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 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.
I missed the glorifying part? Can you expand?
I read it as, he might be the best choice given the horrible circumstances around them, and not the best choice because he is good but rather because he is pretty darn awful but not 100,000 dead and all your infrastructure gone awful.
I would kind of agree with Kwark, with maybe the addition that in a ideal world for them Russia gets pushed back and weakened to the point they cannot be offensive, at that point they dump luka and join NATO.
I could also see the point that dying for a hope of freedom is worth it, I just have a hard time in saying that others should do that while I sit safely in my home with no risk to me.
Reframing Lukaschenka as someone who made the best out of a bad situation only works if your memory doesn't go back further than maybe 9years, and you don't realise that he put his country in the position it is in, purely out of self interest. He did not ally with russia for almost 30 years because he feared invasion, he did so because they helped him stay in power. The characterisation of belarus as a purely russian puppet state is also not true, but there would be too much to cover here and I also don't feel entirely confident on lecturing on russian-belarussian relations. pmp10 put it well, if belarussia has no out today, is because of Lukashenko.
I find it very hard to respond to your post KwarK, because you use very charged language and images (Mariupol, resist facism, lack of backbone and all that) while also seemingly completely relying on that. It feels like an argument mostly fuelled by the general emotion conjured up by the ukraine war. It feels more like a speech than an argument, but I will try.
On February 22 2023 02:05 KwarK wrote: 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.
First of all, if russia and putin are fascist, so is belarus and lukashenka. There is no resisting facism, and judging almost 30years of government based on some hypothetical mariupol 2 being on the cards(which I would also call nonsense. Both because claiming this would have been the result for the last 30 years seems unlikely, and because the reasons for russias efforts in ukraine bogging down are just not present. The belarussian military is definitely not as capable, the country is not nearly as big - not much larger than what russia occupied in ukraine before they got pushed back, we most likely would get a military performance closer to ukraines military 2014, just to name the big tickets).
But most importantly: If russia had annexed belarus, there would be nothing different for the population. Dissidents would still get oppressed, freedom of speech severely limited, dissidents outside the country still would have to fear getting assassinated... As far as I am concerned, lukashenka did not protect the belarussian citizens from anything but from having anyone but lukashenka rule them, while subjecting them to pretty much the same you would expect under russian rule. I also strongly disagree that the only options are the current situation, or russia conquering belarussia. Relations between russia and belarussia have been very different through lukashenkas reign. While belarussia has never been hostile to russia, they have been at odds a lot, and belarussia tying itself closer to russia as far as I am aware was always the result of lukashenkas position being weakened and thus him needing russian help. If we go back far enough, we get a full on rivalry between putin and lukashenka.
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.
He had almost 30years. I admittedly am not familiar enough with the last 30years of belarussian politics to know if there is anyone there that could have been better, but since its almost 30 years I think "yes" is a pretty solid bet. Even lukashenka could have done better in those 30years, if he had not only cared about staying in power. Instead of suffering for putins vanity, belarussians suffer for lukashenkos, to paint it in your colours. There is nothing about a backbone here, lukashenka is a fascist, he is not "resisting" facism because its the foundation of his power. He does not align with your morals.
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.
Until we know if the rumours are true that belarussian involvement in the initial invasion only failed due to resistance from the military I might give you partial credit here. Though to phrase your statement a bit more honest: The youth indoctrinated from children to be sacrificed on the altar of russian fascism instead of belarussian one. And I am once again reluctant to give him much credit for this, given that he spend 30years putting belarus in this position it is in right now. And if the rumours turn out to be true.
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.
Ukraines military is decent now. It was not decent in 2014, that is why it capitulated, because they had no chance at the time. And throughout the last 30years there surely were many opportunities not to tie yourself closer to russia. Unless you are a fascist dictator who can only stay in power by leveraging russian support every now and then, and staying in power with no regard for your citizen is your only goal.
You are giving a man credit for possibly manoeuvring a situation well that is a result of him only serving his own interests for almost 30 years. A situation he himself he himself created. To me it feels like you completely ignore the last 30years in your judgement and you are delivering an emotional argument that seems disconnected from the actual situation and surrounding events of the past 30years.
To me it seems the only way I can agree with your assesment is if I accept that belarussian involvement in the ukraine war is the only thing I care about, and belarussians not dying to russian invasion, as well as accepting it as a given that not tying belarussia closer to russia would have resulted in a russian invasion. And if I also ignore most of lukashenkas reign.
He might have done amazing for himself, but I can't see a way agreeing with your statement that he has "done a pretty amazing job for Belarus". It feels like saying I did an amazing job for saving the life of a kid after I ran over his whole class. The statement is not completely wrong, but I can't really see anyone saying that if they are aware of the context of the situation.
I think stating with confidence that Lukashenko could've done a much better job leading his country further away from Putin's reach requires more than a bit of evidence. Putin has spies literally everywhere, and the Belarus government would be among his top priorities. Ukraine almost fell to Russia during this war because of a number of traitors, if I may mention this as a reminder.
On February 22 2023 05:10 Magic Powers wrote: I think stating with confidence that Lukashenko could've done a much better job leading his country further away from Putin's reach requires more than a bit of evidence. Putin has spies literally everywhere, and the Belarus government would be among his top priorities. Ukraine almost fell to Russia during this war because of a number of traitors, if I may mention this as a reminder.
If you hand me such a low hanging fruit, ofc I will snack it. One big problem with EU and Belarussian relations and negotiations has been lukashenkas continuous and brutal repression of opposition and free press. Lukashenka has continuously doubled down on that only to secure his own power, which increasingly isolated belarussia from the west.
Lukashenkas constructed an authoritarian regime which directly led to belarussians exclusion from the european neighbourhood policy in 1997.
Another great way would have been not to pretend to pursue the unification of russia and belarus as a sort of successor state to the soviet union, which according to some [1] was more of a show for domestic support rather than a real goal with much chance of success. The result of this endeavour was not a russia-belarussian union state, but stronger economic ties and russia being able to get some preferential treatments in belarus, both often at the expense of EU relations. And with EU relations getting lower and lower, russias importance increases.
Actions like the suppression of protests or the free press, the reshuffling of cabinets during which pro EU politicians often got kicked out of office and the reliance on russia to strengthen the security forces all have largely been done by lukashenka to secure his own position, while making belarus increasingly reliant on russia and drifting further away from the west. I think it is pretty clear that having closer economic relations with the west, even if russia is still the dominant partner, would have benefitted belarus economically and also had given them more freedoms in their political decisions, thus putting the country in a much better position. It would ofc have meant for lukashenka to weaken his position of power... Also as a fun little note: belarus often hostile attitude towards the west and the EU was by no means in russias interest in the 2000s, when they tried to be / tried to appear more open to the west. Because they also had to support belarus, it weakened the trust of the west towards russia.
I appreciate your effort, but my point was about leading Belarus away from Putin's sphere of influence, not about leading it closer to the EU. The latter is an entirely separate matter that can't be considered by any leader until the former is resolved first. I'm fully aware that Lukashenko is brutal and a dictator, however I'm not at all aware that he had a real choice in getting away from Putin's reach. Judging from what almost happened to Ukraine - which was only prevented by several very fortunate instances throughout the last decade, of which Russia's occupation of Crimea ironically is one since it triggered Ukraine's militarization efforts - I can't agree that Luka had reasonable prospects outside of Russia's grasp. Again, that's not defending his methods outside of cozying up with Russia. It's a fairly nuanced point that's easy to miss, so I wouldn't blame you for that.
Imagine Ukraine today but without 2014's invasion of Crimea. Ukraine would - without a single doubt - belong to Putin this very moment. Experts said this even with the knowledge of Ukraine's post-2014 militarization efforts. Without it this invasion would've been a done deal and Zelensky would be dead. Belarus hardly had special privileges compared to that. If Putin had instead decided to invade Belarus, today or in the past, it would've been a done deal as well and Luka would be dead.
Why would Lukashenko risk such a fate knowing his terrible odds? Give me a realistic scenario where he holds enough of the cards in this regard.
On February 22 2023 06:24 Silvanel wrote: If it wasn't for Łukaszenko Belarus might have been a member of EU already or perhaps even NATO.
How so? Ukraine was invaded by Putin specifically to prevent it from joining NATO. He would've done the same with Belarus, but with much greater success.
On February 22 2023 06:24 Silvanel wrote: If it wasn't for Łukaszenko Belarus might have been a member of EU already or perhaps even NATO.
As seen via the example of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which are all Belarussian neighbors (Estonia not a direct neighbor but it's very close) and were in similar situation after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Estonia:
Eastern Europe country bordering the Baltic Sea and Gulf of Finland, between Latvia and Russia. As a result of centuries of Danish, Swedish, German, and Russian rule, the idea of an independent Estonian state had already been raised in the late 19th century and came true in 1918 when Estonia attained independence from the Russian Empire. Forcibly incorporated into the USSR in 1940, it regained its freedom in 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since the last Russian troops left in 1994, Estonia has been free to promote economic and political ties with Western Europe. Since April 2004 Estonia is a member of NATO and member of the European Union since May 2004.
Latvia:
After a brief period of independence between the two World Wars, Latvia was annexed by the USSR in 1940. It reestablished its independence in 1991 following the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Although the last Russian troops left in 1994, the status of the Russian minority (some 26% of the population) remains of concern to Moscow. Latvia continues to revamp its economy for eventual integration into various Western European political and economic institutions. Since May 2004 Latvia is a member of the European Union, it joined the euro zone in 2014.
Lithuania:
Independent between the two World Wars, Lithuania was annexed by the USSR in 1940. On 11 March 1990, Lithuania became the first of the Soviet republics to declare its independence, but this proclamation was not generally recognized until September of 1991 (following the abortive coup in Moscow). The last Russian troops withdrew in 1993.
Lithuania subsequently has restructured its economy for eventual integration into Western European institutions.
Belarus:
After seven decades as a constituent republic of the USSR, Belarus attained its independence in 1991. It has maintained closer political and economic ties to Russia than any of the other former Soviet republics. Belarus and Russia signed a treaty on a two-state union on 8 December 1999, envisioning greater political and economic integration.
Although Belarus agreed to a framework to carry out the accord, serious implementation has yet to take place. Since his election in July 1995 as the country's first president, Alexander LUKASHENKO has steadily consolidated his power through authoritarian means.
The Constitution revision by national referendum of 24 November 1996 gave the presidency greatly expanded powers and became effective 27 November 1996, revised again 17 October 2004, removing presidential term limits.
Government restrictions on freedom of speech and the press, peaceful assembly, and religion continue.
If anyone needs a brief refreshment of their situation regarding USSR and Russia.
On February 22 2023 05:10 Magic Powers wrote: I think stating with confidence that Lukashenko could've done a much better job leading his country further away from Putin's reach requires more than a bit of evidence. Putin has spies literally everywhere, and the Belarus government would be among his top priorities. Ukraine almost fell to Russia during this war because of a number of traitors, if I may mention this as a reminder.
Another great way would have been not to pretend to pursue the unification of russia and belarus as a sort of successor state to the soviet union, which according to some [1] was more of a show for domestic support rather than a real goal with much chance of success. The result of this endeavour was not a russia-belarussian union state, but stronger economic ties and russia being able to get some preferential treatments in belarus, both often at the expense of EU relations. And with EU relations getting lower and lower, russias importance increases.
The creation of "Allied State of Russia and Belarus" was more on Lukashenko's part in the first place. He saw that Yeltsin was going senile and wouldn't be able to hold power for long. With popularity of communists at that time and desire for a strong leader who would put an end to the chaos in country, Luka thought he had a shot for Kremlin (he was quite popular in Russia back then as well). But then Putin came to power, and alignment slowed down, sometimes to a halt. Luka's maneuvering between West and Russia was to remain valuable to both (since EU and Russia needed him as trade hub) to recieve preferences but not to submit to anyone.
That was until 2020, where he needed Russian support to stay in power. Then he probably understood that West won't help him, and, more likely, would support any move against him (Belarus opposition media was working mostly from Poland and Baltics, and Tikhanovskaya left for Lithuania to continue her struggle). So he had no choice.
Some say that Russian External Recon Service helped Erdogan as well during coup against him in 2016, and that could be the reason (or part of) why Turkey is so cooperative with us in Syria and neutral in Ukraine, despite them shooting down our bomber before.
On February 22 2023 05:10 Magic Powers wrote: I think stating with confidence that Lukashenko could've done a much better job leading his country further away from Putin's reach requires more than a bit of evidence. Putin has spies literally everywhere, and the Belarus government would be among his top priorities. Ukraine almost fell to Russia during this war because of a number of traitors, if I may mention this as a reminder.
Another great way would have been not to pretend to pursue the unification of russia and belarus as a sort of successor state to the soviet union, which according to some [1] was more of a show for domestic support rather than a real goal with much chance of success. The result of this endeavour was not a russia-belarussian union state, but stronger economic ties and russia being able to get some preferential treatments in belarus, both often at the expense of EU relations. And with EU relations getting lower and lower, russias importance increases.
The creation of "Allied State of Russia and Belarus" was more on Lukashenko's part in the first place. He saw that Yeltsin was going senile and wouldn't be able to hold power for long. With popularity of communists at that time and desire for a strong leader who would put an end to the chaos in country, Luka thought he had a shot for Kremlin (he was quite popular in Russia back then as well). But then Putin came to power, and alignment slowed down, sometimes to a halt. Luka's maneuvering between West and Russia was to remain valuable to both (since EU and Russia needed him as trade hub) to recieve preferences but not to submit to anyone.
That was until 2020, where he needed Russian support to stay in power. Then he probably understood that West won't help him, and, more likely, would support any move against him (Belarus opposition media was working mostly from Poland and Baltics, and Tikhanovskaya left for Lithuania to continue her struggle). So he had no choice.
Some say that Russian External Recon Service helped Erdogan as well during coup against him in 2016, and that could be the reason (or part of) why Turkey is so cooperative with us in Syria and neutral in Ukraine, despite them shooting down our bomber before.
Yeah, as far as I am aware, the idea was met with more or less neutral support in russia. However, looking at belarussian proposals, and demands in negotiations it seems like they were either delusional, or not really serious about it either. I heard the narrative that lukashenka was hoping to be at the head of said union, but I am not sure how true that is anymore as I have read up a bit on it, and I have not seen that sentiment echoed amongst a lot of studies. I almost always encounter it in discussions like these, which makes me think it might be a bit of a urban legend, and the slowdown of negotiations was a mutual thing. Though putin definitely put a clear end to it in a way, that also emphasized that russia and belarus are not equals when it comes to economic power or population. That probably also sourd lukashenkas relations with putin a bit.
On February 22 2023 06:59 KwarK wrote: In the Belarus that exists today you’re better off staying out of Putin’s wars, both as an ally and as an adversary. Luka walks that line today.
Not even that is true since he allowed russia to launch attacks from belarus, which is got them hit with sanctions as well. Apart from the whole 'yeah he aint that bad for belarus if you ignore the whole rest of his reign', 'he doesn't risk the military on which support he relies to secure his power' does not get any praise from me, sorry. He is definitely an ally in putins war, even more so than the west is an ally to ukraine. He is just not risking his own source of power for it. And ofc there is still the rumour of him actually wanting the military to take part, but them pushing back on that idea...
On February 22 2023 06:24 Silvanel wrote: If it wasn't for Łukaszenko Belarus might have been a member of EU already or perhaps even NATO.
How so? Ukraine was invaded by Putin specifically to prevent it from joining NATO. He would've done the same with Belarus, but with much greater success.
Like Manitou already mentioned after breakup of Soviet Union Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Belarus had similar positions. Three of those managed to join EU and NATO. One (in 1995) elected a populist with strong authoritarian tendencies and remained in Russian sphere of influence. Without going into the nuances of the situations of each of these countries, I don't think my proposition that if it wasn't for Łukaszenko Belarus might have chosen a different way is that far fetched.
I don't know if people are aware of this but Belarus has been a member of the CST - later named CSTO - since two years before the beginning of Lukashenko's presidency. Three of the member states left in 1999, with Georgia being among those. Anyone remember what happened to Georgia in 2008? Lukashenko and his countrymen certainly do.
The following is from Wikipedia:
"Following the election of Vladimir Putin in Russia in 2000 and a pro-Western change of power in Georgia in 2003, relations between Russia and Georgia began to deteriorate, reaching a full diplomatic crisis by April 2008, when NATO promised to consider Georgia's bid for membership."
I would never defend Lukashenko, but he would've been a few levels of dumb to ignore the warnings raised all throughout by Putin.
Belarus's moment to join NATO was back in 2004 (or 2002 depending on how you want to count) together with Estonia, Lithuania. Bulgaria, ect. After that it was unlikely to happen without a fight, as shown by Georgia and now Ukraine.
The best Lukashenko can do currently (ignoring the chances he had in the past) is walk the line between angering Russia to much and angering his own people. For the moment he appears to be succeeding but Putin strikes me as the sort of man who holds a grudge and will remember Belarus's refusal to help in the invasion.
Pretty bold statements there. According to Zeihan US is now pretty much cutting all diplomatic relations with Putin's regime. Second half of the video is mostly about China and how it's on the verge of collapse too but it's mostly irrelevant for this discussion.
On February 22 2023 07:18 Magic Powers wrote: I don't know if people are aware of this but Belarus has been a member of the CST - later named CSTO - since two years before the beginning of Lukashenko's presidency. Three of the member states left in 1999, with Georgia being among those. Anyone remember what happened to Georgia in 2008? Lukashenko and his countrymen certainly do.
The following is from Wikipedia:
"Following the election of Vladimir Putin in Russia in 2000 and a pro-Western change of power in Georgia in 2003, relations between Russia and Georgia began to deteriorate, reaching a full diplomatic crisis by April 2008, when NATO promised to consider Georgia's bid for membership."
I would never defend Lukashenko, but he would've been a few levels of dumb to ignore the warnings raised all throughout by Putin.
And yet georgia felt like applying for the EU membership in march after the russian invasion without repercussion so far. So going by the same shallow logic, lukashenko could have tried joining nato for the past year. You even got it in your quote, you have 5years of deteriorating relations lead up to that... the russian-georgia conflict is a bit more complex than 'nato said they gonna look at their membership application, so it was go time'. From geostrategic interests, to resources, to alleged support of terrorism. The nato application is just the final step in multiple years of deteriorating relations and russian geostrategic interests. Seeing the russian-georgian conflict as just a response to their nato bid seems way too reductive to me.
Plus you know... that is 14years after lukashenka came into power... plenty of time he chose to fuck over belarus for his own personal gain instead. I am not even arguing lukashenka could have pulled off a nato/eu membership. I am arguing that its glaringly obvious that he spend the last 30years with pretty much nothing but securing his own power at the expense of belarus as a whole, burning bridges with the west (you know, really simple ones like good trade relations in areas that are no threat to russian influence) and as a result increasingly being reliant on russia.
So yeah, I'd say its firmly established that someone could have done much better in the past 30years.
Georgia was invaded for pretty much the same reason Ukraine was. It has little to do with them wanting to join NATO. Russia is paranoid and after the fall of USSR it has lost its buffer zone of subservient countries between Russia proper and its perceived rivals like Turkey, Europe in general etc. What Putin is trying to do is to re-establish this buffer since he's convinced that Russia would otherwise be invaded by "the West" - which IMHO is a silly notion. The West has other things to do than tie itself up in wars with nuclear powers.
On February 22 2023 07:18 Magic Powers wrote: I don't know if people are aware of this but Belarus has been a member of the CST - later named CSTO - since two years before the beginning of Lukashenko's presidency. Three of the member states left in 1999, with Georgia being among those. Anyone remember what happened to Georgia in 2008? Lukashenko and his countrymen certainly do.
The following is from Wikipedia:
"Following the election of Vladimir Putin in Russia in 2000 and a pro-Western change of power in Georgia in 2003, relations between Russia and Georgia began to deteriorate, reaching a full diplomatic crisis by April 2008, when NATO promised to consider Georgia's bid for membership."
I would never defend Lukashenko, but he would've been a few levels of dumb to ignore the warnings raised all throughout by Putin.
And yet georgia felt like applying for the EU membership in march after the russian invasion without repercussion so far. So going by the same shallow logic, lukashenko could have tried joining nato for the past year. You even got it in your quote, you have 5years of deteriorating relations lead up to that... the russian-georgia conflict is a bit more complex than 'nato said they gonna look at their membership application, so it was go time'. From geostrategic interests, to resources, to alleged support of terrorism. The nato application is just the final step in multiple years of deteriorating relations and russian geostrategic interests. Seeing the russian-georgian conflict as just a response to their nato bid seems way too reductive to me.
Plus you know... that is 14years after lukashenka came into power... plenty of time he chose to fuck over belarus for his own personal gain instead. I am not even arguing lukashenka could have pulled off a nato/eu membership. I am arguing that its glaringly obvious that he spend the last 30years with pretty much nothing but securing his own power at the expense of belarus as a whole, burning bridges with the west (you know, really simple ones like good trade relations in areas that are no threat to russian influence) and as a result increasingly being reliant on russia.
So yeah, I'd say its firmly established that someone could have done much better in the past 30years.
Georgia didn't "feel like" applying for EU membership. They had EU relations since many years prior to Russia's invasion. The EU was not Putin's main concern, it was clearly NATO. He invaded specifically to send a message: NATO is off-limits. Now that the war is going on, Georgia has immediately taken the opportunity to formally apply for EU membership. They were originally planning to wait longer. I can't see validity in your argument that they're not afraid of Putin. Their prior EU relationship isn't anywhere near as meaningful in comparison. It hardly made a difference to Putin. If needed, he could invade anyway. Or so he thought. With the Ukraine war going very poorly his priorities have evidently changed. Georgia would probably also love to take this opportunity to apply for NATO membership, but that's not an option from NATO's perspective as far as I'm aware.
It's not possible to state with solid evidence that KwarK must be wrong. He could've worded things differently, but he can't be disproven.
On February 22 2023 07:18 Magic Powers wrote: I don't know if people are aware of this but Belarus has been a member of the CST - later named CSTO - since two years before the beginning of Lukashenko's presidency. Three of the member states left in 1999, with Georgia being among those. Anyone remember what happened to Georgia in 2008? Lukashenko and his countrymen certainly do.
The following is from Wikipedia:
"Following the election of Vladimir Putin in Russia in 2000 and a pro-Western change of power in Georgia in 2003, relations between Russia and Georgia began to deteriorate, reaching a full diplomatic crisis by April 2008, when NATO promised to consider Georgia's bid for membership."
I would never defend Lukashenko, but he would've been a few levels of dumb to ignore the warnings raised all throughout by Putin.
And yet georgia felt like applying for the EU membership in march after the russian invasion without repercussion so far. So going by the same shallow logic, lukashenko could have tried joining nato for the past year. You even got it in your quote, you have 5years of deteriorating relations lead up to that... the russian-georgia conflict is a bit more complex than 'nato said they gonna look at their membership application, so it was go time'. From geostrategic interests, to resources, to alleged support of terrorism. The nato application is just the final step in multiple years of deteriorating relations and russian geostrategic interests. Seeing the russian-georgian conflict as just a response to their nato bid seems way too reductive to me.
Plus you know... that is 14years after lukashenka came into power... plenty of time he chose to fuck over belarus for his own personal gain instead. I am not even arguing lukashenka could have pulled off a nato/eu membership. I am arguing that its glaringly obvious that he spend the last 30years with pretty much nothing but securing his own power at the expense of belarus as a whole, burning bridges with the west (you know, really simple ones like good trade relations in areas that are no threat to russian influence) and as a result increasingly being reliant on russia.
So yeah, I'd say its firmly established that someone could have done much better in the past 30years.
Georgia didn't "feel like" applying for EU membership. They had EU relations since many years prior to Russia's invasion. The EU was not Putin's main concern, it was clearly NATO. He invaded specifically to send a message: NATO is off-limits. Now that the war is going on, Georgia has immediately taken the opportunity to formally apply for EU membership. They were originally planning to wait longer. I can't see validity in your argument that they're not afraid of Putin. Their prior EU relationship isn't anywhere near as meaningful in comparison. It hardly made a difference to Putin. If needed, he could invade anyway. Or so he thought. With the Ukraine war going very poorly his priorities have evidently changed. Georgia would probably also love to take this opportunity to apply for NATO membership, but that's not an option from NATO's perspective as far as I'm aware.
It's not possible to state with solid evidence that KwarK must be wrong. He could've worded things differently, but he can't be disproven.
Not sure who you referring to when saying 'I can't see validity in your argument that they're not afraid of Putin' belarus? georgia? In any case, I claimed neither. My point on georgia applying for EU membership was supposed to show you how weak your 'in 2008 nato said they would consider georgias application, so it was go time for russia. belarussia sure got intimidated by that' argument is with how little you elaborated it there. And in case you did not know, the EU also has a defence treaty. It might not have the same bite as nato, but its not that far off. And once you are in the EU, NATO membership would be much easier. But getting into the EU is much harder, takes much longer, and thus, the direction for eastern europe usually has been NATO->EU. So joining the EU is almost as 'threatening' as joining the much less exclusive NATO.
You are also conveniently ignoring the 14 years time window of lukashenka before the georgian war, or the fact that we are not talking about belarus joining EU or nato, but just being in a better situation than increasingly getting completely dependent on russia and currently heavily sanctioned. Also the other posts where it becomes clear that other eastern european countries joined nato without any repercussion, as well as an (admittedly older) study that goes into the ups and downs of russian-belarussian relations that shows belarussia has not always followed russias lead.
But lets play your game, where is your solid evidence, or that there was no other way that lukashenka was the best belarus could do for almost 30 years?(! I can't stretch this enough. 30! years. Of which he did a lot that actively contributed to the current position... On the spot I can't think of a real life scenario where anyone sensible could confidently claim that in 30years there was no chance things could have gone better). Your 'evidence' was an over-simplistic interpretation of a cherry picked passage in a wikipedia article that probably was not read past the introduction which the snippet is taken from. The fact that the section on the background to the war has a link to its own article would have made that obvious with quotes like these:
By the time of the Bucharest summit in April 2008, it was evident that the majority of the European NATO countries were not ready to support the American lead and offer MAP to Ukraine and Georgia, although the US president George W. Bush himself was lobbying both Georgia and Ukraine. The Russian campaign of pressure and threat had likely contributed to that outcome.Germany and France said that offering membership plan to Ukraine and Georgia would be "an unnecessary offense" to Russia.
(MAP = Membership Action Plan)
There was no risk of georgia getting into nato in the near future, not even a chance at getting a MAP to lead up to joining at some later point. And once again: I am not even going as far as others do and talk about a chance for belarus to join nato/eu. I am talking about belarus not getting painted into a corner by lukashenka out of self interest.
In conclusion, I don't see solid evidence on your part, certainly nothing that is stronger or even equal to the opposing arguments and sources. But I guess you can't prove me wrong either, we both must be right then. Great conversation.
On February 22 2023 07:18 Magic Powers wrote: I don't know if people are aware of this but Belarus has been a member of the CST - later named CSTO - since two years before the beginning of Lukashenko's presidency. Three of the member states left in 1999, with Georgia being among those. Anyone remember what happened to Georgia in 2008? Lukashenko and his countrymen certainly do.
The following is from Wikipedia:
"Following the election of Vladimir Putin in Russia in 2000 and a pro-Western change of power in Georgia in 2003, relations between Russia and Georgia began to deteriorate, reaching a full diplomatic crisis by April 2008, when NATO promised to consider Georgia's bid for membership."
I would never defend Lukashenko, but he would've been a few levels of dumb to ignore the warnings raised all throughout by Putin.
And yet georgia felt like applying for the EU membership in march after the russian invasion without repercussion so far. So going by the same shallow logic, lukashenko could have tried joining nato for the past year. You even got it in your quote, you have 5years of deteriorating relations lead up to that... the russian-georgia conflict is a bit more complex than 'nato said they gonna look at their membership application, so it was go time'. From geostrategic interests, to resources, to alleged support of terrorism. The nato application is just the final step in multiple years of deteriorating relations and russian geostrategic interests. Seeing the russian-georgian conflict as just a response to their nato bid seems way too reductive to me.
Plus you know... that is 14years after lukashenka came into power... plenty of time he chose to fuck over belarus for his own personal gain instead. I am not even arguing lukashenka could have pulled off a nato/eu membership. I am arguing that its glaringly obvious that he spend the last 30years with pretty much nothing but securing his own power at the expense of belarus as a whole, burning bridges with the west (you know, really simple ones like good trade relations in areas that are no threat to russian influence) and as a result increasingly being reliant on russia.
So yeah, I'd say its firmly established that someone could have done much better in the past 30years.
Georgia didn't "feel like" applying for EU membership. They had EU relations since many years prior to Russia's invasion. The EU was not Putin's main concern, it was clearly NATO. He invaded specifically to send a message: NATO is off-limits. Now that the war is going on, Georgia has immediately taken the opportunity to formally apply for EU membership. They were originally planning to wait longer. I can't see validity in your argument that they're not afraid of Putin. Their prior EU relationship isn't anywhere near as meaningful in comparison. It hardly made a difference to Putin. If needed, he could invade anyway. Or so he thought. With the Ukraine war going very poorly his priorities have evidently changed. Georgia would probably also love to take this opportunity to apply for NATO membership, but that's not an option from NATO's perspective as far as I'm aware.
It's not possible to state with solid evidence that KwarK must be wrong. He could've worded things differently, but he can't be disproven.
Not sure who you referring to when saying 'I can't see validity in your argument that they're not afraid of Putin' belarus? georgia? In any case, I claimed neither. My point on georgia applying for EU membership was supposed to show you how weak your 'in 2008 nato said they would consider georgias application, so it was go time for russia. belarussia sure got intimidated by that' argument is with how little you elaborated it there. And in case you did not know, the EU also has a defence treaty. It might not have the same bite as nato, but its not that far off. And once you are in the EU, NATO membership would be much easier. But getting into the EU is much harder, takes much longer, and thus, the direction for eastern europe usually has been NATO->EU. So joining the EU is almost as 'threatening' as joining the much less exclusive NATO.
You are also conveniently ignoring the 14 years time window of lukashenka before the georgian war, or the fact that we are not talking about belarus joining EU or nato, but just being in a better situation than increasingly getting completely dependent on russia and currently heavily sanctioned. Also the other posts where it becomes clear that other eastern european countries joined nato without any repercussion, as well as an (admittedly older) study that goes into the ups and downs of russian-belarussian relations that shows belarussia has not always followed russias lead.
But lets play your game, where is your solid evidence, or that there was no other way that lukashenka was the best belarus could do for almost 30 years?(! I can't stretch this enough. 30! years. Of which he did a lot that actively contributed to the current position... On the spot I can't think of a real life scenario where anyone sensible could confidently claim that in 30years there was no chance things could have gone better). Your 'evidence' was an over-simplistic interpretation of a cherry picked passage in a wikipedia article that probably was not read past the introduction which the snippet is taken from. The fact that the section on the background to the war has a link to its own article would have made that obvious with quotes like these:
By the time of the Bucharest summit in April 2008, it was evident that the majority of the European NATO countries were not ready to support the American lead and offer MAP to Ukraine and Georgia, although the US president George W. Bush himself was lobbying both Georgia and Ukraine. The Russian campaign of pressure and threat had likely contributed to that outcome.Germany and France said that offering membership plan to Ukraine and Georgia would be "an unnecessary offense" to Russia.
(MAP = Membership Action Plan)
There was no risk of georgia getting into nato in the near future, not even a chance at getting a MAP to lead up to joining at some later point. And once again: I am not even going as far as others do and talk about a chance for belarus to join nato/eu. I am talking about belarus not getting painted into a corner by lukashenka out of self interest.
In conclusion, I don't see solid evidence on your part, certainly nothing that is stronger or even equal to the opposing arguments and sources. But I guess you can't prove me wrong either, we both must be right then. Great conversation.
Belarus is a member of the CSTO, they're in a completely different ballpark than late-joining NATO members like the Baltic states. Relations with Georgia deteriorated immediately after they left the CSTO and became increasingly more pro-west, and Lukashenko was no doubt observing the tensions since he had every reason to suspect that Belarus could meet the same fate as Georgia. Then Russia invaded Georgia and turned it to rubble, and Luka's concerns would've been proven right. From 2008 onward there was no doubt that his hands were tied. Prior to 2008 he was in a difficult spot because he had to estimate Putin's willingness to wage war. Georgia's leadership miscalculated, Lukashenko did not. How can anyone consider that poor judgement?
I'm arguing that you can dislike Lukashenko all you want and I'll support you in that, but you don't have enough evidence to support your opinion that he had a good opportunity to leave Putin's sphere of influence. The risk would've been gigantic, and history proves it. Maybe he could've pulled it off, or maybe Belarus would've been turned to rubble. That's too many maybe's for us to decide whether or not he acted correctly regarding his relations to Putin's Russia.
EPT
