Good work is always the fruit of collective creativity, and here it is: I read articles about the military capabilities of Belarus, comments on them on VO, and certain unusual thoughts naturally came to mind. Here we talk about the Belarusian people, that we are brothers, that nothing will separate us, and everything will be fine. But due to the nature of the resource I wanted to raise one interesting topic: what about the defense of the fraternal republic?
In the light of recent events in Europe and the Middle East, the question is not at all idle. The time today is restless, state sovereignty has finally turned into a ridiculous convention, it will not be out of place to look at the situation from such a purely military point of view. No, I’m not going to draw arrows and play operations, I’ll just appreciate the defense capability of Belarus as a whole.
So, as it became clear from the publications on “VO”: the Republic of Belarus itself has neither the resources nor the capabilities to carry out at least a short-term defense against the invasion of a powerful modern army. Even aviation, as it turned out, no (I, frankly, was shocked by this fact). So, Belarusians themselves cannot survive. Well, Russia, in theory, could supply them with modern technology. At his own expense, it is understandable: the western frontiers must be defended, Alexander Lukashenko is our closest ally and he does not have money for expensive weapons systems. Here is about something like that wrote on this resource by an author from Belarus. About the supply of air defense systems. And the fact that for Russia the commercial benefit (from the sale of these systems) is more important than the joint protection of the "dangerous" western borders.
At first glance, everything sounds very, very logical: having a well-equipped, friendly army in front of you is great, what doubts can there be? The problem is that Russia is the largest (largest) country in the world with limited resources. And modern weapons systems are required in the west, in the south, and in the east. And even in the north, oddly enough. But Lukashenka and his army will close Russia from the west ... This is where the main doubts lie: to pump Belarus weapons You can help bring the army to modern standards, too, really. The question is different.
Political question: for whom will this army fight? And will she fight at all? Here, vague doubts begin to torment me. All post-Soviet история Russia-Belarus relations proved one simple fact: Lukashenko prefers to build them according to the principle - “nipple system”. That is, everything good should go only in one direction (in the direction of Minsk). Any attempt to get something “backwards” leads to scandals, accusations of imperial dictatorship and complete sabotage. I somehow don’t recall the reverse examples. Even in the case of the fight against ISIS, Lukashenko did not support us (at least in words).
It is this sad story of mutual friendship that gives rise to certain suspicions. Time, as already mentioned, is hectic, Russia's resources are very limited, and modern weapons systems are literally worth their weight in blood. Our blood. And if these systems are transferred to parts of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, then with absolute certainty we can say that in the event of an attack on Russia, they will certainly be used for their intended purpose. What can be said in the case of the transfer of the same expensive systems of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus? Who and what can guarantee in this case? As I understand it, on the one hand, we are allies, on the other hand, the troops of the Republic of Belarus can only be applied on the territory of the Republic of Belarus according to the adopted laws. Such here they are peaceful. That is, if these systems are suddenly required in the other direction, we are guaranteed not to receive them.
Arguing further, the end of the “zero” and the beginning of the “tenth” were marked by numerous political crises in the former post-Soviet space: Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan ... I don’t recall a single case where Belarus clearly, quickly and unequivocally sided with Russia . There was no such once. Rather, the father with some strange constancy chose the reverse side. You know, the reasons for this are no longer so important, the result is important: in the event of a political crisis (it is from there, the legs of all wars usually grow) we are quite likely that we cannot observe the official Minsk on our side of the barricades. The transfer of some modern weapons systems in significant quantities in these hands looks frankly absurd.
Next: Belarus can be “pumped up” with weapons endlessly, but you can always ask for more, even more (not only weapons - trite money for its maintenance). And in the case of any refusing to make a tantrum and start stomping your feet and threatening that if you don’t pay, then RB will stop serving as your western outpost ... Sorry, why do we need this? Even in the case of complete staffing with new equipment, it is not a fact that this army will receive effective leadership. So - not an option.
And what working version do we have now? The army of the Republic of Belarus, as we all understand, is relatively weak, and the army of the Russian Federation is not allowed to enter the territory of Belarus. Well, how will defense be ensured at H hour? That's all they say that we are reliable allies, but even in the purely military sphere this is not very visible. A strange story with a new air base - it clearly showed. Compare, Poland asks the US to send troops into its territory, insists, the Baltic States are asking. Belarus is actively “bargaining”. That is, for the Belarusians, the issue of Russia's security is a question of bargaining: pay - there will be security for you, do not pay ... And many Belarusians actively admire the “turnaround” of the father - oh the rogue!
As I understand it, in principle, they do not believe in a foreign invasion of their territory. The Old Man does not want war, which means it will never be there. Almost like Nicholas II before the Russian-Japanese. It is striking that the Belarusian leadership did not see the aggression of the West in neighboring Ukraine: the legitimate president was overthrown (he was recognized all and no one called it “the last dictator of Europe”), foreign puppets were put at the head of the country, mass murders of dissenters began. The Minsk Wise Men did not want to see anything of this. The West is holy. They saw the "annexation of the Crimea." That's where the threat is! And with new Kiev authorities can work well ... Well, a precedent has been created. (By the way, yes, our allies look at the situation through the eyes of the West, which is typical, and they require explanations from the “Russian aggressors”).
So, Belarus hardly prepares for a “repelling the threat from the West”, and it hardly believes it. Russians want to have an air base for self-defense - let them pay. Here again I met the reasoning that if the NATO threat increases, Russia and Belarus will have time to prepare and regroup the troops. I read and cried. "There is time - there is Möller ...", - so, probably, Army General Pavlov could talk in May 1941, if he had Möller ... "A real war always begins suddenly" (the film "Kill the Dragon"). No, if anything happens, dad immediately will remember the allied obligations of RUSSIA: Russia must save the fraternal people of Belarus. But not before.
The problem is that in the conditions of the conflict that began, the transfer of large masses of troops to the battle area is always a problem. Under the domination of NATO aircraft (we have no bases in Belarus, and Belarusians do not have aviation). To drive trains under bombing, as in 41, but because the old man did not wait for the war and did not prepare for it? Is it worth it? I do not know, but if this is not done, it will immediately be regarded as a “betrayal of the Belarusian ally”. Official Minsk in no way seriously opposes the West and does not want to, but in the event of an attack, it will absolutely count on the defense of Russia: “We are allies ...”. That is, they repeat this strange mantra and "sleep peacefully."
In general, the Germans used the phrase “ballast type ally” to characterize their “friends” in two world wars. Remember the old joke about how many German divisions are needed to attack / defend Romania? Something like that. About Belarus we can say - an ally of the "problem" type. I have absolutely no idea how to defend Belarus in the existing scenario, when our soldiers are simply not allowed in there. It takes time to organize the defense. Will it in case of what? I doubt it. But modern Russia doesn’t have so many troops that, following the example of 1941, ruin them in a border meat grinder ...
So Belarus is a minus rather than a plus. But if something happens, well, then they will immediately require the Russian troops, just like they require fast delivery pizza. But not before. They will decide when they need our troops. (We must learn to respect their sovereignty?) So everything is sad here. No, from the point of view of a civilian (like Lukashenko) everything is logical: we were attacked, we are allies - save! From a military point of view, everything is sad ... and late and hopeless. He probably thinks that the Russian group in Belarus, if necessary, can be deployed in half a day. Alas. And even for a week ...
I've met the opinion that Lukashenka will not “ruin the country” in case anything happens. And what are his options, forgive him? And who will ask him? He was given security guarantees? And Steinmeier signed on paper? It is important. So the neutrality of the Republic of Belarus is from the realm of fantasy. It is too unsuccessfully located - this is Belarus-Belarus ... Or too well, this is how to look. I know someone will voice the topic of nuclear weapons. Say, if anything, then we will strike at once. Is not a fact. Nuclear weapons are the last hope of foul. If nothing else at all.
That is, in today's situation it is not at all clear how to defend it - Belarus. Militarily, it’s unclear, even more unclear politically. Ally, well, let's say, but a great power defense plan cannot depend on the whims of one person. Even if this person heads the union state. Either he wants, he does not want, he does not decide. And for each of his sneeze to have a separate version of the plan? It is clear that no one will do this. How is this done, for example, in South Korea: in the event of a war, the South Korean army automatically goes under the command of the United States, the United States Army in peacetime feels at home in Seoul, in return, that's it - only in return, the United States guarantees security to its South Korean ally. By the way, even with Germany and Japan - something like that. Although not so much, but they have a different position.
In the event of war, there is a clear military vertical and none: "I changed my mind." I’m even afraid to imagine how our relations with Lukashenka will be built in the event of a military conflict. They say: "shoulder to shoulder." Already interesting. The military structure assumes only 1 (one) decision-making center in this theater. All attempts to "experiment" always and everywhere ended the same way. So who will be in charge? Knowing Alexander G., one can say for sure: he will not give up his army under the command of Moscow. That is, two army structures: Russian and Belarusian will defend in the same territory in parallel? Without a general command? Funny.
As there: “There is no talk of any support at the teaching. The armies of the two countries in the status of equal partners are learning to repel any external aggression (2013 West). ” He wrote obviously a military man. Two partners, equal. In the case of a real war, this can only end in one - a crushing defeat. War is not a theater. And not even "role-playing games." Here in NATO - the order - there are no "equal partners". There is a clear army vertical. And they invented it - I am not your subordinate, I am an equal partner! And I do not need to order - I myself know what to do!
No, in principle, if another person were at the head of Belarus, one would assume that behind the scenes ... But not with Alexander Grigorievich ... I still wonder what our “joint defense” will look like. Will you transfer the Russian units directly to the subordination of Lukashenko, and will he, in the Polissya swamps, pretend to be a new Zhukov? You understand that it will not work - today we don’t have enough parts for such “experiments”. Create a collegial Russian-Belarusian advisory body? Oh, he will win. History lovers - tell me about examples when “equal partners” successfully fought with someone ... And even if there is something to be “coordinated”, then in fact “Lukashenko will lead his own army and only himself, and the joint plan it's for Russians. A man like that.
Of course, it is possible to conduct exercises for a specific scenario, but in real life ... In real life, one command is needed, otherwise it is impossible to fight. And who will be the commander? I wonder how all this is represented by the Belarusian military? They have little of their strength, and in any case they will not obey Moscow. So what? As I understand it, in the “case of what” Mr. Lukashenko will decide everything himself. He loves this business and the person unpredictable. I will say this: with such muddy alignments, it is quite difficult to give RBs any guarantees there. Well, it does not happen like this: one side needs something clearly and concretely, while the other “will look at the circumstances.”
Let's say, Russia gathers serious defense forces on the territory of the Republic of Belarus (based on intelligence). And in last moment Alexander Grigorievich declares that there is a conflict between NATO and Russia, and he has no conflict with NATO and is not foreseen, and he will not allow anyone to fight on his land. So what? Rewrite all defense plans? Is it fast to bring troops east to an open field? Further, the funny thing is, even such a “swift conclusion” will have to be coordinated with Minsk - the land is Belarusian! And the dad can "brake" him. And he will be right. He cannot allow all the roads to be driven by Russian equipment. And conflicts are possible.
So, as is the case in NATO, it was taken in the Warsaw Pact: it’s up to someone to decide. And it will be necessary to decide quickly. And we have a question with the air base for half a year frozen. How do you imagine making decisions in the event of hostilities? Also decide on half a year? As the Belarusians expressed about the base - there will be bargaining ... An interesting approach. Russia is obliged to provide general security, but Belarus is not obliged to provide it with WFP for this purpose at all, however you wish. Provide. But if anything happens, the Belarusians, of course, will remember: we counted on you, thought you were allies.
Something like this, the Serbs suddenly remembered Russia just before the NATO bombings. And in fact, which is typical, at the time, too, refused to place the naval base of the USSR, he would have prevented them from being friends with the West. And then they remembered when it was hot, and they were very offended when we did not save them. But during the Cold War, no one in Belgrade recalled that the Russians and the Serbs were brothers. It was unprofitable. Then he remembered. It turns out that all these decades, when the fate of the Cold War was being decided, and when they looked through us as if through glass, they secretly considered us allies. That's it, Mikhalych ...
As a result, lost to the USSR and the SFRY. It does not matter that separately. And the SFRY was destroyed at once after the USSR. “Neutrality” and distancing from the Russians did not save them. And they considered themselves Europeans. But not burned out. By the way, the collapse of the USSR almost coincided with the fall of another “independent” European dictator - Ceausescu. By the way, he was shot. He was needed (with his “distancing from the USSR”) - he was cherished and cherished, stopped being needed - was shot like a dog ... So the idea that Belarus is separate and the Russian Federation separately is quite funny. Nobody will ever leave Belarus alone - this is the sweet illusion of the name Tito-Ceausescu.
You see, the leaders of the Anglo-Saxon world have such a joke: first, they give the indigenous leaders "security guarantees", and then, when the need for "leaders of the Redskins" disappears, they are fed to dogs. Something like this. No, if you have a paper with Steinmeier's signature, sleep well. Steinmeier is an honest guy.
So, I think, the possibilities of the Russian Armed Forces in Minsk will be remembered immediately after the situation becomes completely catastrophic. That is, when it will be somewhat late to do something. There is also a catch: the plan of war is always drawn up in advance in peacetime. Detailed such, with cards, secret. But in advance. And here we need complete certainty: what we have and what we can do. There may be several options, but not fifty in any way, for all occasions - otherwise we will get confused in our plans and, until we unravel, the war will end. And when drawing up such a plan in modern Russia, several questions immediately arise about Belarus. We must defend this cell, but we cannot go there yet, and it is unknown when we can and can we even ...
In short, total uncertainty. And how, forgive, to take this into account in the plans? There will be a war, will we decide there? It is interesting. All the arguments that we are two fraternal peoples cannot help in military planning. To plan the movement of troops on a friendly-neutral territory, where we are stupidly not allowed, is absurd. Conclusion: the Russian defense plan will be drawn up without taking into account the need for the defense of Belarus. Exactly. To remain in the most intense period of deployment of troops in complete uncertainty - no one can afford. Therefore, when Lukashenka starts “cutting off the phones”, demanding help, there simply will not be free troops, and even later they will be moved to the Republic of Belarus.
No, it will certainly help to help him, but it is unlikely to save at any cost. Two equal "partners" ... You guys started playing politics. For example, the US Air Force sits down and takes off in Japan like at home - they don't even need permission. And why? No, not because. The fact is that the United States guarantees the security of the territory of Japan. How do you do it with bare hands? If there is a danger from Russia, China or S. Korea - the USA required parry her. And this duty gives rise to the right to freely transfer combat aircraft into Japanese territory. Imagine - at the weekend there was a military crisis, no one of the Japanese could get through, the translators were all away on the street. And what to do? Nothing, and then refer to the lack of permission?
Therefore, as a last resort, no one will ask anyone: the US and Japan allies and the US guaranteed the security of Japan. Compare the military-industrial potential of Japan and Belarus. And yet. By the way, Japan highly appreciates guarantees from the United States and is carefully studying the circumstances in which they will be implemented and to which territories they extend (in the Y. Kuriles, they by the waydo not apply). They are even more appreciated by South Korea, who has a powerful industry and a good army. Even after the monstrous wiretapping scandal, Germany’s position was very calm: the US is our ally, they ensure our security. In principle, in the context of the weakness of the Bundeswehr - it is logical. And Germany, which has a strong economy and has no hostile neighbors, appreciates US security guarantees. By the way, based on historical experience, it can be assumed that the obligations of the United States will never conflict with the interests of the United States. But in any case, no one expects the United States to take any action beyond their written commitments. It does not occur to anyone.
Thus, the leading industrial powers of the planet, such as Japan, South Korea and Germany, very highly value those “security guarantees” and are prepared to pay dearly for the American “umbrella”. Well - it is quite understandable in our anxious time (without irony). In Belarus, on the other hand, security matters are openly disregarding: there is no serious work, no resources, relations with Russia are incomprehensible and they are constantly deteriorating. But dad actively pretends to be a "defencist". What, they say, something, and the security of the Belarusians, he provided. I wonder how? And what? Maybe "security guarantees" received? Or the magic phrase at the moment X: "And we thought - our Russian allies!". And then you do not need to “think”, you need to build a joint defense.
And in this case, there can be no talk of any “equal partners”: the Russian Federation will ensure the security of the Republic of Belarus, and not vice versa (Belarusians, like medieval feudal lords, fight only on their own territory). And the role of the army of Belarus, with such a scenario, is to be part of the joint first echelon and, oddly enough, to carry out the commands of Moscow, and not Minsk. But this, as we all understand, is unscientific fantasy. And what will happen in the current reality? And in the current reality, Lukashenko, surprisingly, the future of his country only in no way binds Russia and will “float up” separately or try to do it. By the way, this also sounds in official Belarusian sources: on the one hand, NATO, on the other - Russia, and between them - the conflict.
And in the middle "Polesie Switzerland", which has found its own unique historical path.