7 ms·

As an outsider looking in I haven't really read anything that explains the gameplay here from Russia. Annexing Crimea gives them a port that doesn't freeze in

As an outsider looking in I haven't really read anything that explains the gameplay here from Russia. Annexing Crimea gives them a port that doesn't freeze in the winter other than Murmansk. But they could stop there and everybody in NATO would shrug their shoulders and they would keep Crimea. Why insist on further escalation?

enigma20 5y ago
There are few good videos on this channel which explain the matter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sKo-ibHyJs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sKo-ibHyJs
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
YarickR2 5y ago
- avidphantasm 5y ago
  Two obvious major US provocations come to the mind of this non-expert who hasn’t been paying that much attention: The expansion of NATO to the east (which we said we wouldn’t do when the Berlin Wall fell); Trying to stop construction of a gas pipeline between Russia and Western Europe (i.e., trying to usurp the sovereignty of all involved).
  - avidphantasm 5y ago
    Add to that a tumescent military-industrial complex who recent lost their cash cows in the Middle East…
- afarrell 5y ago
  There is no political benefit for Biden in going to war. The left doesn't like war -- it wants to fix problems at home. The right doesn't want war -- it elected Trump partly on anti-war sentiment.
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    Presidents usually get more popular when they go to war.
hutzlibu 5y ago
"But they could stop there and everybody in NATO would shrug their shoulders and they would keep Crimea. Why insist on further escalation?" They say, they stopped there - and that they will not tolerate a military occupation of the autonomous eastern ukraine provinces. Not that they want to occupy whole ukraine. So I do not see them insist on further escalation. But the west has said - it will not accept the crimea annexion. So this conflict will remain unsolved, if no side will move.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
As a highly anti-Putin Russian, Putin's the game is very clear. He has fixed costs of having a standing army, which he pays for anyway. It is no difference for him whether they are placed in Murmansk or in Crimea, the costs are the same. However, the benefits for him are different: it turns out that when these troops are stationed near the Ukraine border, the West loses their nerve and concedes to almost anything Putin wants. Imagine a thug standing nearby, playing with his brass knuckles menacingly. A skinny college boy gets really nervous and tries his best not to provoke the thug. Seeing the Russia situation from inside, I don't see how this new war is in Putin's interests. However, the West is unable to read this game and Putin plays the incapable leaders of the Europe and the US really well.
- vanusa 5y ago
  I don't see how this new war is in Putin's interests. Clearly it won't be in his interest. But if the West does not provide him with some major concessions -- will he do it anyway? To protect his image, or whatever? That seems to be the key question here.
- grey-area 5y ago
  Well it does serve a few goals: * Fulfils his old goal of expanding Russia to old soviet borders (see Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea etc). * Distracts from internal problems with an external enemy (a tried and true tactic of dictators) * Provides a buffer from Nato and Europe (long a preoccupation) The bet here is that the West will do nothing if he takes Ukraine. Given the current messaging from the US and Germany (Embassy evacuations, disposition of fleet, Biden slipup Fri, 5000 troops), he's probably right. You don't move this many troops and ships etc as a feint (nor would you need to), the die is already cast, and the only uncertainty is what the West will do about it IMO - at present it looks like not much, as they didn't do much about Crimea. Worst case for Putin is a long war which bleeds the country of money and resources, so he'll want it over quickly and a puppet ruler installed, at which point he can withdraw and plan to slowly absorb the Ukraine or leave it as a satellite state like Belarus.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ivan_gammel 5y ago
Here’s a good explanation: https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4 https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4 In short, Russia has no intention to conquer Ukraine, but Russia has vital strategic interest there. With its actions it pursues to block eastwards expansion of NATO by wrecking the candidate states. At the same time, NATO policy is quite contradictory: Ukraine is not a vital strategic interest for USA, and thus NATO was not ready to fight for it in Donbass. At the same time they are happy to offer Article 5, which will oblige them to engage in the future conflicts in this area. Policy of open doors that NATO declares does not make much sense: by design it supposed to be a defensive alliance, not an empire, so why inviting countries which won’t really contribute to your security?
- baybal2 5y ago
  > In short, Russia has no intention to conquer Ukraine, but Russia has vital strategic interest there. Russia has no strategic interests But Russia has a president who is: - a matric fail - who spend most of his youth in mafia, running drugs, and stealing humanitarian aid - who conducts himself accordingly to what you expect from those kind of people
  - MagnumOpus 5y ago
    "Russian interest" here is synonymous with Vova Putin's interest, same as in every totalitarian dictatorship. Just like "Saudi Arabian intentions" are whatever Mister Bone Saw desires or "Chinese foreign policy" are whatever Xi thinks is best at any given moment.
- deepsun 5y ago
  > Here’s a good explanation: As an American living in Ukraine, I can say that that the guy in the video obviously don't know Ukraine he's talking about. He starts off from NATO expansion and Russian position on that. But little did he know that before 2014 (Crimea and Easter Ukraine war), no one here seriously thought of NATO. Russia was the biggest economical partner. NATO was considered no-quite-friendly entity, composed of foreigners, why joining? Everything turned upside down after 2014 -- Russia basically pushed Ukraine into NATO (although NATO made it clear they don't see Ukraine as their member as well, their idea is to increase members safety, not decrease it). If Russia didn't annex Crimea, it would be simply impossible. Also he is wrong on how Russia quickly moved to Crimea in 2014. He is unaware that preparation for annexation began in 2011 (working with local governments and municipalities), it wasn't quick, it was planned (very well planned to tell the truth), and everyone here knows that.
3pt14159 5y ago
There isn't one simple answer here. This is partially about shoring up Russian reputation. Partially about Putin distracting people from a Russian economy that has suffered under covid right after the state reformed the pension system. Partially about lashing back at what's perceived as Nato expansionism. Partially exploiting a time when Americans are most war weary due to the Afghanistan pullout. The rest of Nato is busy with wrecked balance sheets and other issues like global warming. Nobody is itching for a fight right now so it's a good time to press. And, lastly, probably good old fashion Russian incremental expansionism.
thrown_30004 5y ago
The black sea is pretty much useless as a warm water port. The Bosporus limits the number of military ships that can pass through it by treaty and unless you conquer Istanbul there's nothing you can do about it. Crimea was 90% ethnic Russian as were the majority of areas occupied by rebels. This is an ethnic conflict that started when the majority Ukrainian areas decided that they could rule the country without the majority Russian areas. I imagine what we will see is North Ukraine being left as a majority Ukrainian speaking country and South Ukraine a majority Russian speaking country. Ironically enough North Ukraine then becomes small enough to join the EU.
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  Ok I understand the throwaway as it as controversial point. I have a couple of questions for someone not that familiar with Ukrainian history: - Was the south ukrainian population relocated there as a soviet 'settlement' or were they always historically there? - Is there any political acceptance among north ukrainians to cut their loses and lose territory in order to be able to join NATO/EU?
  - twelve40 5y ago
    Kharkov, Odessa, Nikolayev, Sumy, Kherson, Dnepropetrovsk, Donetsk, Lugansk, Mariupol, Krivoi Rog, Elizavetgrad (aka "Kropivnitsky"), Aleksandrovskaya (aka "Zaporizhzhia") - most of the cities in the East and the South were founded by the Russians by direct order from the Tsars starting from 1600's. We can dig deeper and find out that in 1897, 78% of Kiev the capital's population was non-Ukrainian, so no, this is not some Soviet invention. If anything, Stalin and Kruschev gifted Lvov (1940), Ivano-Frankovsk (1940), the entire Crimea (1954), Uzhgorod (1945), etc etc to Ukraine, so some thanks to the Soviets should be in order.
neximo64 5y ago
Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of influence and allowing the EU/US to change that means the boundary encroaches closer creating great risk for the sphere. The edge of Romania/Moldova are where the great plains start. Meaning if you get natural trade routes from that region on its a very easy march to Moscow. Second, it is a test of the US to put up resources. It is a challenging time for the US to do so, so it just makes it expensive not to do so. I.e if the US does not and Russia invades it makes the US look very weak and it can seize on that. It is a very standard/typical balance of power move. Thirdly, covid has been bad in Russia so projecting power looks very strong to maintain leadership. In Russia's history this is just a very common thing to do to maintain power in government. In all it is a very optimal play for Russia to do. Any leader other than Putin wearing the 'Bear suit' would basically do the same.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
LatteLazy 5y ago
There are millions of Russians in Ukraine. They don't want closer relations with the eu at the expense of losing relations with Russia. Russia imported a shit tonne of food from the Ukraine until this all started. Russia doesn't want to lose that supply permanently. The current partition isn't the best from a strategic/defense position or from a political/objectives one. So it makes sense to correct that before making it permanent. Negotiations for a peaceful settlement have failed or are stuck. Now (roughly) is the peak demand for Russian gas in Europe so it's now or wait another 12months. And that's without considering domestic political reasons for conflict...
goodcanadian 5y ago
I have read many not completely satisfactory "explanations," most of which are repeated in other comments. Those may be part of the story. The most convincing story that I have seen is as follows: Ukraine is very similar culturally to Russia. Putin cannot afford to have a successful democratic Ukraine on his borders as an example to Russian citizens. They might decide that Putin's way of governing is not actually the best for the Russian people. So, he does everything he can do to undermine a democratic Ukraine. If a western style democracy fails in the Ukraine, well, clearly it is not suitable for Russia either. Ideally, he would like Ukraine within Russia's sphere of influence as Belarus is, but I am not sure that is vital. This is actually fairly consistent with how the Soviet Union behaved in Eastern Europe. Romania and Yugoslavia moved away from the Soviet Union, but they were dictatorships, so they were left alone. Anytime there was even a glimmer of democracy, however, the tanks were sent in.
azangru 5y ago
> Why insist on further escalation? As a befuddled onlooker myself, I am surprised that the movements of the Russian military inside its territory must be interpreted by the outside world as an escalation. I understand the nervousness of Ukraine, but not of the US. If Russia invades, then by all means, the West can destroy it economically; but until it does, what is the point of all this saber-rattling? Just as I don't understand the point of NATO's eastwards expansion, which, in turn, makes the Russians nervous. If the European countries are worried by the military buildup along Russia's western border, surely it must be easy to empathise with the Russian worry about Nato including more Eastern European countries and being able to deploy missiles there, which can be used both defensively and offensively and which puts Moscow within 5-minute reach, or something like that.
- piva00 5y ago
  It's not simply "movement", it's amassing quite a sizeable portion of its armed forces near borders. No country interprets that other than an escalation if it comes from a hostile neighbour... Even between friendly countries it's a bit eyebrows raising behaviour.
  - kgeist 5y ago
    >it's amassing quite a sizeable portion of its armed forces near borders Russia is pretty large (and Ukraine too), it may look like the forces are "near Ukrainian borders" on the map (when zoomed out), but it can be as far as 350 km (at its widest, UK is 500 km, for comparison), which is deep into Russia's most populated territories.
    - gls2ro 5y ago
      I read this the other way. As Russia is so huge, then having the forces at 350 km/500 km near the border is "close" enough to the border.
      - kgeist 5y ago
        I understand, but the majority of Russian population lives along the Western and Southern borders. See the density map: https://vividmaps.com/population-density-of-russia https://vividmaps.com/population-density-of-russia Anything in that area of sizeable Russian population can be proclaimed "near Ukrainian borders". 75% of the country is uninhabited. It would make little sense to station most troops in completely unpopulated areas where nothing happens.
crateless 5y ago
There is basically no escalation from Russia. The troop deployment on the Ukraine border mirrors a similar deployment in April last year[1]. It is just convenient (Biden's domestic issues/Nordstream 2/other unknown reasons) to claim imminent invasion and the media is incentivised to fuel that narrative since it seems to have captured the attention of the populace at large (perhaps based on the Russophobia that is prevalent in mainstream media). 1. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11651 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11651
- deepsun 5y ago
  There is a sizeable escalation. You didn't count unprecedented deployment in Belarus as well (Russia's marionette right now), and all the diplomatic ultimatums. Yes, there were deployments previously, but never this size.
  - crateless 5y ago
    The diplomatic ultimatums as well as the Belarus deployment are in response to the mainstream media's assertions of imminent attack and could also be interpreted as Putin trying to leverage the situation to his advantage to try for concessions of some sort to further his agenda. At this point in time, to be fair, one could argue for invasion but that calculus is so grim for Russia that it seems far-fetched. Anyway my point is that the initial clamour of "imminent invasion" was unwarranted based on the evidence at the time based on historical troop movement at the border. Therefore there must be another reason underlying the media's outcry which is beyond my ken.
deepsun 5y ago
> a port that doesn't freeze in the winter other than Murmansk They have had ports that don't freeze: Novorossiysk and Vladivostok. I grew up in Eastern Europe, and I see it as the ages-long Russian policy -- more territory = good. All the way from Mongols conquest, they kinda continue what Mongols did.

enigma20 5y ago

There are few good videos on this channel which explain the matter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sKo-ibHyJs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sKo-ibHyJs

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

YarickR2 5y ago

avidphantasm 5y ago
Two obvious major US provocations come to the mind of this non-expert who hasn’t been paying that much attention: The expansion of NATO to the east (which we said we wouldn’t do when the Berlin Wall fell); Trying to stop construction of a gas pipeline between Russia and Western Europe (i.e., trying to usurp the sovereignty of all involved).
- avidphantasm 5y ago
  Add to that a tumescent military-industrial complex who recent lost their cash cows in the Middle East…
afarrell 5y ago
There is no political benefit for Biden in going to war. The left doesn't like war -- it wants to fix problems at home. The right doesn't want war -- it elected Trump partly on anti-war sentiment.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  Presidents usually get more popular when they go to war.

hutzlibu 5y ago

"But they could stop there and everybody in NATO would shrug their shoulders and they would keep Crimea. Why insist on further escalation?" They say, they stopped there - and that they will not tolerate a military occupation of the autonomous eastern ukraine provinces. Not that they want to occupy whole ukraine. So I do not see them insist on further escalation. But the west has said - it will not accept the crimea annexion. So this conflict will remain unsolved, if no side will move.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

As a highly anti-Putin Russian, Putin's the game is very clear. He has fixed costs of having a standing army, which he pays for anyway. It is no difference for him whether they are placed in Murmansk or in Crimea, the costs are the same. However, the benefits for him are different: it turns out that when these troops are stationed near the Ukraine border, the West loses their nerve and concedes to almost anything Putin wants. Imagine a thug standing nearby, playing with his brass knuckles menacingly. A skinny college boy gets really nervous and tries his best not to provoke the thug. Seeing the Russia situation from inside, I don't see how this new war is in Putin's interests. However, the West is unable to read this game and Putin plays the incapable leaders of the Europe and the US really well.

vanusa 5y ago
I don't see how this new war is in Putin's interests. Clearly it won't be in his interest. But if the West does not provide him with some major concessions -- will he do it anyway? To protect his image, or whatever? That seems to be the key question here.
grey-area 5y ago
Well it does serve a few goals: * Fulfils his old goal of expanding Russia to old soviet borders (see Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea etc). * Distracts from internal problems with an external enemy (a tried and true tactic of dictators) * Provides a buffer from Nato and Europe (long a preoccupation) The bet here is that the West will do nothing if he takes Ukraine. Given the current messaging from the US and Germany (Embassy evacuations, disposition of fleet, Biden slipup Fri, 5000 troops), he's probably right. You don't move this many troops and ships etc as a feint (nor would you need to), the die is already cast, and the only uncertainty is what the West will do about it IMO - at present it looks like not much, as they didn't do much about Crimea. Worst case for Putin is a long war which bleeds the country of money and resources, so he'll want it over quickly and a puppet ruler installed, at which point he can withdraw and plan to slowly absorb the Ukraine or leave it as a satellite state like Belarus.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ivan_gammel 5y ago

Here’s a good explanation: https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4 https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4 In short, Russia has no intention to conquer Ukraine, but Russia has vital strategic interest there. With its actions it pursues to block eastwards expansion of NATO by wrecking the candidate states. At the same time, NATO policy is quite contradictory: Ukraine is not a vital strategic interest for USA, and thus NATO was not ready to fight for it in Donbass. At the same time they are happy to offer Article 5, which will oblige them to engage in the future conflicts in this area. Policy of open doors that NATO declares does not make much sense: by design it supposed to be a defensive alliance, not an empire, so why inviting countries which won’t really contribute to your security?

baybal2 5y ago
> In short, Russia has no intention to conquer Ukraine, but Russia has vital strategic interest there. Russia has no strategic interests But Russia has a president who is: - a matric fail - who spend most of his youth in mafia, running drugs, and stealing humanitarian aid - who conducts himself accordingly to what you expect from those kind of people
- MagnumOpus 5y ago
  "Russian interest" here is synonymous with Vova Putin's interest, same as in every totalitarian dictatorship. Just like "Saudi Arabian intentions" are whatever Mister Bone Saw desires or "Chinese foreign policy" are whatever Xi thinks is best at any given moment.
deepsun 5y ago
> Here’s a good explanation: As an American living in Ukraine, I can say that that the guy in the video obviously don't know Ukraine he's talking about. He starts off from NATO expansion and Russian position on that. But little did he know that before 2014 (Crimea and Easter Ukraine war), no one here seriously thought of NATO. Russia was the biggest economical partner. NATO was considered no-quite-friendly entity, composed of foreigners, why joining? Everything turned upside down after 2014 -- Russia basically pushed Ukraine into NATO (although NATO made it clear they don't see Ukraine as their member as well, their idea is to increase members safety, not decrease it). If Russia didn't annex Crimea, it would be simply impossible. Also he is wrong on how Russia quickly moved to Crimea in 2014. He is unaware that preparation for annexation began in 2011 (working with local governments and municipalities), it wasn't quick, it was planned (very well planned to tell the truth), and everyone here knows that.

3pt14159 5y ago

There isn't one simple answer here. This is partially about shoring up Russian reputation. Partially about Putin distracting people from a Russian economy that has suffered under covid right after the state reformed the pension system. Partially about lashing back at what's perceived as Nato expansionism. Partially exploiting a time when Americans are most war weary due to the Afghanistan pullout. The rest of Nato is busy with wrecked balance sheets and other issues like global warming. Nobody is itching for a fight right now so it's a good time to press. And, lastly, probably good old fashion Russian incremental expansionism.

thrown_30004 5y ago

The black sea is pretty much useless as a warm water port. The Bosporus limits the number of military ships that can pass through it by treaty and unless you conquer Istanbul there's nothing you can do about it. Crimea was 90% ethnic Russian as were the majority of areas occupied by rebels. This is an ethnic conflict that started when the majority Ukrainian areas decided that they could rule the country without the majority Russian areas. I imagine what we will see is North Ukraine being left as a majority Ukrainian speaking country and South Ukraine a majority Russian speaking country. Ironically enough North Ukraine then becomes small enough to join the EU.

DoingIsLearning 5y ago
Ok I understand the throwaway as it as controversial point. I have a couple of questions for someone not that familiar with Ukrainian history: - Was the south ukrainian population relocated there as a soviet 'settlement' or were they always historically there? - Is there any political acceptance among north ukrainians to cut their loses and lose territory in order to be able to join NATO/EU?
- twelve40 5y ago
  Kharkov, Odessa, Nikolayev, Sumy, Kherson, Dnepropetrovsk, Donetsk, Lugansk, Mariupol, Krivoi Rog, Elizavetgrad (aka "Kropivnitsky"), Aleksandrovskaya (aka "Zaporizhzhia") - most of the cities in the East and the South were founded by the Russians by direct order from the Tsars starting from 1600's. We can dig deeper and find out that in 1897, 78% of Kiev the capital's population was non-Ukrainian, so no, this is not some Soviet invention. If anything, Stalin and Kruschev gifted Lvov (1940), Ivano-Frankovsk (1940), the entire Crimea (1954), Uzhgorod (1945), etc etc to Ukraine, so some thanks to the Soviets should be in order.

neximo64 5y ago

Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of influence and allowing the EU/US to change that means the boundary encroaches closer creating great risk for the sphere. The edge of Romania/Moldova are where the great plains start. Meaning if you get natural trade routes from that region on its a very easy march to Moscow. Second, it is a test of the US to put up resources. It is a challenging time for the US to do so, so it just makes it expensive not to do so. I.e if the US does not and Russia invades it makes the US look very weak and it can seize on that. It is a very standard/typical balance of power move. Thirdly, covid has been bad in Russia so projecting power looks very strong to maintain leadership. In Russia's history this is just a very common thing to do to maintain power in government. In all it is a very optimal play for Russia to do. Any leader other than Putin wearing the 'Bear suit' would basically do the same.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

LatteLazy 5y ago

There are millions of Russians in Ukraine. They don't want closer relations with the eu at the expense of losing relations with Russia. Russia imported a shit tonne of food from the Ukraine until this all started. Russia doesn't want to lose that supply permanently. The current partition isn't the best from a strategic/defense position or from a political/objectives one. So it makes sense to correct that before making it permanent. Negotiations for a peaceful settlement have failed or are stuck. Now (roughly) is the peak demand for Russian gas in Europe so it's now or wait another 12months. And that's without considering domestic political reasons for conflict...

goodcanadian 5y ago

I have read many not completely satisfactory "explanations," most of which are repeated in other comments. Those may be part of the story. The most convincing story that I have seen is as follows: Ukraine is very similar culturally to Russia. Putin cannot afford to have a successful democratic Ukraine on his borders as an example to Russian citizens. They might decide that Putin's way of governing is not actually the best for the Russian people. So, he does everything he can do to undermine a democratic Ukraine. If a western style democracy fails in the Ukraine, well, clearly it is not suitable for Russia either. Ideally, he would like Ukraine within Russia's sphere of influence as Belarus is, but I am not sure that is vital. This is actually fairly consistent with how the Soviet Union behaved in Eastern Europe. Romania and Yugoslavia moved away from the Soviet Union, but they were dictatorships, so they were left alone. Anytime there was even a glimmer of democracy, however, the tanks were sent in.

azangru 5y ago

> Why insist on further escalation? As a befuddled onlooker myself, I am surprised that the movements of the Russian military inside its territory must be interpreted by the outside world as an escalation. I understand the nervousness of Ukraine, but not of the US. If Russia invades, then by all means, the West can destroy it economically; but until it does, what is the point of all this saber-rattling? Just as I don't understand the point of NATO's eastwards expansion, which, in turn, makes the Russians nervous. If the European countries are worried by the military buildup along Russia's western border, surely it must be easy to empathise with the Russian worry about Nato including more Eastern European countries and being able to deploy missiles there, which can be used both defensively and offensively and which puts Moscow within 5-minute reach, or something like that.

piva00 5y ago
It's not simply "movement", it's amassing quite a sizeable portion of its armed forces near borders. No country interprets that other than an escalation if it comes from a hostile neighbour... Even between friendly countries it's a bit eyebrows raising behaviour.
- kgeist 5y ago
  >it's amassing quite a sizeable portion of its armed forces near borders Russia is pretty large (and Ukraine too), it may look like the forces are "near Ukrainian borders" on the map (when zoomed out), but it can be as far as 350 km (at its widest, UK is 500 km, for comparison), which is deep into Russia's most populated territories.
  - gls2ro 5y ago
    I read this the other way. As Russia is so huge, then having the forces at 350 km/500 km near the border is "close" enough to the border.
    - kgeist 5y ago
      I understand, but the majority of Russian population lives along the Western and Southern borders. See the density map: https://vividmaps.com/population-density-of-russia https://vividmaps.com/population-density-of-russia Anything in that area of sizeable Russian population can be proclaimed "near Ukrainian borders". 75% of the country is uninhabited. It would make little sense to station most troops in completely unpopulated areas where nothing happens.

crateless 5y ago

There is basically no escalation from Russia. The troop deployment on the Ukraine border mirrors a similar deployment in April last year[1]. It is just convenient (Biden's domestic issues/Nordstream 2/other unknown reasons) to claim imminent invasion and the media is incentivised to fuel that narrative since it seems to have captured the attention of the populace at large (perhaps based on the Russophobia that is prevalent in mainstream media). 1. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11651 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11651

deepsun 5y ago
There is a sizeable escalation. You didn't count unprecedented deployment in Belarus as well (Russia's marionette right now), and all the diplomatic ultimatums. Yes, there were deployments previously, but never this size.
- crateless 5y ago
  The diplomatic ultimatums as well as the Belarus deployment are in response to the mainstream media's assertions of imminent attack and could also be interpreted as Putin trying to leverage the situation to his advantage to try for concessions of some sort to further his agenda. At this point in time, to be fair, one could argue for invasion but that calculus is so grim for Russia that it seems far-fetched. Anyway my point is that the initial clamour of "imminent invasion" was unwarranted based on the evidence at the time based on historical troop movement at the border. Therefore there must be another reason underlying the media's outcry which is beyond my ken.

deepsun 5y ago

> a port that doesn't freeze in the winter other than Murmansk They have had ports that don't freeze: Novorossiysk and Vladivostok. I grew up in Eastern Europe, and I see it as the ages-long Russian policy -- more territory = good. All the way from Mongols conquest, they kinda continue what Mongols did.