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 22:23 Acrofales wrote: 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!
Let it go, you are not bringing anything new and interesting to the conversation. Proving yourself right has no value to the thread, if you want to change the mind of a person, take it to private messages.
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.
I wonder why so many videos are popping up debating the end of Russia. I thought most people agreed this won't be a short affair so it all seems a bit premature? Unless predictions have changed and they don't expect Russia to last another year in this war?
On February 23 2023 01:03 Manit0u wrote: I wonder why so many videos are popping up debating the end of Russia. I thought most people agreed this won't be a short affair so it all seems a bit premature? Unless predictions have changed and they don't expect Russia to last another year in this war?
Because it makes better clickbait for views then "Russia may go into a slow decline that can last decades"
I wonder why so many videos are popping up debating the end of Russia. I thought most people agreed this won't be a short affair so it all seems a bit premature? Unless predictions have changed and they don't expect Russia to last another year in this war?
The perun video is not about russia failing, or inevitably losing this war if I remember correctly. It discusses how russia has failed the strategic goals itself set out, and how it is hard to see a scenario in where the war does not end up being a net loss for russia in terms of geostrategy, even if they were to completely steamroll ukraine tomorrow.
No idea about the TimesRadio video, I have not watched that one.
I wonder why so many videos are popping up debating the end of Russia. I thought most people agreed this won't be a short affair so it all seems a bit premature? Unless predictions have changed and they don't expect Russia to last another year in this war?
I've watched the second video recently. The tl;dr is that Putin's war has failed (as in not having achieved any of Putin's imperialistic goals, but instead likely having ruined some or all of them), and that this doesn't imply that Ukraine has succeeded.
The Wagner/MoD split has now spilled out into social media. This time from Khodakovsky who, I guess, is implying there isn't enough ammo for anyone lately. Wagner previosuly said they needed/wanted about 18k shells a day for Bakhmut alone.
Then there is Prigozhin accusing the Russia MoD depriving Wagner of artillery shells, and showing the results...
I wonder why so many videos are popping up debating the end of Russia. I thought most people agreed this won't be a short affair so it all seems a bit premature? Unless predictions have changed and they don't expect Russia to last another year in this war?
I've watched the second video recently. The tl;dr is that Putin's war has failed (as in not having achieved any of Putin's imperialistic goals, but instead likely having ruined some or all of them), and that this doesn't imply that Ukraine has succeeded.
Edit: in other words what Artesimo just said.
Yeah, I'm in the process of watching both videos. First one is quite interesting so far (I'm about halfway through it). Some insights into how Putin's mind works from the person who has personal dealings with him for example.
One of the problems is that the rumored Russians winter offensive may have either sputtered before it started or was canceled already. The weather is shifting in Ukraine to return to the mud season putting an end to offensives again as well as ending the freezing threat from cutting off Ukraines power grid. Once the GLSDB's start arriving Russia will be forced to push their ammo dumps even further back, some chatter was that they're already in Ukraine just in small numbers as a strike on melitopol was made against shifting wagner forces.
There is either doom and gloom over the massive forces people think Russia is ready to unleash or optimism about the perceived shell crisis getting much worse with new double ranged HIMARS strikes. The nature of telegram channels means that its almost impossible to figure out whats real and what isn't but there is more than enough for "clickbait propaganda".
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.
It’s not changing the goalposts, as the person who started this argument I can clarify that the goalposts were always navigating the expansionist Putin regime in the current era.
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.
It’s not changing the goalposts, as the person who started this argument I can clarify that the goalposts were always navigating the expansionist Putin regime in the current era.
Polish sources claim Polish Leopards are already in Ukraine. I thought Ukrainians needed more time but maybe they started training their tankers much earlier than it was reported. Perhaps we'll get to see combat footage with Leopards in April or maybe even March.
White House announces new security package, more sanctions one the anniversary of the invasion.
Also there is a belief, in Wagner not sure about Russian MoD, that with such huge casualty rates that they might not be able to hold the positions they captured. And the ammo situation is getting worse by the day.
Well, if he fell out of a window, it really couldn't happen to a better guy. That murderous assholes deserves anything that comes to him. And Wagner disappearing is also good. That organization is always involved in war crimes, no matter where they are.
And strife within the russian armed forces is also a good thing. The more they fight and sabotage each other the better.
Germany to send four more Leopards to Ukraine now totaling 18.
edit: Kind of haunting that a year ago today, this is probably the last video of these soldiers alive. As they would be wiped out a few hours after this report.
edit: Kind of haunting that a year ago today, this is probably the last video of these soldiers alive. As they would be wiped out a few hours after this report.
EPT
