|
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 08:03 Manit0u wrote:
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.
I think is more about imperialism than defense. Russia wants to expand and bully neighbours. The list territory after the USSR collapse should ideally all be taken back.
The buffer zone is a bonus, but not the main goal. Finland joining NATO should have been a calculated risk of the full invasion of Ukraine, and is the best possible launch point of attacks of both their 2 major cities and the nuclear facilities in the north west. They don't really believe in an invasion IMO.
|
On February 22 2023 09:15 Magic Powers wrote:
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.
This is the second time in a row where our disagreement boils down to you interpreting something I am saying in a way that directly contradicts what I said. We are not even talking about belarus leaving the russian sphere of influence completely, that was only an idea floated by a single 1 sentence post and that was not from me...
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.
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.
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.
I am talking about belarus not getting into a position where it burns all its bridges to the west, for which I and others showed multiple opportunities, some of which would not have bothered russia (once again, the german study I linked is very interesting and also covers a period in which belarus alienation of the west was at least problematic for russian interests).
I am talking about a belarus that increasingly sinks into russian control, all because lukashenkas desire to remain in power.
I am not talking about belarus completely leaving russia, though if he would have wanted to, the fact that so many eastern european states managed to join NATO without getting invaded(including ones that have been invaded when they wanted to break from the soviet union)to me suggests that there was an opportunity for that.
The bar is not 'lukashenka could have joined EU/NATO' the bar is as low as 'lukashenka could have murdered and suppressed his opposition a little bit less so the west can continue relations instead of having to reduce them and thus benefit belarus economically. Instead of leaving them completely depended on russia.'. And he had almost 30years to do so, around 14 if I feel like entertaining your simplistic action reaction argument. Once again, a timeframe during which multiple other eastern european nations managed to do far more than just that...
This started as as me challenging the idea lukashenka did the best you could expect for belarus over almost 30years. You asked for evidence, I provided it. You reframed discussion to something slightly different, your interpretation of what was said, and just like the last time, smoothly transitioning from your wrong interpretation to 'oh I was talking about this other thing, this misunderstanding is entirely on you btw'. And you are still wrong because having working relations and getting closer to the EU would directly aid belarus in being able to resist russian influence because they are no longer in a position where breaking with russia would ruin them, even if there was no threat of invasion. This separation of weakening russian influence and getting closer to the west does not work.
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?
Btw, georgia "left" the predecessor organisation of the csto in 1999, which makes your argument even weaker and points to a more complex breakdown of relations between the 2 states over the course of almost 10years now...
|
Ok, I only see this as a possibility: we're talking past each other. I was defending KwarK, and for defending him I also got questioned. Your point seems to go in a completely different direction than ours.
|
On February 22 2023 17:35 Artesimo wrote:
Btw, georgia "left" the predecessor organisation of the csto in 1999, which makes your argument even weaker and points to a more complex breakdown of relations between the 2 states over the course of almost 10years now...
Georgia leaving the CSTO supports my point. I deliberately mentioned this to make sure everyone understood why Putin was so pissed at Georgia and why he invaded and crushed them. They made too many moves towards the west, and NATO was the final nail in the coffin. He decided enough is enough and gave an example as a warning to other countries under his sphere of influence: do not join NATO or I will destroy you.
|
To further expand on why Belarus is not comparable to the Baltic states.
I don't like to post reddit threads because they often contain very bad information and straight up misinformation. I'm making an exception this time because some of the users explain the situation very well, and much better than I could.
Here it is explained why Russia before Putin let the Baltic states slip away. Putin hated the Baltics for their choice, but he wasn't able to do much about it because he didn't have enough of a presence in the Baltic states to successfully intervene. He was out of options and the Baltics escaped his grasp.
This cannot be said at all about Belarus.
Furthermore, I suspect he likely told himself that he can regain control over the Baltics at a later time. Most importantly though, he had a more important matter to attend to first: not let Russia fall apart any further.
https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/fc6yuh/why_did_russia_let_the_baltics_join_nato/
|
On February 22 2023 18:46 Magic Powers wrote:
more important matter to attend to first: not let Russia fall apart any further.
What do you mean by "not let Russia fall apart any further"? Neither Georgia nor Ukraine are Russia... Unless you're referring to Putin's pipe dream of re-creating the USSR.
If anything this current conflict will make Russia fall apart. They'll be economically and militarily ruined for decades, which will only make things worse for them. Some people are even speculating that Russia itself might fall apart completely when minor republics start leaving the federation if things get worse.
|
The notion that Russia has a say in who joins EU/NATO is flawed to begin with and not worth discussing.
|
On February 22 2023 19:29 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 18:46 Magic Powers wrote:
more important matter to attend to first: not let Russia fall apart any further.
What do you mean by "not let Russia fall apart any further"? Neither Georgia nor Ukraine are Russia... Unless you're referring to Putin's pipe dream of re-creating the USSR. If anything this current conflict will make Russia fall apart. They'll be economically and militarily ruined for decades, which will only make things worse for them. Some people are even speculating that Russia itself might fall apart completely when minor republics start leaving the federation if things get worse.
He meant what Putins goal was in the 00s. And at that point, it was not unlikely that the Russian federation might lose some more republics, like Chechnya for example.
This was not talking about the current situation.
|
On February 22 2023 19:29 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 18:46 Magic Powers wrote:
more important matter to attend to first: not let Russia fall apart any further.
What do you mean by "not let Russia fall apart any further"? Neither Georgia nor Ukraine are Russia... Unless you're referring to Putin's pipe dream of re-creating the USSR. If anything this current conflict will make Russia fall apart. They'll be economically and militarily ruined for decades, which will only make things worse for them. Some people are even speculating that Russia itself might fall apart completely when minor republics start leaving the federation if things get worse.
Russia wasn't doing well yet economically when Putin became president. Things started to look up in the years after. The military also wasn't in good shape at that time. It would therefore make sense that Putin used diplomatic means over force for as long as possible, since going to war right away - as you correctly say pointing to the Ukraine war - would've damaged Russia's economy while it hasn't even recovered, and that also with a greater risk of failure.
Putin had inherited a situation where the Baltic states were no longer under his grasp. They had already escaped in the 90's and only completed the process in the 2000's. He was basically powerless in that regard.
Belarus on the other hand was still part of the CSTO. Lukashenko wanted no part in the democratic future of other European countries, as he wanted to solidify his own power as a dictator. From this point of view maybe it starts to make sense that he could not have led Belarus away from Russia, unless he was willing to give up his own power. He would've had to turn Belarus into a democratic nation and leave the CSTO. He wasn't willing to do the former, so to him it was far more attractive to stick with Russia. Then came Putin. Lukashenko couldn't have predicted that such a man would come into power, but when it happened he had to cozy up to him very quickly, because he had not cleaned house, unlike the Baltic states that had done so during the 90s.
|
On February 22 2023 18:09 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 17:35 Artesimo wrote:
Btw, georgia "left" the predecessor organisation of the csto in 1999, which makes your argument even weaker and points to a more complex breakdown of relations between the 2 states over the course of almost 10years now... Georgia leaving the CSTO supports my point. I deliberately mentioned this to make sure everyone understood why Putin was so pissed at Georgia and why he invaded and crushed them. They made too many moves towards the west, and NATO was the final nail in the coffin. He decided enough is enough and gave an example as a warning to other countries under his sphere of influence: do not join NATO or I will destroy you.
Just to keep the gaslighting somewhat in check. Georgia invaded South Ossetia, between 1st-7th of August there were sporadic clashes but on the 7th of August Georgia launched and invasion into South Ossetia with Russia intervening on the 8th and Abkhazia joining in a day after.
For all of Saakashvili's faults. When Russian troops passed the mountain, captured Gori and started preparing to turn to Tibilisi he immediately opened all diplomatic channels to stop the conflict. No one was comming to save them and while they could fight on, Tibilisi and Georgia as a whole would be in ruins for generations to come even if they 'won', which was imposible. Corrupt and power hungry as they were later convicted by Georgian courts of being, he and his government still didnt want to sacrifice the country for personal gain.
|
On February 22 2023 17:45 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok, I only see this as a possibility: we're talking past each other. I was defending KwarK, and for defending him I also got questioned. Your point seems to go in a completely different direction than ours.
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.
We do not, you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge that you were wrong. You effectively iterate decisionspoints yourself where Lukashenka could have done a much better job at leading belarussia away from russia.
On February 22 2023 19:46 Magic Powers wrote:
Russia wasn't doing well yet economically when Putin became president. Things started to look up in the years after. The military also wasn't in good shape at that time. It would therefore make sense that Putin used diplomatic means over force for as long as possible, since going to war right away - as you correctly say pointing to the Ukraine war - would've damaged Russia's economy while it hasn't even recovered, and that also with a greater risk of failure.
Putin had inherited a situation where the Baltic states were no longer under his grasp. They had already escaped in the 90's and only completed the process in the 2000's. He was basically powerless in that regard.
Belarus on the other hand was still part of the CSTO. Lukashenko wanted no part in the democratic future of other European countries, as he wanted to solidify his own power as a dictator. From this point of view maybe it starts to make sense that he could not have led Belarus away from Russia, unless he was willing to give up his own power. He would've had to turn Belarus into a democratic nation and leave the CSTO. He wasn't willing to do the former, so to him it was far more attractive to stick with Russia. Then came Putin. Lukashenko couldn't have predicted that such a man would come into power, but when it happened he had to cozy up to him very quickly, because he had not cleaned house, unlike the Baltic states that had done so during the 90s.
Reminder: Lukashenka has been president since the beginning of the mid 90s.
You seem to agree that he deliberately ignored possibilities to align more with the west for his own gain. You seem to agree that russias options were a lot more limited at the beginning of putins reign, and that the baltics were able to get away from russia through incremental changes throughout the 90s. Seems like lukashenka did none of the things the baltics did and thus wasted an opportunity to get further away from russian influence.
Your last paragraph makes it sound like putin is the scary boogeyman that forced lukashenkas hand ever since he came to power, after you elaborate on russias weakness in the beginning of his reign. You can't say these things and at the same time pretend there is no evidence that belarus could have gotten significantly further away from russian influence. You just admitted that lukashenka wasted opportunities to do so, for personal gain. At this point I don't even need to argue that he could have done a much better job at reducing russian influence on belarus, you did that yourself. All you point to as proof of the opposite are points in time where a drastic change away from russia was impossible for belarus, while ignoring 14-30years where at least small continuous incremental changes would have been possible.
|
On February 22 2023 19:56 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 18:09 Magic Powers wrote:On February 22 2023 17:35 Artesimo wrote:
Btw, georgia "left" the predecessor organisation of the csto in 1999, which makes your argument even weaker and points to a more complex breakdown of relations between the 2 states over the course of almost 10years now... Georgia leaving the CSTO supports my point. I deliberately mentioned this to make sure everyone understood why Putin was so pissed at Georgia and why he invaded and crushed them. They made too many moves towards the west, and NATO was the final nail in the coffin. He decided enough is enough and gave an example as a warning to other countries under his sphere of influence: do not join NATO or I will destroy you. Just to keep the gaslighting somewhat in check. Georgia invaded South Ossetia, between 1st-7th of August there were sporadic clashes but on the 7th of August Georgia launched and invasion into South Ossetia with Russia intervening on the 8th and Abkhazia joining in a day after. For all of Saakashvili's faults. When Russian troops passed the mountain, captured Gori and started preparing to turn to Tibilisi he immediately opened all diplomatic channels to stop the conflict. No one was comming to save them and while they could fight on, Tibilisi and Georgia as a whole would be in ruins for generations to come even if they 'won', which was imposible. Corrupt and power hungry as they were later convicted by Georgian courts of being, he and his government still didnt want to sacrifice the country for personal gain.
"At around 19:00 on 7 August 2008, Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili announced a unilateral ceasefire and no-response order.[56] However, South Ossetian separatists intensified their attacks on Georgian villages located in the South Ossetian conflict zone. Georgian troops returned fire and advanced towards the capital of the self-proclaimed Republic of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, during the night of 8 August.[57][58]
According to Russian military expert Pavel Felgenhauer, the Ossetians were intentionally provoking the Georgians, so Russia would use the Georgian response as a pretext for premeditated military invasion.[59] According to Georgian intelligence,[60] and several Russian media reports, parts of the regular (non-peacekeeping) Russian Army had already moved to South Ossetian territory through the Roki Tunnel before the Georgian military operation.[61]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian–Ossetian_conflict
Excerpt from pre-war tensions:
"On 21 March 2008, Russian State Duma adopted a resolution, in which it called on Russian president and the government to consider the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.[13]
This decision was linked to the push for Georgia to receive a NATO Membership Action Plan and, indirectly, the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo.[14][15] Anonymous Russian diplomat had told Nezavisimaya Gazeta that the draft decree was aimed at de facto annexation rather than recognition.[16]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Russo-Georgian_diplomatic_crisis
You can't just strip this away from the rest of the context. This is Putin's playbook, he's done it before in several other countries. Georgian leadership was well aware of his methods, and the unfolding events support their previously held suspicions. The Kremlin was clearly trying to interfere in a much more substantial manner other than playing a diplomatic role to resolve the conflict. The fighting as it played out is also exactly how Putin justified his invasion of Ukraine.
|
On February 22 2023 21:24 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 17:45 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok, I only see this as a possibility: we're talking past each other. I was defending KwarK, and for defending him I also got questioned. Your point seems to go in a completely different direction than ours. Show nested quote +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. We do not, you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge that you were wrong. You effectively iterate decisionspoints yourself where Lukashenka could have done a much better job at leading belarussia away from russia. Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 19:46 Magic Powers wrote:
Russia wasn't doing well yet economically when Putin became president. Things started to look up in the years after. The military also wasn't in good shape at that time. It would therefore make sense that Putin used diplomatic means over force for as long as possible, since going to war right away - as you correctly say pointing to the Ukraine war - would've damaged Russia's economy while it hasn't even recovered, and that also with a greater risk of failure.
Putin had inherited a situation where the Baltic states were no longer under his grasp. They had already escaped in the 90's and only completed the process in the 2000's. He was basically powerless in that regard.
Belarus on the other hand was still part of the CSTO. Lukashenko wanted no part in the democratic future of other European countries, as he wanted to solidify his own power as a dictator. From this point of view maybe it starts to make sense that he could not have led Belarus away from Russia, unless he was willing to give up his own power. He would've had to turn Belarus into a democratic nation and leave the CSTO. He wasn't willing to do the former, so to him it was far more attractive to stick with Russia. Then came Putin. Lukashenko couldn't have predicted that such a man would come into power, but when it happened he had to cozy up to him very quickly, because he had not cleaned house, unlike the Baltic states that had done so during the 90s. Reminder: Lukashenka has been president since the beginning of the mid 90s. You seem to agree that he deliberately ignored possibilities to align more with the west for his own gain. You seem to agree that russias options were a lot more limited at the beginning of putins reign, and that the baltics were able to get away from russia through incremental changes throughout the 90s. Seems like lukashenka did none of the things the baltics did and thus wasted an opportunity to get further away from russian influence. Your last paragraph makes it sound like putin is the scary boogeyman that forced lukashenkas hand ever since he came to power, after you elaborate on russias weakness in the beginning of his reign. You can't say these things and at the same time pretend there is no evidence that belarus could have gotten significantly further away from russian influence. You just admitted that lukashenka wasted opportunities to do so, for personal gain. At this point I don't even need to argue that he could have done a much better job at reducing russian influence on belarus, you did that yourself. All you point to as proof of the opposite are points in time where a drastic change away from russia was impossible for belarus, while ignoring 14-30years where at least small continuous incremental changes would have been possible.
Lukashenko wanted absolute power in Belarus. That meant he couldn't turn his country democratic. It had nothing to do with him specifically not wanting to become EU-friendly, that was only a logical consequence of his decision to try to remain in power for as long as possible.
He could either turn Belarus democratic or he could remain in power, not both. From that point of view it makes perfect sense that he could not buddy up with the EU more than with Russia, especially post-2000 knowing what a dangerous foe Putin could be when pissed off.
I'm not arguing that Lukashenko was selfless. I'm arguing that, given that he is a dictator, he could not have made much better decisions regarding his relations with Russia. The alternative was to give up his seat, and he wasn't willing to do that.
You seem to think that I'm seeing Lukashenko as a selfless leader, which I don't do. He is a brutal dictator and that's who he always was since the start of his presidency. You can't just strip his decisions from his ambitions.
I can ask you a simple question: could Putin have turned his country democratic? The answer is not as simple as the question. It can be either yes or no, depending on whether or not you acknowledge Putin's ambitions and the fact that he inherited a fallen empire. If you believe that Putin could've turned Russia democratic, then you imply that Putin did not have the (in his case imperialistic) ambitions of a dictator. This is not the reality, as you'd have to switch Putin out with another person. In contrast if you understand that Putin is a brutal dictator, then the answer is clearly no, he could not have turned Russia democratic, because that would go against his ambitions.
Stripping people of their personalities and desires is absurd. We don't exist as chess pieces, we're whole beings with dreams, wishes and fears. A man other than Putin could've turned Russia democratic. Putin could not. A man other than Lukashenko could've turned Belarus democratic. Luka could not. Knowing this, his window of opportunity was gone in the 2000's. He had a roughly 6 year window right when he became president to make Belarus democratic and move further away from Russia. That would've meant leaving the CST as quickly as possible and cleaning house. The window closed because of his ambitions, and post-2000 he could not reasonably escape Putin's grasp anymore.
KwarK wasn't arguing that Luka was a morally upstanding man from the start who just so happened to be under Putin's spell the whole time and therefore without alternatives. That wasn't his argument. This is why I'm saying we're talking past each other.
|
On February 22 2023 21:37 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 21:24 Artesimo wrote:On February 22 2023 17:45 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok, I only see this as a possibility: we're talking past each other. I was defending KwarK, and for defending him I also got questioned. Your point seems to go in a completely different direction than ours. 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. We do not, you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge that you were wrong. You effectively iterate decisionspoints yourself where Lukashenka could have done a much better job at leading belarussia away from russia. On February 22 2023 19:46 Magic Powers wrote:
Russia wasn't doing well yet economically when Putin became president. Things started to look up in the years after. The military also wasn't in good shape at that time. It would therefore make sense that Putin used diplomatic means over force for as long as possible, since going to war right away - as you correctly say pointing to the Ukraine war - would've damaged Russia's economy while it hasn't even recovered, and that also with a greater risk of failure.
Putin had inherited a situation where the Baltic states were no longer under his grasp. They had already escaped in the 90's and only completed the process in the 2000's. He was basically powerless in that regard.
Belarus on the other hand was still part of the CSTO. Lukashenko wanted no part in the democratic future of other European countries, as he wanted to solidify his own power as a dictator. From this point of view maybe it starts to make sense that he could not have led Belarus away from Russia, unless he was willing to give up his own power. He would've had to turn Belarus into a democratic nation and leave the CSTO. He wasn't willing to do the former, so to him it was far more attractive to stick with Russia. Then came Putin. Lukashenko couldn't have predicted that such a man would come into power, but when it happened he had to cozy up to him very quickly, because he had not cleaned house, unlike the Baltic states that had done so during the 90s. Reminder: Lukashenka has been president since the beginning of the mid 90s. You seem to agree that he deliberately ignored possibilities to align more with the west for his own gain. You seem to agree that russias options were a lot more limited at the beginning of putins reign, and that the baltics were able to get away from russia through incremental changes throughout the 90s. Seems like lukashenka did none of the things the baltics did and thus wasted an opportunity to get further away from russian influence. Your last paragraph makes it sound like putin is the scary boogeyman that forced lukashenkas hand ever since he came to power, after you elaborate on russias weakness in the beginning of his reign. You can't say these things and at the same time pretend there is no evidence that belarus could have gotten significantly further away from russian influence. You just admitted that lukashenka wasted opportunities to do so, for personal gain. At this point I don't even need to argue that he could have done a much better job at reducing russian influence on belarus, you did that yourself. All you point to as proof of the opposite are points in time where a drastic change away from russia was impossible for belarus, while ignoring 14-30years where at least small continuous incremental changes would have been possible. Lukashenko wanted absolute power in Belarus. That meant he couldn't turn his country democratic. It had nothing to do with him specifically not wanting to become EU-friendly, that was only a logical consequence of his decision to try to remain in power for as long as possible. He could either turn Belarus democratic or he could remain in power, not both. From that point of view it makes perfect sense that he could not buddy up with the EU more than with Russia, especially post-2000 knowing what a dangerous foe Putin could be when pissed off. I'm not arguing that Lukashenko was selfless. I'm arguing that, given that he is a dictator, he could not have made much better decisions regarding his relations with Russia. The alternative was to give up his seat, and he wasn't willing to do that. You seem to think that I'm seeing Lukashenko as a selfless leader, which I don't do. He is a brutal dictator and that's who he always was since the start of his presidency. You can't just strip his decisions from his ambitions.
Once again:
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
He could have. Either you disagree with your own posts, or you got your evidence. He did not want to, but he could have. This has nothing to do with his motivations or character, but your claim that there is no evidence he could have done better. Unless we are now shifting the goalpost to "I think stating with confidence that Lukashenko could've done a much better job leading his country further away from Putin's reach while also maintaining all his own goals that influenced his decisions requires more than a bit of evidence". Not to mention that the origin of this argument wasn't even hinging on lukashenka being the one doing better, but rather whoever would be in charge. Lukashenka could have been better, some other president could have done better. Pretty much anyone who would have been willing to not tie themselves to russia for personal gain and burn bridges to the west for the same reason could have put belarus in a better position. There is no certainty that it would have succeeded, but there is no way denying that there have been plenty opportunities to do so. Others mentioned some, I mentioned some, you mentioned some yourself. And now you start talking about his motivations, only further driving home my point that there was a way, but not the will to do so.
EDIT: I did not see the edit in time.
He had a roughly 6 year window right when he became president to make Belarus democratic and move further away from Russia. That would've meant leaving the CST as quickly as possible and cleaning house. The window closed because of his ambitions, and post-2000 he could not reasonably escape Putin's grasp anymore.
There you go, you just admitted that there was at least 1 chance that he let slip. He could have done much better but did not do so. This is getting beyond silly.
Stripping people of their personalities and desires is absurd. We don't exist as chess pieces, we're whole beings with dreams, wishes and fears. A man other than Putin could've turned Russia democratic. Putin could not. A man other than Lukashenko could've turned Belarus democratic. Luka could not.
KwarK wasn't arguing that Luka was a morally upstanding man from the start who just so happened to be under Putin's spell the whole time and therefore without alternatives. That wasn't his argument. This is why I'm saying we're talking past each other.
We are not. I never tied any of this to lukashenkas morality, it was purely: Could he have done better. He could. You just gave another example for when he could have. He just did not for various reasons. The question is in no way tied to his character or any morals, its only about his actions. Maybe you want to change the goalpost to "how likely would it have been that lukashenka turned belarus away from russia"? Not a very interesting topic since we know how the answer already though.
|
I just skimmed through the least 3 pages.
Basically Luka could have easily separated from Russia but it would have cost him personally power, so he didn't. And here we are now.
All in agreement?
|
On February 22 2023 21:52 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 21:37 Magic Powers wrote:On February 22 2023 21:24 Artesimo wrote:On February 22 2023 17:45 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok, I only see this as a possibility: we're talking past each other. I was defending KwarK, and for defending him I also got questioned. Your point seems to go in a completely different direction than ours. 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. We do not, you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge that you were wrong. You effectively iterate decisionspoints yourself where Lukashenka could have done a much better job at leading belarussia away from russia. On February 22 2023 19:46 Magic Powers wrote:
Russia wasn't doing well yet economically when Putin became president. Things started to look up in the years after. The military also wasn't in good shape at that time. It would therefore make sense that Putin used diplomatic means over force for as long as possible, since going to war right away - as you correctly say pointing to the Ukraine war - would've damaged Russia's economy while it hasn't even recovered, and that also with a greater risk of failure.
Putin had inherited a situation where the Baltic states were no longer under his grasp. They had already escaped in the 90's and only completed the process in the 2000's. He was basically powerless in that regard.
Belarus on the other hand was still part of the CSTO. Lukashenko wanted no part in the democratic future of other European countries, as he wanted to solidify his own power as a dictator. From this point of view maybe it starts to make sense that he could not have led Belarus away from Russia, unless he was willing to give up his own power. He would've had to turn Belarus into a democratic nation and leave the CSTO. He wasn't willing to do the former, so to him it was far more attractive to stick with Russia. Then came Putin. Lukashenko couldn't have predicted that such a man would come into power, but when it happened he had to cozy up to him very quickly, because he had not cleaned house, unlike the Baltic states that had done so during the 90s. Reminder: Lukashenka has been president since the beginning of the mid 90s. You seem to agree that he deliberately ignored possibilities to align more with the west for his own gain. You seem to agree that russias options were a lot more limited at the beginning of putins reign, and that the baltics were able to get away from russia through incremental changes throughout the 90s. Seems like lukashenka did none of the things the baltics did and thus wasted an opportunity to get further away from russian influence. Your last paragraph makes it sound like putin is the scary boogeyman that forced lukashenkas hand ever since he came to power, after you elaborate on russias weakness in the beginning of his reign. You can't say these things and at the same time pretend there is no evidence that belarus could have gotten significantly further away from russian influence. You just admitted that lukashenka wasted opportunities to do so, for personal gain. At this point I don't even need to argue that he could have done a much better job at reducing russian influence on belarus, you did that yourself. All you point to as proof of the opposite are points in time where a drastic change away from russia was impossible for belarus, while ignoring 14-30years where at least small continuous incremental changes would have been possible. Lukashenko wanted absolute power in Belarus. That meant he couldn't turn his country democratic. It had nothing to do with him specifically not wanting to become EU-friendly, that was only a logical consequence of his decision to try to remain in power for as long as possible. He could either turn Belarus democratic or he could remain in power, not both. From that point of view it makes perfect sense that he could not buddy up with the EU more than with Russia, especially post-2000 knowing what a dangerous foe Putin could be when pissed off. I'm not arguing that Lukashenko was selfless. I'm arguing that, given that he is a dictator, he could not have made much better decisions regarding his relations with Russia. The alternative was to give up his seat, and he wasn't willing to do that. You seem to think that I'm seeing Lukashenko as a selfless leader, which I don't do. He is a brutal dictator and that's who he always was since the start of his presidency. You can't just strip his decisions from his ambitions. Once again: Show nested quote +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 He could have. Either you disagree with your own posts, or you got your evidence. He did not want to, but he could have. This has nothing to do with his motivations or character, but your claim that there is no evidence he could have done better. Unless we are now shifting the goalpost to "I think stating with confidence that Lukashenko could've done a much better job leading his country further away from Putin's reach while also maintaining all his own goals that influenced his decisions requires more than a bit of evidence". Not to mention that the origin of this argument wasn't even hinging on lukashenka being the one doing better, but rather whoever would be in charge. Lukashenka could have been better, some other president could have done better. Pretty much anyone who would have been willing to not tie themselves to russia for personal gain and burn bridges to the west for the same reason could have put belarus in a better position. There is no certainty that it would have succeeded, but there is no way denying that there have been plenty opportunities to do so. Others mentioned some, I mentioned some, you mentioned some yourself. And now you start talking about his motivations, only further driving home my point that there was a way, but not the will to do so. EDIT: I did not see the edit in time. Show nested quote + He had a roughly 6 year window right when he became president to make Belarus democratic and move further away from Russia. That would've meant leaving the CST as quickly as possible and cleaning house. The window closed because of his ambitions, and post-2000 he could not reasonably escape Putin's grasp anymore. There you go, you just admitted that there was at least 1 chance that he let slip. He could have done much better but did not do so. This is getting beyond silly. Show nested quote +
Stripping people of their personalities and desires is absurd. We don't exist as chess pieces, we're whole beings with dreams, wishes and fears. A man other than Putin could've turned Russia democratic. Putin could not. A man other than Lukashenko could've turned Belarus democratic. Luka could not.
KwarK wasn't arguing that Luka was a morally upstanding man from the start who just so happened to be under Putin's spell the whole time and therefore without alternatives. That wasn't his argument. This is why I'm saying we're talking past each other.
We are not. I never tied any of this to lukashenkas morality, it was purely: Could he have done better. He could. You just gave another example for when he could have. He just did not for various reasons. The question is in no way tied to his character or any morals, its only about his actions. Maybe you want to change the goalpost to "how likely would it have been that lukashenka turned belarus away from russia"? Not a very interesting topic since we know how the answer already though.
When KwarK said Lukashenko successfully walked the tight rope, he was talking about either having Belarus invaded and getting himself killed or having Belarusians mobilized to fight and die in Ukraine. In this regard he could not have done a much better job, I'm sorry but this is just the reality of the situation. When it dawned on him that he could save his country and his countrymen and therefore also himself, he did indeed find a narrow path through the situation - whether by skill or luck is not up to us to decide.
KwarK was NOT talking about Lukashenko choosing between EU/NATO and Russia when he used the tight rope metaphor.
|
Lukashenko is an awful leader, and Belarus would almost certainly have been better off if he had not destroyed the budding democratic institutions in a bid to stay in power forever.
However, given that all of that happened for the last 30 years, in the last year, he has successfully threaded the line between destroying his country by fully joining Russia's war and getting assassinated by Putin and replaced by a more willing puppet. Huzzah for him!
|
|
|
On February 22 2023 22:12 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 21:52 Artesimo wrote:On February 22 2023 21:37 Magic Powers wrote:On February 22 2023 21:24 Artesimo wrote:On February 22 2023 17:45 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok, I only see this as a possibility: we're talking past each other. I was defending KwarK, and for defending him I also got questioned. Your point seems to go in a completely different direction than ours. 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. We do not, you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge that you were wrong. You effectively iterate decisionspoints yourself where Lukashenka could have done a much better job at leading belarussia away from russia. On February 22 2023 19:46 Magic Powers wrote:
Russia wasn't doing well yet economically when Putin became president. Things started to look up in the years after. The military also wasn't in good shape at that time. It would therefore make sense that Putin used diplomatic means over force for as long as possible, since going to war right away - as you correctly say pointing to the Ukraine war - would've damaged Russia's economy while it hasn't even recovered, and that also with a greater risk of failure.
Putin had inherited a situation where the Baltic states were no longer under his grasp. They had already escaped in the 90's and only completed the process in the 2000's. He was basically powerless in that regard.
Belarus on the other hand was still part of the CSTO. Lukashenko wanted no part in the democratic future of other European countries, as he wanted to solidify his own power as a dictator. From this point of view maybe it starts to make sense that he could not have led Belarus away from Russia, unless he was willing to give up his own power. He would've had to turn Belarus into a democratic nation and leave the CSTO. He wasn't willing to do the former, so to him it was far more attractive to stick with Russia. Then came Putin. Lukashenko couldn't have predicted that such a man would come into power, but when it happened he had to cozy up to him very quickly, because he had not cleaned house, unlike the Baltic states that had done so during the 90s. Reminder: Lukashenka has been president since the beginning of the mid 90s. You seem to agree that he deliberately ignored possibilities to align more with the west for his own gain. You seem to agree that russias options were a lot more limited at the beginning of putins reign, and that the baltics were able to get away from russia through incremental changes throughout the 90s. Seems like lukashenka did none of the things the baltics did and thus wasted an opportunity to get further away from russian influence. Your last paragraph makes it sound like putin is the scary boogeyman that forced lukashenkas hand ever since he came to power, after you elaborate on russias weakness in the beginning of his reign. You can't say these things and at the same time pretend there is no evidence that belarus could have gotten significantly further away from russian influence. You just admitted that lukashenka wasted opportunities to do so, for personal gain. At this point I don't even need to argue that he could have done a much better job at reducing russian influence on belarus, you did that yourself. All you point to as proof of the opposite are points in time where a drastic change away from russia was impossible for belarus, while ignoring 14-30years where at least small continuous incremental changes would have been possible. Lukashenko wanted absolute power in Belarus. That meant he couldn't turn his country democratic. It had nothing to do with him specifically not wanting to become EU-friendly, that was only a logical consequence of his decision to try to remain in power for as long as possible. He could either turn Belarus democratic or he could remain in power, not both. From that point of view it makes perfect sense that he could not buddy up with the EU more than with Russia, especially post-2000 knowing what a dangerous foe Putin could be when pissed off. I'm not arguing that Lukashenko was selfless. I'm arguing that, given that he is a dictator, he could not have made much better decisions regarding his relations with Russia. The alternative was to give up his seat, and he wasn't willing to do that. You seem to think that I'm seeing Lukashenko as a selfless leader, which I don't do. He is a brutal dictator and that's who he always was since the start of his presidency. You can't just strip his decisions from his ambitions. Once again: 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 He could have. Either you disagree with your own posts, or you got your evidence. He did not want to, but he could have. This has nothing to do with his motivations or character, but your claim that there is no evidence he could have done better. Unless we are now shifting the goalpost to "I think stating with confidence that Lukashenko could've done a much better job leading his country further away from Putin's reach while also maintaining all his own goals that influenced his decisions requires more than a bit of evidence". Not to mention that the origin of this argument wasn't even hinging on lukashenka being the one doing better, but rather whoever would be in charge. Lukashenka could have been better, some other president could have done better. Pretty much anyone who would have been willing to not tie themselves to russia for personal gain and burn bridges to the west for the same reason could have put belarus in a better position. There is no certainty that it would have succeeded, but there is no way denying that there have been plenty opportunities to do so. Others mentioned some, I mentioned some, you mentioned some yourself. And now you start talking about his motivations, only further driving home my point that there was a way, but not the will to do so. EDIT: I did not see the edit in time. He had a roughly 6 year window right when he became president to make Belarus democratic and move further away from Russia. That would've meant leaving the CST as quickly as possible and cleaning house. The window closed because of his ambitions, and post-2000 he could not reasonably escape Putin's grasp anymore. There you go, you just admitted that there was at least 1 chance that he let slip. He could have done much better but did not do so. This is getting beyond silly.
Stripping people of their personalities and desires is absurd. We don't exist as chess pieces, we're whole beings with dreams, wishes and fears. A man other than Putin could've turned Russia democratic. Putin could not. A man other than Lukashenko could've turned Belarus democratic. Luka could not.
KwarK wasn't arguing that Luka was a morally upstanding man from the start who just so happened to be under Putin's spell the whole time and therefore without alternatives. That wasn't his argument. This is why I'm saying we're talking past each other.
We are not. I never tied any of this to lukashenkas morality, it was purely: Could he have done better. He could. You just gave another example for when he could have. He just did not for various reasons. The question is in no way tied to his character or any morals, its only about his actions. Maybe you want to change the goalpost to "how likely would it have been that lukashenka turned belarus away from russia"? Not a very interesting topic since we know how the answer already though. When KwarK said Lukashenko successfully walked the tight rope, he was talking about either having Belarus invaded and getting himself killed or having Belarusians mobilized to fight and die in Ukraine. In this regard he could not have done a much better job, I'm sorry but this is just the reality of the situation. When it dawned on him that he could save his country and his countrymen and therefore also himself, he did indeed find a narrow path through the situation - whether by skill or luck is not up to us to decide. KwarK was NOT talking about Lukashenko choosing between EU/NATO and Russia when he used the tight rope metaphor.
Oh we are changing the goalpost to "Lukashenko could not have steered belarus away from russian influence within the last year". Its painfully obvious that is not what anyone was talking about when you asked for evidence, and weirdly only comes up now after you yourself brought up a lot of historic context which would be irrelevant when just talking about belarussias role during the war against ukraine but okay. I probably agree with you there.
|
On February 22 2023 22:35 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 22:12 Magic Powers wrote:On February 22 2023 21:52 Artesimo wrote:On February 22 2023 21:37 Magic Powers wrote:On February 22 2023 21:24 Artesimo wrote:On February 22 2023 17:45 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok, I only see this as a possibility: we're talking past each other. I was defending KwarK, and for defending him I also got questioned. Your point seems to go in a completely different direction than ours. 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. We do not, you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge that you were wrong. You effectively iterate decisionspoints yourself where Lukashenka could have done a much better job at leading belarussia away from russia. On February 22 2023 19:46 Magic Powers wrote:
Russia wasn't doing well yet economically when Putin became president. Things started to look up in the years after. The military also wasn't in good shape at that time. It would therefore make sense that Putin used diplomatic means over force for as long as possible, since going to war right away - as you correctly say pointing to the Ukraine war - would've damaged Russia's economy while it hasn't even recovered, and that also with a greater risk of failure.
Putin had inherited a situation where the Baltic states were no longer under his grasp. They had already escaped in the 90's and only completed the process in the 2000's. He was basically powerless in that regard.
Belarus on the other hand was still part of the CSTO. Lukashenko wanted no part in the democratic future of other European countries, as he wanted to solidify his own power as a dictator. From this point of view maybe it starts to make sense that he could not have led Belarus away from Russia, unless he was willing to give up his own power. He would've had to turn Belarus into a democratic nation and leave the CSTO. He wasn't willing to do the former, so to him it was far more attractive to stick with Russia. Then came Putin. Lukashenko couldn't have predicted that such a man would come into power, but when it happened he had to cozy up to him very quickly, because he had not cleaned house, unlike the Baltic states that had done so during the 90s. Reminder: Lukashenka has been president since the beginning of the mid 90s. You seem to agree that he deliberately ignored possibilities to align more with the west for his own gain. You seem to agree that russias options were a lot more limited at the beginning of putins reign, and that the baltics were able to get away from russia through incremental changes throughout the 90s. Seems like lukashenka did none of the things the baltics did and thus wasted an opportunity to get further away from russian influence. Your last paragraph makes it sound like putin is the scary boogeyman that forced lukashenkas hand ever since he came to power, after you elaborate on russias weakness in the beginning of his reign. You can't say these things and at the same time pretend there is no evidence that belarus could have gotten significantly further away from russian influence. You just admitted that lukashenka wasted opportunities to do so, for personal gain. At this point I don't even need to argue that he could have done a much better job at reducing russian influence on belarus, you did that yourself. All you point to as proof of the opposite are points in time where a drastic change away from russia was impossible for belarus, while ignoring 14-30years where at least small continuous incremental changes would have been possible. Lukashenko wanted absolute power in Belarus. That meant he couldn't turn his country democratic. It had nothing to do with him specifically not wanting to become EU-friendly, that was only a logical consequence of his decision to try to remain in power for as long as possible. He could either turn Belarus democratic or he could remain in power, not both. From that point of view it makes perfect sense that he could not buddy up with the EU more than with Russia, especially post-2000 knowing what a dangerous foe Putin could be when pissed off. I'm not arguing that Lukashenko was selfless. I'm arguing that, given that he is a dictator, he could not have made much better decisions regarding his relations with Russia. The alternative was to give up his seat, and he wasn't willing to do that. You seem to think that I'm seeing Lukashenko as a selfless leader, which I don't do. He is a brutal dictator and that's who he always was since the start of his presidency. You can't just strip his decisions from his ambitions. Once again: 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 He could have. Either you disagree with your own posts, or you got your evidence. He did not want to, but he could have. This has nothing to do with his motivations or character, but your claim that there is no evidence he could have done better. Unless we are now shifting the goalpost to "I think stating with confidence that Lukashenko could've done a much better job leading his country further away from Putin's reach while also maintaining all his own goals that influenced his decisions requires more than a bit of evidence". Not to mention that the origin of this argument wasn't even hinging on lukashenka being the one doing better, but rather whoever would be in charge. Lukashenka could have been better, some other president could have done better. Pretty much anyone who would have been willing to not tie themselves to russia for personal gain and burn bridges to the west for the same reason could have put belarus in a better position. There is no certainty that it would have succeeded, but there is no way denying that there have been plenty opportunities to do so. Others mentioned some, I mentioned some, you mentioned some yourself. And now you start talking about his motivations, only further driving home my point that there was a way, but not the will to do so. EDIT: I did not see the edit in time. He had a roughly 6 year window right when he became president to make Belarus democratic and move further away from Russia. That would've meant leaving the CST as quickly as possible and cleaning house. The window closed because of his ambitions, and post-2000 he could not reasonably escape Putin's grasp anymore. There you go, you just admitted that there was at least 1 chance that he let slip. He could have done much better but did not do so. This is getting beyond silly.
Stripping people of their personalities and desires is absurd. We don't exist as chess pieces, we're whole beings with dreams, wishes and fears. A man other than Putin could've turned Russia democratic. Putin could not. A man other than Lukashenko could've turned Belarus democratic. Luka could not.
KwarK wasn't arguing that Luka was a morally upstanding man from the start who just so happened to be under Putin's spell the whole time and therefore without alternatives. That wasn't his argument. This is why I'm saying we're talking past each other.
We are not. I never tied any of this to lukashenkas morality, it was purely: Could he have done better. He could. You just gave another example for when he could have. He just did not for various reasons. The question is in no way tied to his character or any morals, its only about his actions. Maybe you want to change the goalpost to "how likely would it have been that lukashenka turned belarus away from russia"? Not a very interesting topic since we know how the answer already though. When KwarK said Lukashenko successfully walked the tight rope, he was talking about either having Belarus invaded and getting himself killed or having Belarusians mobilized to fight and die in Ukraine. In this regard he could not have done a much better job, I'm sorry but this is just the reality of the situation. When it dawned on him that he could save his country and his countrymen and therefore also himself, he did indeed find a narrow path through the situation - whether by skill or luck is not up to us to decide. KwarK was NOT talking about Lukashenko choosing between EU/NATO and Russia when he used the tight rope metaphor. Oh we are changing the goalpost to "Lukashenko could not have steered belarus away from russian influence within the last year". Its painfully obvious that is not what anyone was talking about when you asked for evidence, and weirdly only comes up now after you yourself brought up a lot of historic context which would be irrelevant when just talking about belarussias role during the war against ukraine but okay. I probably agree with you there.
What are you talking about? I'm not moving any goalposts, you just claim that I do as if it's a fact. I keep telling you that you and I have been talking past each other, and that's not at all the same thing as moving a goalpost.
Can you stop acting like you're somehow so good at argumentation that you can't possibly have misunderstood other people's arguments? I'm trying to clarify what was actually being said and actually meant, while you're trying really hard to paint it as dishonest argumentation, and for a reason that I absolutely don't understand. What are you trying to accomplish with that? You could try to understand what we're saying instead of making the discussion as inflammatory as possible.
I outlined very clearly that Luka was already in a bad spot since the early days of Putin's presidency, and that he couldn't have predicted that such a scenario would unfold. The Soviet Union had fallen apart and Russia wasn't looking like a major threat to him. Maybe he underestimated the odds of the rise of another powerful dictator like Putin, so we can't know what his exact vision was with or without Russia in his back. He probably understood the Soviet history and came to his own conclusions about what he should or shouldn't do about it in the coming years. He also wanted absolute power in Belarus and that's what he got. Did he fail during those specific years pre-2000? Perhaps, yeah. But that wasn't the argument. And post-2000 it's really hard to argue that he made a major misstep regarding Putin's Russia. Putin was never a laughing matter, and buddying up with the EU/NATO at that point would've been much riskier than before, even if Luka had wanted that to begin with, which is kinda of an irrelevant point. By that point it's a lot more about escaping Putin rather than buddying up with EU. The situation for Luka changed over time.
And since the start of the war, which is a part (not the whole) of KwarK's original point, he has in fact made a number of good moves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
