"In the summertime, in the Belarusian capital of Minsk, young couples rent boats. They float, seemingly aimlessly, with the current of the Svisloch River, until they find themselves under a bridge. Then they row against the current for as long as they can, hoping to find shelter from the sun and from prying eyes. The premise of Belarusian writer Victor Martinovich’s Russian-language novel Paranoia is that this is impossible. As a police state such as today’s Belarusian dictatorship approaches perfect control, someone is always watching. The young lovers are watching each other, whether they understand this or not. The only way to be safe in such a society is to abandon love, but true solitude courts paranoia."
[1] New York Review of Books, "Paranoia" Review: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2010/10/28/darkest-belarus/
[2] Non-paywalled version: https://archive.is/fTOcP#selection-647.0-651.318
Anyway, thanks for sharing.
It's also a matter of culture. For example, writing overly long sentences in passive voice in Russian is encouraged if not considered a mark of sophisticated writing whereas in English it's a massive faux-pas. Reading English I get the sense that meaning takes precedence over syntactic complexity. I can see why English might come off as, uhh, simple if one is used to bloated prose and reading between the lines. In math every word and sentence matters. I sense English strives for that as well.
Besides, English handles morphological complexity by way of syntax and massive semantic overloading of words.
Aside from logically vivid constructions and phrases, as a nonnonative speaker of English, I really like secondary/n-ary meaning to simple/common/"little" words that we are typically not taught as ESL (or EnglishAsNthLanguage). For example, I was delighted to discover "we made it" = "we are successful", "we made here on time" = "we got here on time", "we are making good time" = "we are traveling faster than expected" etc. I also love English constructions like "it's pretty ugly", "it's little too much" etc :) Basically, anything in English that doesn't have 1-1 equivalent in Slavic/Turkic languages immediately perks up my ears/eyes. Thankfully, there's a ton of that in English.
English has 3 grammatical cases, 12 tenses, and 1 gender (natural gender).
I speak Spanish and compared to Romance languages, English grammar is so much simpler ;)
Most likely that they have lives that have a lot of stuff happening in them besides consumption and education.
Not "shitting where you eat" (never do something that is a crime in your own country) is basic opsec but the details are usually a lot more complex.
If you use such a proxy in a completely legal way, but that the dictator thinks might make him lose his power, then he can make up fake charges against you and put you in prison.
The guy currently in charge is corrupt and a murderer. Is living in Belarus going to get worse without him?
Not supporting the current regime, just saying history has proven West supported coups don't work.
> Not supporting the current regime, just saying history has proven West supported coups don't work.
I see you omit the fact that regimes felled by Arab Spring were all darlings of the West, with exceptions of Libya, and Syria.
It's true however that Western policy making in regards to the "our bastards'" is a tragicomedic history of failure, after failure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...
From Costa Rica to South Korea to Japan to modern Iraq to Egypt in 1952 to Lebanon etc..
Iran didn't work out. Some of the central American operation didn't work out. Cuba didn't. But things are not static either. Things have a habit of working out given a longer timescale.
The failed ones are recent which means the outcome has the potential to change in time.
Would an 80% success rate over the last hundred years change your perspective?
People who live in those places rightfully do not give a flying fuck about westerner's perspective. They care about being killed, maimed, displaced, robbed of the source of income etc. etc.
I can only imagine what would happen if you stood in front of them and tried to explain your stats.
Additionally I am not convinced that a independent Kurdistan would be a good idea.
I know Abdullah Öcalan has come under the influence of Murray Bookchin, and has had some very progressive ideas about how the politics of the Middle East should be structured. But in the event of the establishment of Kurdistan there is no good reason to believe it would be any less of a dictatorship than Iran, Turkey, or Dog help us, Syria.
Let's start with Italian fascism and Mussolini, financed by the US. Worked ok, everybody was happy. Next Hitler financed by the US. Worked ok, everybody was happy. Until their partners started to threaten Singapore and those pesty sunken ships. US and Britain suddenly not so happy anymore. Let's turn it around.
Next, coups in Turkey, Greece, ... and massive interventions in Italy and France. Military fascist dictatorships were of course great for their countries, and their people, esp. the workers.
Or East Asia. Japan's and Korea as prime examples but also most others, such as Indonesia, Thailand, Laos, Kambodia. Turned out extremely well for Indonesia and Kambodia, lots of dead socialists. Japan still ruled Korea via proxy military dictatorship, but everybody loved the new fascist systems in Korea and other proxies. A few thousand protesters were killed in massacres, but workers protests need to be fought hard, right? Socialism.
Latin America also loved their US coups and military dictatorships. The few socialists were tortured or flown out to the sea, and business could flourish. Happy times. Certainly the best system in the world. Freedom.
If one goes by the example of what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya, the answer is very well: yes, this could happen.
Putsching away or otherwise deposing a regime is only one step. Without a solid aftercare plan (like the Marshall Plan after WW2) to empower democratic actors, the power vacuum can have really really bad outcomes.
Not saying that's the same in Belarus, but that argument by itself doesn't hold water.
- Ukraine - Syria - Libya - Georgia - Iraq - Iran - Afghanistan - Yugoslavia - Venezuela - Cuba - ex-Yugoslavia - Chile - ...
All those countries were devastated by the "democratization". I would like to see one example where that went good for the local population in general and where that brought progress and prosperity.
> All those countries were devastated by the "democratization".
I'm not sure what you mean by "devastated". Software development jobs market is flourishing and my friends from other industries are not doing that bad either. Are you watching/reading Russian news sources by any chance?
Country is in the middle of frozen civil war. GDP per person in Ukraine is still below 2013 and is half of GDP per person in Belarus.
Change in government need to come from within - not imposed by outsiders. Very few cases when revolution/regime change led to even ok outcome.
Besides problem with living in middle income soft authoritarian countries is mostly middle income and not authoritarian part. That’s the reason there is so much focus on corruption in protests - people just want more benefits/free money and assume that all money are stolen by corrupt government when in reality there is just not that much money in the country. Obviously regime change does not reduce corruption nor expand size of economy so all recent revolutions just made situation worse for common people.
I'm not working for outsourcing company.
> Country is in the middle of frozen civil war. GDP per person in Ukraine is still below 2013 and is half of GDP per person in Belarus.
So why do you think people have not elected some pro-Russian politician? Or asked Yanukovich to come back so we could all go back to glorious-high-GDP-2013 times? In fact, it seems that significant part of population of Belarus (with their high GDP and all) are starting to see drawbacks in that arrangement instead. Really makes you think, huh?
> Change in government need to come from within - not imposed by outsiders. Very few cases when revolution/regime change led to even ok outcome.
This is very presumptuous from your side. I remember a lot of people going each evening after day of coding in cushy software company office to participate in revolution in 2014, risking their freedom and life. In fact, "People in internet say revolution is sponsored by CIA, but I'm still waiting for my paycheck!" was a common joke back at those days, so please spare me your condescension.
>Besides problem with living in middle income soft authoritarian countries is mostly middle income and not authoritarian part. That’s the reason there is so much focus on corruption in protests - people just want more benefits/free money and assume that all money are stolen by corrupt government when in reality there is just not that much money in the country. Obviously regime change does not reduce corruption nor expand size of economy so all recent revolutions just made situation worse for common people.
Revolution of Dignity started as a reaction to Yanukovich backpedaling on association agreement with the European Union under Russian pressure. You might want to educate yourself on the subject before patronizing us stupid poor people from "soft authoritarian countries".
95%+ of shit I hear about these countries is from US/Western europeans that know little more than what they learned in CoD and some Holliwood movies and making these ideological thoughts. They have good and bad things, good and bad people, but the view from '1st world countries' towards them is silly and it would be even funny if some of these countries and people weren't going through these difficulties
'Thanks @andonceagain (created 29mins ago, karma: 2). I always wondered is the view of the Laptev Sea as depressing as they say?'
Don't be rude - I'm fascinated to know more about the subarctic regions of a wannabe superpower. You can reply from your real account: no shame in it.
Your software developer friends are just outliers there.
For me it is "here". The fact that for you it is "there" makes me think that you should talk more to actual people that are living in the countries you mentioned in previous post instead of lecturing them over internet with copy/paste of Russian propaganda "news" pieces.
Besides, it might be a novel concept for you, but here we have an actual elections. People can always vote for some Russian puppet (Medvedchuk, for example) and "join" Russia. I guess majority thinks that "fucking war" is better alternative in this situation.
> GDP in Ukraine is ~3,5k$ per year.
Your point being? It is not like Ukraine was some rich local Eastern European Switzerland until sneaky CIA/Soros sponsored NGOs "destabilized" it.
> Your software developer friends are just outliers there.
Are you intentionally omitting my next sentence?
I was born in one of those countries mentioned by @levosmetalo above and the common running joke was too "People in internet say revolution is sponsored by CIA, but I'm still waiting for my paycheck!" and that was coming from people that were _truly_ putting themselves out there.
Anyway, I don't care (sadly) for having an identity on HN anymore, several times I created a user in good faith only to be downvoted to oblivion discussing these matters. Yes, I know, I shouldn't be commenting on those threads. I can't help it, I grew up in a place awfully destroyed by communist.
I think this devalues your all other arguments. Where it comes from?
There is no independent TV in Russian Federation for 20 years. State controlled media spreads all possible lies. Everything to distract from internal problems. Right now state breaks down peaceful protests, 1600 detained, each is fined by about $200, that's almost half of the average wage ($500). Opposition leader in jail by fabricated claim, requires medical help, poisoned previous year. Income is falling, retirement age increased. State leaders are corrupt beyond possible.
I also hope that Russia withdraws their military and financial support for terrorists who prevent your friend from going home. However, it seems Russia wants further confrontation and is now amassing significant military presence in that region, so we won't have much choice in that matter.
> For you guys "here" in Kiev Donbas is also "there".
Not really. For most of the people in other parts of Ukraine who are under constant risk of being conscripted the Donbas is very much "here".
> And that's why Ukraine will never be a prosperous country, as long as you consider a "fucking war" a better alternative to anything.
Commendable sentiment. I would also prefer a peaceful world for all of us.
> The majority has been brainwashed by "western" propaganda to hate everything Russian
I'm a Russian speaker with some Russian ancestry. Please tell me more how I "hate everything Russian".
> to the point it would rather have "fucking war" against their ex citizen in Donbas and Crimea instead of letting them choose where and how they want to live.
There is no Iron Curtain anymore. People who want to live in any other country (including Russia) are obviously free to do so.
> Those guys in Donbas and Crimea also had elections and referendums, not worse than those in Ukraine
They are not recognized intentionally and and were conducted by occupying military personnel. Overall, we both know that "our town votes to join another country" is not how it works anywhere. Just ask Chechen people how it went for them, if you would like to know how Russia deals with such issues.
> they decided they don't want to live with someone who is denying them basic human rights based on the wrong ethnicity
This is just old Russian propaganda trope "Bloodthirsty Ukrainian Nazis want to genocide Russian-speaking people". Overall, I never felt that my rights were denied to me due to language of choice or my obviously Russian surname.
> Would you rather kill them all than let them go?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
> And since you want to kill all the ethnic Russians why are you surprised that Russia won't let you do it?
So you started your message with incredibly pacifist statement "will never be a prosperous country, as long as you consider a "fucking war" a better alternative to anything" and end it with approving of Russian aggression under flimsy pretext that they are preventing some imagined genocide of ethnic Russians? I sense double standards here.
> NATO is happy to have war against Russia or Russian allies to the last Ukrainian solder and civilian.
This is factually incorrect. Obama repeatedly denied lethal weapon sales to Ukraine during active phase of the conflict [1]. The main objective for European politicians also seems to be some fake outrage about Russia's actions to put a show for their electorate while continuing business as usual behind closed doors [2]. If anything, "NATO" would happily give whole Ukrainian territory to Russia in order to end costly sanctions, if they could somehow manage to do so without war, refugees and overall humanitarian disaster (with obvious exception of Poland and Baltic states who are fully aware that they could be next).
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31013452 [2] https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-joe-biden-nord...
Then you also get which country is doing the destabilization, and it sure as hell isn't the EU.
That's a pretty simplistic view of how international politics and geostrategy is played.
ATO expansion is undesirable to Russia and counter to agreements made between Russia and NATO. Russia has also been testing Western responses to its salami incursions beginning with Abkhazia and now Ukraine. The most it has gotten so far are sanctions (probably better than a full scale war at this point, but longer term this tactic may not succeed as Russia keeps chewing away). American meddling and financing of Euromaidan to topple Yanukovych and shake up Ukrainian politics is what opened the door to Russian pretexts to invade a country whose borders are not only an unstable Soviet construct (culturally speaking), but which plays an important territorial role in Russian security (control of Crimea allows control of the Sea of Azoz).
You can probably add NordStream II to the mix, but that's more about gaining the upper hand over Central Europe in cooperation with Germany, hence the farce of EU unity, and in this case, where energy security and its geopolitical consequences are concerned.
Thus the need for a Central European bloc that can withstand the grind of American/Western and Russian cultural and geopolitical tectonics. The Three Seas Initiative is ostensibly supposed to accomplish this, exploiting American backing, at least in the beginning. Belarus had historically been oriented toward this center of gravity until the 19th century. The Belarusian opposition certainly leans in the historical direction and the only other alternative is Russian vassalage. This Central European bloc incidentally would function like a buffer that would also serve the security interests of Europe in general.
It is pretty clear that Russia invaded another country, they are the country is doing the destabilization.
Additional info may be useful to get more detail, but it is not changing basic facts.
> ATO expansion is undesirable to Russia and counter to agreements made between Russia and NATO.
ATO expansion? Counter to which agreements?
(I guess this agreements are similar that Ukraine got about integrity of it territory)
> That's a pretty simplistic view of how international politics and geostrategy is played.
So EU is sending soldiers to the eastern front of Ukraine to fight??? It's well known among Ukrainians who is doing the fighting over there.
Ukraine democratically decides to prefer EU over Russia, maybe all parties need to live with that.
Russia has been opposing the expansion of NATO for decades, and Ukrainian politicians at different moments were aiming to join NATO (rather than signing memorandums not to join NATO). I suppose, we Ukrainians can be upset at how unfair it is that our sovereignty is not respected, but that won't earn us any more agency. Russians are the ones with the nukes, overwhelmingly stronger military and with opinions on the matter, so maybe we've got to be smarter about how we navigate through challenges ahead of us.
As for last decade, Russia keeps chewing away itself since the real income declines each and every year while capital runs away.
I see how profound is your sophisticated understanding of high art of geopolitics...
> counter to agreements made between Russia and NATO.
Do you see Russia keeping to any agreement it had with NATO now?
What I see is politicians of NATO member countries running around Putin like headless chicken, trying to decipher some "tough geopolitical riddle," while the later laughs, and keeps sending them his KGB agents.
I don’t know what to make of this comment; it’s certainly wrong by a wide margin. The entire country’s GDP cannot be less than I take home per paycheck. I thought maybe it was per-capita GDP, but the 2021 IMF estimate is $13k—almost 4x your figure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PP...
PPP is purchasing power parity.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(no...
There were democratic elections next month. And another since than. Different parties, different leaders. There is no civil war here, that's proxy war by Russia and everyone knows it. Russian leaders, Russian mercenaries, Russian weapon, Russian money, sometimes even Russian army. That's openly stated by Russian mercenary leaders.
There is no reason for civil war. Everyone understands both Ukrainian and Russian. My native tongue is Russian, I live in Russian speaking city, and I am grateful to our army that protects us from Russian mercenaries. Occupied territories even by founders described as fascist states. Life is rough there. Population greatly decreased, a lot of refugees scattered around Ukraine, Russian speaking refugees, and everywhere they were welcomed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-protest_laws_in_Ukraine
* Marek Falenta imported coal from Russia and owes A LOT of money to Russian raw resource companies. The restaurants where the illegal wiretapping took place were set up by Russian raw resource companies.
* "Obcym Alfabetem - Jak ludzie Kremla i PiS zagrali podsłuchami" (Grzegorz Rzeczkowski)
* "Macierewicz i jego tajemnice" (Tomasz Piątek)
* "Rydzyk i Przyjaciele" (Tomasz Piątek)
* https://oko.press/pis-wciaz-rzadzi-bo-zyjemy-w-informacyjnej-autokracji/ (Anna Mierzyńska)
Today these are quite comparable to other Eastern European countries. Croatia has a larger GDP per capita than Romania, Montenegro is somewhere in Turkey's league, Serbia is pretty poor, but still much better than Belarus and Ukraine.
But in the end, it is the ruler to blame, that he undermines his legitimacy (by running elections in a way that large part of the population does not trust it, etc), thus motivating people to protest and either win with large chances for instability or loose and get prison terms, etc.
Once, just once, can we stop and realize that being world policeman isn’t always a good move?
In Ukraines case, do you really think they don't want to become more like any EU country? I know plenty of people from Lviv. That 'coup' was not staged by 'the west', but was a force within their own population that want a better standard of life.
So please don't compare US involvement in any Middle east country to the EU and their neighboring countries.
Lviv/Western Ukraine is also very anti-Russia and has been for a long time (pre-WW2). Ukraine is a very divided country and there is more than one opinion on what to do. If each region voted independently, you’d probably see Ukraine split into two states, one aligning with the EU and the other with Russia.
For what it's worth, the Party of Regions, which used to be in power until 2014 and which got voted into power by South and East of Ukraine, won the 2012 elections with a program featuring signing the Association Agreement with the EU, visa waiver with the EU and joining the EU market.
Anyhow, if the question "Would you rather be in a political and economic alliance with the EU or with Russia?" might have seemed divisive to some before 2014, I'd think Russian aggression fixed that for good.
.svg){kind=link}
Kharkiv, east of Ukraine.
So you know where the kidnappers live? You grab your shotgun to get them "Rambo style". Best case only the kidnappers get injured or killed. Worst case you and your family get killed.
It feels like too many people simply cannot go past the basic reaction "I find it may be a threat > shoot to kill". I find this a failure in education.
And while it may turn out at some point that for Belarus there was simply no other option, it still doesn't justify jumping straight to it. Just a bit of common sense can already tell you that the most likely outcome is that civilians will get killed by the thousands and this time it will be "justified" as defending against acts of war. Guns escalate everything. They may escalate your power but they also escalate the response.
Do you really want to allow systematic killing of the opposition by current un-elected criminals holding on to power. Putin's intervention is not some kind of "hypothetical future danger or milestone in theoretic escalation" but has been fact since 1998.
Europe isn't going to do anything except sending their thoughts and prayers and direct intervention by the US is unthinkable (for now). Sending support (which includes arms, and mercenaries) is the only way that can protect the civilian population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus%E2%80%93Russia_relatio...
Good luck.
the Belarusian security forces are not as loyal to the Lukashenko regime as you think. They are all part of the same social fabric, they have mothers, brothers sisters who are among the population. The oppositions successful unmasking of them has been a massive spanner in the strategy of Lukashenko oppression.
What they are missing is being able to defend themselves from Wagner group mercenaries who have absolutely no such ties and couldn't care about who they kill. Sending mercenaries and arms with a mission to take out the Lukashenko regime while fighting the Russians who are infiltrating the security forces would be the only strategy.
Helping in other ways (from the comfort of an arm chair) is possible but it means cracking down on off-shore banking and money laundering (much of it takes place in Europe & the US. Good luck.
That's pretty much how this has been working throughout the history of the human race.
That's a very small amount of time. And without a training, and heavy arms, none will be a good match even against Belarusian standing army.
The challenge is to use up money in the shortest, and most impactful way possible. The longer men stay in the field doing nothing, the more money is burned on canned food, and toilet paper rather than diminishing enemy fighting power.
Yes, individuals can arm a significant amount of volunteers, and even keep inflicting the damage for a few weeks. A battalion of complete war rookies can do things if it strikes first, attacks softer targets other than standing military, and focus on high cost/opportunity operations like enemy's command chain, and political leadership.
But in the larger scheme of things, even $1m is a pocket change on the scale of nation states, and completely pales to what a military of even smallest European states can do both force, and material wise.
Yes, get your politicians involved, get your state involved. Even a third grade caucus can easily dish out 8 digit sums in US without even blinking.
Belarus split between a Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 2.0 and a Totally-Not-Russian-Puppet-State, with several thousand young men's graves in between, isn't any better than Belarus today.
You choose what this side will be.
Russians have nothing in their coffers they can spare for a puppet project when there will be a battle hardened army a day away from Moscow.
It's the best way for NATO to put Russia on defensive. A solid wall of steel from Baltic to Azov to seal it shut from Europe.
Can you see the problem with NATO?
European countries are unlikely to finance the effort, our armies are for the most part underinvested and their deployment capacity very limited.
France has some capabilities, but it is also bogged down elsewhere (Sahara), because the Islamist threat is more acute for Paris than whatever Russia does.
USA and UK have two decades of nation building behind them and whatever fighting spirit is left, is reserved for a possible confrontation with China. Also, both of them are naval powers, while Belarus is a landlocked country. Not to say that they are unable to fight on land, but it is a disadvantage for them.
If you like The Lord of the Rings, we are sort-of similar to Gondor just prior to the war. Not enough power and will to hold Mordor in a siege.
The good news is that Russia is fairly strained and it is not a full Mordor either. More like a group of orc chieftains from the Misty Mountains.
It's exactly because of this NATO's best move is to commit to one defence line.
Even if depleted, and under invested. The power of EU NATO members combined will be more than enough in this scenario to hold a line with a few choke points in between plains, and impassable forests.
If the recent Nagorno Karabakh war is of any use as an example, Russians and Russian-trained officers were unable to hold their positions against killer drones. Drones are cheap and their destruction in combat does not fuel anti-war sentiments at home, unlike a stream of coffins draped in flags.
But given that Russians are not stupid, they are probably working on some anti-drone strategy as well.
Yes, yes, yes. Long lines on warfare are an invitation for a breakthrough by a more concentrated force, which is what every Russian military textbook tells.
Beyond that, actual Russia support was very limited as punishment for Armenia's reorientation. If this was a full-scale war then the skies would have been full of Su-35s swatting out the TB2s and killing drone operators.
Instead the attacking force will be hard pressed finding hundred separate drone teams hiding in bushes, and forests on the frontline, while flying over enemy AA themselves.
Beyond that, these drones are satellite-guided. You can't control them from bushes and forests. The Bayraktar TB2 that did the vast majority of the damage in Azerbaijan needs to take-off from an actual airfield, too.
What you might be referring to are loitering munitions. Their issue is that they have pretty dumb guidance, so all they are good at is going to predetermined GPS coordinate or homing on radar. The solution is to overrun their positions and use your airforce to shoot them down if they do take-off. They are very slow. It can be expensive to shoot them down but you only have to do so until you overrun their 60km or so range, and for the things in the danger zone you only have to use mobile assets that cannot be targeted via GPS.
In small numbers and without actual drones to help with jamming these loitering munitions are also quite vulnerable to AAA.
There are some long-range loitering munitions, like the IAI Harop. However they can only do radar-seeking missions without a base station and actually do need a base. Additionally munitions like the Harop have a very large radar cross section from anything but the frontal aspect and are thus very vulnerable to detection by modern aircraft radar.
TB2 Video is line of sight gigahertz link. Control, and telemetry UHF which can get to 100km.
TB2 can launch from improvised strips with substantial payloads.
A mobile catapult launch adapter was once advertised
TB2 may be able to launch from improvised positions. But it cannot land and resupply there. The weak point still exists.
The elephant in the room is also that the TB2s will get shot down by the Russian airforce. In Azerbaijan this did not happen because Turkey was willing to protect Azerbaijani airspace and the Armenian airforce is weak. In Ukraine the roles are reversed.
> Warsaw being the one initiating this with Belarus opposition.
?
It will.
It's only because of massive amount of guns pointed at Belgrade, and the previous civil war, you don't have Slobodan Milosevic still smiling on you from TV now.
Arming Bosnians did more to crack the genocidal regime than any NATO bombing. This is the fact.
Anyway -- you can help! Most of the communication, coordination and crime-documenting happens on Telegram and the regime tries to block access to this information. You can run Telegram Proxy [0][1]. The installation is fairly straightforward, mostly setup and forget. After setup you can register your proxy with MTProxybot [2], so that people can learn about/use your proxy. If you know people there, I also recommend setting up a private proxy just for them (i.e. not registering with [2]) and sharing over private communication channel (e.g. Signal), as the thugs try to block proxies, so it's a cat-and-mouse game.
Edit: Added info about MTProxybot.
[0] https://core.telegram.org/mtproto/mtproto-transports
[1] https://github.com/TelegramMessenger/MTProxy
[2] https://t.me/MTProxybot