> 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.
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.