Comment by PeterisP | Hacker News Reader

Comment by PeterisP | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There's nothing effective that's going to be done about this.

Regimes like that change only when forced by violence or credible threats of violence in their territory - actual power, not "soft power", it will change only because of large quantities of people in Belarus/Minsk actually make the change happen (as opposed to just asking for change). Looking around, who might make such a change?

1. Western countries definitely won't do that in Belarus, a boots-on-the-ground invasion like that seems totally implausible and would risk escalation into a military conflict with Russia, it's just not going to happen;

2. The Belarus opposition decided to explicitly avoid trying anything and limit their activities to nonviolent protests - last year there were some moments where perhaps they had a chance to overthrow the regime if they tried, but now the regime has succeeded in repressing the opposition (partly through acts like in this article), they can't rally masses as much anymore, so no chances in the short term;

3. Russia has no need to do that, they seem to be satisfied with the current direction and whatever deals they made;

4. Internally, the regime seems stable. Last year perhaps there were some questions on whether all structures of power would support Lukashenka, but that seems to be over for now - but IMHO this is the only thing that can change the country's direction, if the regime stays unified, Lukashenka will get away with all of this (and, most likely, escalate it) for a decade or more easily, the existing regime is stuck and can't change (since as soon as they loosen the grip, they'll end up like Gaddafi), but if a "court coup" happens, they might change the direction.

So all that's on the table is complaining loudly and sanctions that aren't going to be effective in the short term. I mean, the only way how sanctions can work is if they make the economic situation dire enough so that Belarus people actually do revolt, until that, the regime will make sure that the siloviki get their share of the dwindling funds and it won't change their behavior as that behavior is now required for their self-preservation.

Making an example out of this could well be cheaper than confronting Moscow in the long run. I’m not advocating it. Just saying this wasn’t a risk-free entourage. Levelling a few military air bases while communicating to Russia exactly what’s being done will piss everyone off, but it’s unlikely to escalate. It is also unlikely to spiral.

Lukashenko and Putin would love that. No one would longer doubt it when they say that opposition is backed by NATO. As for the spiral, well, Ukraine would probably lose some of its military bases, just because it's apparently no big deal now.

I think as a rule, we should use epistemic humility and look to past instances of intervention unless we have really strong reasons to believe that this would be a uniquely successful intervention.

> Western countries definitely won't do that in Belarus, a boots-on-the-ground invasion like that seems totally implausible and would risk escalation into a military conflict with Russia, it's just not going to happen

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I just don't understand why so many trillions of dollars around the world are being spent on military power that just sits by and watches dictatorships kidnap protestors from other countries and execute them.

Having grown up in the early 2000s and seen some offensively transparent excuses to start military invasions, surely this is a far more justifiable reason for conflict. Is everyone just waiting for Lukashenko and Putin to die and hoping that their successors won't be as maniacal?

I don't know what to make of your post. You have "seen some offensively transparent excuses to start military invasions" and yet keep asking these naive questions.

A plane was travelling between two countries. The head of state of a third country gave the direct order to hijack said plane in order to murder someone onboard.

I can't see how you'd interpret that as anything except an act of war. That doesn't seem like an offensively transparent excuse to me. Certainly in comparison to "My fortune cookie said they might have WMDs" or whatever the line was two decades ago that was apparently good enough for the US.

I'd say "what does it take, a literal invasion?" but that already happened in Crimea.

> I just don't understand why so many trillions of dollars around the world are being spent on military power that just sits by and watches dictatorships kidnap protestors from other countries and execute them.

We make wars to control energy sources, trade routes, etc. The west as happily puts a dictator in place of a democratic government when it's in their interest (or the best interest of the men in power and their supports).

You also need to have an opposition figure who you can tell is likely to succeed with your assistance ahead of time, and who can make credible promises to pay you back (ie. with contracts for the rebuilding, contracts on oil extraction, etc.)

It's very clear how this played out in Libya, for instance, if you read the leaked Hillary Clinton emails. [0]

[0]: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12900

> Having grown up in the early 2000s and seen some offensively transparent excuses to start military invasions, surely this is a far more justifiable reason for conflict

If you were around during that time, you should know that for most people, the justifications being bandied around were much less "offensively transparent" at the time. Just look at public opinion, headlines, etc. - opposition to intervention was a massive minority opinion. Most people believed about the WMDs, etc.

Now, opinion has shifted quite substantially - so why is it surprising that people are skeptical of intervention?

Personally, as a citizen of the US, I would fight tooth & nail against any deployment of troops over this. In no way am I confident fewer people would die or be harmed with intervention.

> Western countries definitely won't do that in Belarus, a boots-on-the-ground invasion like that seems totally implausible

Why so?

NATO completely towers over Belorus army. It has only a single airbase — Minsk, and all its air defence for this city only.

More importantly, it's military is critically short of skilled manpower, just like is Russian army (having more vehicles than pilots for them.)

Belarus triggering a defence treaty with Russia? Pffff, he can trigger it upon his own head, as did Armenia.

Russia will not come when faced with credible force.

> but now the regime has succeeded in repressing the opposition (partly through acts like in this article), they can't rally masses as much anymore, so no chances in the short term;

Any government in the world can be overthrown by a popular revolt. Any.

If you think about things seriously, and reject useless sentimentalism, using power starts make sense.

A very obvious benefit of doing so, is that it is the quickest, and easiest way to discredit defeatist voices.

Because Russia. And you're right, just back in January an angry mob of traitors invaded the US Capitol building and were looking to install a dictator and kill Congress people and the VP. It can happen anywhere, we're just lucky they were buffoons.

You were indeed very fortunate.

But when I called US being few years away from the second civil war here 4 years ago, people weren't very kind. Half laughed me out, and another half got me banned.

Maybe, sometimes, people have to be told not to take serious political matters of national importance so dismissively.

It's still laughable. Most conservatives are just old people. You think the kids are gonna start fighting their parents?

It's not like it's a north versus south thing.

Invasion would be completely insane

And its not what I want for my country

In fact I think the only way to remove Lugabe at this point is to remove Putin first, but since this is not happening before second cold war, my only advice for compatriots fortunate enough is to leave

1. You tell them not to leave

2. You tell them how to procure, and handle a weapon

3. You teach them squad, and platoon level tactics

4. You get few people with proper military education to run this

5. You call defeatists their names

Didn't Belarus have mass conscription? IMHO a large portion of Belarus men should have proper training to handle a weapon and squad/platoon tactics from their mandatory army year (or year-and-a-half). They don't have a lot of weapons, though.

But if most of them were willing to do that, then the same motivation would apply for the conscripts who currently make up the army and do have all the weapons required, so that would be the scenario of "internal coup" with army turning against Lukashenka; but we as far as we see, neither the army nor the general population are currently eager for violent action, so things would have to get much worse before they might reconsider.

This is exactly the argument propaganda in Russia and Belarus brings forward again and again — that it’s bystanders and outsiders that attempt to shame people into violence and grave risk to their lives.

Historically, majority of popular armed revolts were followed by bloodbaths, and years of economic dismay. Falling of Eastern bloc was a major exception, because USSR, the primary sponsor, crumbled itself. And even then there was Yugoslavia.

Dying in the name of freedom is just too much to ask of a normal person. Moving and freeing yourself is a more pragmatic move. Its not that hard to uphold your ethnic identity outside of arbitrarily defined borders, anyway.

Foreign invasion, on the other hand, has a much higher potential to galvanise all sorts of radicalists, as it has done every single time, everywhere.

So, please, be mindful of your call to arms to people in the faraway lands.

>"So, please, be mindful of your call to arms to people in the faraway lands"

Lots of keyboard warriors here. It would do good for them to fix their own proper first.

>"Dying in the name of freedom is just too much to ask of a normal person"

They do not mind as long as it is not their own life.

> Dying in the name of freedom is just too much to ask of a normal person. Moving and freeing yourself is a more pragmatic move.

Everything you say is true. However, what about the people who are left behind, who are too old or too poor or too weak to free themselves?

Sometimes you take one for the team in order to help everyone else. Even in the face of fear, the threat to yourself and your family, pragmatism, and common sense, you must take up arms to fight the oppressor and secure your country's future.

It is this sense of duty and honor that raises us above the animals and allows us to bond together and fight a common foe, yet even animals will fight to defend their house, families, and freedom.

> Historically, majority of popular armed revolts were followed by bloodbaths, and years of economic dismay. Falling of Eastern bloc was a major exception, because USSR, the primary sponsor, crumbled itself. And even then there was Yugoslavia.

Again, all you say is true. However, there are more examples.

The nation of Texas was born from violence and revolution.

Santa Anna attempted absolute rule over the citizens in the Mexican states. He first tried to peaceably seize all arms from the Mexican states. After some initial resistance, Santa Anna was successful in subduing the other two Mexican states, but those obstinate Texians would not be quelled easily.

The Texians, as well as two other Mexican states, didn't give them up, but resisted[1].

In Gonzales, Texas, the Mexican army tried to seize a small cannon and the Texians, armed only with the small cannon and muskets, erected a flag that said "Come and Take It". They were successful that day, but, as you point out, then the bloodbath still came, at the Alamo and other bloody battles. As you know, the Texians fought hard against tyranny and were ultimately successful; they won independence from Mexico to form The Republic of Texas.

Nearly one hundred years earlier, the United States was born from a popular armed revolt.

As with Texas, the U.S. only declared independence as a last resort, and after the colonists attempted to negotiate with their oppressors and resolve their differences. The Declaration of Independence was followed by multiple written warnings and documents.

Even most patriotic Americans are not aware of everything that transpired. There, again, the British army attempted to seize the arms of the citizenry before armed revolt broke out. It took literally years before the Americans took up arms, and multiple documents to King George warning that the situation was untenable, even at grave risk to the authors of those documents.

For example, The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms[2] preceded The Declaration of Independence. Everyone knows the first line or two of the Declaration of Independence, but the full Declaration reveals in detail why the King's subjects were revolting and the "repeated injuries and usurpations"[3].

Thomas Jefferson put it most eloquently in the Declaration for Independence in 1776, after years of negotiation with the Crown had failed.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [the pursuit of rights endowed by the Creator, that is: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

-Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence: July 4, 1776

A revolution that is grounded in prudence and common sense looks beyond the awful but short-term war to a future of freedom, for generations to come.

1. https://guncite.com/journals/haltex.html

2. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-issues-...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_I...

Ok, show us the way by starting a war in your country. Don't want that, do you?

> Why so?

I'm not talking about the ability, I'm talking about the will to spill your soldiers blood for such a purpose. A boots-on-the-ground invasion is off the table because western countries would consider that price far, far too high for such a goal. I mean, muster a large scale invasion, for what? A couple dead journalists? Looking at other potential interventions, even literal mass concentration camps would probably be tolerated without escalating to an invasion. No, the western political will in this case is definitely limited to sanctions only. They might perhaps assist one side in a local conflict (i.e. the locals provide "boots on the grounds" and any blood to be spilled, while outsiders provide money and arms), this has happened in quite some places, but in Belarus there isn't an ongoing violent conflict between two sides, there's just the state applying small scale police action against individuals, there aren't any "rebel organizations" that would be capable of receiving such support.

> Belarus triggering a defence treaty with Russia?

We'd expect Russia to come in with force to prevent a pro-western government forming, treaty or not - e.g. if it seemed that Lukashenka would agree to cede power to a pro-western opposition, I wouldn't be surprised at an intervention from Russia even if Lukashenka would object. Once again, such scenarios were discussed and considered credible last year, but weren't "tested" as it turned out differently.

> Russia will not come when faced with credible force.

Perhaps, but there isn't a credible will to apply force, so any threats of such force would be treated by Russia as obvious bluffs.

> Any government in the world can be overthrown by a popular revolt. Any.

Of course, but a popular revolt isn't happening in Belarus, the opposition chose (and are still choosing) not to revolt and limit their activities to nonviolent protest - if you'd call that defeatist, I might agree, but that was the initial position and they seem to have succeeded in spreading that doctrine, and it would take time to reverse it. And the lack of practical reaction of people to the state abuse of power and the failure of various attempts at general strikes indicates that the conditions aren't even close to a revolt.

> I mean, muster a large scale invasion, for what? A couple dead journalists?

For a one big thing, for honour

For not letting a foul CPSU nincompoop spitting in the face of the Whole Western World from the doorstep of Europe.

Don't hold your breath waiting.

I mean, you might be able to convince me that the world should work that way, but it definitely does not work that way right now.

A few days before this hijacking occurred, I was wishing that I knew Russian better, because I knew that I was going to be missing out on the guaranteed show that was going to occur this summer. Yeah, nobody is going to do an invasion over a couple of journalists getting killed. However, one should be concerned about the Belarusians that might not align themselves with Russia, when things go down. Those people easily could be persecuted and thrown into concentration camps.

>Belarus triggering a defence treaty with Russia? Pffff, he can trigger it upon his own head, as did Armenia.

Armenia did not trigger anything. It was not under attack.

Armenian president was begging Putin to intervene, that's what whole of Yerevan knows.

So? Russia had no legal reason to do so.

Not to mention this was a lesson to Pashinyan.

As for Yerevan - they were almost ready to throw him our of the office when they finally realised they have been lied about their military state and success.

Serves them right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com