It looks like Lukashenka has repulsed the attack and will stay in power.
Whatever they say about the degree of his pleasantness.
For the pleasantness and stability of the ruler are two different things.
Moreover, in crisis situations, they are often in an inversely proportional relationship.
In March 1917, Nicholas II, who was not called pleasant, but was called weak, which is the same thing, abdicated power.
Than opened Pandora's box.
In the summer of 1918, the Bolsheviks bravely suppressed the Left SR revolt in Moscow and the uprising in Yaroslavl.
Artillery arguments were used.
Nobody spoke of the Bolsheviks' particular pleasantness, but one could not reproach them for their weakness either.
As a result, they won.
One can also recall an even older year, 1792, when Lieutenant Bonaparte spoke of the frightened Louis XVI, bowing to the crowd from the Tuileries window: “What a coward!
How could these channels be allowed in!
It was necessary to sweep away 500-600 people with cannons - the rest would have fled! "
In his later career, Bonaparte showed that he was not joking when he spoke of artillery as a means of suppression.
It can be argued that these examples refer to the cruel XX and even the cruel 18th century, while now the customs are completely different.
What was then in the order of things, in the 21st century - unacceptable barbarism.
But how to say.
The wave of “color revolutions” of the 21st century began with the “bulldozer revolution” in Yugoslavia in 2000, followed by the “rose revolution” in Georgia in 2003.
Then there was the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine in 2004, which successfully challenged the results of the presidential elections and achieved a third round of voting, and the "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan in early 2005, which swept away the liberal President Akayev (under him, Kyrgyzstan was called Central Asian Switzerland).
You could have said, "You won, Gene Sharp!"
The wave of "orange revolutions" uncontrollably swept over the territory of the former USSR.
Tyrants trembled, thrones fell one after another.
However, Fergana happened here.
The unrest in May 2005 followed a patterned scenario, I.A.
Karimov was supposed to fall, but he used firearms, and the revolution fled under the leaden rain, and Karimov ruled for more than ten years.
What would be better is not easy to judge.
Karimov was a secular ruler, and Islamists were approaching in the Fergana Valley - with all the ensuing consequences.
And in any case, the Uzbek example showed that the "color revolution" is not some irresistible force, at the sight of which the ruler can only crawl into the cemetery, wrapped in a sheet, or into the airport, where the plane is under steam.
If he is willing to stick around to the end, there are other options that are more favorable to him.
This has been verified not only by the example of Karimov, but now Lukashenka.
The victories of the "color revolution" were predicted in Iran, Venezuela, and Hong Kong.
And where are those victories?
And in North Korea, Gene Sharp himself did not promise anything - they did not even try there.
North Korea is not mentioned here by accident.
The Pyongyang regime has few fans outside the DPRK, and if so, some fanciful ones.
But the question here is not whether the rule of the Kim dynasty is good, but about the effectiveness of the defense.
It is a law of nature: a potential victim chooses a more effective defensive tactic so that he is not eaten.
Kim, having developed, in spite of everything, an atomic bomb, humbled the United States.
It was a defensive tactic to the maximum.
Other non-democratic powers are more modest.
They confine themselves to the principles "Do not intimidate" and "Do not spare patrons."
After that, all 198 reliable means described in Sharpe's pamphlet "From Dictatorship to Democracy" turn out to be ineffective.
For the key to the success of all the "orange revolutions" is that the dictator is actually a so-so dictator.
In campaign materials, his regime, of course, can be described in colors that are excessively black even to characterize the reign of John IV.
Objects of agitation, if they are quite simple-hearted, can believe it.
However, the truth is that 198 (or 398 - no difference) reliable means only work against a lax regime.
Like the Yanukovych regime in Ukraine.
Yanukovych believed until the very end that everything can be rubbed and everything can be agreed upon.
Moreover, the Western powers are also acting with honest mediation - they cannot lie.
If the ruler realizes that he can rely only on himself and on the guards (riot police, the guards of the Islamic revolution, Tonton Macoutes - whatever you call it), he has a chance to resist, and a considerable one.
Of course, this victory (already taken place or expected) has a not very pleasant aftertaste.
The degree of vulnerability of the authorities is in direct proportion to its softness (connivance), while a regime in which you will not be spoiled is protected to a much greater extent.
In this sense, the Ukrainian "Euromaidan" and its consequences worked to tighten political regimes, because they showed the authorities, wishing to prolong and preserve their existence, that connivance does not end well.
Whereas Old Man - for all his pleasant qualities - showed how power is preserved and post-Maidan amenities in the Ukrainian style are not allowed.
Here is such a lesson for the kings.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.