4 ms·

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 interna

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
The die is not cast at all. Troops can move within Russia back and forth without problems, there are no obligations to give an attack order just because the troops are standing near the border. There is no too much risks to his internal image, because according to propaganda he is fighting for peace and does not want to attack at all. I think that Putin has lost a chance to grab the eastern Ukraine in 2014. When Yanukovich fled Kiev, he could have made him ask for a military help, and in the post-maidan chaos could take everything east of Dnepr, creating a puppet state loyal to a legitimately elected president, and then slowly incorporate those territories into russia over the next few years or decades. Also, do not equate Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea. Chechnya was an internal region with no international recognition ever, so this is an internal matter, and it's not so much 'grabbing territory' as 'restoring order'. Taking territory from Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, etc is a different matter and is seen by state propaganda as bringing the rightful territory back into the fold.
- grey-area 5y ago
  While I agree each unhappy subject state is unhappy in its own way, the examples of Chechnya, Crimea and Georgia all show in different ways how machiavellian Putin is - anything goes and the lives of others (including his own citizens) simply don’t matter if he thinks he will get away with it. I think given the public statements demanding absurd terms from the west and the very public troop movements Putin would now find it very hard to back down.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    Both Chechen wars have started before Putin came to power. And both were lost by Russia, actually. Russia just picked one of many rivalling clans and pays tribute to them. So no, it's not Machiavellian, more like a gopnik who stole a TV set while the neighbors were putting out a fire in their house.
- fer 5y ago
  > Also, do not equate Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea. Of course you can equate. Russia has a history of supporting separatists immediately outside of their borders, while cracking them down when they're just across inside. You can directly compare their completely opposed stances in North and South Ossetia. Russia created what I call Schrodinger's jihadists: you can't know if someone is a terrorist or a freedom fighter until you observe on which side of the border they are and the threat function collapses. Basayev in Abkhazia? Good. Basayev in Chechnya? Bad.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    Last time a southern region where a slavery was practiced wanted to secede from the USA, Lincoln went to a civil war to stop them. Chechnya is also a southern region where slavery is practiced which wanted to secede, so equating these is quite sensible. Why do you equate such conflicts with conflicts between different nations is hard for me to understand. As for completely opposing stances, that's politics for you. Ever wondered how certain member of Bin Laden family came to prominence?
    - fer 5y ago
      We're not talking about USA.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        Ever heard about analogies? This one is pretty direct here.
        fer 5y ago
        Comparing a: • Pre-industrial society with widespread slavery, with most of the agricultural production of the union, trying to secede because they don't like the new rules. Against a: • Turn-of-the-21st-century, religiously-motivated, terrorism-mediated secession with testimonial cases of slavery in a tiny post-industrial subject of the Russian Federation (and the poorest of them all). Is not only wild, but also a gigantic tu quoque, especially when you have plenty of analogies right there in the Caucasus: Abkhazian independence good, Dagestani bad; South Ossetian independence good, Ingushetian bad. That's reality of Russia saying and doing the opposite immediately inside/outside of their borders.
raverbashing 5y ago
> You don't move this many troops and ships etc as a feint (nor would you need to) I agree, but you know what? The best feints are the believable ones, and even moving 100k troops is cheaper than actually engaging in war.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Actually, moving 100k troops costs almost the same as not moving them.
ivan_gammel 5y ago
Putin has no expansion goals. This is a myth unsupported by any evidence. The only new territory Russian Federation acquired since 1945 is Crimea, and this event was not driven by expansion interests. Russian elite including Putin has business rather than imperial mindset. They understand the costs and benefits of forceful acquisitions too well to get in such trouble. Even in Belarus where the chances of peaceful merge without any sanctions were the highest, they never dared to push for it.
- grey-area 5y ago
  Unsupported by any evidence except the recent annexation of territory you cite? I completely agree Putin and his backers are entirely focussed on pillaging Russia and surrounding countries for wealth but part of that is ensuring he maintains control of that wealth, and false patriotism and war is one way to do so more easily and to expand the wealth available.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    As I said, Crimea was a special case and it was not driven by expansionism. There are no other examples.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
usrusr 5y ago
> Fulfils his old goal of expanding Russia to old soviet borders (see Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea etc). Which I read as a direct continuation of pre-communist imperial ambition. When whites turned red they mostly just dropped their loyalty to the Romanov, keeping other elements of imperial attitude basically unchanged. And to this day there seems to be the idea of a "historical injustice" that deserves correction wrt places that used to be under Romanov rule at some point but subsequently got independent.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

The die is not cast at all. Troops can move within Russia back and forth without problems, there are no obligations to give an attack order just because the troops are standing near the border. There is no too much risks to his internal image, because according to propaganda he is fighting for peace and does not want to attack at all. I think that Putin has lost a chance to grab the eastern Ukraine in 2014. When Yanukovich fled Kiev, he could have made him ask for a military help, and in the post-maidan chaos could take everything east of Dnepr, creating a puppet state loyal to a legitimately elected president, and then slowly incorporate those territories into russia over the next few years or decades. Also, do not equate Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea. Chechnya was an internal region with no international recognition ever, so this is an internal matter, and it's not so much 'grabbing territory' as 'restoring order'. Taking territory from Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, etc is a different matter and is seen by state propaganda as bringing the rightful territory back into the fold.

grey-area 5y ago
While I agree each unhappy subject state is unhappy in its own way, the examples of Chechnya, Crimea and Georgia all show in different ways how machiavellian Putin is - anything goes and the lives of others (including his own citizens) simply don’t matter if he thinks he will get away with it. I think given the public statements demanding absurd terms from the west and the very public troop movements Putin would now find it very hard to back down.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Both Chechen wars have started before Putin came to power. And both were lost by Russia, actually. Russia just picked one of many rivalling clans and pays tribute to them. So no, it's not Machiavellian, more like a gopnik who stole a TV set while the neighbors were putting out a fire in their house.
fer 5y ago
> Also, do not equate Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea. Of course you can equate. Russia has a history of supporting separatists immediately outside of their borders, while cracking them down when they're just across inside. You can directly compare their completely opposed stances in North and South Ossetia. Russia created what I call Schrodinger's jihadists: you can't know if someone is a terrorist or a freedom fighter until you observe on which side of the border they are and the threat function collapses. Basayev in Abkhazia? Good. Basayev in Chechnya? Bad.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Last time a southern region where a slavery was practiced wanted to secede from the USA, Lincoln went to a civil war to stop them. Chechnya is also a southern region where slavery is practiced which wanted to secede, so equating these is quite sensible. Why do you equate such conflicts with conflicts between different nations is hard for me to understand. As for completely opposing stances, that's politics for you. Ever wondered how certain member of Bin Laden family came to prominence?
  - fer 5y ago
    We're not talking about USA.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      Ever heard about analogies? This one is pretty direct here.
      - fer 5y ago
        Comparing a: • Pre-industrial society with widespread slavery, with most of the agricultural production of the union, trying to secede because they don't like the new rules. Against a: • Turn-of-the-21st-century, religiously-motivated, terrorism-mediated secession with testimonial cases of slavery in a tiny post-industrial subject of the Russian Federation (and the poorest of them all). Is not only wild, but also a gigantic tu quoque, especially when you have plenty of analogies right there in the Caucasus: Abkhazian independence good, Dagestani bad; South Ossetian independence good, Ingushetian bad. That's reality of Russia saying and doing the opposite immediately inside/outside of their borders.

raverbashing 5y ago

> You don't move this many troops and ships etc as a feint (nor would you need to) I agree, but you know what? The best feints are the believable ones, and even moving 100k troops is cheaper than actually engaging in war.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Actually, moving 100k troops costs almost the same as not moving them.

ivan_gammel 5y ago

Putin has no expansion goals. This is a myth unsupported by any evidence. The only new territory Russian Federation acquired since 1945 is Crimea, and this event was not driven by expansion interests. Russian elite including Putin has business rather than imperial mindset. They understand the costs and benefits of forceful acquisitions too well to get in such trouble. Even in Belarus where the chances of peaceful merge without any sanctions were the highest, they never dared to push for it.

grey-area 5y ago
Unsupported by any evidence except the recent annexation of territory you cite? I completely agree Putin and his backers are entirely focussed on pillaging Russia and surrounding countries for wealth but part of that is ensuring he maintains control of that wealth, and false patriotism and war is one way to do so more easily and to expand the wealth available.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  As I said, Crimea was a special case and it was not driven by expansionism. There are no other examples.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

usrusr 5y ago

> Fulfils his old goal of expanding Russia to old soviet borders (see Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea etc). Which I read as a direct continuation of pre-communist imperial ambition. When whites turned red they mostly just dropped their loyalty to the Romanov, keeping other elements of imperial attitude basically unchanged. And to this day there seems to be the idea of a "historical injustice" that deserves correction wrt places that used to be under Romanov rule at some point but subsequently got independent.