Help support TMP


"Belarus Is Going to “War” — With a Fake Country" Topic


16 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2006-present) Message Board



774 hits since 31 Aug 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP01 Sep 2017 9:35 p.m. PST

"Belarus has a new enemy: a fictional nation known as Veyshnoria.

Minsk is gearing up to hold military drills with Russia in mid-September. As part of the joint exercises, expected to be the largest since the Cold War, the Belarusian military invented three imaginary countries trying to invade and weaken the relationship between the two allies: Veyshnoria, in the northwest region of modern-day Belarus; Vesbaria, set in Lithuania; and Lubenia in Poland.

Veyshnoria quickly took on a geopolitical life of its own on the internet. Facebook users created a flag, map, and coat of arms for the country. Hundreds signed up to a website launched for Belarusians wishing to apply for Veyshnorian citizenship. A Wikipedia page now details Veyshnoria's origins…"
Main page
link


Amicalement
Armand

Pan Marek Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2017 3:53 a.m. PST

The link sends one to Foreign Policy Magazine's website.

While its somewhat amusing that people have chosen to poke fun at Belarus for its making up names for military training, this is really not funny.

Russia, through Belarus, is sending a strong message about who they see as potential new targets in their quest to reestablish the Russian Empire. Lithuania and Poland.

USAFpilot02 Sep 2017 5:14 a.m. PST

"Russian Empire"? You mean as opposed to the American Empire. Let's be objective, it's the USA which has military bases in dozens of countries around the world and doesn't just carry out exercises but actually invades and topples governments. Way too much anti-Russia sentiment in the media which is stirring bad relations. I hope the press is happy creating deteriorating relations between nuclear powers.

Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2017 9:58 a.m. PST

Agree with USAFpilot, FWIW. On the whole, there has been way too much hyperventilating in the US about the alleged Russian Menace in the last five or six years, wholly out of proportion or context. We just can't stop backing that bear into a corner and jabbing him with pointy sticks, can we? Until it goes hideously wrong.

Begemot02 Sep 2017 10:51 a.m. PST

Creating fictional enemies to train against isn't a new idea. For those who forgot or never knew the USA did this in the late fifties with an entity called "Aggressor".

Aggressor was an attempt by the US armed forces to make war-games more realistic by having an adversary that behaved and looked differently then those being trained (in other words, not just splitting a group in two). A completely fictional background was developed for Aggressor including political philosophy, language (Esperanto) and uniforms.

4 basic manuals were published with updates over the years:

FM30-101: Aggressor the Maneuver Enemy
FM30-101A: Esperanto – The Aggressor Language
FM30-102: Handbook on Aggressor Military Forces
FM30-103: Aggressor Order of Battle
FM30-104: Aggressor Representation
FM30-101, -101A and 102 (versions 1947 and 1959) as well as rank overviews are digitised and hosted on archive.org.

Over time, wargames began to adopt a stronger emphasis on fighting the USSR and it's allies so that the aggressor entity was dropped in favour of adversaries more overtly based on warsaw pact countries.

Link: link

So sniggering at the Belarussians for creating a fictitious enemy is a bit out of order, since a really serious country like the USA has done the same.

Lion in the Stars02 Sep 2017 5:08 p.m. PST

Yeah, by the time I was in (early 2000s) they just went to color names for the exercise countries. And I mean things like Orange/Purple, not Red/Blue.

Obviously whoever was creating exercise names was not a Bab5 fan, as we'd have been fighting Green/Purple. evil grin

I think I'm going to have to do that for a story, for a nice shoutout to Bab5.

Bob the Temple Builder03 Sep 2017 1:06 a.m. PST

For some more information about Aggressor, have a look at this = link

Pan Marek Supporting Member of TMP03 Sep 2017 5:42 a.m. PST

Ah yes, OPFOR. Brings back memories of when I was in ROTC in the 70s.

In the meantime, I can only ascribe the other posters failure to note Putin's actions to more Anglo-American willingness to write off the people's of Eastern Europe. Much as they did after WWII.

And if the US has overstepped its bounds in the past (or present), how does that excuse Putin? Two wrongs make a right?

I will also note my bias- I still have family in Poland.

USAFpilot03 Sep 2017 12:07 p.m. PST

In the meantime, I can only ascribe the other posters failure to note Putin's actions to more Anglo-American willingness to write off the people's of Eastern Europe. Much as they did
after WWII.

Sorry, not true. Post WWII the allies should have protected Eastern Europe from the evil of Communism being forced on them from the Soviet Union. I think there is even anadotal evidence which suggests that General Patton was prepared to take out the Soviet threat. Instead we waged a half century Cold War at great cost. We eventually won, and the Soviet Union along with communism in Eastern Europe and Russia was destroyed. Putin is not the Soviet Union. From his perspective he is acting in the best interests of his country. There is no longer a doctrine of world wide communist domination coming from Russia. We should be negotiating with him on a wide range of issues; instead we are heading for another Cold War.

Begemot03 Sep 2017 2:41 p.m. PST

I'm curious how the USA could have "protected" Eastern Europe from Stalin at the end and during the immediate post WW2 period. The political measures employed were ineffective. Were there other political actions that were neglected that would have been more effective? Were military options even viable? Remember, when the war came to an end, the demand from the US troops and public to send the troops home was VERY strong. Demobilization happened fairly quickly. Would the American people and soldiers have understood or supported a continuation of the war, this time against the Soviet Union, an ally against the Nazis? Would victory against Stalin have required an occupation of the Soviet Union? Would that have realistically been feasible?

Any ideas?

Lion in the Stars03 Sep 2017 3:13 p.m. PST

The only way the western Allies could have protected Eastern Europe from Stalin is by invading up through Greece instead of Italy.

When Stalin's armies occupy the entire area east of Germany, there's not a thing you can do about it at that point.


Now, the problem Czar Vlad is having is that all of Eastern Europe has said, "We spent 50 years as Russian Client States. NEVER AGAIN!"

USAFpilot03 Sep 2017 3:14 p.m. PST

In the meantime, I can only ascribe the other posters failure to note Putin's actions to more Anglo-American willingness to write off the people's of Eastern Europe. Much as they did
after WWII.

seems to contradict this

I'm curious how the USA could have "protected" Eastern Europe from Stalin at the end and during the immediate post WW2 period.

Your first statement implies we just wrote off Eastern Europe and wrongfully did nothing and your second statement implies nothing could have been done anyway. So which is it?

Patton was on to it with the military option. We had our army in position. The Soviets didn't have the A-bomb yet.

williamb04 Sep 2017 7:55 a.m. PST

Russia has been interfering with many countries since Putin took over. They attempted to keep Montenegro out of NATO, attempted to prevent a pro-western Europe government from being elected in Ukraine, and when that didn't work invaded Crimea and encouraged a rebellion in eastern Ukraine. There is also the situation in Georgia where Russia is supporting the breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia after Georgia ended the agreement for Russia to have military bases in it. Russia also maintains military bases in 10 other countries. Political opposition to Putin is also suppressed. Belarus is one of the countries where Russia has military bases.

As for the original post – Fictional countries have been used by quite a few nations. Britain trains in Alberta, Canada against a fictional nation, US citizens have also role played nationals for some of the fictional countries the US trains in (see Pineland), five European Union nations took part in training in a fictional country in Northern Italy in 2016, and both Canada and Lithuania have built fictional towns to train in.

USAFpilot04 Sep 2017 9:52 a.m. PST

Russia has been interfering with many countries since Putin took over.

They been interfering for a long time before Putin. So has the US.

attempted to prevent a pro-western Europe government from being elected in Ukraine

Ukraine had a democratically elected president that was overthrown by a coup

Russia is supporting the breakaway provinces…

The US has a history of supporting breakaway provinces

Russia also maintains military bases in 10 other countries

The US military actively operates out of at least a hundred counties. I've personally flown to around 40 in the performance of my duties.

Belarus is one of the countries where Russia has military bases

Belarus was once part of Russia not to long ago.

It's all a matter of perspective and which side of the fence you are standing on. I'm American, so right or wrong, I pick my side over Russia; but let's not be hypocritical about it. Russia will do what is in their best interests to do. We should be working diplomatically to do what is in both our mutual interests to do and not be kicking out each others diplomats. We are currently headed in the wrong direction with our relations with a county which has thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at us.

Bunkermeister Supporting Member of TMP05 Sep 2017 12:03 p.m. PST

How much territory has the USA acquired through force of arms since the end of World War Two? While the USA has bases in many nations, how many of those are in those countries except by the invitation of the host government?

Russia took over Crimea, it had been part of Ukraine since the 1950's. Russia had agreed to the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons.

I hope and pray for Russia, Europe, east and west, and the United States to work together to solve the many problems that face us both. That should be enough to keep us busy for a long time without making each other the bad guy.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
https://bunkermeister.blogspot.com

Lion in the Stars05 Sep 2017 2:17 p.m. PST

While the USA has bases in many nations, how many of those are in those countries except by the invitation of the host government?

There is only one US base that isn't present by invitation of the local government: Guantanamo Bay. And the US took that by force when Cuba was a Spanish colony.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.