4 ms·

>They’ve abandoned 2 major objectives Which two objectives? They got their land bridge for Crimea and are almost fully in control of the Donbas. They also have

by yucky 4y ago

>They’ve abandoned 2 major objectives Which two objectives? They got their land bridge for Crimea and are almost fully in control of the Donbas. They also have ensured Ukraine can't join NATO now, unless they want to officially cede all of that land to Russia in exchange for peace, since a requirement to join NATO is that a country be in control of their borders. From a logical standpoint, why would they want Kyiv and western Ukraine? 90% of the natural resources are in the east in addition to the reasons stated above for wanting control of those areas.

oneoff786 4y ago
Kyiv and Kharkiv
- yucky 4y ago
  I actually don't think they've abandoned Kharkiv, and I don't think Kyiv ever really was an objective. Kharkiv makes sense for several reasons (sizable Russian population, proximity to border and located near vast amounts of natural resources) while Kyiv is nothing but problems with no return. Ukraine being able to (at least temporarily) push the Russians from Kharkiv was huge for them, while the attack on Kyiv always seemed like just a list of targets that Russia just wanted to take out early on. Of course, I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes so who really knows.
TMWNN 4y ago
>They also have ensured Ukraine can't join NATO now, unless they want to officially cede all of that land to Russia in exchange for peace, since a requirement to join NATO is that a country be in control of their borders. This was true before the start of the current war in February, and had been true since 2014. Said war has made NATO making some sort of exception for rump Ukraine as member significantly more likely to happen.
SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> From a logical standpoint, why would they want Kyiv You tell me. Russia certainly tried to seize Kyiv in the opening days of the invasion. I think that bloody action carries more weight as a statement of intent, than your question does. Also, I think you were aware of it.
- yucky 4y ago
  They certainly attacked Kyiv, particularly a lot of the infrastructure that could be used to counter Russian efforts in the Eastern part of Ukraine. Attacking and wanting to annex are two different things though, and there is nothing outside of our untrustworthy mainstream news media to suggest they ever planned to occupy the entire country.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    > Attacking and wanting to annex are two different things It's not exactly unrelated. > and there is nothing outside of our ... media to suggest they ever planned to occupy the entire country. Except for you know, the entire invasion. This is sophistry, and weak as well.

by yucky 4y ago

oneoff786 4y ago

Kyiv and Kharkiv

yucky 4y ago
I actually don't think they've abandoned Kharkiv, and I don't think Kyiv ever really was an objective. Kharkiv makes sense for several reasons (sizable Russian population, proximity to border and located near vast amounts of natural resources) while Kyiv is nothing but problems with no return. Ukraine being able to (at least temporarily) push the Russians from Kharkiv was huge for them, while the attack on Kyiv always seemed like just a list of targets that Russia just wanted to take out early on. Of course, I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes so who really knows.

TMWNN 4y ago

>They also have ensured Ukraine can't join NATO now, unless they want to officially cede all of that land to Russia in exchange for peace, since a requirement to join NATO is that a country be in control of their borders. This was true before the start of the current war in February, and had been true since 2014. Said war has made NATO making some sort of exception for rump Ukraine as member significantly more likely to happen.

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago

> From a logical standpoint, why would they want Kyiv You tell me. Russia certainly tried to seize Kyiv in the opening days of the invasion. I think that bloody action carries more weight as a statement of intent, than your question does. Also, I think you were aware of it.

yucky 4y ago
They certainly attacked Kyiv, particularly a lot of the infrastructure that could be used to counter Russian efforts in the Eastern part of Ukraine. Attacking and wanting to annex are two different things though, and there is nothing outside of our untrustworthy mainstream news media to suggest they ever planned to occupy the entire country.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > Attacking and wanting to annex are two different things It's not exactly unrelated. > and there is nothing outside of our ... media to suggest they ever planned to occupy the entire country. Except for you know, the entire invasion. This is sophistry, and weak as well.