7 ms·

But, what is his gain? I cannot figure it out.

• qaq 5y ago
  staying in power in light of this huge miscalculation
• nine_zeros 5y ago
  Pride on his deathbed. He is old and wants to go with glory, at the expense of young Russians' future of course.
  • mint2 5y ago
    The pictures that are coming out of this are shocking, if Russians were allowed to view them they’d turn on Putin instantly. If the pictures of Ukrainian suffering didn’t do that then the ones of fallen russians would. Beyond senseless and horrific all because Putin bought his own lies.
    • Schiendelman 5y ago
      Many Russians have seen them and still support the invasion. There are TV interviews showing this regularly now. It’s not a lot different from Republicans in the US ignoring other realities.
      • rich_sasha 5y ago
        I think, in fairness, most people only watch easily accessible TV, which tells them a very different story. Also TV interviews, in state-controlled media, are kind of meaningless. I can well imagine it's true, just not that you can tell by looking at TV interviews.
        • Schiendelman 5y ago
          These are US TV interviews of Russian citizens, but fair point that we don't really know. This was before the restrictions on what you're allowed to say, though.
    • baal80spam 5y ago
      > if Russians were allowed to view them they’d turn on Putin instantly Unfortunately, the power of brainwashing is enormous.
• pier25 5y ago
  At this point I think he thought getting into Ukraine would be a walk in the park, and the sanctions would be minimal. And now... he's just too proud to back down so he just keeps pushing further.
  • pydry 5y ago
    I think he'd prefer to own it, but I think he'd prefer to destroy the country rather than see it become part of NATO. Mariupol and Melitopol in particular are exceptionally strategic locations. This video does a good job of explaining why the land bridge to Crimea is so important to Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwzliJF0-SI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwzliJF0-SI
    • pier25 5y ago
      The more he destroys Ukraine, the worse it will get for Russia, and more help Ukraine will get from the rest of the world.
      • pydry 5y ago
        I dont think he considers economic pain to be a factor when considering the military integrity of the nation.
        • alkonaut 5y ago
          The worse this war gets the stronger Ukraine has to be afterwards and the more and faster help it will get from the west. So the fear of Ukraine maybe looking more successful than Russia in 10 years or maybe joining NATO in 10 years now has become Ukraine having a better economic outlook than Russia after two weeks, and both EU and NATO memberships (or at least some form of defense guarantees equivalent to NATO) look quite likely even in the short term. The pain isn’t just economic. Everything he touches seems to have the completely opposite effect to what he says he wants, such as Ukraine/Finland/Sweden outside NATO. There is no logic.
• 0xy 5y ago
  • zpeti 5y ago
    Sure, but a response could have been to invade Donbas, or some other retaliatory measure. Instead he’s bombing Ukraine into the ground including hospitals. I’m not quite sure if you are saying this is natos fault, but the level of escalation here from Putin is ridiculous.
    • 0xy 5y ago
      • gwd 5y ago
        > I never said it was justified. > ...the US has been pushing buttons for months. Those are in contradiction. If someone is being irrationally controlling, then standing up to them and trying to protect their victims isn't "pushing buttons".
        • 0xy 5y ago
          There is no contradiction there. The US being incompetent and pushing buttons can be the motivation for actions that are unjustified in scope. I think the disconnect here is that you believe me being able to describe Putin's motivations means I somehow agree with them. Claims like Putin is invading to expand territory is conspiracy theory, and likely Ukrainian propaganda (like the debunked Ghost of Kyiv and Snake Island propaganda that covered HN). During war, both sides spill propaganda and lies. Just because one country is clearly in the wrong doesn't mean you should dutifully swallow the other side's propaganda.
      • akvadrako 5y ago
        > You asked about motivation, and I told you what they were. No, you said what Putin claimed his motivations were. Very different things. It's clear what he's said and at least some of it is clearly bullshit, like the thing about Nazis and Ukraine committing genocide in the east. Even he doesn't believe that so it can't be a motivation. More like an excuse.
• AlexandrB 5y ago
  There's a difference between what Putin hoped to gain, and what he will actually gain. I suspect that Putin thought this would be a cakewalk and he hoped to gain territory in Ukraine. Instead, this is increasingly looking like a huge blunder for the Russian state. The name of the game now is probably self-preservation and saving-face for the Putin government. What "self-preservation" means to Putin is hard to guess but an embarrassing retreat from Ukraine doesn't seem like it's on the table yet.
• vkou 5y ago
  In the current situation his main objective is not losing face. Two weeks ago his goal was a land grab.
  • toyg 5y ago
    ITT: people with no experience of combat who think wars are solved in two weeks. The Iraqi desert spoiled us, but surely we still remember Afghanistan...? If anybody in the Russian army is worth half a ruble, they planned this to take months at least. They came straight out of engagements in Syria and Chechnya, which took years to turn. Whether they told their troops (who, in Russia, are synonim with "cannon fodder" since forever) is another matter, of course.
    • greedo 5y ago
      In light of captured documents outlining how they expected this to be over in three weeks, no one in the Russian military is worth a ruble.
      • dragonwriter 5y ago
        > In light of captured documents outlining how they expected this to be over in three weeks, no one in the Russian military is worth a ruble To be fair, the US policy leadership made similar misunderestimates of the difficulties it would face in Iraq, it just didn't have global sanctions crushing it's economy at the same time. (On the other hand, a key figure in that determination and policy planning regarding Iraq was reportedly described by the General that commanded the invasion and early occupation as “the dumbest fucking guy on the planet”, so, there's that.)
        • greedo 5y ago
          Militarily, the US performed very well in the initial invasion of Iraq. It was more a political failure after the defeat of the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard that led to the insurgency.
    • vkou 5y ago
• rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  China's support while Russia negotiate Ukraine permanent neutrality with NATO/EU (with troops on the field). What's the price of Ukraine as a non-Western state? I'm surprised we can spend hours valuing the cost of the sanctions but few can put a price on what Putin has been asking for.
  • thinkingemote 5y ago
    The price is similar to giving your pocket money to the school bully. It's not just a one time price. Perhaps if the message is "I'm not a bully, I'm a school monitor with a badge to prove it" maybe it's different. The best question to pose oneself is, if NATO was such a bully instead, where is the moral, good, international aid, charity, role model and respect that Putin has performed in times of peace? Where is his school monitor badge that he should have got?
    • vkou 5y ago
      In a few weeks, there will be no more non-NATO countries on Russia's western border, and you will have nothing to be concerned about. Anyone who thinks Russia can invade NATO is as mistaken as the Russians that currently believe NATO can, and wants to, invade Russia. There are, unfortunately, hundreds of millions of people who believe one or the other.
      • rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
        Let's see. I bet neither NATO nor the EU will consider accepting Ukraine or Georgia as new members, after Russia proved they're ready to invade these countries to defend their interests. Do you believe the West would go to war with Russia, only to add a few members to a giant military alliance that was designed for a post-WWII world? The US will retreat and focus on China and the EU will try to become more independent from NATO and Russia (and they'll negotiate with Putin if need be, unless he already jumped on China's side for good).
        • greedo 5y ago
• treis 5y ago
  For as long as there's been a Russian Empire Crimea has been either an aspiration or a strategic territory. It's the key to controlling the Black Sea and projecting power in SE Europe and the Caucauses. To some extent, it's the crown jewel of the Russian Empire. If you're an emperor (which Putin essentially is) it's very hard to explain away losing your crown jewel. It shatters the myth of a resurgent/strong Russia and would be an existential threat to Putin's regime. That's the why. Why now is a little bit trickier. But I think it's because of a fundamental weakness. Russia's military is essentially still the Soviet military. It's a decaying force using last generation military technology that is rapidly being left behind. MANPADs (infantry mobile air defense) & Javelins (anti-tank missiles) have all but rendered their planes, helicopters, and tanks obsolete. And, as a country, they are too corrupt and poor to modernize their military. They're going to win this war but it's obvious that they're mustering about the best invasion force they can and even then it's been a slow moving brutal war. Five more years of Russian decay and Ukrainian modernization would bring the outcome into doubt. Ten years and maybe it's impossible.
  • cmurf 5y ago
    Russia isn't going to win this war, short of using weapons of mass destruction. They don't have the manpower. They walk troops into Kyiv and they will be slaughtered by the Ukrainian military. The only way Russia wins this war is to obliterate Ukraine, and raise the deaths by multiple orders of magnitude from what we've seen so far. Hundreds of thousands per day or more. And I rather expect Putin will try to do exactly that, and we see carnage the world hasn't seen since the last world war to try and goad NATO into reacting. What we need is for the U.N. general assembly to catch up with what's going on. It's not enough to just condemn the invasion. The purpose of the U.N. is to prevent world wars and right now they're not doing enough.
• tayistay 5y ago
  Survival of his regime, as best I can tell. When a reasonably functional democracy (Ukraine) abuts an autocracy (Russia), the democracy starts to make the autocracy look bad in the eyes of those living in it, threatening the autocrat's power. Putin seems to have over-estimated the risk (paranoia perhaps), but this seems to be a typical dynamic which is also playing out between China and Taiwan.
• dirtyid 5y ago
  Extending long term military, political, even economic security in face of declining/terminal demographics. It's an existential gamble for a bigger RU light cone. The alternative framing is there was much more to lose. RU is better off losing 20 years of progress than 200 years of future security. A few generations doomed to middle income is one of the milder calamity in terms of costly historical RU mistakes. I think people overlook how rational the geopolitical calculus is, it's only shocking because eating so much short/medium term loss is counter to the interest of a "compromised" leader, i.e. one who has to answer to the public. My feeling is Putin has simply secured so much power that he can do what most leaders can not, pursue long term geopolitically maximizing gamble and survive it. I doubt he'll be deposed - no one wants to inherit this shitshow. Also history rarely looks down on leaders who regain lost land, especially one of such cultural importance as UKR is to RU. If Putin can hold on to UKR, he'll have statues built of him for centuries and impartial historians 100 years from now will likely evaluate his conquest favorably. In the meantime, the real question is ask what the west will lose not accommodating RU interests and maintaining sanctions comparable to a blockade. RU hasn't even began retaliating yet, they can (IMO will) extract disportionate cost from 40Trillion western block economy versus what the west block can punish a 1.5T RU economy.
  • zozbot234 5y ago
    Russia is facing existential risks now that it wasn't as late as one month ago. If the Soviets couldn't "hold" to AFG, there's no way he can hold UKR. The "long term geo-politically maximizing" strategy here is quite clear, just look at what China has managed to achieve in the past 30 or 40 years. Russia may have made big mistakes before, but that does not exactly help if they keep making big mistakes.
    • dirtyid 5y ago
      >existential risks now Existential risk now pale in comparison to long term existential risk of irrevocably west/NATO aligned UKR, hence emphasis on eating "short/medium term loss". Soviets didn't want to hold AFG, it was peripheral counter insurgency work, on tier of Vietnam war was to PRC. UKR is reforging historic empire, it's core interest like TW is to PRC. As for holding UKR, it remains to be seen. There's very real possibly they'll Grozny the entire country and displace 20M+ which will destabilize Europe and make holding UKR feasible. >if they keep making big mistakes. Taking UKR isn't a big mistake, hasty special operations gamble was, but complete occupation isn't, especially now when RU is still capable. UKR with another 5 years US training and support would make such conquest out of reach, especially coupled with continued RU demographic/military decline. TBH for RU best time was 2014 considering how poor sanction proofing their economy went. >look at what China has managed to achieve RU isn't PRC in terms of demographics, and even PRC will eventually have to take TW / push back US aligned containment security architecture in East Asia. Common argument for PRC doing so in next 10-20 years is that's when PRC power will be maximal. RU has no peak to look forward to, is already on decline. It can't afford to wait.
• rado 5y ago
  In a word: buffer.
  • nickpp 5y ago
    Buffer to what? Russia already has a sizable NATO border.
    • rado 5y ago
      Yes, but it's very small compared to the UA border.