Belarus

Lukashenko is in charge in Belarus as long as Putin wants him there. It really is that simple.
I seem to recall reading reports that Putin would like to replace Lukashenko with someone more pliable, but without any luck so far.

Lukashenko has been clever enough to hold onto power and is good at playing off the EU and Russia against one another in order to extract concessions from both.
 
He’s Vlads loyal point man, holding the line while Vlad does a job on the EU.
it’s game over for Belarus, the EU is now firmly on tbe back foot in its eastern reaches.
it has bigger problems to worry about, like Hungary moving back into Russias orbit.
Slovakia and the Czech Republic too.

Then - maybe - as in previous periods of "unpleasantness", it might appropriate for “others” to offer, provide, an alternative that is more appropriate and acceptable . . .

I refer the honourable members to my earlier posts #28196 and #28197, on the "What now for Europe" thread . . .

I can understand everyone’s intolerance of - and amusement with - the continuing EU farce.

However, we have discussed at some length, that the cause of that disfunction is mainly ( . . . solely ?!), down to Frau Merkel, and Germany’s domination of the EU . . . . ably supported by a largely acquiescent France.

I am therefore a little concerned, that we seem to be directing our intolerance of the EU, onto the other individual, separate, constituent, countries . . . who are probably as bemused, frustrated and intolerant, as we are ourselves!!

I look forward to the disintegration of the current EU.

It may be appropriate to repeat the contents of an earlier post . . .

It is to be hoped that someone within the UK Government, is giving thought to the idea of a purely economic, simply-for-trade, "Northern Economic Community" (NEC).

The UK has always worked well with the three Scandinavian countries, to which should be included Finland - now that it has found (been allowed to find) its "own voice".

The "Visegrad Four", will be as disillusioned as anyone, finding themselves part of "The EuroSSR". Not quite, what they expected after their escape from their enforced influence of, and domination by, the Soviet’s “SSSR”

Should they wish to, on the grounds of practical, defence viability, the three Baltic States would add/complete, a geographical, coherent, whole, virtually surrounding the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.

With the remaining southern states/north Mediterranean countries; and, the three BeNeLux countries; then faced with the only alternative of the Franco-German axis, it would be interesting to speculate to which group they would all gravitate.

We ALL stay within NATO . . . obviously!

Nordic Council - Wikipedia

Baltic Assembly - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visegrád_Group?fbclid=IwAR3odYTUeC05PWIqC-f0JQI2EsSjP0Gm9YB4z45Vi7VTsjlWg0J_k6p0fJ4
Further to the above . . .

" . . any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements". Whilst any Member State wishing to leave in future might look for guidance to the UK's departure, the ultimate decision to leave and the procedure for leaving would of course be a national matter for the country concerned . . .

I hope this reply is helpful in addressing the points raised by Mr RCT(V). Once again, thank you for taking the time to write

With every good wish

RT Hon Michael Gove MP
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
and Minister for the Cabinet Office.


From the second attachment . . . NEC 2 from Gove. pdf
 
Last edited:

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
Then - maybe - as in previous periods of "unpleasantness", it might appropriate for “others” to offer, provide, an alternative that is more appropriate and acceptable . . .

I refer the honourable members to my earlier posts #28196 and #28197, on the "What now for Europe" thread . . .


Anyone with any sense in Belarus will be noting
The EU huffed, and it puffed…
And then it bought Russian vaccines and gas.
 
Anyone with any sense in Belarus will be noting
The EU huffed, and it puffed…
And then it bought Russian vaccines and gas.
Russia - the Wests - NEAR ABROAD

I'm not sure WHAT you expect the EU to ACTUALLY, PHYSICALLY, do with regard to Belarus (and, if it comes to that, the Ukraine also) ?!

My comments (also posted on the "What now for the EU" thread), ONLY concern those, now, member states and countries of the EU. Those once "Eastern European" lands, that we now refer to as "Central Europe".

I do recognise, and acknowledge that the populous of each and every country, deserve and should be able to democratically elect their own Governments, WITHOUT the pressure and influence of outside interests.

However . . . .

We all know, accept, that the USSR regarded the Warsaw Pact countries as its “Comfort Blanket”, a comprehensive and elaborate “buffer”, against what the USSR perceived (and, as a distraction described to its Soviet populous . . . ), to be a dangerous, adventurous and expansionist “West”.

If the integrity of the USSR was to be violated, the USSR had decided it much preferred the associated conflict to take place (and destroy) most of the countries that we previously called “Eastern Europe”, and that were in the Warsaw Pact.

A policy, much like that of the USA! If there was to be a conflict involving the USA, they would prefer it to be fought over here (Europe), than on over there, on the USA’s own territory.


It is clear that Russia now regards its “Comfort Blanket” . . . a comprehensive and elaborate “buffer”, against what Russia perceives to be a dangerous, adventurous and expansionist “West” . . . to be Russia’s neighbouring former member states of the USSR.

Russia has deliberately, and systematically, compromised the integrity of those three now independent former member states of the USSR . . . to the extent that they are unable to, prohibited from, joining both NATO and the EU . . .

+ Belarus – with the overt Russian political interference, and security agreements/joint military manoeuvres (which include forces from Serbia !).

+ Ukraine – with the “occupation” of, and encouragement of, the separatist Donetsk/the East; and, the seizure of Crimea.

+ Georgia – with the “occupation” of, and encouragement of, a couple of separatist "oblasts" adjacent to Russia.

It would reprehensible, for the “West” to totally abandon the people of those three independent countries, and abandon them to (again) fall TOTALLY under the repressive, restrictive, suffocating, influence of Russia.

It is suggested that the “West” should encourage in as many ways possible, the development of the democratic movements within those three countries; assist in the development of the economies, industries, societies, and (even) defence of those three countries.

Russia may not (chose to) acknowledge, that any and all such assistance would be to its own benefit!

However, it is suggested, that for at least the foreseeable future, a couple of generations, maybe the next fifty years . . . enough time to allow “the-dust-to-settle” after the tumultuous events since the mid-1990s . . . we the “West” and those three countries should resign ourselves to getting-used-to, and accepting, the current status quo.

It may not be ideal. I would much prefer the three counties to be totally free of the influences from, and occupation by, Russia.

For the foreseeable future, a couple of generations, maybe the next fifty years, it would be preferable if those three countries, could be regarded by everyone as enjoying the same “Neutrality” of the former Yugoslavia, free to pick-and-choose what suits them.
 
Last edited:

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
I'm not sure WHAT you expect the EU to ACTUALLY, PHYSICALLY, do with regard to Belarus (and, if it comes to that, the Ukraine also) ?!


Anyone East of Berlin will be well advised to note , and yes, I'm talking about you Baltics States - the EU is very good at bigging up and egging on resistance to Vlad, see the Ukraine, but when Vlad looks at it hard, immediately starts looking at its shoes, shuffling its feet and pointing at Squirrels
 
Last edited:
It would reprehensible, for the “West” to totally abandon the populous of those three independent countries, and abandon them to (again) fall TOTALLY under the repressive, restrictive, suffocating, influence of Russia.
How about we encourage and enable all of the peoples to self-determine, even if that does mean some of them choose Russia?
 
How about we encourage and enable all of the peoples to self-determine, even if that does mean some of them choose Russia?
Choose Russia before Russia chooses you?
Once chosen, twice shy?
 
Yes, but will they be allowed to have another choice later?
Will they want to? Or are you saying that we should decide they're not allowed to self-determine unless we like the outcome?
 
Will they want to? Or are you saying that we should decide they're not allowed to self-determine unless we like the outcome?
Yes I believe so, but unless the "Muscovite Mindset" loses its grip on the nation they will not be allowed to.
No I'm not saying that.
 
Yes I believe so, but unless the "Muscovite Mindset" loses its grip on the nation they will not be allowed to.
No I'm not saying that.
Well, either they are allowed to join with Russia as they wish or not. Which is it to be: self-determination or we-know-what's-best-for-you-determination?
 
Russia - the Wests - NEAR ABROAD

I'm not sure WHAT you expect the EU to ACTUALLY, PHYSICALLY, do with regard to Belarus (and, if it comes to that, the Ukraine also) ?!

My comments (also posted on the "What now for the EU" thread), ONLY concern those, now, member states and countries of the EU. Those once "Eastern European" lands, that we now refer to as "Central Europe".

I do recognise, and acknowledge that the populous of each and every country, deserve and should be able to democratically elect their own Governments, WITHOUT the pressure and influence of outside interests.

However . . . .

We all know, accept, that the USSR regarded the Warsaw Pact countries as its “Comfort Blanket”, a comprehensive and elaborate “buffer”, against what the USSR perceived (and, as a distraction described to its Soviet populous . . . ), to be a dangerous, adventurous and expansionist “West”.

If the integrity of the USSR was to be violated, the USSR had decided it much preferred the associated conflict to take place (and destroy) most of the countries that we previously called “Eastern Europe”, and that were in the Warsaw Pact.

A policy, much like that of the USA! If there was to be a conflict involving the USA, they would prefer it to be fought over here (Europe), than on over there, on the USA’s own territory.


It is clear that Russia now regards its “Comfort Blanket” . . . a comprehensive and elaborate “buffer”, against what Russia perceives to be a dangerous, adventurous and expansionist “West” . . . to be Russia’s neighbouring former member states of the USSR.

Russia has deliberately, and systematically, compromised the integrity of those three now independent former member states of the USSR . . . to the extent that they are unable to, prohibited from, joining both NATO and the EU . . .

+ Belarus – with the overt Russian political interference, and security agreements/joint military manoeuvres (which include forces from Serbia !).

+ Ukraine – with the “occupation” of, and encouragement of, the separatist Donetsk/the East; and, the seizure of Crimea.

+ Georgia – with the “occupation” of, and encouragement of, a couple of separatist "oblasts" adjacent to Russia.

It would reprehensible, for the “West” to totally abandon the people of those three independent countries, and abandon them to (again) fall TOTALLY under the repressive, restrictive, suffocating, influence of Russia.

It is suggested that the “West” should encourage in as many ways possible, the development of the democratic movements within those three countries; assist in the development of the economies, industries, societies, and (even) defence of those three countries.

Russia may not (chose to) acknowledge, that any and all such assistance would be to its own benefit!

However, it is suggested, that for at least the foreseeable future, a couple of generations, maybe the next fifty years . . . enough time to allow “the-dust-to-settle” after the tumultuous events since the mid-1990s . . . we the “West” and those three countries should resign ourselves to getting-used-to, and accepting, the current status quo.

It may not be ideal. I would much prefer the three counties to be totally free of the influences from, and occupation by, Russia.

For the foreseeable future, a couple of generations, maybe the next fifty years, it would be preferable if those three countries, could be regarded by everyone as enjoying the same “Neutrality” of the former Yugoslavia, free to pick-and-choose what suits them.
You forgot Moldova / Transdniestr
 
The ethnic Russians seem to have definitively chosen.
Someone I knew worked with a lot of Baltic states nationals that could not speak a word of the country their passport was issued. They only spoke Russian.
Whatever county you were in, when the wall came down, that was your county.
Latvia or Estonia will be next on the Russian hit list, due to the numbers that are Russian when NATO pulls out.

1614021271820.png
 
Well, either they are allowed to join with Russia as they wish or not. Which is it to be: self-determination or we-know-what's-best-for-you-determination?
If the majority of all Belarusians democratically choose to cleave to Russia, then that choice should be respected. If they then wish to leave after some time has passed, then that should be respected. The "we know what is best for you" argument, is what the "Muscovite Mindset" espouses.
 
Someone I knew worked with a lot of Baltic states nationals that could not speak a word of the country their passport was issued. They only spoke Russian.
Whatever county you were in, when the wall came down, that was your county.
Latvia or Estonia will be next on the Russian hit list, due to the numbers that are Russian when NATO pulls out.
And why would NATO "pull out"?
The Baltic States democratically elected governments all took the choice to join NATO.

As regards people's countries. The Russian speaking people of the Baltic States were given a choice - they could stay and become citizens of the new countries that they found themselves in or they could return to the embrace of Moscow by leaving to go to Russia. Funnily enough the vast majority decided to stay.

Ironically when, in 1945, Moscow partially achieved its war aims at the time of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and extended Muscovite control to halfway across Germany, the Kremlin forced the change of many of the former national boundaries so that the countries that many local people found themselves in were often no longer theirs. They were given no choice of remaining on their ancestral teritorries, but forcibly transported over the new borders. The conquered Baltic States were flooded with ethnic Russians and were absorbed directly as SSRs into the USSR (essentially a continuation of the Muscovite Empire, as was Tsarist Russia).
 
The "we know what is best for you" argument, is what the "Muscovite Mindset" espouses.
Now you're saying the refusal to acknowledge the Crimean plebiscite or the clear expression of the Donetsk Republicans means Western countries espouse the Muscovite Mindset?

Or is it just that only self-determination which disadvantages Russia is the right kind?
 

Latest Threads

Top