Платошкин: Лукашенко одним из первых пригласил иранского посла! // Трамп готов остановиться?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02f1A5VDUbk&t=3s
Platoshkin: Lukashenko was one of the first to invite the Iranian ambassador! // Is Trump ready to stop?
BelTA News Agency
He was counting on it. It didn’t work out. Well, I mean, the new leadership — and he didn’t say early on, “Let’s see how we want to proceed.” I mean, he’s stuck, his goal wasn’t achieved, and now he doesn’t know what to do.
You know, another thing that still annoys me, as someone, after all, from the Soviet era, is this obsession with appearances, with “formalities” (literally: за окалки — roughly “by the margins,” a Soviet idiom for rigid procedure or trivial formality). See, you correctly start thinking also like a Soviet person: what are the deep causes? And the worst thing is — there aren’t any real causes.
One guy wants to win an intermediate election. Well, Trump has his own “sway” (power/influence). Not exactly a reason to kill people and start a world war. And in Israel, even worse.
I think the president of Belarus is smart because he mediated (literally: pomadin iz Piro — unclear idiom, probably “smoothed things over”) in the CIS, invited, as far as I read, the Iranian ambassador, and said, like, “Tell them we’ll help in any way, if needed.” Expensive, yes, but for the future. I’m more than sure this will remain in the memory of the Iranian people for a long time.
Nikolai Nikolaevich, glad to greet you. Hello, Yuri. Greetings, brotherly Belarus. Nikolai Nikolaevich, the event in Iran is, without doubt, number one. Also in Israel, by the way. Well yes, nearby, everything’s nearby, yes, and there explosions there too, with renewed force.
Listen, I don’t know, you surely noticed a peculiarity: if before the U.S. planned attacks on Iraq, for example, or earlier Yugoslavia — always first they did intelligence gathering. In Belarus, we’d say hevru — literally “translate a gang,” meaning assemble a coalition, in more polite terms.
This time, look, they started acting with one ally, Israel, and only afterward started complaining, “Why aren’t you helping us?” Now Trump tells them, “Guys, we helped you before; now let’s see how you help us,” but the allies are not very eager to get involved in all this.
What happened at the Oblonsky house? (literally: a metaphor for “chaotic scene” or “mess”) Well, previously, under other administrations, they tried to provoke something at least, to justify their actions. Remember when Paul was shaking a test tube saying Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons and would kill everyone? Blair apologized afterward, for example, the minister said, “We just lied,” but he was at least waving it in the security context.
As for Yugoslavia — “she” (the country) organized a genocide against the Albanians, “we have photographs,” look what’s happening there — now zero. Most importantly, after the start of aggression, Trump held a briefing in Congress secretly; congressmen came out saying, “Now we don’t understand anything at all.” He was supposed to explain the reasons, the goal — what will happen — and he couldn’t.
Fredych asks, “Do you think the war could end next week?” Fredych says, “I think yes.” Second question: “Are you sure it will succeed?” Not sure. Lots to recall. For example, we won the war, and it’s not fair that they’re still threatening the Persian Gulf. We bombed everything, but still, unfair.
In military terms, why? I think they didn’t want more allies; they had disabled the air defense system in June, about six months ago. They thought they could just kill all Iranian leadership. Notice, they follow the same scheme: Maduro, by the way, was kidnapped the second time; they tried May 3, 2020 — failed. Under Trump, also, now they kidnapped him. In Cuba, they said, “Let the president go; he doesn’t suit us.” There, they decided to just kill the spiritual leader, and then Trump said, “Others will cooperate with us.” Then he said, “Listen, we killed some of the others who were supposed to cooperate,” meanwhile all that Shah opposition in the U.S. says, “Freedom, democracy, what freedom?”
Venezuelan opposition also said, “Now the power will be handed to us.” Trump said, “No one will hand anything over to you.” And since they killed Iranian leadership, they achieved nothing, because the new leadership says, “You have to restore everything now.”
What to do? I can say, as a specialist in Germany, I was always struck: allies bombed Germany from May 1942; in Hamburg one house remained, imagine, whole, yes. Some cities were destroyed multiple times. They wanted capitulation from the air, but results? Afterward, a congressional commission studied bombing consequences — weapon production even increased, morale rose, Hitler’s propaganda worked, people understood, “No way out, we must resist.”
They thought killing leadership would bring jubilant crowds waving freedom and democracy — first miscalculation. Second, Trump didn’t expect Iran to strike back at U.S. bases in the region. They couldn’t reach Americans directly, no missiles of such range. Israel could manage itself; Americans don’t care, but U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq were hit — successfully. Iran, smartly, didn’t close the Strait of Hormuz (through which 20% of oil and gas passes) — risky, but strategic.
Oil owners, tanker operators worried about missiles, and in two weeks of war U.S. gasoline prices jumped from $2.90 to $3.70 per gallon. Iran delivered a powerful economic strike. U.S. Navy offered to escort tankers for money; Americans said okay, but strange NATO, China — they will escort tanks, so Americans let them handle it.
Spain’s minister said, “We won’t refuel your planes, we stop trade.” Spain said 5 million Americans visit yearly — let them not come, they’ll like it. Italy said, “Not our war.” Trump has no leverage; he hoped Iran would capitulate. But Iran is four times larger than Germany; bombing is difficult. Three million refugees in Tehran. If Germany hadn’t been bombed, it could have resisted.
Iran fights cleverly: Shahed drones cost ~$20,000 each. U.S. says many bombs, missiles, but no anti-air for them. Ukraine knows this; would have supplied Patriot systems, but none available. Anti-air costs $4 million each. Iran makes drones in garages. They succeed with minimal resources, like David in the Bible.
Population suffers: 2,000 killed, 22,000 wounded, 3 million refugees; Lebanon: 1,000 killed, 800,000 displaced out of six million. But strategic effect — Americans unsure what to do. American carriers approached Iran’s coast, let the Chinese or Germans intervene, not them. Trump’s political position now ruined — only seven U.S. soldiers killed.
Historical context: In past U.S. invasions (Iraq, Afghanistan), large-scale special operations preceded invasions; local generals often surrendered positions. Iran’s society, Shiite clergy declared “holy war.” Prior attacks on U.S. embassies — Libya, Pakistan, Iraq — show that targeting leadership doesn’t automatically achieve objectives.
Fuel prices are critical in the U.S. — not just for driving, but for overall logistics. Americans vote with their wallets; domestic polling shows disapproval of aggression. Venezuela’s case similar — oil strategic, but difficult to replace Persian Gulf production (~70% of world supply).
Trump attempted regime change in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua (the three communist “tyrannies” in his narrative). Cuba is isolated, blackouts, no fuel, climate mitigates, but infrastructure and supply collapsed. Iran’s larger, self-sufficient; Cuba entirely dependent on imports (Venezuela provided 70% of fuel until January).
Russian diplomacy should help persuade Trump to end the conflict. Discussions on uranium fuel for Iran’s nuclear program; offers to store enriched uranium in Russia — ignored by Americans.
Historical lessons: WWII Germany, U.S. interventions show that killing leadership rarely achieves intended outcomes; chaos often worsens. Trump may escalate risk in Israel; Iran is cautious, preserving capability. U.S. miscalculates range, capabilities, and local responses.
Iranian drone attacks on Azerbaijan, Turkey, Cyprus — likely not Iranian; Israeli strategy to provoke second front. The logic of war gets lost, chain of provocations grows. WWI analogy: nobody wanted war, but chain reaction led to 20 million deaths.
Finally, odd diversion: internet video of a man with six fingers; AI manipulation — illustrates speaker’s view that people get distracted by superficialities while geopolitical chaos unfolds.
Small causes, often mundane (e.g., election considerations), can trigger disproportionate consequences. Israel: Netanyahu facing criminal charges; local officials act to avoid prison, yet these “small people” influence global events indirectly.
Conclusion: price of oil, war, displacement, sanctions, and failed coups are directly connected to daily life — gas stations, markets, public sentiment. This is not a plan by “super-clever” strategists to dominate trade routes, but a cascade of small, human-scale causes leading to global effects.
SYNOPSIS
The speaker offers a sprawling, oral-style analysis of U.S. geopolitical strategy, focusing on Trump-era interventions in Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela. Core points:
- Trump miscalculates: attempts to remove or pressure foreign leaders (Iran, Cuba, Venezuela) failed.
- Military logic: Iranian preparedness and decentralized command prevent easy decapitation; minimal resources achieve strategic impact.
- Economic warfare: fuel and oil prices as leverage; domestic U.S. political pressure influences policy.
- Historical lessons: WWI, WWII, Iraq, Yugoslavia show leadership-targeted strikes rarely achieve intended results.
- Regional complexities: Israel, U.S., and allies act inconsistently; local conditions (Iran, Cuba) prevent quick victories.
- Cascading effects: refugee crises, economic impacts, and local decisions magnify global consequences.
- Human factor: small, “mundane” motivations (avoid prison, elections) ripple into international outcomes, emphasizing unpredictability.