5 ms·

I try to think about this by putting myself in Putin's shoes but i keep drawing blanks. I only see downsides to the invasion and no upside from the perspective

I try to think about this by putting myself in Putin's shoes but i keep drawing blanks. I only see downsides to the invasion and no upside from the perspective of Russia. I must be missing something huge that has a value > than the cost because the cost, in all terms, is very very high.

aenis 5y ago
Once you have as much as Putin, have toadies listening to your every whim and reinforcing every paranoia -- its easy to just start doing stupid things. Small people do it all the time, at smaller scales, big despots go big. Thats why the most important thing is to keep term limits. Power increses expotentially with time in office.
jldugger 5y ago
The cost to the Russian people is high, but the cost to Putin and his entourage is yet another toothless freeze on overseas assets (the ones they know about), some irrelevant protests in Moscow, and a hefty increase in oil prices.
- Uehreka 5y ago
  Hefty increases in oil prices have a way of changing people’s minds. Particularly people who don’t normally care about politics.
  - jldugger 5y ago
    Can you expand on that? Russia's main export is oil.
  - 8note 5y ago
    That would mean a softening on Russia taking the Ukraine. It's not Russia driving the increase in prices
- bluecalm 5y ago
  Isn't oil price increasing good for Russia though? Their oil isn't as cheap to extract so price increasing multiplies their profit very significantly if they can find a buyer.
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    The sanctions being levied against them will impair their ability to sell to a large portion of the world, including current (well, now former I suppose) trade partners in Europe. While they could try to undercut the global price in order to make their oil more appealing to remaining trade partners, it's going to be a challenge depending on how the current and future sanctions develop to even get to market. A quick search gives this as the answer to who their largest oil buyers are: China, the European Union, South Korea, India and Japan. China will do what China wants here. But South Korea, Japan, and the European Union will end up being harder to sell to, if possible at all, in the near future. India is a toss-up, depends on how they decide to participate in all this.
  - jldugger 5y ago
    > Isn't oil price increasing good for Russia though? Yes. From Putin's POV: two mehs and one thumbs way up
qqqwerty 5y ago
I think he is gambling that he can "Shock and Awe" his way across Ukraine in a few days with minimal casualties. And then quickly install a new government or declare Ukraine a Russian territory. This is probably why he gave such a strong warning against NATO intervention (re: veiled nuclear threat), he doesn't want anyone interfering with that initial push, which could then lead to a long drawn out conflict. And this is also probably why Trump, Tucker and other hard right leaders and factions are still parroting pro-Putin propaganda. If "Shock and Awe" works, then the "post-war" narrative is going to switch to something like "See that wasn't a big deal, the media was just scaremongering, the Ukrainian people did not want to fight, and prefer to be a part of Russia. Everyone needs to chill out and move on." This is not to say that I don't think Putin is crazy. But just trying to read between the lines, I think they think they can get away with this. After all they did invade Crimea with little pushback. On one hand, I hope Ukraine will pull through, but on the other hand, I do worry that the longer this draws out, the further we get away from Putin's playbook, and then more erratic he will be. But if this thing is over in a few days, watch for the right wing to start pushing for a quick return to normalization with Russia.
- jtbayly 5y ago
  "the right wing" where?
  - qqqwerty 5y ago
    Pretty much everywhere[1]. "Far right" is more accurate than "right wing". But tldr, Putin and Russia have been building ties with far right and evangelical parties and groups across the west for the past decade or two. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/43555253 https://www.jstor.org/stable/43555253
    - k0k0r0 5y ago
      An example of this tie between far right and the putin-russian narrative seems to be the reporter Patrick Lancester on various social media sides, that reports the conflict from inside the "seperatist regions" but in english and for the western audience. I don't know whether he's been pushed, though. From the very few of his hundrets of videos I saw, I feel like he's genuinly believing what he's reporting. I don't know whether he is pushed, but I believe it's possible that he's getting supported. Even unbeknownst to himself through "crowdfunding".
causi 5y ago
Putin's shoes but i keep drawing blanks. I only see downsides to the invasion and no upside from the perspective of Russia That's your problem. Putin doesn't care about Russia. This invasion has nothing at all to do with the economic or strategic well-being of the nation of Russia. This has to do with the preservation and expansion of the political power of one single man and his oligarchal cronies. The rest of the country can burn as long as they hold power.
- waffle_maniac 5y ago
  Great comment. Biggest mistake the West has made is thinking that soft power will work with Putin. He just doesn't care. Sanction some oligarchs and he still goes home to his palace like nothing ever happened.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    There is also a mistaken view that oligarchs control what happens in Russia. It's simply not true. He has enriched them not the other way around.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Exactly. Like I tried to explain to someone here earlier today: stop using Russia as your reference point, switch to Putin as your reference point and it all makes a lot more sense.
- threeseed 5y ago
  He cares about the legacy of Russia more than the day to day reality of it. It's very common amongst leaders who have been in power for so long. Also given his age he is unlikely to be around to see the negative decline of Russia as a result of this action.
LoveMortuus 5y ago
Russia made a deal with Ukraine like 30 or 40 years ago that Ukraine wouldn't join EU or NATO. For unknown reasons Ukraine started to want to join EU and/or NATO. If Ukraine joins NATO then Russia would be basically surrounded by NATO forces. The biggest issue here is that USA has been placing rockets near the borders of Russia in NATO countries and these rockets just happen to face Russia. If Ukraine joined NATO, who's to say that USA wouldn't place rockets there's as well and thus have an incredibly huge reach into Russia. Don't get me wrong, I'm a pacifist, if I could I would remove all militaries, there's really no reason to have them, since I believe that with rational conversation you can solve any and all issues. But a fact is still a fact even if you don't like it... I've been waiting for ten years and am still waiting for my country to legalise marijuana. Everyone just needs to chill~ Can't we just pass the joint around and be friends?
- mstade 5y ago
  So I’ve heard this rocket argument for a long time, never been presented with verifiable sources but I’ve also though that it seems plausible that the US would and indeed have done this. So if we take this as fact, which I’m not saying I do, but if – wouldn’t invading and annexing Ukraine basically inch Russia even closer to these missiles? I see Poland and Romania right there, and they are in fact NATO members are they not? Also, what strategic value does Ukraine have, that for instance the Baltic countries (also NATO members) do not? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I can’t shake the feeling that the “Russia doesn’t like NATO and Ukraine becoming a member is a bridge too far” argument feels more like a straw man than anything else. I’m probably just too dumb to get it, so if someone more enlightened would like to clarify why invading Ukraine helps the Russian anti NATO effort I’d be much obliged!
  - toyg 5y ago
    It really doesn't. The strategic value is in securing the coast for good (Crimea was still kinda exposed), clearing up the wild-west they themselves created around Donbass, and providing a new avenue for gas pipelines, effectively neutering any Ukrainian leverage over Russia forever and ever. The NATO-expansion argument is just propaganda, not even the Russians really believe it.
grey-area 5y ago
The gamble is that the west will back off and leave him in possession of Ukraine, as they did with Crimea. Then he can gradually extend control over other encircled states to the north of belarus. More counties to loot, more resources to share with his friends. Absolutely zero personal consequences for him. He’s quite happy to sacrifice the lives and prosperity of millions of Russian people if necessary in pursuit of this plan. He’s quite happy to preside over chaos and destruction and call it peace. Putin won’t stop until he is stopped with force and he has very clearly stated his long term goals - the expansion of the Russian empire for his profit. He has not been subtle about this, the invasion was planned at least weeks ago and the signs were all there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30056419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30056419
- chrononaut 5y ago
  > Then he can gradually extend control over other encircled states to the north of belarus. Except those countries are actually in NATO, so the circumstances will be quite different. Won't stop him from influencing pressure though.
  - grey-area 5y ago
    You say that now, but would anyone believe a few years ago that Putin could suborn US democracy (The republican president calls him a ‘genius’ after this attack and is visibly subservient when they meet), fund the Brexit campaign and encourage an ambivalent policy in the EU? His stated goal is to reconstitute the USSR. One route past the nato problem would be to fund opposition groups in these states, poison opponents and induce them to leave NATO prior to invasion. If he is allowed to take Ukraine he will not stop there.
frabbit 5y ago
NATO has been steadily moving in towards Russia, picking off ex-Soviet satellite states one by one, and withdrawing from the treaties that kept the EU safe: This was one of the pivotal moments: "US President George W Bush, in 2002, pulled the US out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which banned weapons designed to counter ballistic nuclear missiles." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565 Since then it has been slow and steady escalation https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/timeline/ https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/timeline/ while we fritter away the time that would allow us to deal with Climate Destruction. Yes Putin == $BAD_MAN. Yes USA == $OTHER_BAD_MENS. No, neither of those justifies military action on either side. This is a stupid waste of time.
- older 5y ago
  It has nothing to do with NATO, it is just another lie invented as excuse to invade. Here they still have it on the kremlin website: "I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners." http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21598 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21598
  - frabbit 5y ago
    And? That statement occurred 4 or 5 months before the USA had withdrawn from the ABMT. I don't know enough about Russia's changing attitudes towards the USA: how much of it was hope that they could work things out together to jointly oppress the rest of the world; how much of it was biding time in a weakened state before they could mount a plausible defence against the USA. But it does seem probable that the prospect of being left without the possibility of firing nuclear weapons at the US while staging bases are set up ever close to Russia would be undesirable to Russia. Do not take from this that I am defending Russia's actions. I have no interest in either a US nor a Russian Imperium and think that the Ukranian right to manage their own affairs without being attacked is paramount. The same way that I believe that Venezuela and Iran have a right not to be attacked.
danans 5y ago
> I only see downsides to the invasion and no upside from the perspective of Russia. Not everything comes down to dollars and cents. The Russian president spelled out in his speech that he believes that Ukraine has always been a region of Russia, and never an independent state, and therefore he believes it has no right to an independent existence. The motivations are mostly in historical terms, even if there are economic gains for Russia in the end. Also, an authoritarian state like Russia using its military might to shut down a nascent democracy like Ukraine is a pretty powerful narrative for the pre-emininence of the former type of government over the latter. There has been quite a bit of solidarity on this subject between authoritarian governments like Russia and China in recent years.

aenis 5y ago

Once you have as much as Putin, have toadies listening to your every whim and reinforcing every paranoia -- its easy to just start doing stupid things. Small people do it all the time, at smaller scales, big despots go big. Thats why the most important thing is to keep term limits. Power increses expotentially with time in office.

jldugger 5y ago

The cost to the Russian people is high, but the cost to Putin and his entourage is yet another toothless freeze on overseas assets (the ones they know about), some irrelevant protests in Moscow, and a hefty increase in oil prices.

Uehreka 5y ago
Hefty increases in oil prices have a way of changing people’s minds. Particularly people who don’t normally care about politics.
- jldugger 5y ago
  Can you expand on that? Russia's main export is oil.
- 8note 5y ago
  That would mean a softening on Russia taking the Ukraine. It's not Russia driving the increase in prices
bluecalm 5y ago
Isn't oil price increasing good for Russia though? Their oil isn't as cheap to extract so price increasing multiplies their profit very significantly if they can find a buyer.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  The sanctions being levied against them will impair their ability to sell to a large portion of the world, including current (well, now former I suppose) trade partners in Europe. While they could try to undercut the global price in order to make their oil more appealing to remaining trade partners, it's going to be a challenge depending on how the current and future sanctions develop to even get to market. A quick search gives this as the answer to who their largest oil buyers are: China, the European Union, South Korea, India and Japan. China will do what China wants here. But South Korea, Japan, and the European Union will end up being harder to sell to, if possible at all, in the near future. India is a toss-up, depends on how they decide to participate in all this.
- jldugger 5y ago
  > Isn't oil price increasing good for Russia though? Yes. From Putin's POV: two mehs and one thumbs way up

qqqwerty 5y ago

I think he is gambling that he can "Shock and Awe" his way across Ukraine in a few days with minimal casualties. And then quickly install a new government or declare Ukraine a Russian territory. This is probably why he gave such a strong warning against NATO intervention (re: veiled nuclear threat), he doesn't want anyone interfering with that initial push, which could then lead to a long drawn out conflict. And this is also probably why Trump, Tucker and other hard right leaders and factions are still parroting pro-Putin propaganda. If "Shock and Awe" works, then the "post-war" narrative is going to switch to something like "See that wasn't a big deal, the media was just scaremongering, the Ukrainian people did not want to fight, and prefer to be a part of Russia. Everyone needs to chill out and move on." This is not to say that I don't think Putin is crazy. But just trying to read between the lines, I think they think they can get away with this. After all they did invade Crimea with little pushback. On one hand, I hope Ukraine will pull through, but on the other hand, I do worry that the longer this draws out, the further we get away from Putin's playbook, and then more erratic he will be. But if this thing is over in a few days, watch for the right wing to start pushing for a quick return to normalization with Russia.

jtbayly 5y ago
"the right wing" where?
- qqqwerty 5y ago
  Pretty much everywhere[1]. "Far right" is more accurate than "right wing". But tldr, Putin and Russia have been building ties with far right and evangelical parties and groups across the west for the past decade or two. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/43555253 https://www.jstor.org/stable/43555253
  - k0k0r0 5y ago
    An example of this tie between far right and the putin-russian narrative seems to be the reporter Patrick Lancester on various social media sides, that reports the conflict from inside the "seperatist regions" but in english and for the western audience. I don't know whether he's been pushed, though. From the very few of his hundrets of videos I saw, I feel like he's genuinly believing what he's reporting. I don't know whether he is pushed, but I believe it's possible that he's getting supported. Even unbeknownst to himself through "crowdfunding".

causi 5y ago

Putin's shoes but i keep drawing blanks. I only see downsides to the invasion and no upside from the perspective of Russia That's your problem. Putin doesn't care about Russia. This invasion has nothing at all to do with the economic or strategic well-being of the nation of Russia. This has to do with the preservation and expansion of the political power of one single man and his oligarchal cronies. The rest of the country can burn as long as they hold power.

waffle_maniac 5y ago
Great comment. Biggest mistake the West has made is thinking that soft power will work with Putin. He just doesn't care. Sanction some oligarchs and he still goes home to his palace like nothing ever happened.
- threeseed 5y ago
  There is also a mistaken view that oligarchs control what happens in Russia. It's simply not true. He has enriched them not the other way around.
jacquesm 5y ago
Exactly. Like I tried to explain to someone here earlier today: stop using Russia as your reference point, switch to Putin as your reference point and it all makes a lot more sense.
threeseed 5y ago
He cares about the legacy of Russia more than the day to day reality of it. It's very common amongst leaders who have been in power for so long. Also given his age he is unlikely to be around to see the negative decline of Russia as a result of this action.

LoveMortuus 5y ago

Russia made a deal with Ukraine like 30 or 40 years ago that Ukraine wouldn't join EU or NATO. For unknown reasons Ukraine started to want to join EU and/or NATO. If Ukraine joins NATO then Russia would be basically surrounded by NATO forces. The biggest issue here is that USA has been placing rockets near the borders of Russia in NATO countries and these rockets just happen to face Russia. If Ukraine joined NATO, who's to say that USA wouldn't place rockets there's as well and thus have an incredibly huge reach into Russia. Don't get me wrong, I'm a pacifist, if I could I would remove all militaries, there's really no reason to have them, since I believe that with rational conversation you can solve any and all issues. But a fact is still a fact even if you don't like it... I've been waiting for ten years and am still waiting for my country to legalise marijuana. Everyone just needs to chill~ Can't we just pass the joint around and be friends?

mstade 5y ago
So I’ve heard this rocket argument for a long time, never been presented with verifiable sources but I’ve also though that it seems plausible that the US would and indeed have done this. So if we take this as fact, which I’m not saying I do, but if – wouldn’t invading and annexing Ukraine basically inch Russia even closer to these missiles? I see Poland and Romania right there, and they are in fact NATO members are they not? Also, what strategic value does Ukraine have, that for instance the Baltic countries (also NATO members) do not? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I can’t shake the feeling that the “Russia doesn’t like NATO and Ukraine becoming a member is a bridge too far” argument feels more like a straw man than anything else. I’m probably just too dumb to get it, so if someone more enlightened would like to clarify why invading Ukraine helps the Russian anti NATO effort I’d be much obliged!
- toyg 5y ago
  It really doesn't. The strategic value is in securing the coast for good (Crimea was still kinda exposed), clearing up the wild-west they themselves created around Donbass, and providing a new avenue for gas pipelines, effectively neutering any Ukrainian leverage over Russia forever and ever. The NATO-expansion argument is just propaganda, not even the Russians really believe it.

grey-area 5y ago

The gamble is that the west will back off and leave him in possession of Ukraine, as they did with Crimea. Then he can gradually extend control over other encircled states to the north of belarus. More counties to loot, more resources to share with his friends. Absolutely zero personal consequences for him. He’s quite happy to sacrifice the lives and prosperity of millions of Russian people if necessary in pursuit of this plan. He’s quite happy to preside over chaos and destruction and call it peace. Putin won’t stop until he is stopped with force and he has very clearly stated his long term goals - the expansion of the Russian empire for his profit. He has not been subtle about this, the invasion was planned at least weeks ago and the signs were all there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30056419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30056419

chrononaut 5y ago
> Then he can gradually extend control over other encircled states to the north of belarus. Except those countries are actually in NATO, so the circumstances will be quite different. Won't stop him from influencing pressure though.
- grey-area 5y ago
  You say that now, but would anyone believe a few years ago that Putin could suborn US democracy (The republican president calls him a ‘genius’ after this attack and is visibly subservient when they meet), fund the Brexit campaign and encourage an ambivalent policy in the EU? His stated goal is to reconstitute the USSR. One route past the nato problem would be to fund opposition groups in these states, poison opponents and induce them to leave NATO prior to invasion. If he is allowed to take Ukraine he will not stop there.

frabbit 5y ago

NATO has been steadily moving in towards Russia, picking off ex-Soviet satellite states one by one, and withdrawing from the treaties that kept the EU safe: This was one of the pivotal moments: "US President George W Bush, in 2002, pulled the US out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which banned weapons designed to counter ballistic nuclear missiles." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565 Since then it has been slow and steady escalation https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/timeline/ https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/timeline/ while we fritter away the time that would allow us to deal with Climate Destruction. Yes Putin == $BAD_MAN. Yes USA == $OTHER_BAD_MENS. No, neither of those justifies military action on either side. This is a stupid waste of time.

older 5y ago
It has nothing to do with NATO, it is just another lie invented as excuse to invade. Here they still have it on the kremlin website: "I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners." http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21598 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21598
- frabbit 5y ago
  And? That statement occurred 4 or 5 months before the USA had withdrawn from the ABMT. I don't know enough about Russia's changing attitudes towards the USA: how much of it was hope that they could work things out together to jointly oppress the rest of the world; how much of it was biding time in a weakened state before they could mount a plausible defence against the USA. But it does seem probable that the prospect of being left without the possibility of firing nuclear weapons at the US while staging bases are set up ever close to Russia would be undesirable to Russia. Do not take from this that I am defending Russia's actions. I have no interest in either a US nor a Russian Imperium and think that the Ukranian right to manage their own affairs without being attacked is paramount. The same way that I believe that Venezuela and Iran have a right not to be attacked.

danans 5y ago

> I only see downsides to the invasion and no upside from the perspective of Russia. Not everything comes down to dollars and cents. The Russian president spelled out in his speech that he believes that Ukraine has always been a region of Russia, and never an independent state, and therefore he believes it has no right to an independent existence. The motivations are mostly in historical terms, even if there are economic gains for Russia in the end. Also, an authoritarian state like Russia using its military might to shut down a nascent democracy like Ukraine is a pretty powerful narrative for the pre-emininence of the former type of government over the latter. There has been quite a bit of solidarity on this subject between authoritarian governments like Russia and China in recent years.