10 ms·

Ask HN: What's Russia's Endgame in Ukraine?

• ncln 5y ago
  it's all a game https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=+байден+в+ссср https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=+байден+в...
  • uejfiweun 5y ago
    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?
• thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
  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.
  • HappyDreamer 5y ago
    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.)
• themodelplumber 5y ago
  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-crisis-highlights-superpowers-quarrel-over-spheres-of-influence https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/Ukraine-cris...
• jacquesm 5y ago
  MRGA
  • HappyDreamer 5y ago
    Great, measured in square meters. (MRGA = "make Russia great again")
• tgflynn 5y ago
  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.
  • stfods 5y ago
    Even Soviet Union has directly bordered several NATO countries.
    • HappyDreamer 5y ago
      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.
  • eklitzke 5y ago
    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.
• cascom 5y ago
  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)
  • zqna 5y ago
    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.
    • Nginx487 5y ago
      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.
    • justsomehnguy 5y ago
      > 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?
• uejfiweun 5y ago
  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?
  • tgflynn 5y ago
    Yes, for 30 years the West has been playing a dangerous game of poke the Bear, it probably won't end well.
  • artem247 5y ago
    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.
• phekunde 5y ago
  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.
  • rapjr9 5y ago
    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.
• raincom 5y ago
  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.
  • vanusa 5y ago
    Russia doesn't want to invade and take over Ukraine. They've sure been working hard lately (at considerable expense) to make it look otherwise.
    • d0mine 5y ago
      Somebody has a job to create the exact impression that you have--they succeeded.
• AnimalMuppet 5y 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.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• markus_zhang 5y ago
  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.
• LinuxBender 5y ago
  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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ExRbjmcf-8
• scyzoryk_xyz 5y ago
  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.
• bigodbiel 5y ago
  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.
• engineerDave 5y ago
  The simple answer is to ensure that Ukraine never joins NATO. Secondary answer is to secure more seaports.
• ddbenyu 5y ago
• guilhas 5y ago
  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
  • NicoJuicy 5y ago
    > 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 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!
• oliwarner 5y ago
  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.
• rognjen 5y ago
  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.
• Chyzwar 5y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
• djjdj 5y ago
  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.