9 ms·

They already claim the entire oblasts. This isn't about the humiliation of the west and the subjugation of Ukraine, this is about national defense strategy. Th

They already claim the entire oblasts. This isn't about the humiliation of the west and the subjugation of Ukraine, this is about national defense strategy. The way the borders were set after the breakup of the USSR were based on certain assumptions that don't hold true today, and as a result Russia does not have a defensible border. With these annexations, they do. Additionally, it's a way to test what sort of response they'll get and prepare for similar responses in the future.

disgruntledphd2 5y ago
That's what I said about Crimea eight years ago.
yks 5y ago
What kind of argument is that? Because the empire lost its buffer colonies, it needs to re-acquire them again? Because it feels "vulnerable"? Vulnerable against whom? Against the countries the previous iteration of that empire sought to destroy? This "national defense strategy" is just a made up tale, another episode of russian propaganda that keeps poisoning generations after generations.
- vkou 5y ago
  > What kind of argument is that? Because the empire lost its buffer colonies, it needs to re-acquire them again? It's how empires operate. It's not fair, but it is what it is. For an example of how this turned out when the shoe was on the other foot, look at Cuba. The world nearly ended in '63, because the American empire needed a 'buffer colony'. It's been a lifetime since the revolution, communism as a world ideology has been dead for a generation, but Cuba's still paying for the consequences of flipping allegiances. (The western world, sans the United States has normalized relations with it a very long time ago - so it's not an ongoing ideological problem...)
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  It’s a Realist position on the matter. Ukraine is a vital security interest to Russia. That’s a descriptive opinion on the matter. Not a normative one.
  - yks 5y ago
    Ukraine aligned with the West may be a security issue for Russia only if Russia itself is not aligned with the West which it absolutely does not have to be. If Russia did not get an ex-KGB absolute monarch traumatized by the fall of the Berlin wall, the country could've joined NATO by now. Pretending that this particular made up "national defense strategy" is the only one possible, is just caving in to the Putin's propaganda. Even if Russia for some dumb reason chooses to be perpetually against the West even after the fall of communism, it does not mean that the West automatically becomes interested in invading Russia either. Even in this case the "national defense strategy" is just a cover-up for the unprovoked aggression.
    - avgcorrection 5y ago
      Russia could not join Nato since Nato would then lose all justification for existing.
      - yks 5y ago
        Goal of NATO is “to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. … to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.” [1] Russia joining NATO in good faith would change it for sure but would not make it obsolete. [1] https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty
        avgcorrection 5y ago
        That’s your argument? You googled and pasted in their mission statement? Who would that alliance be (ostensibly) protecting themselves from? China? Taking that kind of stance (EDIT: against China) would not be in Russia’s interest.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      Geostrategy is about more than just invasions. It's about military assets, natural resources, artificial resources, trade routes, cultural influence, the ability to attack from and defend certain geography and plenty more I didn't name. And it's more than Russia playing the game. It's not a national defense strategy, it is a national security one. They need to control the paths for gas exports to Europe to maintain Europe's reliance on them for heat in the winter. It makes them powerful. If you look at national strategies for nations and territories, even beyond the time the current state has ruled, for every major or minor power throughout history, you'll find similar strategies because the underlying realities remain the same.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  So they're doing it for the lulz? No. Nations don't throw national resources away, especially in modern times. If they're spending money, their lives, political capital on this they're profiting from it in some way. Russia has to control the black sea and they have to control territory all the way to the Dneiper river. If Ukraine realigns to Europe and NATO they have to at a minimum have control over that territory to have a defensible position. This has been true since the days of the Russian empire, and this is one of the historical reasons for a Russian ethnic majority east of it.
  - artem247 5y ago
    There is no ethnic Russian majority east of Dnieper. The only region were there was a real Russian majority was Crimea.
geoka9 5y ago
This is definitely about humiliation of the West and subjugation of Ukraine. Putin doesn't care about defensible border with China. In fact they don't care about the Chinese ambitions in South Siberia at all. And those ambitions are much clearer than any idea that NATO or European countries might want to invade Russia. Putin's only worry is avoiding the fate of Sadam and Qaddafi and for that, in his mind, he needs to keep waging wars around Russia (and support struggling dictators all over the world, but that's unrelated to this conflict).
- yks 5y ago
  Exactly, if Putin really worried about protecting borders, he'd never move most of his Asian army units to the Ukrainian border, exposing huge vulnerability to the powerful autocratic nuclear regime who actually kinda wants these exposed lands. The fact that he did it means that either he really believes that NATO is scheming on invading Russia proper, in which case he's just gone mad, or all this pseudo-historical pretext is just a bunch of crap he feeds the world to legitimize his personal quest for glory and give his worldwide supporters ("useful idiots" as they call them in KGB) a reason to let him off the hook for that.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  They don't care about a defensible border with China because they are allied with China currently. If that changes you'll start seeing militarization of that border also.
giantrobot 5y ago
> The way the borders were set after the breakup of the USSR were based on certain assumptions that don't hold true today, and as a result Russia does not have a defensible border. In the thirty years since the USSR dissolved no one has so much as bothered Russia or even pretended like they wanted to bother Russia. Most NATO members in Europe vastly reduced their militaries and defense spending. Everyone was content to just buy shit from them as business relationships are far cheaper than invasions and annexation. NATO only expanded east because of Russia's posturing about reclaiming former SSRs. The only people worried about "defensible borders" are old Soviet hardliners pining for some past glory that didn't exist. They either see or pretend to see the specter of foreign invasion because it whips of nationalistic fervor. They use it to distract from their shit show governance and to blame "the West" for every self-inflicted problem they have. The most baffling part is literally no one wants to invade Russia. Outside of their propaganda machine no Westerner has any interest in Russian territory. No one is super excited to occupy Siberia or fish the "waters" of the Aral Sea.
- throwawayay02 5y ago
  Besides what another commentator already said, I'd also include China. Russia and China, despite the apparently good relations right now, have actively disputed regions that the Chinese believe were stolen from them on one of the unequal treaties.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    The US has 6 border disputes with Canada ongoing. It is the longest nonmilitarized border in the world. Border disputes are par for the course when you're a state managing a nation and territory. These disputes come up when other concerns are dealt with. They're bargaining chips. Right now China and Russia need each other. Later maybe they fight over them or they resolve them peacefully.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      > The US has 6 border disputes with Canada ongoing. For those interested in the details, Wikipedia lists 5 current disputes[0], almost entirely relating to maritime borders, with some uninhabited islands being the only land in dispute. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_disputed_by_Canada_and_the_United_States#Current_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_disputed_by_Cana...
darkarmani 5y ago
> as a result Russia does not have a defensible border So it should be easy for NATO to go on the offensive here and teach Russia a lesson? If that isn't true, then why would Russia need to invade a country to "make itself safer"?

disgruntledphd2 5y ago

That's what I said about Crimea eight years ago.

yks 5y ago

What kind of argument is that? Because the empire lost its buffer colonies, it needs to re-acquire them again? Because it feels "vulnerable"? Vulnerable against whom? Against the countries the previous iteration of that empire sought to destroy? This "national defense strategy" is just a made up tale, another episode of russian propaganda that keeps poisoning generations after generations.

vkou 5y ago
> What kind of argument is that? Because the empire lost its buffer colonies, it needs to re-acquire them again? It's how empires operate. It's not fair, but it is what it is. For an example of how this turned out when the shoe was on the other foot, look at Cuba. The world nearly ended in '63, because the American empire needed a 'buffer colony'. It's been a lifetime since the revolution, communism as a world ideology has been dead for a generation, but Cuba's still paying for the consequences of flipping allegiances. (The western world, sans the United States has normalized relations with it a very long time ago - so it's not an ongoing ideological problem...)
avgcorrection 5y ago
It’s a Realist position on the matter. Ukraine is a vital security interest to Russia. That’s a descriptive opinion on the matter. Not a normative one.
- yks 5y ago
  Ukraine aligned with the West may be a security issue for Russia only if Russia itself is not aligned with the West which it absolutely does not have to be. If Russia did not get an ex-KGB absolute monarch traumatized by the fall of the Berlin wall, the country could've joined NATO by now. Pretending that this particular made up "national defense strategy" is the only one possible, is just caving in to the Putin's propaganda. Even if Russia for some dumb reason chooses to be perpetually against the West even after the fall of communism, it does not mean that the West automatically becomes interested in invading Russia either. Even in this case the "national defense strategy" is just a cover-up for the unprovoked aggression.
  - avgcorrection 5y ago
    Russia could not join Nato since Nato would then lose all justification for existing.
    - yks 5y ago
      Goal of NATO is “to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. … to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.” [1] Russia joining NATO in good faith would change it for sure but would not make it obsolete. [1] https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty
      - avgcorrection 5y ago
        That’s your argument? You googled and pasted in their mission statement? Who would that alliance be (ostensibly) protecting themselves from? China? Taking that kind of stance (EDIT: against China) would not be in Russia’s interest.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Geostrategy is about more than just invasions. It's about military assets, natural resources, artificial resources, trade routes, cultural influence, the ability to attack from and defend certain geography and plenty more I didn't name. And it's more than Russia playing the game. It's not a national defense strategy, it is a national security one. They need to control the paths for gas exports to Europe to maintain Europe's reliance on them for heat in the winter. It makes them powerful. If you look at national strategies for nations and territories, even beyond the time the current state has ruled, for every major or minor power throughout history, you'll find similar strategies because the underlying realities remain the same.
betwixthewires 5y ago
So they're doing it for the lulz? No. Nations don't throw national resources away, especially in modern times. If they're spending money, their lives, political capital on this they're profiting from it in some way. Russia has to control the black sea and they have to control territory all the way to the Dneiper river. If Ukraine realigns to Europe and NATO they have to at a minimum have control over that territory to have a defensible position. This has been true since the days of the Russian empire, and this is one of the historical reasons for a Russian ethnic majority east of it.
- artem247 5y ago
  There is no ethnic Russian majority east of Dnieper. The only region were there was a real Russian majority was Crimea.

geoka9 5y ago

This is definitely about humiliation of the West and subjugation of Ukraine. Putin doesn't care about defensible border with China. In fact they don't care about the Chinese ambitions in South Siberia at all. And those ambitions are much clearer than any idea that NATO or European countries might want to invade Russia. Putin's only worry is avoiding the fate of Sadam and Qaddafi and for that, in his mind, he needs to keep waging wars around Russia (and support struggling dictators all over the world, but that's unrelated to this conflict).

yks 5y ago
Exactly, if Putin really worried about protecting borders, he'd never move most of his Asian army units to the Ukrainian border, exposing huge vulnerability to the powerful autocratic nuclear regime who actually kinda wants these exposed lands. The fact that he did it means that either he really believes that NATO is scheming on invading Russia proper, in which case he's just gone mad, or all this pseudo-historical pretext is just a bunch of crap he feeds the world to legitimize his personal quest for glory and give his worldwide supporters ("useful idiots" as they call them in KGB) a reason to let him off the hook for that.
betwixthewires 5y ago
They don't care about a defensible border with China because they are allied with China currently. If that changes you'll start seeing militarization of that border also.

giantrobot 5y ago

> The way the borders were set after the breakup of the USSR were based on certain assumptions that don't hold true today, and as a result Russia does not have a defensible border. In the thirty years since the USSR dissolved no one has so much as bothered Russia or even pretended like they wanted to bother Russia. Most NATO members in Europe vastly reduced their militaries and defense spending. Everyone was content to just buy shit from them as business relationships are far cheaper than invasions and annexation. NATO only expanded east because of Russia's posturing about reclaiming former SSRs. The only people worried about "defensible borders" are old Soviet hardliners pining for some past glory that didn't exist. They either see or pretend to see the specter of foreign invasion because it whips of nationalistic fervor. They use it to distract from their shit show governance and to blame "the West" for every self-inflicted problem they have. The most baffling part is literally no one wants to invade Russia. Outside of their propaganda machine no Westerner has any interest in Russian territory. No one is super excited to occupy Siberia or fish the "waters" of the Aral Sea.

throwawayay02 5y ago
Besides what another commentator already said, I'd also include China. Russia and China, despite the apparently good relations right now, have actively disputed regions that the Chinese believe were stolen from them on one of the unequal treaties.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  The US has 6 border disputes with Canada ongoing. It is the longest nonmilitarized border in the world. Border disputes are par for the course when you're a state managing a nation and territory. These disputes come up when other concerns are dealt with. They're bargaining chips. Right now China and Russia need each other. Later maybe they fight over them or they resolve them peacefully.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > The US has 6 border disputes with Canada ongoing. For those interested in the details, Wikipedia lists 5 current disputes[0], almost entirely relating to maritime borders, with some uninhabited islands being the only land in dispute. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_disputed_by_Canada_and_the_United_States#Current_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_disputed_by_Cana...

darkarmani 5y ago

> as a result Russia does not have a defensible border So it should be easy for NATO to go on the offensive here and teach Russia a lesson? If that isn't true, then why would Russia need to invade a country to "make itself safer"?