Ask HN: What's Russia's Endgame in Ukraine?
69 comments
IMO--They are stirring various things up and pushing boundaries outward in order to determine the most-current boundaries and principles which apply to their geopolitical position.
They'll use this to inform their localized (3-6 month scope) game plan. (And they'll execute no matter what, it's just a matter of how and where--always executing is their psychological burden.) Their strength is contextual analysis informing quick execution. Their military preference is to play the trickster role, with a cat-like approach. Tactical plans aimed a spike in execution (sprints, like a cat hunting) meant to gain a disproportionately intimidating result. Flexing.
Their blind spots include refinement, culture, global persona, capture of popular will, and logistics. So the most obvious responses for the west would include engaging and bearing down on each one of those virtual fronts for extended periods of time. The west could also use this situation to place immense pressure on China.[1]
PS, the west could also really benefit from this opportunity to build more settling space for recent internal civil conflicts. If western governments are smart that's exactly how this'll play out. Russia is obviously complicit in these conflicts from an evidentiary standpoint so engagement with them at all reasonable levels could be an equitable way to direct the tensions & focus.
1. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/Ukraine-cris...
They'll use this to inform their localized (3-6 month scope) game plan. (And they'll execute no matter what, it's just a matter of how and where--always executing is their psychological burden.) Their strength is contextual analysis informing quick execution. Their military preference is to play the trickster role, with a cat-like approach. Tactical plans aimed a spike in execution (sprints, like a cat hunting) meant to gain a disproportionately intimidating result. Flexing.
Their blind spots include refinement, culture, global persona, capture of popular will, and logistics. So the most obvious responses for the west would include engaging and bearing down on each one of those virtual fronts for extended periods of time. The west could also use this situation to place immense pressure on China.[1]
PS, the west could also really benefit from this opportunity to build more settling space for recent internal civil conflicts. If western governments are smart that's exactly how this'll play out. Russia is obviously complicit in these conflicts from an evidentiary standpoint so engagement with them at all reasonable levels could be an equitable way to direct the tensions & focus.
1. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/Ukraine-cris...
Right now Moscow continues to demand that Kiev implements the Minsk agreement, specifically constitutional reform, separatist region autonomy. Kiev demands full control of the regions’ border with Russia before going ahead with the agreement.
This impasse has been ongoing ever since the deal was inked.
Every now and then Moscow escalates trying to push Kiev to implement the agreement. It now seems to be more serious (or desperate) than ever.
This impasse has been ongoing ever since the deal was inked.
Every now and then Moscow escalates trying to push Kiev to implement the agreement. It now seems to be more serious (or desperate) than ever.
I wish I could recall the reference (as the below is not my original thinking), but I’ve Heard something along the following postulated:
1. Russia has a deep seated psychological worry about invasion from the west across the open plains of Eastern Europe (Poland/Ukraine) (Napoleanic wars, Ww 1, ww2) so creating a buffer is of geostrategic importance (old Soviet Warsaw Pact / satellite states. Merely having a nato member bordering Russia may stoke this anxiety (if Ukraine were to join nato)
2. The window for action is closing driven by a)population decline b) decreasing foreign reliance and wealth created from Russian energy wealth (oil/ nat gas)
1. Russia has a deep seated psychological worry about invasion from the west across the open plains of Eastern Europe (Poland/Ukraine) (Napoleanic wars, Ww 1, ww2) so creating a buffer is of geostrategic importance (old Soviet Warsaw Pact / satellite states. Merely having a nato member bordering Russia may stoke this anxiety (if Ukraine were to join nato)
2. The window for action is closing driven by a)population decline b) decreasing foreign reliance and wealth created from Russian energy wealth (oil/ nat gas)
Russia has been agressor for the last 200 years. Yes, including WW2, when in 1939 it together with their Nazi ally divided Europe and took half of Poland. Only after their "ally" (out of the "fear" as well) decided to attack the narrative changed to present the regime as an innocent victim. That's typical Russian propaganda that they need to protect their borders and their minorities, which is being used to justify the raping of their neighbours. Straight from propaganda book that Hitler was using in a build up of WW2.
Not sure what people don't like in your answer, probably the truth. Bordering with Russia always includes some tragic history - occupation of the Baltic States and Romania, Winter War, occupation of Poland, occupation of the whole Eastern Europe, brutal oppression of Hungary's revolution 1959 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Moldova 1992, Georgia 2008, and now Ukraine. At this moment Russia evolved into a completely totalitarian fascist state, while the West still plays Appeasement Policy with it, just like with Germany in 1938-39.
Nothing in the above negates what you said - Russia wants to expand beyond its borders, and create a buffer with Western Europe - and given population and hydrocarbon based economy, it’s now or never…
> Yes, including WW2, when in 1939 it together with their Nazi ally divided Europe and took half of Poland. Only after their "ally" (out of the "fear" as well)
May ask you, did you really learned about early 20th century history or Molotov-Ribbentrop act is the only thing you know about it?
May ask you, did you really learned about early 20th century history or Molotov-Ribbentrop act is the only thing you know about it?
To be fair Poland was first to start dividing Europe when it got piece of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Splitting Poland with Germany was done only after western powers refused all attempts by USSR to rein in Germany as wet dream in London at time was Berlin fighting Moscow and destroying communism.
> To be fair Poland was first to start dividing Europe when it got piece of Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Um, how is that fair? I mean, any “first” on ”dividing Europe” drawn during recorded history is going to be somewhat arbitrary, but pointing to the piece of Czechoslovakia that Poland annexed right after Germany annexed the Sudetenland and then forced the transfer of other Czechoslovakian territory to Hungary as making Poland the first to start dividing Europe is beyond ludicrous.
Um, how is that fair? I mean, any “first” on ”dividing Europe” drawn during recorded history is going to be somewhat arbitrary, but pointing to the piece of Czechoslovakia that Poland annexed right after Germany annexed the Sudetenland and then forced the transfer of other Czechoslovakian territory to Hungary as making Poland the first to start dividing Europe is beyond ludicrous.
[deleted]
Putin is batshit crazy, he is mentally regressing to Cold War. Russia is a failed state: corruption, inequality, extraction based economy, no technology beyond military and dire demographics. Once hydrocarbons lose value, Russia have is just vast empty space with expensive infrastructure.
Instead of reforming the country, he will continue to play strong, warlike despot. His main goal is self-preservation. Using propaganda and by creating conflicts, he will continue to stay in power[1]. His current goal is to force Ukraine and West for concessions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
Instead of reforming the country, he will continue to play strong, warlike despot. His main goal is self-preservation. Using propaganda and by creating conflicts, he will continue to stay in power[1]. His current goal is to force Ukraine and West for concessions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
To me, as a layman, it seems like a minor stratagem in a bigger plan. They don't really care about Ukraine. They want to create a crisis that would put them in a position to more favourably negotiate something else they really want. I suspect that's the gas pipeline making the entirety of Europe much more dependent on them.
Create an unrelated shit show in order to create a favourable position for some other negotiation seems to be a frequent tactic in today's politics.
Create an unrelated shit show in order to create a favourable position for some other negotiation seems to be a frequent tactic in today's politics.
I'm from Russia and late to the party. Funny that nobody doubts that it is Russia's engdame (you could have showed at least some critical judgement). I don't really know what the Russia's endgame is. But I think that we don't have many years of MAD left. Rather soon (during my lifetime) Russia's technological gap is going to become huge enough for nuclear weapons stop matter anymore.
It's making people flip out over the security of European gas supplies. Prices have been rocketing. Russia supplies 40%+ of Europe's gas so not only do they stand to profit directly from instability, they can leverage a threat of cutting the supply entirely for political and security gain.
Might be less believable if we hadn't just seen this same play performed in the Persian gulf.
Might be less believable if we hadn't just seen this same play performed in the Persian gulf.
My take: There might not be a clearly defined endgame. The point is the tension itself. By keeping us guessing and talking, Russia maintains a flexible position while keeping everyone mystified. It almost doesn’t even matter if they attack, as long as we’re thinking and talking about it.
If you’re thinking of a more long-term end-game for Russia, I would recommend reading about the Primakov Doctrine.
If you’re thinking of a more long-term end-game for Russia, I would recommend reading about the Primakov Doctrine.
In my opinion this video had a decent set of views around the intent and reasons for the timing. [1] I think it's worth at least listening to in the background. If they are right it might explain the end-game.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ExRbjmcf-8
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ExRbjmcf-8
Russia doesn't want to invade and take over Ukraine. Yes, they just want to create troubles in the Donbas region. Unlike Crimea, Donbas doesn't bring them any benefit, just more headaches. And of course, given the russian stories during the last five years, the media and their cronies in the governments want to wage a war there.
They are upfront about it, neutrality from the countries around their border
NATO continuing to send troops and arms to countries sourounding Russia is like trying to provoke an attack
The situation in Ukraine is much like Syria, but the other way around, USA supporting the government, Russia the rebels. Of a government that celebrates Nazism
Crimea had been a gift from the USSR to Ukraine as good faith for them to keep being neutral. Funny how it turned out
If this was happening in USA border like Mexico, people wouldn't even be discussing this, USA would already have invaded Mexico in the name of "National security" and everyone would be clapping for freedom
NATO continuing to send troops and arms to countries sourounding Russia is like trying to provoke an attack
The situation in Ukraine is much like Syria, but the other way around, USA supporting the government, Russia the rebels. Of a government that celebrates Nazism
Crimea had been a gift from the USSR to Ukraine as good faith for them to keep being neutral. Funny how it turned out
If this was happening in USA border like Mexico, people wouldn't even be discussing this, USA would already have invaded Mexico in the name of "National security" and everyone would be clapping for freedom
> They are upfront about it, neutrality from the countries around their border
That's a weak excuse for using a "gray zone war" for safeguarding their naval fleet passage. Ukraine can do what it wants ( well, actually because of Russia it can't). But i'm pretty sure if Russia continues, it could counteract quicker than they think ( USSR tried these tactics already, see: Prague spring and Hungarian revolution)
"A symbolic gift, while they acknowledged it was a natural extension of the Ukranian steppes"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea
> The transfer was described by some of the Supreme Soviet as a gift to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Pereyaslav[2] in 1654 when the Cossack Rada apparently decided to unify with Muscovy, putting in place the eventual acquisition of Ukraine by Russia. Other reasons given were the integration of the economies of Ukraine and Crimea and the idea that Crimea was a natural extension of the Ukrainian steppes.[15]
> The transfer increased the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine by almost a million people. Prominent Russian politicians such as Alexander Rutskoy considered the transfer to be controversial.[17] Controversies surrounding the legality of the transfer remained a sore point in relations between Ukraine and Russia for the first few years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and in particular in the internal politics of the Crimea. However, in a 1997 treaty between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, Russia recognized Ukraine's borders, and accepted Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea.[18]
BUT, i did learn something new about this. Thanks!
That's a weak excuse for using a "gray zone war" for safeguarding their naval fleet passage. Ukraine can do what it wants ( well, actually because of Russia it can't). But i'm pretty sure if Russia continues, it could counteract quicker than they think ( USSR tried these tactics already, see: Prague spring and Hungarian revolution)
"A symbolic gift, while they acknowledged it was a natural extension of the Ukranian steppes"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea
> The transfer was described by some of the Supreme Soviet as a gift to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Pereyaslav[2] in 1654 when the Cossack Rada apparently decided to unify with Muscovy, putting in place the eventual acquisition of Ukraine by Russia. Other reasons given were the integration of the economies of Ukraine and Crimea and the idea that Crimea was a natural extension of the Ukrainian steppes.[15]
> The transfer increased the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine by almost a million people. Prominent Russian politicians such as Alexander Rutskoy considered the transfer to be controversial.[17] Controversies surrounding the legality of the transfer remained a sore point in relations between Ukraine and Russia for the first few years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and in particular in the internal politics of the Crimea. However, in a 1997 treaty between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, Russia recognized Ukraine's borders, and accepted Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea.[18]
BUT, i did learn something new about this. Thanks!
The simple answer is to ensure that Ukraine never joins NATO. Secondary answer is to secure more seaports.
My understanding, as a software engineer with an interest in history:
Russian history is essentially the story of Russia getting invaded time and time again. The Mongols, Napoleon, Hitler, the list goes on and on and on. This, combined with borders that are difficult to defend (no mountain ranges or other natural barriers), has left the Russian psyche with a sense that their position is always precarious. It seems reasonable to me, given Russian history, and the fact that less than 100 years ago their society was nearly eradicated by Nazis. So the Russians are always wary of other powers and are always concerned about their borders.
Now, since the end of the Cold War, Russia has lost quite a lot of territory. This territory has all been snapped up by NATO, even though the Cold War was apparently over. NATO has now slowly expanded to the point that it is right up on Russia's border in the Baltics. The Russians look at this, and look at the failures of "shock therapy" economics in the 90s, and look at their demographic crunch, and look at the increasingly unstable political situation of their Western neighbors. They conclude that now is the last and best possible time to make an aggressive chess move against the West, and snatch up Ukraine before the West can.
So that's what this is about - it's a response of geopolitical insecurity. Russia thinks the West is very aggressive and unstable, and seeks to put Ukraine in its "sphere of influence" before it's too late. To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border. How would Americans feel if we lost the cold war and Russia started trying to dominate Mexico and Canada?
Russian history is essentially the story of Russia getting invaded time and time again. The Mongols, Napoleon, Hitler, the list goes on and on and on. This, combined with borders that are difficult to defend (no mountain ranges or other natural barriers), has left the Russian psyche with a sense that their position is always precarious. It seems reasonable to me, given Russian history, and the fact that less than 100 years ago their society was nearly eradicated by Nazis. So the Russians are always wary of other powers and are always concerned about their borders.
Now, since the end of the Cold War, Russia has lost quite a lot of territory. This territory has all been snapped up by NATO, even though the Cold War was apparently over. NATO has now slowly expanded to the point that it is right up on Russia's border in the Baltics. The Russians look at this, and look at the failures of "shock therapy" economics in the 90s, and look at their demographic crunch, and look at the increasingly unstable political situation of their Western neighbors. They conclude that now is the last and best possible time to make an aggressive chess move against the West, and snatch up Ukraine before the West can.
So that's what this is about - it's a response of geopolitical insecurity. Russia thinks the West is very aggressive and unstable, and seeks to put Ukraine in its "sphere of influence" before it's too late. To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border. How would Americans feel if we lost the cold war and Russia started trying to dominate Mexico and Canada?
Russian history is essentially a history of occupying and integrating bordering countries into the empire. That was the way to expand from several regions around Moscow to the empire's enormous pre-revolution territory in the beginning of XX century. You may google "Expansion of russian empire" maps to get an impression of this expansions.
Historically, most of multi-national empires in Europe (Austria-Hungary; Germans; Osmans) has fallen in the beginning of 20th century, but this one has mostly survived. Poland and Finland were lucky enough to separate, some other countries (Baltics, Ukraine) were less successful and got reintegrated into the new, totalitarian XX century edition of the empire.
It's natural that any neighbouring country not willing to become a playground for now less totalitarian but still oppressive and oligarch-run empire of Russian Federation would unite with anyone who could help, especially NATO. For example NATO and US could be the only reason for Estonia still being independent and successful just 100 km away from st. Peteresburg
Historically, most of multi-national empires in Europe (Austria-Hungary; Germans; Osmans) has fallen in the beginning of 20th century, but this one has mostly survived. Poland and Finland were lucky enough to separate, some other countries (Baltics, Ukraine) were less successful and got reintegrated into the new, totalitarian XX century edition of the empire.
It's natural that any neighbouring country not willing to become a playground for now less totalitarian but still oppressive and oligarch-run empire of Russian Federation would unite with anyone who could help, especially NATO. For example NATO and US could be the only reason for Estonia still being independent and successful just 100 km away from st. Peteresburg
Yeah. How did Siberia get to be Russian? It wasn't by the Mongols invading Russia...
How would Americans feel if we lost the cold war and Russia started trying to dominate Mexico and Canada?
That's a lot of "what-if", and more than a lot of hyperbole there. In any case the U.S. isn't trying to dominate any of the former Soviet republics (or even former Warsaw Pact) countries in any meaningful sense.
To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border
So how do most Ukrainians feel about the issue? Does that matter to you at all?
They conclude that now is the last and best possible time to make an aggressive chess move against the West, and snatch up Ukraine before the West can.
Since you're basically saying a Russian invasion is essentially justified - please tell us how exactly how many civilian + military deaths (and severe maiming and dismemberment) you are willing to "accept" (on behalf of the Ukrainian citizenry) as the natural, inevitable price for this bold, strategic move you are advocating.
Hint: something on the order of 10x the number in the Donbas conflict to date (which I'm sure you know) would be a good place to start.
That's a lot of "what-if", and more than a lot of hyperbole there. In any case the U.S. isn't trying to dominate any of the former Soviet republics (or even former Warsaw Pact) countries in any meaningful sense.
To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border
So how do most Ukrainians feel about the issue? Does that matter to you at all?
They conclude that now is the last and best possible time to make an aggressive chess move against the West, and snatch up Ukraine before the West can.
Since you're basically saying a Russian invasion is essentially justified - please tell us how exactly how many civilian + military deaths (and severe maiming and dismemberment) you are willing to "accept" (on behalf of the Ukrainian citizenry) as the natural, inevitable price for this bold, strategic move you are advocating.
Hint: something on the order of 10x the number in the Donbas conflict to date (which I'm sure you know) would be a good place to start.
Dude, I get that you're outraged about this, but you need to read a little more carefully.
They conclude that now is the last and best possible time to make an aggressive chess move against the West, and snatch up Ukraine before the West can.
They conclude
They
In case you didn't notice, the title of this post is "What's Russia's Endgame in Ukraine?" I literally attempted to respond to the question by saying what Russia's government wants. I'm an American guy, I'm not advocating any deaths or dismemberment as you say, I don't like war either. I'm simply saying that I understand the Russian position here, it's something you could get from reading a simple news article. Christ almighty.
They conclude that now is the last and best possible time to make an aggressive chess move against the West, and snatch up Ukraine before the West can.
They conclude
They
In case you didn't notice, the title of this post is "What's Russia's Endgame in Ukraine?" I literally attempted to respond to the question by saying what Russia's government wants. I'm an American guy, I'm not advocating any deaths or dismemberment as you say, I don't like war either. I'm simply saying that I understand the Russian position here, it's something you could get from reading a simple news article. Christ almighty.
You also said:
Russia thinks the West is very aggressive and unstable, and seeks to put Ukraine in its "sphere of influence" before it's too late. To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border.
Which suggests a strong overlap between "their" position and your own.
So perhaps you'd like to clarify: Would Russia be "not in the wrong" if the actually invaded Ukraine? If that's what it ultimately takes to put Ukraine back in their sphere of influence?
Because it sure sounds like you would be more or less OK with such an invasion.
Russia thinks the West is very aggressive and unstable, and seeks to put Ukraine in its "sphere of influence" before it's too late. To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border.
Which suggests a strong overlap between "their" position and your own.
So perhaps you'd like to clarify: Would Russia be "not in the wrong" if the actually invaded Ukraine? If that's what it ultimately takes to put Ukraine back in their sphere of influence?
Because it sure sounds like you would be more or less OK with such an invasion.
[deleted]
There's one more thing I need to ask you:
Now, since the end of the Cold War, Russia has lost quite a lot of territory. This territory has all been snapped up by NATO, even though the Cold War was apparently over.
Which "Russian territory" are you referring to as being "snapped up by NATO"? It would have to be the Baltics (and perhaps Poland), right? As "Russian" territory?
Please do clarify.
Now, since the end of the Cold War, Russia has lost quite a lot of territory. This territory has all been snapped up by NATO, even though the Cold War was apparently over.
Which "Russian territory" are you referring to as being "snapped up by NATO"? It would have to be the Baltics (and perhaps Poland), right? As "Russian" territory?
Please do clarify.
I encourage you to use Google if you want to investigate my claims, and decide for yourself. Seems like your mind is already made up though.
That's about the kind of (non-) answer I was expecting, actually.
No, I want to get the last word in! If you're implying that I'm some Russian internet troll, then all I can say is lol.
Nothing of the sort. But your responses do seem to be consistently evasive, for whatever reason.
If you think the Baltics somehow "belong" to Russia, or that Russia would be justified in taking "action" to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO (which is definitely what you were implying in your posts) -- then just come out and say it.
If you think the Baltics somehow "belong" to Russia, or that Russia would be justified in taking "action" to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO (which is definitely what you were implying in your posts) -- then just come out and say it.
>To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border. How would Americans feel if we lost the cold war and Russia started trying to dominate Mexico and Canada?
As a former citizen of Czechoslovakia I could not disagree more. Our countries are still recovering from decades of communism and Russian "help" and to this day Russia tries to exert influence over us. I hope Ukraine joins NATO one day.
As a former citizen of Czechoslovakia I could not disagree more. Our countries are still recovering from decades of communism and Russian "help" and to this day Russia tries to exert influence over us. I hope Ukraine joins NATO one day.
Look, I get that Russia is not exactly kind to its neighbors, I have some Polish relatives who tell me all about that. But I'm just not really sure that the US has any business being in Russia's "near abroad" anymore. The US isn't 50% of the world GDP anymore, and is politically paralyzed - I don't think we have the appetite nor the finances for another gigantic war.
Now this is controversial, so don't take this the wrong way, but I'd feel a lot better about the US defending Europe if Europe would also shoulder some of the burden. I honestly don't see why the US needs to spend so much on this project, while other NATO members are unable to even meet the 2% spending commitment. As a regular American it just kind of seems like Europe is riding on our backs with this. As much as I love Europe, Europeans, and European culture, I can't get behind spending tax dollars on defending countries that don't care enough to spend money to defend themselves.
Now this is controversial, so don't take this the wrong way, but I'd feel a lot better about the US defending Europe if Europe would also shoulder some of the burden. I honestly don't see why the US needs to spend so much on this project, while other NATO members are unable to even meet the 2% spending commitment. As a regular American it just kind of seems like Europe is riding on our backs with this. As much as I love Europe, Europeans, and European culture, I can't get behind spending tax dollars on defending countries that don't care enough to spend money to defend themselves.
I actually agree with that. I think Europe should strive to meet its 2% spending commitment. There have been talks about a joint European army as well. I am no expert in these matters but I am of the impression that Europe should be more committed to defending itself.
But I'm just not really sure that the US has any business being in Russia's "near abroad" anymore.
Does Russia have any business being in their "near abroad" any more? Given their "not kind" history conducting themselves in these countries?
Would you like to give us your own synopsis of this "not kind" history in Ukraine, specifically?
Does Russia have any business being in their "near abroad" any more? Given their "not kind" history conducting themselves in these countries?
Would you like to give us your own synopsis of this "not kind" history in Ukraine, specifically?
I’m German and think we spend too little on our own military - to the point where it’s a joke.
Europe needs to grow up and get able to defend itself.
Europe needs to grow up and get able to defend itself.
And also maybe stop sponsoring and doing business with oppressed regimes too (yes China too)? I'm baffled that Nord Oost pipe project is at the latest stages right now, and W.Europe is considering putting the energy shackles without any extra thought. In a similar vain I'm puzzled that Netherlands are just doing business with Russia like normal after what happened with MA17. I perfectly understand that sitting cozy in their homes is
what only matters to the most of people, but it's just sad that we are slaves of our own comfort and refuse to see a bigger picture.
I am always baffled by people talking about the big European powers of the past going on to derive some sort of claim over other present day people. Of course it makes it easier to think about the Germans vs. the Russians on a chess board, that is Eastern Europe. But there are people living there right now and Russians have no business whatsever to claim anything or assert any influence there. They can make offers, it is just that other offers (NATO, EU) are better. They have to accept that. If countries decide to invite the US to help, then it is absolutely OK for the US to help, no matter how close that country might be to Russia.
Fortunately we are not glorifying WWII Germany, even though we could (moon landing, etc.) and by extension also WWI Germany (even though the whole guilt here is highly debatable). Stalin Russia should get the exact same treatment. And while we are at it, we can also put the US in there (e.g. for what they did to Japan). All emperors should reside in the same bucket: They are all essentially a bunch of war criminals invading other peoples countries. We can look at positive second degree outcomes, but should not forget the cruelty of war.
Fortunately we are not glorifying WWII Germany, even though we could (moon landing, etc.) and by extension also WWI Germany (even though the whole guilt here is highly debatable). Stalin Russia should get the exact same treatment. And while we are at it, we can also put the US in there (e.g. for what they did to Japan). All emperors should reside in the same bucket: They are all essentially a bunch of war criminals invading other peoples countries. We can look at positive second degree outcomes, but should not forget the cruelty of war.
You're saying the invasion of a democratic (ish) country, whose population is now very anti-russia, is ethically defensible? The US/NATO may be pushing up against Russia, but not by force. How is offering a country NATO membership at all comparable to invading?
So following your logic every country has a right to exert influence over it’s neighbors using military power. The are pro-Russian political parties in Ukraine, yet their support is low, around 10% and falling, so no hope of achieving Russia-oriented Ukraine via political means.
The presence of West in Ukraine is overstated. Yes, Ukraine follows pro-Western foreign policy, what else could be done? Ukrainian electorate is wary of Russia, there are no other players here except West.
To be fair Ukrainian government blocked/stopped from distribution most pro Russian media (both TV and newspapers) and jailed/drove to exile pro Russian politicians so whether actual election outcome represents preferences of the public is not clear before we even consider election fraud.
0% people voted for Taliban in Afghanistan (as no Taliban politician was allowed to participate in elections) yet they clearly enjoyed support of majority of population.
0% people voted for Taliban in Afghanistan (as no Taliban politician was allowed to participate in elections) yet they clearly enjoyed support of majority of population.
The blocking of ‘some’ of TV channels happened last year.
Election to parliament happened almost three years ago, where actually one of the opposition parties won in a landslide.
Exile happened in 2014, due to closeness to Yanukovitch, for a portion of politicians. That was rather voluntary for them, mainly related to their stance on Crimea and so on. New “pro-Russian” figures came on the scene.
There are still pro—Russian political parties in parliament , which have media support (they are backed by powerful oligarchs) The richest man of Ukraine was the backer of Yanukovich, he hasn’t lost his influence or assets.
There is still internet, for example those blocked channels are very active on Youtube.
There is plenty of data that show suppport for those parties through out the years and it is pretty consistent with what I say - since 2014 it is around 10 - 15 % due to a number of reasons.
On the ground situation is very different than on RT or alike.
Exile happened in 2014, due to closeness to Yanukovitch, for a portion of politicians. That was rather voluntary for them, mainly related to their stance on Crimea and so on. New “pro-Russian” figures came on the scene.
There are still pro—Russian political parties in parliament , which have media support (they are backed by powerful oligarchs) The richest man of Ukraine was the backer of Yanukovich, he hasn’t lost his influence or assets.
There is still internet, for example those blocked channels are very active on Youtube.
There is plenty of data that show suppport for those parties through out the years and it is pretty consistent with what I say - since 2014 it is around 10 - 15 % due to a number of reasons.
On the ground situation is very different than on RT or alike.
I dont think they were making a moral judgement, just a realpolitik analysis.
Yes, for 30 years the West has been playing a dangerous game of poke the Bear, it probably won't end well.
Do you need to write things like "Russia thinks the West ..."?
By doing so it sounds as if you group the people living in Russia, together with Putin.
But this maybe-invasion would be the deed of a dictator and his men. Not Russia-the-people. The people suffer under Putin.
By doing so it sounds as if you group the people living in Russia, together with Putin.
But this maybe-invasion would be the deed of a dictator and his men. Not Russia-the-people. The people suffer under Putin.
When I say "Russia" I am talking about the government of Russia, just like how people often use "Americans" when talking about the USG, or "China" when talking about the CCP. I would actually bet that average Russian and American people probably have a lot more in common with each other than they do with their political leaders and elites.
> I would actually bet that average Russian and American people probably have a lot more in common
Yes definitely. Thing is, when someone writes "Russia" but in fact means "Putin and his men", or writes "China" but means "the CCP",
then I'm afraid this pushes the people (ordinary citizens) living in those places,
away from the people in Europe and the US.
Because when you write "Russia" and "China", they likely think about that, as including them -- they'd feel that anything critical, was criticizing them too.
Whilst if one writes "Putin and his men", then, ordinary people living in Russia will clearly see that you don't have anything against _them_ -- that you might even be their friend. And maybe one day they (the people in Russia) and the West together can try to do something about Putin.
Yes definitely. Thing is, when someone writes "Russia" but in fact means "Putin and his men", or writes "China" but means "the CCP",
then I'm afraid this pushes the people (ordinary citizens) living in those places,
away from the people in Europe and the US.
Because when you write "Russia" and "China", they likely think about that, as including them -- they'd feel that anything critical, was criticizing them too.
Whilst if one writes "Putin and his men", then, ordinary people living in Russia will clearly see that you don't have anything against _them_ -- that you might even be their friend. And maybe one day they (the people in Russia) and the West together can try to do something about Putin.
I see your point, and that's totally fair. I'll make a better effort to be specific about this from now on.
:-) Now I just need to write that same message, to 330M + 450M other people in the USA and the EU :-/
(If you share with others this different way of writing, maybe we could split 330M+450M / 2. But maybe you live elsewhere)
(If you share with others this different way of writing, maybe we could split 330M+450M / 2. But maybe you live elsewhere)
If Ukraine is going to attack the separatists then Russia would have little choice. They are probably positioning to grab additional gains whence that happens.
I'm not sure what additional gains they can attempt, but I feel Russia has fallen into a trap she created a few years ago.
I'm not sure what additional gains they can attempt, but I feel Russia has fallen into a trap she created a few years ago.
Putin's plan is that a real democracy (as opposed to a "democracy" where the party in power always wins) cannot be allowed to happen in a country that is culturally close to Russia. It might give the Russians ideas.
Had the West accepted the request* of Russia to join NATO, we wouldn't have seen the emergence of cold-war again! After the disintegration of USSR, the West went into triumphalism-mode rather than showing humility.
* This request was by Putin few years before the Afghan war. Russia at that time was sharing intelligence with the US on the dangers of the Taliban to the West. In the initial phases of the invasion Russia also provided some logistical support to the Western forces.
* This request was by Putin few years before the Afghan war. Russia at that time was sharing intelligence with the US on the dangers of the Taliban to the West. In the initial phases of the invasion Russia also provided some logistical support to the Western forces.
Not sure about the NATO request, but the West had a prime opportunity to make a new friend after the breakup of the Soviet Union and completely blew it. Russia was suffering, I remember seeing a flood of used Russian kids toys for sale on eBay. And the US was just rubbing it in, exclaiming in glee at the collapse and offering little aid or support. A wasted opportunity that has led to the current situation.
I think Putin really does not want to have NATO member countries on his border and he is afraid that Ukraine will end up joining NATO or at least becoming very closely aligned with them. He may have hoped to bluff his way to getting concessions to limit further NATO expansion. If that doesn't work he may invade if he thinks the rewards outweigh the risks.
This is true, but I don't think it's likely that NATO would admit Ukraine. For example, look at Georgia's history of trying to join NATO. For over a decade now Georgia has been a huge ally of NATO and Coalition forces (e.g. in Afghanistan) and has tried to join NATO, but the reality is that if NATO were to allow Georgia (or Ukraine) to join NATO it could precipitate a huge armed conflict with Russia.
That being said, it's also possible for NATO to form strategic alliances with countries bordering Russia without explicitly making those countries NATO members. Therefore I think it's in Russia's interest to exert pressure on these countries and make it explicit that partnership with NATO and the West may lead to armed conflict.
That being said, it's also possible for NATO to form strategic alliances with countries bordering Russia without explicitly making those countries NATO members. Therefore I think it's in Russia's interest to exert pressure on these countries and make it explicit that partnership with NATO and the West may lead to armed conflict.
Even Soviet Union has directly bordered several NATO countries.
If Putin doesn't want NATO countries at the border,
it's not because he thinks NATO would attack
it's because he cannot invade NATO countries.
So, the more NATO countries, the smaller his future Great Russia would be.
it's not because he thinks NATO would attack
it's because he cannot invade NATO countries.
So, the more NATO countries, the smaller his future Great Russia would be.
it's all a game
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=+байден+в...
It seems to be a picture of a young Joe Biden in the USSR or something. I can't read Cyrillic so I have no clue what this means. Could you provide some additional explanation?
It seems like Putin wants to regain all / most of the lands that were in the USSR.
It would be based on nostalgia and dreams for Russia to take on the greatness that the USSR had when he was a young man.
It would be based on nostalgia and dreams for Russia to take on the greatness that the USSR had when he was a young man.
People like Putin, enjoy playing Risk the board game, in real life.
More people dead (civilians and soldiers from Ukraine) -- would just make Putin feel more proud and important himself. The opposite to how "normal" people's brains work.
(Some others here believing Russia feels "threatened" by the EU and Nato, fundamentally don't understand how people like Putin function. Such things are just what Putin says to mislead the masses. There's no noble or ethical reasons for what Putin is doing -- it's just a machiavellian person having fun, from his perspective. Or making himself less bored.)
More people dead (civilians and soldiers from Ukraine) -- would just make Putin feel more proud and important himself. The opposite to how "normal" people's brains work.
(Some others here believing Russia feels "threatened" by the EU and Nato, fundamentally don't understand how people like Putin function. Such things are just what Putin says to mislead the masses. There's no noble or ethical reasons for what Putin is doing -- it's just a machiavellian person having fun, from his perspective. Or making himself less bored.)
Looking for neutral geo-political analysis.