4 ms·

If you ask me, the whole "military on their doorstep" argument is a canard. Putin is paranoid but he's not an idiot. This war is about resources plain and sim

If you ask me, the whole "military on their doorstep" argument is a canard. Putin is paranoid but he's not an idiot. This war is about resources plain and simple. Russia is a petro state and Ukrainian oil and gas deposits were setting them up to free Europe from dependence on Russian oil and gas. Russia saw that as a mortal threat to their economy and relevance. Russia has plenty of nukes. The idea that NATO is going to launch a land invasion is flat out goofy. The idea that having Ukraine join NATO opens the door to nukes on Russia's doorstep is also silly given the number of nuclear equipped submarines in NATO. Yet again, it's just a war for oil. China is more or less silent because they're hoping to be the purchasers of that oil. China has been having energy shortages and needs the natural gas to replace dirty coal. Don't forget wheat and fertilizer. Between Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine you have like 25% of global wheat and a significant portion of fertilizer production.

jmyeet 5y ago
> If you ask me, the whole "military on their doorstep" argument is a canard. The US does. It's been a foundation of US foreign policy for 200 years [1]. The US went right to brink of triggering a nuclear war over a breach of this in Cuba. So why are we surprised Russia doesn't believe this? > Putin is paranoid but he's not an idiot. Prior to a week ago I thought so too but it's difficult to see a scenario where Putin "wins" here. > This war is about resources plain and simple. This is a contributing factor, for sure. Russia pays Ukraine billions for the the rights to pipe natural gas over their land. But this was a "solved" problem in the sense that Russia has been busy building pipelines through Belarus and the Baltic to avoid this that were on track to cut Ukraine out of these fees by 2024 or so. That leaves the issue of oil and gas deposits that have been found in Ukraine. The first is in the Black Sea and these are within the territorial waters of Crimea. Crimea is essentially a "solved" problem after the annexation in 2014. That leaves two regions that have (IIRC) shale deposits. The first is in the West of the country. It seems like that would be difficult for Russia to control as it would require occupying the whole country. The other is in the Donbas and is covered by the "republics" of DPR/LPR. So if Russia had launched a limited invasion to carve out the Donbas they may have gotten away with that (IMHO). Like there'd be a period of sanctions and blowback but they could've "won" eventually (IMHO). But this? This is just unwinnable and completely unjustifiable. > The idea that NATO is going to launch a land invasion is flat out goofy. You're viewing this through the lens that US and NATO are benign, maybe even that NATO is a defensive alliance (which it isn't). Even if it is truly defensive, there's very little that separates a defensive military alliance and an offensive one, particularly when that alliance has strategic nuclear weapons. Remember that all the ploys that Putin has done like justifying military action in Georgia on protecting Russians can be turned around on Russia. Imagine a Ukraine in NATO that decides they need to protect persecuted Ukrainians in Belarus and carve off a piece. Whose to say that Ukraine emboldened by NATO membership doesn't take military action to reclaim Crimea? Again, this is from the Russian perspective. You might say that's crazy and it may well be but not if you're Russia. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
- otherme123 5y ago
  No country can use NATO to claim other territories. Spain belongs to NATO since 1986, and the adhesion explicitly says that Ceuta, Melilla and Canary Islands are out of the pact, should Morocco claim them by force. Do you really believe NATO will accept Ukraine without having Crimea or the Donbass explicitly excluded?
- 01100011 5y ago
  The Cuban Missile Crisis is over 50 years old and the world was in a much different state then. The US and the Soviets were fighting proxy wars with a good chance that a direct confrontation could erupt at any moment. The Soviets were placing nuclear equipped ICBMs within close proximity of the US which would have been a dramatic change in the balance of power had a conflict occurred. The Soviets no longer exist and the US/NATO was not, prior to Russia assaulting Ukraine, remotely close to a direct confrontation with Russia. Putin can win by keeping Ukraine in a state where it is not stable enough to supply resources to the west. Oil extraction requires a certain level of political and physical security and if he can fight a drawn out war by sending his undesirable young men to die in a Ukrainian meat grinder for the next decade he may, depending on the lack of will and perseverance of the rest of the world, "win". > it would require occupying the whole country. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/03/ukraine-war-refugee-exodus-has-reached-a-million-says-un-as-russia-takes-over-kherson https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/03/ukraine-war-re... "Moscow aims to take ‘full control’ of Ukraine capital by diplomatic or military means, according to Elysée" > NATO is a defensive alliance (which it isn't) Going to need some evidence before I can believe that claim. Can you point to offensive action by NATO in recent history? > Imagine a Ukraine in NATO that decides they need to protect persecuted Ukrainians in Belarus and carve off a piece. This is a fantasy and not really worth discussing. > Whose to say that Ukraine emboldened by NATO membership doesn't take military action to reclaim Crimea? Outside of paranoid Russian fantasy land I don't think anyone is even suggesting this is likely.
  - dmz73 5y ago
    Offensive actions by NATO that I remember: Serbia in 1999 Afghanistan in 2001 Libya in 2011

jmyeet 5y ago

> If you ask me, the whole "military on their doorstep" argument is a canard. The US does. It's been a foundation of US foreign policy for 200 years [1]. The US went right to brink of triggering a nuclear war over a breach of this in Cuba. So why are we surprised Russia doesn't believe this? > Putin is paranoid but he's not an idiot. Prior to a week ago I thought so too but it's difficult to see a scenario where Putin "wins" here. > This war is about resources plain and simple. This is a contributing factor, for sure. Russia pays Ukraine billions for the the rights to pipe natural gas over their land. But this was a "solved" problem in the sense that Russia has been busy building pipelines through Belarus and the Baltic to avoid this that were on track to cut Ukraine out of these fees by 2024 or so. That leaves the issue of oil and gas deposits that have been found in Ukraine. The first is in the Black Sea and these are within the territorial waters of Crimea. Crimea is essentially a "solved" problem after the annexation in 2014. That leaves two regions that have (IIRC) shale deposits. The first is in the West of the country. It seems like that would be difficult for Russia to control as it would require occupying the whole country. The other is in the Donbas and is covered by the "republics" of DPR/LPR. So if Russia had launched a limited invasion to carve out the Donbas they may have gotten away with that (IMHO). Like there'd be a period of sanctions and blowback but they could've "won" eventually (IMHO). But this? This is just unwinnable and completely unjustifiable. > The idea that NATO is going to launch a land invasion is flat out goofy. You're viewing this through the lens that US and NATO are benign, maybe even that NATO is a defensive alliance (which it isn't). Even if it is truly defensive, there's very little that separates a defensive military alliance and an offensive one, particularly when that alliance has strategic nuclear weapons. Remember that all the ploys that Putin has done like justifying military action in Georgia on protecting Russians can be turned around on Russia. Imagine a Ukraine in NATO that decides they need to protect persecuted Ukrainians in Belarus and carve off a piece. Whose to say that Ukraine emboldened by NATO membership doesn't take military action to reclaim Crimea? Again, this is from the Russian perspective. You might say that's crazy and it may well be but not if you're Russia. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

otherme123 5y ago
No country can use NATO to claim other territories. Spain belongs to NATO since 1986, and the adhesion explicitly says that Ceuta, Melilla and Canary Islands are out of the pact, should Morocco claim them by force. Do you really believe NATO will accept Ukraine without having Crimea or the Donbass explicitly excluded?
01100011 5y ago
The Cuban Missile Crisis is over 50 years old and the world was in a much different state then. The US and the Soviets were fighting proxy wars with a good chance that a direct confrontation could erupt at any moment. The Soviets were placing nuclear equipped ICBMs within close proximity of the US which would have been a dramatic change in the balance of power had a conflict occurred. The Soviets no longer exist and the US/NATO was not, prior to Russia assaulting Ukraine, remotely close to a direct confrontation with Russia. Putin can win by keeping Ukraine in a state where it is not stable enough to supply resources to the west. Oil extraction requires a certain level of political and physical security and if he can fight a drawn out war by sending his undesirable young men to die in a Ukrainian meat grinder for the next decade he may, depending on the lack of will and perseverance of the rest of the world, "win". > it would require occupying the whole country. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/03/ukraine-war-refugee-exodus-has-reached-a-million-says-un-as-russia-takes-over-kherson https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/03/ukraine-war-re... "Moscow aims to take ‘full control’ of Ukraine capital by diplomatic or military means, according to Elysée" > NATO is a defensive alliance (which it isn't) Going to need some evidence before I can believe that claim. Can you point to offensive action by NATO in recent history? > Imagine a Ukraine in NATO that decides they need to protect persecuted Ukrainians in Belarus and carve off a piece. This is a fantasy and not really worth discussing. > Whose to say that Ukraine emboldened by NATO membership doesn't take military action to reclaim Crimea? Outside of paranoid Russian fantasy land I don't think anyone is even suggesting this is likely.
- dmz73 5y ago
  Offensive actions by NATO that I remember: Serbia in 1999 Afghanistan in 2001 Libya in 2011