4 ms·

It's really hard to imagine any benefit to anyone from this disaster. It is / was folly. Russia, other than hard firepower, does not have influence or economi

by mc32 5y ago

It's really hard to imagine any benefit to anyone from this disaster. It is / was folly. Russia, other than hard firepower, does not have influence or economic heft to drive anything. All this has done has been to antagonize others and consolidate rivals --I mean, even Maduro, maybe Cuba, are going against him, traditional "allies". His only "allies" now are other pariah nations/tyrants. One day I'd like to find out what the calculus was. At least with the Gulf War I, II and Afghanistan we kind of had parallel objectives, one economic and one for hegemony but lots of countries benefited and not just the US --and even then arguably the US lost (credibility among other things). So this is just odd.

yks 5y ago
I think the calculus is to capture Ukrainian territory whatever the cost now, if millions are starved/bombed, all the better, areas would be repopulated with some Russians and would forever join the "Russian world". Same thing was done by Stalin so the blueprint is there. Then the West, which is weak in Putin's worldview, would drop some of the more disastrous sanctions cause Western politicians need to get re-elected and recessions are bad for their prospects. Putin would continue buying up Western elites, fostering divisions, and in 1-2 election cycles everyone would forget about Russia or Ukraine, stretch goal is the disintegration of NATO by American withdrawal. So in a decade there would be no sanctions and Ukrainian territory would belong to Putin. Speed of Western abandonment of Ukraine would decide how soon Putin attacks other countries. Obviously Russian people would suffer in between but 1) Putin doesn't care about them 2) They would be cheering anyway.
- jethro_tell 5y ago
  I think we are in a situation where this is a clear mistake for everyone but Putin and certain close yes men. They are just doubling down on this because they left themselves no out for failure.
bdamm 5y ago
China is not a pariah state. Russia maybe was making a grab for the natural gas fields in Ukraine. Maybe they already saw Europe's gas business as a lost cause, and with the new pipeline to China, saw aggression towards Europe as worth the risk of losing the business.
- mc32 5y ago
  China ofyen violates the sovereignty of: Vietnam The Philippines Japan Taiwan Malaysia India In addition they ignore UN sanctions and have issues with Tibet (Annexation), among other things.
- jethro_tell 5y ago
  Yes, because this move gives Russia all the bargaining power with China.
regnull 5y ago
The original plan was to do Crimea 2.0, just walk in and put a soldier on every corner. No one would resist. That didn't go down as planned. The current plan is Grozny 2.0. Demolish cities with artillery and then capture the ruins.
dwater 5y ago
Russia's economy, and the nation's well being as a whole, is dependent on selling gas to Europe. Europe doesn't want to support the regime and would prefer to buy elsewhere. Ukraine found lots of oil and gas reserves in the past decade or two but it takes a long time to turn reserves into deliverable product and they haven't yet. So for Russia, seizing those reserves, which are in the East and South, where they are attacking the hardest, would be a big win. But if they can't hold those areas, destroying infrastructure and government so they can't produce and market that oil and gas to Europe for another couple of decades is also a big win.
- jethro_tell 5y ago
  I think because of this you'll continue to see outsized investment in not buying oil from Russia. I think they may have had the opposite effect in almost every realm they wanted to play in. They have shown they are not a military power other than nukes, they have pushed nations into fast tracking NATO and EU memberships, They have weakened the interest in turning the blind eye and buying their oil. There will certainly be countries that will buy out of necessity but I expect that to become increasingly unpopular as this goes on. Even if they take Ukraine for oil, I do not expect them to make back even close to what it cost them, both politically and financially.
rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
How is this folly? Joe Biden said, in 1997, that the only thing that could provoke a "vigorous and hostile" Russian response would be if NATO expanded as far as the Baltic states. That was several years before Putin became president. https://twitter.com/ImReadinHere/status/1500782351831662592 https://twitter.com/ImReadinHere/status/1500782351831662592 He also said "good luck" to Russia when told that they may have to look to China as an alternative if NATO keeps expanding. In 1997. https://twitter.com/ImReadinHere/status/1500784522023034882 https://twitter.com/ImReadinHere/status/1500784522023034882 We knew how Russia would react, with or without Putin. But it is now folly? Russia knows the hyperpower is China now and is acting accordingly. China encourages Russia to oppose NATO in Europe, preventing the US from focusing fully on Asia, forcing the EU to become more independent and weakening the US' influence on the world stage. And Europe pretends to want to become independent from Russia but that requires an full transition to non-carbon energy – and this won't happen anytime soon (since Europe is still following a neoliberal playbook that make such transition a "folly" in the leaders' eye). Russia knows the West's weak points and understand that now is the right time to exploit them. The West continues to believe it's Putin's folly but they're the one losing a critical ally to China. I'm sorry to war victims, but this is far more important than negotiating Ukraine's neutrality. Too bad we had to let Putin go to war as NATO and the EU could have a agreed to this and avoid a war (that weakens both Europe and Russia in the short term, and the West in the long term).
- ch4s3 5y ago
  The NATO expansion angle seems like a distraction. The rambling speech Putin gave at the outset of the invasion outlined his pet theory that Ukraine is part of broader Russia and that he doesn't see them as a separate people. He's long said that the dissolution of the USSR was the greatest catastrophe in Russian history. It's pretty clear that his aim is a revanchist restoration of historical Russian territory. It is also worth noting that NATO does not expand by invasion or recruitment. Member nations all have to apply to join and be democracies, meaning that at least notionally their people have to want to be in NATO. And why would former Soviet Republic want to be in NATO? Most of them say it's because they're afraid of Russian invasion. It's worth noting that Russia has recently invaded Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. Those fears don't spring from a place of pure paranoia. It also seems unrealistic that there will be long term alignment between Russia and China, they're natural rivals. Russia still holds contested territory that used to be part of China. Even under the Soviet system they tolerated each other at best, and entered into armed conflict in 1969. China officially calls that conflict an act of Russian aggression, even after hammering out a deal with Lavrov in 2008.
CoastalCoder 5y ago
I struggle to understand Putin's reasoning as well. My best guess is that he wants to leave a legacy of expanding Russia's geographic influence. I.e., it was a gamble based on a successful invasion of Ukraine. My Hollywood-style conspiracy theory (which I very much doubt) is that Russia and China are secretly collaborating. The plan would be for Russia to draw NATO / U.S. forces into eastern Europe, leaving Taiwan under-defended. And then China would invade Taiwan.

by mc32 5y ago

yks 5y ago

I think the calculus is to capture Ukrainian territory whatever the cost now, if millions are starved/bombed, all the better, areas would be repopulated with some Russians and would forever join the "Russian world". Same thing was done by Stalin so the blueprint is there. Then the West, which is weak in Putin's worldview, would drop some of the more disastrous sanctions cause Western politicians need to get re-elected and recessions are bad for their prospects. Putin would continue buying up Western elites, fostering divisions, and in 1-2 election cycles everyone would forget about Russia or Ukraine, stretch goal is the disintegration of NATO by American withdrawal. So in a decade there would be no sanctions and Ukrainian territory would belong to Putin. Speed of Western abandonment of Ukraine would decide how soon Putin attacks other countries. Obviously Russian people would suffer in between but 1) Putin doesn't care about them 2) They would be cheering anyway.

jethro_tell 5y ago
I think we are in a situation where this is a clear mistake for everyone but Putin and certain close yes men. They are just doubling down on this because they left themselves no out for failure.

bdamm 5y ago

China is not a pariah state. Russia maybe was making a grab for the natural gas fields in Ukraine. Maybe they already saw Europe's gas business as a lost cause, and with the new pipeline to China, saw aggression towards Europe as worth the risk of losing the business.

mc32 5y ago
China ofyen violates the sovereignty of: Vietnam The Philippines Japan Taiwan Malaysia India In addition they ignore UN sanctions and have issues with Tibet (Annexation), among other things.
jethro_tell 5y ago
Yes, because this move gives Russia all the bargaining power with China.

regnull 5y ago

The original plan was to do Crimea 2.0, just walk in and put a soldier on every corner. No one would resist. That didn't go down as planned. The current plan is Grozny 2.0. Demolish cities with artillery and then capture the ruins.

dwater 5y ago

Russia's economy, and the nation's well being as a whole, is dependent on selling gas to Europe. Europe doesn't want to support the regime and would prefer to buy elsewhere. Ukraine found lots of oil and gas reserves in the past decade or two but it takes a long time to turn reserves into deliverable product and they haven't yet. So for Russia, seizing those reserves, which are in the East and South, where they are attacking the hardest, would be a big win. But if they can't hold those areas, destroying infrastructure and government so they can't produce and market that oil and gas to Europe for another couple of decades is also a big win.

jethro_tell 5y ago
I think because of this you'll continue to see outsized investment in not buying oil from Russia. I think they may have had the opposite effect in almost every realm they wanted to play in. They have shown they are not a military power other than nukes, they have pushed nations into fast tracking NATO and EU memberships, They have weakened the interest in turning the blind eye and buying their oil. There will certainly be countries that will buy out of necessity but I expect that to become increasingly unpopular as this goes on. Even if they take Ukraine for oil, I do not expect them to make back even close to what it cost them, both politically and financially.

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago

How is this folly? Joe Biden said, in 1997, that the only thing that could provoke a "vigorous and hostile" Russian response would be if NATO expanded as far as the Baltic states. That was several years before Putin became president. https://twitter.com/ImReadinHere/status/1500782351831662592 https://twitter.com/ImReadinHere/status/1500782351831662592 He also said "good luck" to Russia when told that they may have to look to China as an alternative if NATO keeps expanding. In 1997. https://twitter.com/ImReadinHere/status/1500784522023034882 https://twitter.com/ImReadinHere/status/1500784522023034882 We knew how Russia would react, with or without Putin. But it is now folly? Russia knows the hyperpower is China now and is acting accordingly. China encourages Russia to oppose NATO in Europe, preventing the US from focusing fully on Asia, forcing the EU to become more independent and weakening the US' influence on the world stage. And Europe pretends to want to become independent from Russia but that requires an full transition to non-carbon energy – and this won't happen anytime soon (since Europe is still following a neoliberal playbook that make such transition a "folly" in the leaders' eye). Russia knows the West's weak points and understand that now is the right time to exploit them. The West continues to believe it's Putin's folly but they're the one losing a critical ally to China. I'm sorry to war victims, but this is far more important than negotiating Ukraine's neutrality. Too bad we had to let Putin go to war as NATO and the EU could have a agreed to this and avoid a war (that weakens both Europe and Russia in the short term, and the West in the long term).

ch4s3 5y ago
The NATO expansion angle seems like a distraction. The rambling speech Putin gave at the outset of the invasion outlined his pet theory that Ukraine is part of broader Russia and that he doesn't see them as a separate people. He's long said that the dissolution of the USSR was the greatest catastrophe in Russian history. It's pretty clear that his aim is a revanchist restoration of historical Russian territory. It is also worth noting that NATO does not expand by invasion or recruitment. Member nations all have to apply to join and be democracies, meaning that at least notionally their people have to want to be in NATO. And why would former Soviet Republic want to be in NATO? Most of them say it's because they're afraid of Russian invasion. It's worth noting that Russia has recently invaded Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. Those fears don't spring from a place of pure paranoia. It also seems unrealistic that there will be long term alignment between Russia and China, they're natural rivals. Russia still holds contested territory that used to be part of China. Even under the Soviet system they tolerated each other at best, and entered into armed conflict in 1969. China officially calls that conflict an act of Russian aggression, even after hammering out a deal with Lavrov in 2008.

CoastalCoder 5y ago

I struggle to understand Putin's reasoning as well. My best guess is that he wants to leave a legacy of expanding Russia's geographic influence. I.e., it was a gamble based on a successful invasion of Ukraine. My Hollywood-style conspiracy theory (which I very much doubt) is that Russia and China are secretly collaborating. The plan would be for Russia to draw NATO / U.S. forces into eastern Europe, leaving Taiwan under-defended. And then China would invade Taiwan.