities leveled with hundreds of thousands of dead. Best case scenario the army somehow holds until western support and there’s a brutal multi year proxy war, most likely scenario is conquest and annexation which was worse than Luka.
He’s not doing it out of any great humanitarian or patriotic beliefs, he’s a quisling, but results matter.
The job he did was so amazing that he will likely outlive his country. Maybe it's true that today he has no other options but subservience, but that's only because he slowly and surely burned all alternatives. He has been decades in power and there was a time when moving away from Russian would not have ended in invasions.
After the failed invasion, and in the possible event of Belarus falling under Russian rule (like Hong Kong to China), Lukashenko's head could very well roll off his shoulders. In several other scenarios (like if he had mobilized for war) he could also well be a dead man. I think that's what KwarK meant - Luka was trapped between a rock and a hard place. Whether by skill or luck, he did in fact bet his money on the winner. Not because he cares about his people, not because he's brilliant, but his choice to not move an inch was in fact the best for him and also for his country, and certainly for Ukraine.
This doesn't absolve him from anything, and it's not what Kwark was trying to say.
EPT
