6 ms·

The bigger question is "why now". Ukraine is not joining NATO or the EU any time soon. Russia has de facto annexed Crimea and its ongoing support for separatist

by danjac 5y ago

The bigger question is "why now". Ukraine is not joining NATO or the EU any time soon. Russia has de facto annexed Crimea and its ongoing support for separatists in Donbas keeps the region unstable to its advantage. I suspect two reasons: Putin's flagging domestic support and Russia's (and to be honest, the world's) perception that America is currently so divided and weak it will be unable to offer much resistance than token sanctions (nor will the EU, given Germany's self-flaggelating energy policy). The danger is that this might snowball into a larger conflict - if Russia thinks the US is no longer a threat, what's stopping the Chinese from going into Taiwan, or the North Koreans causing mischief?

mclightning 5y ago
Maybe Putin wants that "We are sending the immigrants card" by having a big border with EU; one way (ukraine as russia) or another (ukraine as a swiftly welcomed eu member)
chasd00 5y ago
are the rest of the US allies in the world so powerless? Isn't this why we have the UN? Without the US, does the world just go back to war, death, and destruction everywhere? That seems crazy to me.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Without the US, does the world just go back to war, death, and destruction everywhere? We're in a uniquely, some argue unnaturally, peaceful period [1]. For most of human history, lords spilled blood bickering over borders. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
- gilrain 5y ago
  Go back to? The war, death, and destruction never stopped… we just exported it to others.
  - zpeti 5y ago
    That's a ridiculous twisting of history. The last decades have been extremely peaceful, and you could argue that even since WW2 its been pretty peaceful. If you think because the US invaded a few countries over the last 100 years that qualifies as anything like what the world was like before, go read a bit more history. Your post is especially insensitive to anyone outside of US history, like myself, in a country that was repeatedly invaded, and raped, and pillaged throughout history. I'm extremely glad for the last 30-40 years.
  - bumby 5y ago
    Never stopped, true, but slowing down: https://www.unl.edu/rhames/212/Stephen%20Pinker%20on%20the%20Decline%20of%20War.pdf https://www.unl.edu/rhames/212/Stephen%20Pinker%20on%20the%2...
- democracy 5y ago
  Yes pretty much. Look at Kazakhstan dictator getting military support from Russia. Where is international support? (((
jhallenworld 5y ago
I'm wondering if this all about the NordStream 2 pipeline, though I'm not sure how threatening Ukraine helps Russia's case... maybe just to show that you don't want pipelines through an unstable region. Also, who benefits when natural gas prices go higher?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  No, Nord Stream is a small part of this and is politicized. Although Ukraine doesn't want to loose its position as a transit country. The western part of Ukraine is dependent on outside help and gas trade is an essential part. The south-eastern part is even more dependent on Russia for that matter. Russia doesn't need Nord Stream 2 as much because they could sell it to China just as well. For such ventures long term stability is important, but the EU already announced they will move away from fossil fuels which adds insecurity. Countries with a lot of resources profit the most from high prices, but Russia might not want them too high because then the US could viably support the EU with gas too.
The_Colonel 5y ago
"Why now?" is also a question I was wondering about. But also, "What's the goal?". They obviously can't occupy the whole country (Ukraine is large and populous, that would be way too expensive). Do they want the eastern part (with a big Russian minority), land bridge to Crimea, or just extend Donbas/Luhansk or just reheat the conflict, destabilize the Ukraine? It has to be something worthy. Ukrainian army is in a much better state than in 2014 and a full scale invasion could become very expensive and politically risky. Or maybe it really is just sabre rattling and Putin wants something completely different (lifting of existing sanctions, NS2 completion...).
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > "What's the goal?" Reinstate a pliant dictator, like the one who was removed in 2014 [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych
  - The_Colonel 5y ago
    This wouldn't work without military occupation, since such dictator wouldn't have support of Ukrainian military/population.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > This wouldn't work without military occupation, since such dictator wouldn't have support of Ukrainian military/population Not necessarily a permanent presence. Belarus and Kazakhstan's rulers aren't popular and don't require permanent support. Parachuting in soldiers lets Moscow amplify its strength. (America does this too.)
      - The_Colonel 5y ago
        Belarus and Kazakhstan dictators have support of local military. Ukrainian military these days is pretty built up and indoctrinated. It's not doing 180-degree turn-around just like that. Russia won't be able to control the situation remotely with just a threat of a parachute operation.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> "why now" Armenia just lost a war [1]. Minsk is swallowed by protests [2]. Kazakhstan is now facing protests [3]. That's half the CSTO members [4]. Meanwhile, Georgia and Ukraine are reminders to disheveled Russians that democracy for former Soviet members can work. (Also Nord Stream [5].) The cause for action begins and ends with domestic politics vis-a-vis Putin, who has created a system where losing power means loss of property, freedom and potentially life. [1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46651 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46651 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020–2021_Belarusian_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020–2021_Belarusian_protests [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/world/asia/kazakhstan-protests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/world/asia/kazakhstan-pro... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Org... [5] https://news.yahoo.com/u-senate-vote-cruzs-nord-011608935.html https://news.yahoo.com/u-senate-vote-cruzs-nord-011608935.ht...
- wrinkl3 5y ago
  Eh, Armenia losing its war wasn't particularly detrimental to the Russian interests in the Transcaucasia - if anything it helped bring Pashinyan back into the fold, as evidenced by him embracing CSTO during the Kazakh unrest. Minsk is also hardly "swallowed by protests" right now, they've succeeded in driving all resistance back underground. I agree that the post-Soviet world is in a bit of a crisis but it's not particularly more crisisy than normal. Putin's just getting older.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    Fair enough. I do think taken together, and the observation that absent Moscow's military support Minsk and new Almaty could have gone quite differently, they would be worrying to someone in Putin's shoes. Deploying the Russian army to Kazakhstan is much less risky than deploying it in Moscow. A small shift in the balance of power and the guns are aimed at you. That said, we in the West have a long history of overcomplicating the Kremlin's thinking. Perhaps he is just going senile.
- consumer451 5y ago
scottLobster 5y ago
Difference, at least with regard to China/Taiwan, is timeline. Russia could likely steamroll much of Ukraine in a short period of time, and the US/NATO has few assets available for immediate response to hundreds of thousands of Russian troops. The conflict could potentially be over before any meaningful military response could be mounted outside of what Ukraine can muster (which compared to the Russians only goes so far). Taiwan on the other hand could likely hold out for some time, IIRC their entire defense strategy is "be a tough nut to crack until the US shows up", and amphibious assaults are a very different animal from land invasions. It would primarily be a naval/air battle, and the US has plentiful and superior naval and air assets within striking distance of Taiwan, and just by the numbers the US Navy would annihilate the Chinese Navy in an open conflict. Not that the US/Taiwan would take no casualties, it would be the bloodiest US conflict since Vietnam. But if it happened tomorrow it would end in a decisive US/Taiwan victory assuming things stay conventional. Also China's a special case, as thanks to their one child policy almost all of their soldiers/sailors/pilots/marines are only children, and arguably more importantly (in China) only sons. The officers/pilots in particular are often the only sons of party officials/the societal elite. So any war China starts could have major domestic ramifications as thousands of relatively important Chinese families see their family trees start to wither. We also have strategic interests in Taiwan thanks to semiconductors, the same can't be said for Ukraine. That said, just because it wouldn't make any rational sense doesn't mean it won't happen, or that the narrative you describe wouldn't exists. Let's hope Xi's relative pragmatism continues.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  US has 2x more troops forward deployed in East Europe for Russian contingency and decades worth of equipment stocked piled as result of cold war. There's also all of NATO. Versus TW where PRC concentration of forces overwhelm US air/naval assets and reinforcement is far away in time and logistics and there's no US allies in region willing to credibly contribute to TW defense. The entire current TW defense strategy is to line up on the beach to be blown up based off 90s PLA invasion plans not 2020 PLA plans based off US stomping Iraq with high tech weapons and complete air supremacy. The "tough nut to crack" / porcupine strategy are asymmetric doctrine US think tanks want TW to adopt so US can respond it time. It's not reality, currently PRC can stomp TW before US help arrives. And it's questionable US has any supremacy within 1st island chain for TW defense. Also PLA isn't filled elites, certainly not combat roles, and what few there are will have strings pulled not to be deployed anyway. The entire one-child will disincentivize TW war meme is also nonsensical, PLA wants martyrs after decades of relative peace and frankly having a dead hero is going to come with a golden parachute for the family. The real answer is PRC still prioritizes peaceful reunion because time is on their side. Where as time is not on side of Russia, simultaneously because force balance could shift away for Russian favor and Putin has actually managed to credibly modernize Russian military that it's at peak power to pursue/restore it's security environment that has been devolving for the last 20 years. Ultimately, Russia is currently powerful enough to fight for her interests, because on balance capability is in RU favor. US isn't going to intervene, EU underinvested in defense while Russia invested enough despite how poor they are.
ed_balls 5y ago
Because Russia is failing apart. People living in post Soviet sphere see how other countries are developing. Ukraine had higher GDP per capita than Poland - now it's 4x lower. It's true for every single place from Kaliningrad, Caucasus to Vladivostok. They are worse off they their neighbours for purely political reasons. Only thing that holds everything together is the authoritarian regime with strong military and natural resources. The problem is the world will become less dependant on fossil fuels and mining in Siberia is more expensive than pretty much everywhere. Russia won't be able to pay for the army. This is an existential treat to the Russian state, hence the war is very likely.
type0 5y ago
> The bigger question is "why now". Because the energy crisis in Europe creates a good opportunity
bigodbiel 5y ago
Many reasons! Internationally; Merkel is out and the Greens (staunch anti-Russians) have the foreign affairs meanwhile Nord Stream still stuck, Ukraine is getting increasingly armed with Turkish drones and anti-tank missile systems plus its clamp down on pro-Russia politicians and oligarchs, Biden is probably the last democrat (or non-Trump Republican) willing to sit down with Putin Domestically; inflation is soaring, purchasing power dwindling, and Kremlin popularity so low after continuous unpopular measures that the government is having second/third thoughts in passing vaccine passes.

by danjac 5y ago

mclightning 5y ago

Maybe Putin wants that "We are sending the immigrants card" by having a big border with EU; one way (ukraine as russia) or another (ukraine as a swiftly welcomed eu member)

chasd00 5y ago

are the rest of the US allies in the world so powerless? Isn't this why we have the UN? Without the US, does the world just go back to war, death, and destruction everywhere? That seems crazy to me.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Without the US, does the world just go back to war, death, and destruction everywhere? We're in a uniquely, some argue unnaturally, peaceful period [1]. For most of human history, lords spilled blood bickering over borders. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
gilrain 5y ago
Go back to? The war, death, and destruction never stopped… we just exported it to others.
- zpeti 5y ago
  That's a ridiculous twisting of history. The last decades have been extremely peaceful, and you could argue that even since WW2 its been pretty peaceful. If you think because the US invaded a few countries over the last 100 years that qualifies as anything like what the world was like before, go read a bit more history. Your post is especially insensitive to anyone outside of US history, like myself, in a country that was repeatedly invaded, and raped, and pillaged throughout history. I'm extremely glad for the last 30-40 years.
- bumby 5y ago
  Never stopped, true, but slowing down: https://www.unl.edu/rhames/212/Stephen%20Pinker%20on%20the%20Decline%20of%20War.pdf https://www.unl.edu/rhames/212/Stephen%20Pinker%20on%20the%2...
democracy 5y ago
Yes pretty much. Look at Kazakhstan dictator getting military support from Russia. Where is international support? (((

jhallenworld 5y ago

I'm wondering if this all about the NordStream 2 pipeline, though I'm not sure how threatening Ukraine helps Russia's case... maybe just to show that you don't want pipelines through an unstable region. Also, who benefits when natural gas prices go higher?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
raxxorrax 5y ago
No, Nord Stream is a small part of this and is politicized. Although Ukraine doesn't want to loose its position as a transit country. The western part of Ukraine is dependent on outside help and gas trade is an essential part. The south-eastern part is even more dependent on Russia for that matter. Russia doesn't need Nord Stream 2 as much because they could sell it to China just as well. For such ventures long term stability is important, but the EU already announced they will move away from fossil fuels which adds insecurity. Countries with a lot of resources profit the most from high prices, but Russia might not want them too high because then the US could viably support the EU with gas too.

The_Colonel 5y ago

"Why now?" is also a question I was wondering about. But also, "What's the goal?". They obviously can't occupy the whole country (Ukraine is large and populous, that would be way too expensive). Do they want the eastern part (with a big Russian minority), land bridge to Crimea, or just extend Donbas/Luhansk or just reheat the conflict, destabilize the Ukraine? It has to be something worthy. Ukrainian army is in a much better state than in 2014 and a full scale invasion could become very expensive and politically risky. Or maybe it really is just sabre rattling and Putin wants something completely different (lifting of existing sanctions, NS2 completion...).

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> "What's the goal?" Reinstate a pliant dictator, like the one who was removed in 2014 [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych
- The_Colonel 5y ago
  This wouldn't work without military occupation, since such dictator wouldn't have support of Ukrainian military/population.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > This wouldn't work without military occupation, since such dictator wouldn't have support of Ukrainian military/population Not necessarily a permanent presence. Belarus and Kazakhstan's rulers aren't popular and don't require permanent support. Parachuting in soldiers lets Moscow amplify its strength. (America does this too.)
    - The_Colonel 5y ago
      Belarus and Kazakhstan dictators have support of local military. Ukrainian military these days is pretty built up and indoctrinated. It's not doing 180-degree turn-around just like that. Russia won't be able to control the situation remotely with just a threat of a parachute operation.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> "why now" Armenia just lost a war [1]. Minsk is swallowed by protests [2]. Kazakhstan is now facing protests [3]. That's half the CSTO members [4]. Meanwhile, Georgia and Ukraine are reminders to disheveled Russians that democracy for former Soviet members can work. (Also Nord Stream [5].) The cause for action begins and ends with domestic politics vis-a-vis Putin, who has created a system where losing power means loss of property, freedom and potentially life. [1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46651 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46651 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020–2021_Belarusian_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020–2021_Belarusian_protests [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/world/asia/kazakhstan-protests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/world/asia/kazakhstan-pro... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Org... [5] https://news.yahoo.com/u-senate-vote-cruzs-nord-011608935.html https://news.yahoo.com/u-senate-vote-cruzs-nord-011608935.ht...

wrinkl3 5y ago
Eh, Armenia losing its war wasn't particularly detrimental to the Russian interests in the Transcaucasia - if anything it helped bring Pashinyan back into the fold, as evidenced by him embracing CSTO during the Kazakh unrest. Minsk is also hardly "swallowed by protests" right now, they've succeeded in driving all resistance back underground. I agree that the post-Soviet world is in a bit of a crisis but it's not particularly more crisisy than normal. Putin's just getting older.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  Fair enough. I do think taken together, and the observation that absent Moscow's military support Minsk and new Almaty could have gone quite differently, they would be worrying to someone in Putin's shoes. Deploying the Russian army to Kazakhstan is much less risky than deploying it in Moscow. A small shift in the balance of power and the guns are aimed at you. That said, we in the West have a long history of overcomplicating the Kremlin's thinking. Perhaps he is just going senile.
consumer451 5y ago

scottLobster 5y ago

Difference, at least with regard to China/Taiwan, is timeline. Russia could likely steamroll much of Ukraine in a short period of time, and the US/NATO has few assets available for immediate response to hundreds of thousands of Russian troops. The conflict could potentially be over before any meaningful military response could be mounted outside of what Ukraine can muster (which compared to the Russians only goes so far). Taiwan on the other hand could likely hold out for some time, IIRC their entire defense strategy is "be a tough nut to crack until the US shows up", and amphibious assaults are a very different animal from land invasions. It would primarily be a naval/air battle, and the US has plentiful and superior naval and air assets within striking distance of Taiwan, and just by the numbers the US Navy would annihilate the Chinese Navy in an open conflict. Not that the US/Taiwan would take no casualties, it would be the bloodiest US conflict since Vietnam. But if it happened tomorrow it would end in a decisive US/Taiwan victory assuming things stay conventional. Also China's a special case, as thanks to their one child policy almost all of their soldiers/sailors/pilots/marines are only children, and arguably more importantly (in China) only sons. The officers/pilots in particular are often the only sons of party officials/the societal elite. So any war China starts could have major domestic ramifications as thousands of relatively important Chinese families see their family trees start to wither. We also have strategic interests in Taiwan thanks to semiconductors, the same can't be said for Ukraine. That said, just because it wouldn't make any rational sense doesn't mean it won't happen, or that the narrative you describe wouldn't exists. Let's hope Xi's relative pragmatism continues.

dirtyid 5y ago
US has 2x more troops forward deployed in East Europe for Russian contingency and decades worth of equipment stocked piled as result of cold war. There's also all of NATO. Versus TW where PRC concentration of forces overwhelm US air/naval assets and reinforcement is far away in time and logistics and there's no US allies in region willing to credibly contribute to TW defense. The entire current TW defense strategy is to line up on the beach to be blown up based off 90s PLA invasion plans not 2020 PLA plans based off US stomping Iraq with high tech weapons and complete air supremacy. The "tough nut to crack" / porcupine strategy are asymmetric doctrine US think tanks want TW to adopt so US can respond it time. It's not reality, currently PRC can stomp TW before US help arrives. And it's questionable US has any supremacy within 1st island chain for TW defense. Also PLA isn't filled elites, certainly not combat roles, and what few there are will have strings pulled not to be deployed anyway. The entire one-child will disincentivize TW war meme is also nonsensical, PLA wants martyrs after decades of relative peace and frankly having a dead hero is going to come with a golden parachute for the family. The real answer is PRC still prioritizes peaceful reunion because time is on their side. Where as time is not on side of Russia, simultaneously because force balance could shift away for Russian favor and Putin has actually managed to credibly modernize Russian military that it's at peak power to pursue/restore it's security environment that has been devolving for the last 20 years. Ultimately, Russia is currently powerful enough to fight for her interests, because on balance capability is in RU favor. US isn't going to intervene, EU underinvested in defense while Russia invested enough despite how poor they are.

ed_balls 5y ago

Because Russia is failing apart. People living in post Soviet sphere see how other countries are developing. Ukraine had higher GDP per capita than Poland - now it's 4x lower. It's true for every single place from Kaliningrad, Caucasus to Vladivostok. They are worse off they their neighbours for purely political reasons. Only thing that holds everything together is the authoritarian regime with strong military and natural resources. The problem is the world will become less dependant on fossil fuels and mining in Siberia is more expensive than pretty much everywhere. Russia won't be able to pay for the army. This is an existential treat to the Russian state, hence the war is very likely.

type0 5y ago

> The bigger question is "why now". Because the energy crisis in Europe creates a good opportunity

bigodbiel 5y ago

Many reasons! Internationally; Merkel is out and the Greens (staunch anti-Russians) have the foreign affairs meanwhile Nord Stream still stuck, Ukraine is getting increasingly armed with Turkish drones and anti-tank missile systems plus its clamp down on pro-Russia politicians and oligarchs, Biden is probably the last democrat (or non-Trump Republican) willing to sit down with Putin Domestically; inflation is soaring, purchasing power dwindling, and Kremlin popularity so low after continuous unpopular measures that the government is having second/third thoughts in passing vaccine passes.