9 ms·
Russia scholar Stephen Kotkin, in a recent interview, explains the definition of 'win' may not be what we think it is. https://www.hoover.org/research/5-questi
by howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
Russia scholar Stephen Kotkin, in a recent interview, explains the definition of 'win' may not be what we think it is.
https://www.hoover.org/research/5-questions-stephen-kotkin https://www.hoover.org/research/5-questions-stephen-kotkin
He believes, and I agree, that it might be enough for Russia to have "ruined" Kyiv, etc., and to have significantly degraded Ukraine's military. And, militarily speaking, Russia lacks the precision weapons to do much else. Put another way, I think Russia has made its point, that perceived (or contrived) threats on its border will be addressed. One hopes, having made the point, they will withdraw; otherwise Putin is facing regime change or worse IMHO.
EDIT: I should probably add that Russia has a point-of-view on Eastern Europe that shouldn't be ignored. Not as a justification for its invasion, but as a legitimate security and *influence* concern. Much was imposed on Russia after WWI, after the Kosovo conflict, and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Again, not an invasion justification, but an important consideration for a lasting diplomatic resolution... that doesn't require further fighting, escalation or heaven forbid WMD use.
- FeepingCreature 5y agoThe day after which, Ukraine will submit its NATO membership application.
- chillingeffect 5y agoIt virtually has but NATO doesn't universally want Ukraine. It's better strategy to have buffer states adjacent to major powers.
- throwthere 5y agoLegitimate question— why does everyone kind of not mention Estonia and Latvia when talking about NATO-Russia border states?
- watwut 5y agoBecause it shows how ridiculous "buffer zone" argument is.
- simion314 5y ago>It's better strategy to have buffer states adjacent to major powers I am not a strategist so why is this? And why for example wouldn't Russia tried to sign an alliance with this countries where they promise to respect each other territories and not participate in aggressive actions against each other. Isn't this a good enough buffer? it won't work if you don't want to renounce at teritory claims though
- mnw21cam 5y agoThey already did sign such a treaty with Ukraine.
- simion314 5y agoSo I am biased since I am from Romania, but IMo is clear Russia wants the natural resources and the strategical position from the Black Sea not to defend itself from the small easter European countries but just from pure greed, like in a cmputer game you rush to grab the natural resources to prevent the others to use them and grow, after you grow you invade and destroy their shit until they surrender. Defensive alliances would make sense if you want to protect yourself and this is what the eastern european countries want from NATO.
- rayiner 5y ago30% of Ukraine is Russians. The border conflict is deeply rooted and unavoidable, just like with India and Pakistan.
- XorNot 5y agoThe buffer states argument is dead. Russia killed it. Europe now has to logistically support Ukraine, pivot it's energy market and disrupt its economy because Russia just showed the world it views buffer states as consumable components for future Russia. Buffer states are now a liability with Russia.
- panick21_ 5y agoNATO membership requires territorial integrity. A lot would have to change first. And I think even with all the excitement, clear heads will seriously question how well this strategy has worked.
- sgjohnson 5y ago> NATO membership requires territorial integrity. A lot would have to change first. That’s the Schengen area, not NATO.
- euroderf 5y agoBut NATO does require that there are no outstanding territorial disputes. So Russian occupation of part of Georgia is a tactic. Furthermore, to say that this NATO "requirement" was papered over when Greece and Turkey were admitted would be an understatement.
- sgjohnson 5y agoIs it really a formal requirement? I’ve only heard of Cyprus as an example, but this Cyprus is a flawed example, because NATO accession vote has to be unanimous, and Turkey is likely to veto it. Also if that was the case, then Ukraine’s NATO aspirations were dead as soon as Russia took Crimea, making this entire ordeal completely pointless.
- howmayiannoyyou 5y agoAlready submitted and de-facto rejected. Nobody wants Article 5 triggered over the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
- pydry 5y agoThat ship sailed in 2008 with the Bucharest conference. The membership process was stalled and unstalled but it's been underway for a while now. The NATO incursion in Libya leading to Gadaffi getting a rusty bayonet up his backside in 2011 seems to be the point where Putin viewed further expansion as red line though. Zelensky has spent the last two years begging them to hurry the membership application up.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- snovv_crash 5y agoWhich point did Russia make exactly, if this causes Finland and Sweden to join NATO?
- belter 5y agoThey better hurry: "Four Russian fighter jets violate Swedish airspace over Baltic Sea" https://www.thelocal.se/20220302/four-russian-fighter-jets-violate-swedish-airspace-over-baltic-sea/ https://www.thelocal.se/20220302/four-russian-fighter-jets-v...
- stefanfisk 5y agoThey do that all the time.
- iso1631 5y agohttps://theaviationist.com/2014/09/19/su-24-violated-swedish-airspace/ https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/19/su-24-violated-swedish... for example They also violate NATO airspace https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian-fighter-jet-violates-nato-airspace/ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian-fighter-jet-violates... And more https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29956277 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29956277
- emj 5y agoIt's quite rare, it makes headlines everytime they do it. If you think that it's a common occurence and just shrug you shoulders then you are wrong. Especially since it was political this time.
- marginalia_nu 5y agoTo be fair this type of border probing is something that's happened every now and then since the cold war.
- belter 5y agoYes but the timing here is not an accident. Four airplanes at the same time lost of where they are?
- phphphphp 5y agoDamaging a few buildings and killing some civilians and then leaving seems like the worst possible outcome for Russia, unless the goal is to appear so weak that Ukraine don’t join NATO because they believe they can beat Russia just with their citizens. I like your optimism but it seems unmoored from reality. I hope you’re right though.
- lobocinza 5y agoThe whole point of the war was to sabotage Ukraine prosperity on the long term and increase Putin's approval on the short term. Ukraine and Russia are very close culturally and it's prosperity is a powerful message against Putin's regime. Undeniably this war is ravaging Ukraine but the sanctions will be far much worse for Russia on the long term. He already lost on all his goals. If Russia doesn't agree or at least move forward with a ceasefire today this will be a signal that Putin is really insane.
- NoPie 5y agoUkraine was never a threat to Russia's borders. Quite the opposite, Ukraine lost territory due to Russia's aggression.
- howmayiannoyyou 5y agoA facts based explanation of Russia's perspective can be found here: https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/01/moscows-compellence-str https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/01/moscows-compellence-str...
- NoPie 5y agoJudging by the protests against this war in Russia itself, it is more likely the perspective of the Russian government not the Russian people.
- thiagoharry 5y agoProtests means that a minimal discontentment exist. But not necessarily more than this. The fact that there are protests do not mean that the manifestants are the majority or have much power. They can be, but they can be not.
- moonchrome 5y agoReally? From what I've seen reported it seems like there were minor protests and the rest is either scared or support the move.
- goldsteinq 5y agoIt’s complicated. There’re people who support war because the Russian government maintains an information blockade about the topic. Saying anything about the war that was not previously said by the government is going to become a criminal offence tomorrow. Two independent media (TV Rain and Echo of Moscow) were recently banned for telling too much. At the same time, every state-controlled media is spreading propaganda non-stop. Many citizens genuinely think that Ukraine is ruled by Nazis, and Russian military is successfully removing these Nazis without damaging non-combatants. It’s hard to spread the truth because government is going all-in on stopping opposition.
- krige 5y agoNot really, Russia's previous aggressions in 2014 are the reason Ukraine even has a military in the first place and from the past few days it appears that said military's existence came as a shock to the invader. It is fair to say that Putin expected another special operation like in Chechenya, Syria, etc., where he would just bomb the terrorists for a while with no actual opposition showing up. There's a decent analysis thread outlining the background and doing a lot of historical legwork. [0] This is a real problem and a cause for worry though since insane escalation may very well occur with the singular goal of saving faces of russian heads of state. [0] https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497993363076915204 https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497993363076915204
- stemc43 5y ago
- chillingeffect 5y agoTrue. Many intl relations professors have deeply nuanced and interesting perspectives from msm. Chomsky has a lot to say too: https://youtu.be/mqSjiwfO4Xo https://youtu.be/mqSjiwfO4Xo Princeton: https://youtu.be/xWYHzDDs93A https://youtu.be/xWYHzDDs93A UChicago: https://youtu.be/Nbj1AR_aAcE https://youtu.be/Nbj1AR_aAcE
- shmageggy 5y agoDo you have any written sources that summarize their points? 3 hours of video is prohibitively long.
- shmageggy 5y agoIs there an automatic way to translate these? Otherwise they are useless to this English-speaking audience
- stemc43 5y agoyou can probably open in web-telegram and have google translate do its work. there are a lot of unique information you wont find anywhere else. lots of fake news debunked as well.
- trhway 5y agothe "both sides" ceased to exists once Putin started the aggression against the whole country, and specifically its population. While it is true that there had existed a Donbass issue, it doesn't matter right now as under excuse of that issue, Putin started an ethnic cleansing and genocide against Ukrainians. There is no other side in genocide. Putin is extremely clear laying his approach and goals specifically in his 2 last Ukraine speeches. The possible NATO expansion/Ukraine joining is also just an excuse (solving it is a kind of "nice-to-have" side effect) and the West attention's misdirection. Putin's direct goal in the current action and a major corner stone of his overall policy is non-existence of Ukraine and Ukrainians (in the idiosyncrasy of the "Russian world" philosophy the Ukrainians are the traitors who chose West side and thus have to be punished a-la "Taras Bulba" style). According to him only Ukrainians who are ready to deny their ethnicity and recognize themselves as Russians are allowed to exist. It is a great tragedy that many Russians do partially or fully subscribe to that view without fully recognizing the catastrophic reality it leads too. Putin's policy is clear fascism. It isn't well recognized on the West as West plays coy when it comes to fascism and isn't yet direct target of Putin. In Ukraine and other directly targeted countries the term "russism" ['rashizm'] for "russian fascism" has been a normal everyday word as they have been feeling its threat for years.
- brabel 5y ago> it might be enough for Russia to have "ruined" Kyiv, etc., and to have significantly degraded Ukraine's military. Well, that's more or less what Putin said he wanted to do, right? De-militarize and "de-nazify" (he actually means change the regime to one that, like the Ukrainian government prior to 2014, supports Russia) Ukraine.
- optimalsolver 5y agoAh, so this is the goalpost-shifting that will allow Putin to save face.
- google234123 5y agoBetter him saving face than going farther!
- hyperbovine 5y agoTotally, that is called diplomacy.
- rightbyte 5y agoHopefully. I'm totally fine with Putin saving face to end his BS war and avoid escalating.
- ninkendo 5y ago“Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.” -- Sun Tzu
- klelatti 5y ago> Much was imposed on Russia after WWI, after the Kosovo conflict, and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Not as much as Russia imposed on Eastern Europe after WWII.
- rjzzleep 5y agoJohn Mearscheimer said the same in 2016[1]. Stephen Cohen apparently said the same. They don't need to "take" Ukraine. They just want it as a buffer zone. The Q/A at the end of John Mearscheimers talk is actually quite interesting. Ukraine is not of vital interested to the West. If it had been they would have integrated it into NATO already. They tried the same with Georgia and right away Russia attacked Georgia. More importantly he said that the west actually needs Russia against China, because once China becomes an actual threat it will become incomparable to any previous threat. Throwing Russia into China's arms over something that is not of vital interest to the US is insane. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
- lanstin 5y agoI argue that the preservation and expansion of democratic societies and the diminution of autocracies is a vital interest to the US. A free Ukraine strengthens the power of people to rule themselves rather than be ruled by elites without jeopardizing the people of Russia. It does threaten those that wish to give autocracies more of a chance in the modern world. Not invade with conventional troops vital but publish all the intel around the invasion and send money missiles and veterans.
- XorNot 5y agoBy recent events, Mr John Mearscheimer joins the list of pundits who were hilariously, massively wrong. > More importantly he said that the west actually needs Russia against China But based on this, was also completely out of touch to start with.
- watwut 5y ago> They don't need to "take" Ukraine. They just want it as a buffer zone. They want it tho, the argument is not that they need it. The argument is that they want it. And the "just want it as a buffer" is completely unsupported and hard to believe. > Ukraine is not of vital interested to the West. When they decide they want part of Poland and Estonia too, will you say those countries dont matter for the west too? Will their membership in NATO then matter?
- sampo 5y ago
- watwut 5y ago> I should probably add that Russia has a point-of-view on Eastern Europe that shouldn't be ignored. Not as a justification for its invasion, but as a legitimate security and influence concern. Now, there is of course point of view of Eastern European countries who see Russia as legitimate security and influence concern. These are NATO members and became NATO members specifically to be protected against what you call legitimate security concern of Russia (read inability to expand). > Much was imposed on Russia after WWI, after the Kosovo conflict, and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Now, how much of that "imposition" is Poland not wanting to be occupied by Russia anymore?
- sampo 5y ago> Russia has a point-of-view on Eastern Europe that shouldn't be ignored. Eastern Europe (and now especially Ukraine) has a point-of-view on Russia that you seem to be ignoring.