Belarus asks for Russian intervention

[Seanchaidh]

He’s been president since the Soviets fell

He first came to power in 1994, somewhat after that.

despite ample opposition the entire time and was established the same as every other post-Soviet leader, a puppet for liberalization of the economy.

I don't know if that's true. It may be true, but it also may not. The fact that anglophone media is so sparing in its details on the politics of Belarus is consistent with either. For what it's worth, wikipedia says:

His successor, Alexander Lukashenko, changed all of that upon assuming office in 1994 and began to turn his attention away from the West and back towards Russia. And, during his rule, Lukashenko began to re-instate Soviet-era functions and reintroduced the symbols from Soviet Belarus

This is also quite vague. When it seems difficult to find verifiable details about the political situation of a country, I don't find it prudent to support or condemn its (presumably) internal uprisings.

 

[Iron]

The only one of the signatores in the EU at the time was the UK. The Ukraine was not allied with any EU country at all. "We" certainly never gave our word to protect them. That the US and the UK were not willing to honour their guarantees is their responsibility.

German car makers have problems because the future for cars (esp. fossil fueled cars) looks bleak. And Corona hurt car sales in the present. Otherweise their position is good. It is hard to find car makers in a better position.

As for China, market share of German cars is still rising.

China offers hope for German cars after stimulus snub – DW – 06/04/2020

Chancellor Merkel’s coalition has refused to provide incentives for the purchase of conventional cars, leaving carmakers disappointed. Car sales have taken a battering due to COVID-19, but there is a silver lining.

www.dw.com

China Keeps Germany’s Car Makers in the Fast Lane

Germany’s car manufacturers are once again being bailed out by China. Having skidded to a halt in February, Chinese vehicle sales are rebounding—particularly at the luxury end of the market.

www.wsj.com

A lot of worker regulations is EU-based so Polish workers do get the same benefit as French in a lot of ways. And more than the workers in the Ukraine and Belarus - or in the US. Maybe next year they get more protection than those in the UK as well. All thanks to being in the EU.

"we" - the person I was speaking with was from the UK. France was also a guarantee of Ukrain's safety. It did deny 2 carriers to be delivered to Russia after the Crimea expansion.

He’s been president since the Soviets fell despite ample opposition the entire time and was established the same as every other post-Soviet leader, a puppet for liberalization of the economy. To think for even a moment that he’s an ally of the left is the same as thinking Saddam or Assad would qualify as such, and given the Greyzone does think that, I called it out as such. You don’t have to be a geopolitical ally of the US to be a capitalist stooge.

You know very little about Belarus. It's a country stuck in time, I spoke about it earlier. Most of the economy is as it was before the fall of the USSR. No privatization, no oligarchs. In a way, Lukashenjo kept Belarus safe from the outside.

This seems like important context:

Yes I mentioned it. This is much more detailed. Belarus is a poor country, but its not an exploited country. Lukashenko had lead Putin by the nose for over 25 years in the talks to "unify" the two states. He's a very shrewd man. He cares about his people.

N. Korea's deterrent isn't nukes, it's having a billion pounds of artillery pointed at Seoul just over the border.

true they have it, but the nukes are a deterrent towards the major powers intervening.

For some countries in specific situations, sure. But what purpose does the UK's submarine-based deterrent play that isn't just as well covered by the US (or other defence treaties)?

I didn't talk about the UK or USA. Their nukes elevate their diplomatic standing, they are UN security council members after all. The only NPT signatories to legally own nukes. Others like India and Pakistan aren't signatories.

 

[Silvanus]

I don't find it prudent to support or condemn its (presumably) internal uprisings.

Well, that's definitely what Ben Norton was doing.

===

Details on internal Belarusian politics are pretty sparse to find. In part this is due to the general disinterest in most of our Anglophone news sources; in part it's due to the lack of independent news or media inside Belarus.

But we can be certain of a few things, verified by external independent observing organisations: fraudulent elections; widespread detainment without trial, beatings and torture of protesters and political prisoners in "detainment" camps.

Svetlana Tsikhanouski was only even running for President because her husband, who was previously the opposition candidate, was arrested two days after declaring his candidacy. Lukashenko jailed two of his opponent candidates and denied registration to the third.

 

[Agema]

Yes I mentioned it. This is much more detailed. Belarus is a poor country, but its not an exploited country. Lukashenko had lead Putin by the nose for over 25 years in the talks to "unify" the two states. He's a very shrewd man. He cares about his people.

Belarus is an exploited country. It's exploited by Lukashenko and his cronies.

He has all the repressive apparatus of a typical authoritarian state for a reason, and that reason is to enforce his rule on his people whether they like it or not. He cares about his people so much that he'd rather Russia help him strong-arm them into submission and keep ruling rather than heed their wishes.

The idea that it was either rule by Russian-style oligarchs or Western capitalists is a false dichotomy. There's a lot of things Lukashenko could have done with his country, but what he mostly did was ensure he got to stay national leader, with the perks and power and status that came with it.

 

[Revnak]

You know very little about Belarus. It's a country stuck in time, I spoke about it earlier. Most of the economy is as it was before the fall of the USSR. No privatization, no oligarchs. In a way, Lukashenjo kept Belarus safe from the outside.

Poggers

 

[Revnak]

He first came to power in 1994, somewhat after that.



I don't know if that's true. It may be true, but it also may not. The fact that anglophone media is so sparing in its details on the politics of Belarus is consistent with either. For what it's worth, wikipedia says:



This is also quite vague. When it seems difficult to find verifiable details about the political situation of a country, I don't find it prudent to support or condemn its (presumably) internal uprisings.

Ben Norton is not a man known for his prudence when it comes to condemning or supporting internal uprisings. As for me, I support the struggling human beings gathering in crowds to attain some semblance of a just society and being beaten by police in response over the 26 year oligarch. You’ll find that I am very consistent in this respect. One can express distaste for Slavic oligarchs and Anglo neoliberals, it’s incredibly easy when you’re not polluted by mind-numbing nationalisms.

 

[Iron]

Poggers

Go fuck yourself, passive aggressive piece of human waste. Pretends to be of any actual value. I'm done with reading your garbage.

 

[MrCalavera]

You know very little about Belarus.

Does anyone, besides belarussian officials and people who live there, really?

Belarus is a poor country, but its not an exploited country. Lukashenko had lead Putin by the nose for over 25 years in the talks to "unify" the two states. He's a very shrewd man. He cares about his people.

This begs for a question: Country not being exploited, means the people aren't? I mean, USA as a state, certainly isn't being exploited either.

And right now Lukashenka's line balancing act is coming to an end. Looks like soon he'll have to either put up with what Russia's offering, or shut up.

I don't know if he cares about those that protest, considering he compared them to "rats" and "criminals". His OMOH certainly doesn't.

 

[Agema]

gathering in crowds to attain some semblance of a just society and being beaten by police in response over the 26 year oligarch.

Autocrat. There's only one of him.

 

[Revnak]

Autocrat. There's only one of him.

There’s one Putin, but the system that puts him in place is one of oligarchy. I presume the same of Belarus, though largely based on comparison to other Slavic states and conversations with friends.

 

[Revnak]

Go fuck yourself, passive aggressive piece of human waste. Pretends to be of any actual value. I'm done with reading your garbage.

Sir, this is a Wendy’s

 

[Seanchaidh]

Well, that's definitely what Ben Norton was doing.

Yeah, he's an investigative journalist who seems to be in closer contact with relevant facts than I am.

Ben Norton is not a man known for his prudence when it comes to condemning or supporting internal uprisings.

There are a number of people who would like to spread that narrative purely because he opposes the imperialist foreign policy of the United States and the so-called news reporting that supports it. So I'm not just going to take that at face value.

 

[Revnak]

There are a number of people who would like to spread that narrative purely because he opposes the imperialist foreign policy of the United States and the so-called news reporting that supports it. So I'm not just going to take that at face value.

I’m not some radlib, my issue is that “anti-imperialism” that cares only about American imperialism isn’t anti-imperialism, and ultimately that it’s just a different frame of nationalism to favor any nationalist demagogue the moment they’re on the receiving end of US imperial stick, but not caring when they’re doing heinous acts for the carrot.
Also for denialistic coverage of Assad’s many war crimes, but that’s overly specific and perhaps somewhat unfair viewed on its own and not as part of a pattern.

 

[Satinavian]

Belarus is an exploited country. It's exploited by Lukashenko and his cronies.

I think, Iron wanted to express that the people of Belarus is not exploited, only suppressed.

That could be true, if Lukashenko is some kind of fanatic believing in some ideology that promises abetter life for the citicens and must be implemented, maybe even against their wishes.

But ... i don't actually think that is the case.

 

[Agema]

There’s one Putin, but the system that puts him in place is one of oligarchy. I presume the same of Belarus, though largely based on comparison to other Slavic states and conversations with friends.

Well, any autocrat needs friends and allies to get stuff done who necessarily have a lot of power and could threaten the dictator, so in practice the boundary between oligarchy and autocracy is often quite thin. But where in Russia many oligarchs have vast personal power (through their wealth) to influence the state, in Belarus power almost entirely derives from public office, which is at the total discretion of Lukashenko.

I think, Iron wanted to express that the people of Belarus is not exploited, only suppressed.

That could be true, if Lukashenko is some kind of fanatic believing in some ideology that promises abetter life for the citicens and must be implemented, maybe even against their wishes.

But ... i don't actually think that is the case.

Okay, I see that.

But I don't think exploitation is just something capitalist business owners and foreign imperialists do. Lukashenko and his cabal might not be making stupid amounts of money, but they can still be enjoying a great deal of luxury, status and power at the expense of their citizens.

 

[stroopwafel]

Well, any autocrat needs friends and allies to get stuff done who necessarily have a lot of power and could threaten the dictator, so in practice the boundary between oligarchy and autocracy is often quite thin. But where in Russia many oligarchs have vast personal power (through their wealth) to influence the state, in Belarus power almost entirely derives from public office, which is at the total discretion of Lukashenko.



Okay, I see that.

But I don't think exploitation is just something capitalist business owners and foreign imperialists do. Lukashenko and his cabal might not be making stupid amounts of money, but they can still be enjoying a great deal of luxury, status and power at the expense of their citizens.

Belarus' main problem is stagnation and people with opportunities abroad leaving the country. From what I remember in the early '00s or so there was a decent amount of trade with the E.U. with more money being put into development of cities like Vitebsk. But that seems to have completely dried up and with trade relations on the decline so does the country become more isolated. Now Belarus could be like Chechnya or Kazachstan with active pro-Russian policies and intimate bilateral relations but Lukashenko never really chose this route either. He just seemed content sucking Gazprom's tit just to keep the E.U. at a distance. Lukashenko seems to be more of an opportunist who capitalized on ennui rather than some autocrat with an agenda. But you know, maybe now there's a generation who is fed up with him and the country's perpetual stagnation.

I guess he's Trump if Trump was the leader of a bankrupt former Soviet state instead of 'the leader of the free world'.

 

[Avnger]

You know very little about Belarus. It's a country stuck in time, I spoke about it earlier. Most of the economy is as it was before the fall of the USSR. No privatization, no oligarchs. In a way, Lukashenjo kept Belarus safe from the outside.

[...]

Yes I mentioned it. This is much more detailed. Belarus is a poor country, but its not an exploited country.

Rise up to tyrants. Stop Communism.

 

[Agema]

Belarus' main problem is stagnation and people with opportunities abroad leaving the country. From what I remember in the early '00s or so there was a decent amount of trade with the E.U. with more money being put into development of cities like Vitebsk. But that seems to have completely dried up and with trade relations on the decline so does the country become more isolated. Now Belarus could be like Chechnya or Kazachstan with active pro-Russian policies and intimate bilateral relations but Lukashenko never really chose this route either. He just seemed content sucking Gazprom's tit just to keep the E.U. at a distance. Lukashenko seems to be more of an opportunist who capitalized on ennui rather than some autocrat with an agenda. But you know, maybe now there's a generation who is fed up with him and the country's perpetual stagnation.

I think the key problem Belarus has with EU trade is that it has been under some form of sanctions (albeit mostly quite light ones) for a long time due to Lukashenko's suppression of political opposition.

My impression, I think like yours, is that Lukashenko has been trying to play off the EU and Russia. He's been trying to keep Russia at arm's length whilst trying to get cheap gas out of it. Russia of course wants Belarus as a buffer state (and didn't it propose a merger at some point?), but is annoyed that it is effectively subsidising it in a costly way. Meanwhile he's clearly wanted to piggyback off the EU's wealth, whilst simultaneously not having to live up to EU expectations on political, economic and social freedom.

I'd also agree that in the 1990s, having staggered out of decades of Communist political stupefaction, the Belarusians were probably mostly clueless about democracy and had no real attachment to it, which Lukashenko readily exploited to install himself. As you say, I'm not sure he has an agenda, except that he clearly likes running the country and wants to carry on doing so.

I guess he's Trump if Trump was the leader of a bankrupt former Soviet state instead of 'the leader of the free world'.

I'm pretty sure Trump has de facto resigned his office's role as "leader of the free word". He seems more keen on being top dog amongst the world's authoritarians, buddying around with his pals Putin, Kim, Erdogan and bin Salman.

 

[Silvanus]

Russia of course wants Belarus as a buffer state (and didn't it propose a merger at some point?), but is annoyed that it is effectively subsidising it in a costly way.

Plus (and I don't know how meaningful this is), Minsk is apparently the capital of the Commonwealth of Independent States, which (of course) Russia politically dominates.

 

[Agema]

Plus (and I don't know how meaningful this is), Minsk is apparently the capital of the Commonwealth of Independent States, which (of course) Russia politically dominates.

Pretty meaningless. Not least because half of them will soon enough be dominated by China instead of Russia.