Belarus

Fascinating . . . I just caught a re-broadcast of the last twenty-five minutes of this . . . mesmerising !!

.

Now, to watch the first five minutes ;) .
 
Last edited:
I would agree with most of what you say, however I imagine that keeping somebody on ice in Russia would be a bit different, eg out in the wilds of Siberia where no one would ever find the body.

It all boils down to whether Putin wants to show the world that he protects and rewards his loyal minions. It's already well known what he does to those who cross him.

The old KGB (of which Putin was an officer) prided itself on getting its assets and agents away to safety in Russia and doing right by them. Something of that outlook may have continued.

Then again, when you dine with the Devil, you need to be sure whether you're a guest, or a side dish...
 
They fell out of fundamental differences over: what Communism actually was; who got to define it; how to reconcile competing views; and the eternal conflicting national interests.

Nowadays it's a marriage of convenience but there remains significant areas of disagreement that get in the way of it being a genuine alliance.
And what do you think a marriage of convenience is? It doesn't have to be genuine or an alliance.
 
It all boils down to whether Putin wants to show the world that he protects and rewards his loyal minions. It's already well known what he does to those who cross him.

The old KGB (of which Putin was an officer) prided itself on getting its assets and agents away to safety in Russia and doing right by them. Something of that outlook may have continued.

Then again, when you dine with the Devil, you need to be sure whether you're a guest, or a side dish...
I expect that Lukashenko is being used as a figurehead by Moscow to crackdown on any Belarusian democratic opposition then he can be conveniently scapegoated for any excessive violence involved when Belarus gets completely engulfed back under Moscow's rule.
 
They are both really still Communist, with Communist aims. In my book that’s all that would matter.
I guess it's a pretty small book, with more pictures than words.

It certainly doesn't accurately describe a complex world.
 
No I take amplex . The complex world is really rather simple. Motive, means and ability. If all three coincide…..
If all three coincide, you still need to account for will and opportunity as only two missing factors from the simple equation.

They may have the motive, the means and the ability to do something, but if they don't want to or even just don't want to right now, then that model won't explain their behaviour.
 
Fascinating . . . I just caught a re-broadcast of the last twenty-five minutes of this . . . mesmerising !!

.

Now, to watch the first five minutes ;) .

He comes across as a brutal and unscrupulous peasant, with a worldview that fluctuates somewhere between deeply ingrained suspicion and paranoid hostility. He is also an unregenerate communist boor. Imagine what he's like after a bottle of vodka...

Lukashenko strikes me as a man who's capable of going down to the basement cells one night and personally executing his enemies.
 
Nowt wrong about a dictarship, .. apart from the last quarter to (15 mins)
Diplomacy...resolved the solution ?
Full toothed grining mythomanes promising a comporise

What gibberish is this?

Did Google Translate malfunction?
 
Fascinating . . . I just caught a re-broadcast of the last twenty-five minutes of this . . . mesmerising !!

.

Now, to watch the first five minutes ;) .
That was a very good interview and gives a good impression of his character.

One interesting point is that he brought up the problem with refugees crossing from France to the UK, hundreds in a single day. He also brought up France threatening to cut off electricity to the Channel Islands.

His point in mentioning those seemed to be that he feels the EU, UK, and US don't have a valid argument to make against him so long as these sames sorts of events are happening on the other side of the EU as well. He can present the arguments being made against him as hypocrisy if the same things happening elsewhere are simply swept under the carpet when it is diplomatically convenient to do so.

Or in other words, when "we" complain about him, he will point to the EU - UK border, or to the election riots in Washington, and say that our arguments against him are not valid as the same things happen here. We can sit here all we want and say "but we're talking about Belarus, not these other places" but that just amounts to admitting that we don't have an answer to what he says.

I don't think this sort of thing is going to be defused until and unless there is a major re-think about how refugees are handled in general, even if things settle down on the Belarus border.
 
He was interviewed on R4 on Thursday on PM - apparently for domestic consumption the interview is editted so that it is him asking questions and then L going on a 30 minute rant.
It is apparently not uncommon for television interviewers to re-shoot the questions after the interview and then edit them in later. That way the interviewer can look cool and collected and appear to come up with very perceptive questions on the fly when in reality the interviewer got flustered, forgot his script, and the two talked over one another. This is easy to do with a multi-camera set up where only one party is seen at a time.

The "honest" interviewers will ask more or less the same questions during the re-shoot. The other kind will ask slightly different questions that will cause the viewer to see the "replies" in a different light.

I'm not suggesting that anything dodgy happened here, but it is normal for sit down interviews to be very heavily edited.
 
Top