Thread: Top 5 Tyrants to Follow in the Footsteps of Mubarak

Likely? Someone is blowing smoke. The insinuation is that they will face massive street protests under the noses of an army of conscripts who can't be depended on to shoot their fellow countrymen. Egypt may have been under emergency rule, but it was not a closed country run by one-man rule. It would take enormous courage for North Koreans to confront Kim. At the first hint of a popular protest, there would be bodies in the street. Mugabe is an old man. He's sharing power. Castro is old and not well. The ropes in Cuba are being eased, but its army is loyal to Castro's brother. Police states are hard to overthrow.

Not sure about the others. But I don't think Lukashenko would go this way. See, Mubarak did not have any international support. Lukashenko has Russia. Sure, he and Putin have their public spats every once in awhile. As a common saying in both Russia and Bealrus goes 'Milye branyatsa, tolko teshutsya', 'Sweethearts fight, but only for fun'. In the end, Russia needs Lukashenko in charge of Belarus, a anti-Western figure who is dependant on Moscow, as nobody else would do business with him. So, I think that, in order for a 'color revolution' to succeed, a similar event has to be happening across the border, or Putin must be kept busy one way or another. Otherwise, I see Russia going as far as maybe even sending forces into Belarus to help Lukashenko hold power.

SA2003:

I take your points about Russia's support for Lukashenko at face value, but question why a less dictatorial leader still tight with Russia would be unacceptable to the Russians. Also, I have to correct you regarding international support for Mubarak. If you meant government-to-government support, some other ME countries, most notably Saudi Arabia, supported him. Interestingly, there was considerable popular support for him in Israel.

Vietnam
Afghanistan
Philippines
Russia
Yugoslavia


I'm trying to think of one example where an uprising have a happy ending. Nothing yet.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Vietnam
Afghanistan
Philippines
Russia
Yugoslavia


I'm trying to think of one example where an uprising have a happy ending. Nothing yet.

What's a happy ending? The Boston Masscre was unhappy for the wives of the colonists killed, but happy for the colonists who witnessed the birth of a new nation.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Vietnam
Afghanistan
Philippines
Russia
Yugoslavia


I'm trying to think of one example where an uprising have a happy ending. Nothing yet.

for all the goods and bads, I like to think we ( ROMANIA ) are better off than before 1989.

Yep,but I still think we'd be better off with another series of shooting.

I think the colonel's list has merit.But he's actually talking about nations that had civil wars and break-ups,not mere uprisings.The lasting damage is not done during a few days/weeks of reduced economic activity and a few burnt cars&broken windows.

Originally Posted by Mihais

Yep,but I still think we'd be better off with another series of shooting.

Originally Posted by Mihais

I think the colonel's list has merit.But he's actually talking about nations that had civil wars and break-ups,not mere uprisings.The lasting damage is not done during a few days/weeks of reduced economic activity and a few burnt cars&broken windows.

I do not think you end up with a uprising in the first place, if lasting damage has not allready bean done and all forms of peacefull protests have bean exhausted or represed.

How about Lech Walesa's Poland?

Originally Posted by 1979

I do not think you end up with a uprising in the first place, if lasting damage has not allready bean done and all forms of peacefull protests have bean exhausted or represed.

You tend to mix civil war with an uprising.The entire WP had such things(we got as usually the short stick and had the bloodiest one).But even ours was nothing compared to what our Yugoslav friends got.Killing tens of thousands and destroying cities along with the economy for at least a decade is the actual lasting damage.Going to war is a way to serious decision.It's of course preferable at a point,but ,like you say,only after everything else has been tried.
Ultima ratio regum.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

SA2003:

I take your points about Russia's support for Lukashenko at face value, but question why a less dictatorial leader still tight with Russia would be unacceptable to the Russians. Also, I have to correct you regarding international support for Mubarak. If you meant government-to-government support, some other ME countries, most notably Saudi Arabia, supported him. Interestingly, there was considerable popular support for him in Israel.

Fair enough. But, I do not think Putin wants a 'democrat' in Belarus. He never was good at working with democratic leaders. Look at relationship between Russia and Georgia since Saakashvili came along. Two historic allies, brother peoples (just as an exmaple, know that famous photo, two Red Army troops hang Soviet flag over Reichstag in Berlin in 1945? Did you know that one of them is Russian and the other - Georgian?) ended up at war! I think if there is a popular uprising in Belarus, there will be lots of violence, much more than in Egypt or even Iran.

Maybe will spread to Russia herself. There is a lot of public discontent there, lot of anti-Putin, anti-United Russia sentiment; and Belarusian and Russian opposition groups have been trying to cooperate in recent years. When, in 2010, tens of thousands took to the streets in Russian Kaliningrad, Belarusian activists were there; and this time in Minsk, there were Russians in the crowds. I don't see Putin and Lukshenko falling one without other. If they go down, they will go down together.

And the West does not want that either. Destabilization of Russia means several things:

• North Caucasus becomes another haven for Islamic extremists
• Nuclear weapons, and warehouses with chemical and viral warfare stockpiles become unsecure, WMDs may fall into hands of extreme groups, including above mentioned Islamists
• Inter-racial, ethnic, religious fighting, civil war, that could result in mutual cleansings worse than Yugoslavia, deaths of millions maybe
• 1/6 of the Earth becomes a lawless area where guns rule. UN and NATO may have to send forces there to keep peace, and to secure above-mentioned WMDs. How much would that cost to the taxpayers here in the West?
• Millions, maybe tens of millions of refugees flowing across the borders into Europe.

No, last thing America nd the West would want is for anything to happen to Putin and Lukashenko.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

What's a happy ending? The Boston Masscre was unhappy for the wives of the colonists killed, but happy for the colonists who witnessed the birth of a new nation.

The Loyalists who fled to Canada would have a different argument.

And a newly borned nation with a population 4 times of Canada had to retreat before Canada, tell me again that you were better than before.

Originally Posted by 1979

for all the goods and bads, I like to think we ( ROMANIA ) are better off than before 1989.

I cannot and will not comment here since I do not know your situation except to say, did your uprising had a chance had Moscow said "screw off?"

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The Loyalists who fled to Canada would have a different argument.

And a newly borned nation with a population 4 times of Canada had to retreat before Canada, tell me again that you were better than before.

The loyalists were victims or losers depending on how you look at it. Population be damned. It was an ill-fated, badly supplied, and poorly led invasion intended to divert British forces from the states. We were better off afterward.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

The loyalists were victims or losers depending on how you look at it. Population be damned. It was an ill-fated, badly supplied, and poorly led invasion intended to divert British forces from the states. We were better off afterward.

Jad, you're missing my point. The American Colonies were the Jewel in the British Crown. North America was the reason why Britain triumphed over France. I am not arguing the US was or was not better off without the Crown but there was no doubt that after the American Revolution, the American Colonies stopped being king makers.