If true, I wonder what the Russians will have them do. Belarus has an even shittier military than Ukraine pre 2014.
You have to be scraping the bottom of the barrel if you're calling the belarusian army in for help.
Is there some other explanation for Hillary Clinton?
Either A.) Send them to try and cut off aid from the West, which the Ukrainians are expecting and will probably lead to them being slaughtered even by Ukrainian reserve forces, or B.) Be the occupation forces to try and free up vitally needed Russian troops to the frontline now that it's starting to stall.
Honestly, if I were in their shoes (which I have neither the experience, qualifications, or level of corruption necessary), I'd be assigning them to keeping logistical lines clear and rear line security. That lets you put more of your own guys forward, while keeping there from being a weak link in your actual line.
Well Russia has all of Ukraine and the East to test theirs.
Stalingrad happened because the Germans trusted shitty Italian, Romanian, and Hungarian troops to cover their flanks. This could just as easily lead to a false sense of security. not to mention their morale will probably be somewhere between shitty and nonexistent, which could have a cast on effect on Russian troops.
Yeah, I think the Russian Military has kind of told Putin "no thank you" on that one after the tests irradiated everyone involved.
Probably B. Russia has had a few issues with Rosgvardia (basically elite riot troops) getting too close to the front and getting into firefights.
Right, which is why I wouldn't put them on the flanks- I'm referring to occupation and patrol, basically. Where there's Russians between them and anybody more heavily armed than a Detroit gangbanger.
From my minimal knowledge of Russian military tactics, nearly nonexistent military expertise, and my limited understanding of the fronts of the war I'm assuming they may have the Belarusian army distract them and push the Ukrainian capital, pull Russian forces from the North and around Kiev and relocate/refocus in the south, and continue to take southeastern Ukraine in an attempt to landlock the Country. It would be seen as a significant win if they can take coast and I wouldn't be surprised if they called their Military operation a success after that.
A. is such an unrealistic option that it's absurd to even write out. If Russia felt that cutting off supplies from the West was even a remote possibility with <60.000 soldiers with Soviet era equipment, they would have tried it already. As entertaining as watching an army trapped in the 1970s get obliterated by NATO weaponry would be, Belarus is joining to give further legitimacy to Russia's attack and then supply probably 10.000-30.000 soldiers in a supportive role to current Russian maneuvers. If there are a few units of the Belarusian Army that have decent equipment on more than just paper that Lukashenko is willing to risk, then they'll probably assist with attacks on strongpoints like Chernihiv, Sumy, and Kyiv's suburbs.
Idk, could there be some other big differences between Poland and Ukraine? How easy it is to start a business without being stolen from by gangsters/the government, levels of corruption in public life, Poland receiving hundreds of billions of Euros in subsidies since 2004 (which, while welcome, aren't a free gift and do come with pretty tight strings attached)?
