6 ms·

Putin has been writing and speaking about this for years. He really thinks Russia should control other Slavic people, and former territories of Russia and Sovie

Putin has been writing and speaking about this for years. He really thinks Russia should control other Slavic people, and former territories of Russia and Soviet Union etc. And it's not only Putin. Most of the other high ranking officials must have been supporting the attack into Ukraine, otherwise it would not have happened. If it was him alone against everyone else, Putin would simply have been replaced. A large portion of the Russian population also supports the attack. It is no fluke. You can't pin it on one "madman". It's as if the majority Russian people in Russia genuinely think they should control the land and people that is Ukraine. It's not all people. There are anti-war protests, millions of people have left Russia, and there are dissidents. To somehow recover from this, it would require some deep reflection on what Russia really is, and what is its role in humanity. I'm afraid it will take some drastic events before people are able to question themselves to that level. It would begin with the philosophers and poets.

jmyeet 4y ago
I don't put a lot of stock in the Russian Imperialism ambitions as being a serious factor in this invasion. I just don't think it adds up. I mean even if Putin was saying this, that doesn't mean a lot. The US, for example, says they're spreading democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, fro example. I believe it's far more likely that Russia actually wanted (wants?) a buffer between it and NATO. They've been warning of this since 2008 (when Bush opened the door to Ukraine joining NATO). Why do I find this more believable? Because it's exactly what imperial powers do. It's exactly what the United States has done. The US almost started World War Three over a Soviet presence in Cuba. The US for 200 years (ie the Monroe Doctrine) has considered the Americas the sole province of the US and any foreign military to be a threat. China does this too. Mongolia is a buffer to Russia. North Korea is a buffer to South Korea (and the significant US military presence there). For Imperialist ambitions to make sense, Russia would have to either occupy Ukraine on a long term basis or install a puppet regime (eg like Belarus). Both are doomed from the start. The Ukraine is too large to occupy and would be too expensive. The USSR couldn't even maintain a puppet government in Afghanistan (and nor could the US obviously).
- macintux 4y ago
  The USSR “occupied” Ukraine for most of the 20th century, aided and abetted by the Holodomor, so there’s no obvious reason they couldn’t again. Russian state TV is awash with pundits who are asserting the Russian empire should be re-created in Ukraine and the Baltics, and that Ukrainians are subhuman. There’s plenty of reason to believe Putin wants his empire.
  - jmyeet 4y ago
    Sure but in the Cold War period, as one data point, the Red Army had between 4 and 5 million soldiers [1]. A lot of people don't realize how much smaller the 21st century great power militaries are in pure manpower terms than the Cold War era, even for the US [2]. Additionally history is a huge factor here. Ukraine came under Soviet control as a consequence of the Russian Empire and this type of imperialism that had been rampant in human history up to this point largely died with World War Two and the onset of the nuclear age. European powers lost their remaining colonies (mostly) in the years following WWII. The US has quite famously lost every war they've been in since 1945. Ukraine as part of the USSR was really a vestige of a bygone era combined with a totalitarian government and a way stronger military than, say, exists now in Russia. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Armed_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Armed_Forces [2]: https://historyinpieces.com/research/us-military-personnel-1954-2014 https://historyinpieces.com/research/us-military-personnel-1...
- rmind 4y ago
  You are buying too much into the Russian propaganda. First, it is not NATO which expanded "into" the Baltic States and Eastern Europe. These countries voluntarily applied and their diplomats lobbied very hard to get accepted into NATO, precisely because of Russia's aggressive and militaristic policies. Why do you think that these sovereign European nations actually want to be a "buffer"? Why do you think somebody should have a right to constrain their sovereignty? Ukraine was not even close to joining NATO, despite all declarations (moreover, Russia firmly prevented it by orchestrating the War in Donbas). With Finland joining NATO, Russia will now have 1340 km border with NATO. What Putin is going to do about that? It was never about NATO. Look at the origins of the Russian-Ukrainian War (it wasn't just 2013, the cracks started as early as 2004). Moscow always had a distorted view of the Ukrainian history and its sovereignty as an independent nation (despite signing treaties and agreements recognizing it). > For Imperialist ambitions to make sense, Russia would have to either occupy Ukraine on a long term basis or install a puppet regime (eg like Belarus). Both are doomed from the start. The Ukraine is too large to occupy and would be too expensive. The USSR couldn't even maintain a puppet government in Afghanistan (and nor could the US obviously). This is precisely what they tried to do with this invasion, thinking that if the Ukrainian government gets decapitated, the majority of the Ukrainian population would not resist and cooperate. Kremlin massively miscalculated because they started believing their own propaganda and their intelligence would feed the dictator with the information he wanted to hear rather than reality.
koonsolo 4y ago
A few days ago I saw a video where a Fin explained that in the last 1000 years, Russia tried to invade Finland 20 times (I didn't verify this data). He claimed that about every 2 to 3 generations, this happens. This was a real eye-opener for me, and reminds me of a (probably Dutch) expression: A fox loses its hair but not its tricks.
- foverzar 4y ago
  Thousand years? 20 times seems like a comically tiny amount at that scale. Finland had managed to be both part of Russian Empire, Sweden and hell a lot of other adventures in that huge period. That's like all the way back to Kievan Rus.

jmyeet 4y ago

I don't put a lot of stock in the Russian Imperialism ambitions as being a serious factor in this invasion. I just don't think it adds up. I mean even if Putin was saying this, that doesn't mean a lot. The US, for example, says they're spreading democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, fro example. I believe it's far more likely that Russia actually wanted (wants?) a buffer between it and NATO. They've been warning of this since 2008 (when Bush opened the door to Ukraine joining NATO). Why do I find this more believable? Because it's exactly what imperial powers do. It's exactly what the United States has done. The US almost started World War Three over a Soviet presence in Cuba. The US for 200 years (ie the Monroe Doctrine) has considered the Americas the sole province of the US and any foreign military to be a threat. China does this too. Mongolia is a buffer to Russia. North Korea is a buffer to South Korea (and the significant US military presence there). For Imperialist ambitions to make sense, Russia would have to either occupy Ukraine on a long term basis or install a puppet regime (eg like Belarus). Both are doomed from the start. The Ukraine is too large to occupy and would be too expensive. The USSR couldn't even maintain a puppet government in Afghanistan (and nor could the US obviously).

macintux 4y ago
The USSR “occupied” Ukraine for most of the 20th century, aided and abetted by the Holodomor, so there’s no obvious reason they couldn’t again. Russian state TV is awash with pundits who are asserting the Russian empire should be re-created in Ukraine and the Baltics, and that Ukrainians are subhuman. There’s plenty of reason to believe Putin wants his empire.
- jmyeet 4y ago
  Sure but in the Cold War period, as one data point, the Red Army had between 4 and 5 million soldiers [1]. A lot of people don't realize how much smaller the 21st century great power militaries are in pure manpower terms than the Cold War era, even for the US [2]. Additionally history is a huge factor here. Ukraine came under Soviet control as a consequence of the Russian Empire and this type of imperialism that had been rampant in human history up to this point largely died with World War Two and the onset of the nuclear age. European powers lost their remaining colonies (mostly) in the years following WWII. The US has quite famously lost every war they've been in since 1945. Ukraine as part of the USSR was really a vestige of a bygone era combined with a totalitarian government and a way stronger military than, say, exists now in Russia. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Armed_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Armed_Forces [2]: https://historyinpieces.com/research/us-military-personnel-1954-2014 https://historyinpieces.com/research/us-military-personnel-1...
rmind 4y ago
You are buying too much into the Russian propaganda. First, it is not NATO which expanded "into" the Baltic States and Eastern Europe. These countries voluntarily applied and their diplomats lobbied very hard to get accepted into NATO, precisely because of Russia's aggressive and militaristic policies. Why do you think that these sovereign European nations actually want to be a "buffer"? Why do you think somebody should have a right to constrain their sovereignty? Ukraine was not even close to joining NATO, despite all declarations (moreover, Russia firmly prevented it by orchestrating the War in Donbas). With Finland joining NATO, Russia will now have 1340 km border with NATO. What Putin is going to do about that? It was never about NATO. Look at the origins of the Russian-Ukrainian War (it wasn't just 2013, the cracks started as early as 2004). Moscow always had a distorted view of the Ukrainian history and its sovereignty as an independent nation (despite signing treaties and agreements recognizing it). > For Imperialist ambitions to make sense, Russia would have to either occupy Ukraine on a long term basis or install a puppet regime (eg like Belarus). Both are doomed from the start. The Ukraine is too large to occupy and would be too expensive. The USSR couldn't even maintain a puppet government in Afghanistan (and nor could the US obviously). This is precisely what they tried to do with this invasion, thinking that if the Ukrainian government gets decapitated, the majority of the Ukrainian population would not resist and cooperate. Kremlin massively miscalculated because they started believing their own propaganda and their intelligence would feed the dictator with the information he wanted to hear rather than reality.

koonsolo 4y ago

A few days ago I saw a video where a Fin explained that in the last 1000 years, Russia tried to invade Finland 20 times (I didn't verify this data). He claimed that about every 2 to 3 generations, this happens. This was a real eye-opener for me, and reminds me of a (probably Dutch) expression: A fox loses its hair but not its tricks.

foverzar 4y ago
Thousand years? 20 times seems like a comically tiny amount at that scale. Finland had managed to be both part of Russian Empire, Sweden and hell a lot of other adventures in that huge period. That's like all the way back to Kievan Rus.