4 ms·

So it's weird, you've tangled a bunch of stuff together by simplifying it as "Russia" wanting to do something, it's not that simple. From what I can see it's d

by smcl 4y ago

So it's weird, you've tangled a bunch of stuff together by simplifying it as "Russia" wanting to do something, it's not that simple. From what I can see it's driven from what Putin wants, which is clearly not to "protect" anyone from anything but rather to conquer and control Ukraine. I'm sure he'd be willing to sacrifice many lives to achieve this though. As for the people, well the spike in young Russian men escaping the country to avoid being mobilised suggests that the people aren't particularly keen for any fight, brutal or otherwise. I've seen a few interviews with people on the street in Russia where some have expressed support for the war and for mobilisation generally, but that's usually from people who wouldn't be mobilised (older people or women). Those who would be eligible for being mobilised appear to be relatively evenly split between 1. "I don't think about politics" (weirdly common, suspect it's a euphemism for "I don't want to be critical of Putin on camera") 2. "I'm for the war. What, me getting mobilised? It won't happen" 3. "I'm against this, it's stupid, I'll leave if I'm mobilised". There's the odd True Believer, but I suspect they'd change their tune after a few weeks camping outside Bakhmut. So to return to what you said: > If Russia genuinely views this as a war to protect Russians from ethnic cleansing, they’ll fight brutally as long as they can. Well, the person in control doesn't see it that way and the people he'd send in to fight don't seem too enthusiastic to jump into such a brutal fight. It remains to be seen what this implies, however.

danbruc 4y ago
[...] what Putin wants, [...] is [...] to conquer and control Ukraine. What evidence do we have for that? Because that is really important, if you get the goals wrong, you risk making very bad decisions about your response.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- smcl 4y ago
  Ok so let's put it as "conquer and/or control". But really, how else should we interpret one country launching a full-scale invasion of a neighbour while declaring that it doesn't have a historical reason to exist and belongs to them? I just don't know how else we're supposed to interpret this.
  - danbruc 4y ago
    Ok so let's put it as "conquer and/or control". This seems implausible to me. There was never a chance to conquer and control a country the size and population of Ukraine with 200,000 soldiers. When Germany invaded Poland, a country half the size of Ukraine and roughly comparable population, they brought 1.6 million soldiers and two weeks later the Soviet Union attacked from the other side with an additional 0.6+ million soldiers. I can not imagine that Putin would think 200,000 soldiers would be enough, he does not seem to be that kind of idiot. [...] while declaring that it doesn't have a historical reason to exist and belongs to them? This seems to be based on Putins essay »On the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians«, right? The following is also from that essay. Things change: countries and communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect! You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome! [...] The Russian Federation recognized the new geopolitical realities: and not only recognized, but, indeed, did a lot for Ukraine to establish itself as an independent country. And yes, it also talks about historic ties and disputed land and all that stuff, but you can not take this essay and draw the conclusion that Putin wants to conquer Ukraine unless you cherry-pick parts of it. I just don't know how else we're supposed to interpret this. Just as Putin said in his public address after the invasion started, he considers NATO expansion a threat to Russia and Russia will do whatever is necessary to make this not happen.
    - smcl 4y ago
      > I can not imagine that Putin would think 200,000 soldiers would be enough, he does not seem to be that kind of idiot It very nearly was though? Were it not for some hilariously self-inflicted logistical blunders during the early blitz we could've seen Russian tanks rolling through Kyiv and either a peace treaty signed on some very Russian-friendly terms or a rout of a not yet fully prepared or mobilised Ukrainian army in and around the capital and the north. We know now that it didn't transpire, but let's not pretend we didn't all fear the worst when we read the news and saw those maps of Ukraine showing red tendrils of Russian control reaching towards Kyiv. Throw in the suspicion that the Ukrainian army would've been less willing to fight, the surprisingly poor condition of the Russian military, the belief that there would be pockets of pro-Russian sentiment - it's not unreasonable at all to suggest that this was all planned to annex or at least subdue the country. > Just as Putin said in his public address after the invasion started, he considers NATO expansion a threat to Russia and Russia will do whatever is necessary to make this not happen. He also stated that his aim was to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine - isn't that asserting control over the country? To be honest, he's said a lot of things about his "special military operation" - it is impossible not to "cherry-pick". > he considers NATO expansion a threat to Russia I know this is probably not your intent, but this is the exact line all the pro-Russia propaganda guys use - Putin is an uwu smol bean who just feels very threatend and scared. It's applied with mental gymnastics to suggest that this is an inevitable result of NATO's reckless military conquest of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czechia, Slovakia etc (who they suggest joined NATO at gunpoint, rather than because they had been miltarily threatened by Russia or the USSR in the last century). It's a weird one not least because invading Ukraine inevitably led to Finland and Sweden quickly allying with and applying to join NATO. Which was fairly idiotic and brings me back to your original point - I think it comes down to whether what kind of idiot you think Putin is: 1. an idiot with imperial ambitions who did not comprehend how rotten, corrupt and unprepared his military is 2. an idiot who didn't think invading Ukraine cause a Western neighbour they share a ~1300km border with and who they have invaded in the past to join NATO Because he's traded the impossibility of Ukraine joining NATO (so long he ensured Luhansk and Donetsk remained "independent" and Crimea annexed) for an enormous new NATO border. I guess we’ll see - if he’s truly concerned about NATO on his borders he’ll surely be invading Finland right? They’re not yet a member…
FpUser 4y ago
>"Well, the person in control doesn't see it that way" Said person is definitely lunatic but I bet none of us have any real clue on what he sees and why.
- danbruc 4y ago
  Said person is definitely lunatic [...] I would not make this judgment too quickly, rationality paired with ruthlessness is enough to produce some dire outcomes.
  - lostmsu 4y ago
    Nah, never attribute to malice, that which can be reasonably explained by stupidity.
    - danbruc 4y ago
      Looking at the public record of what Putin has said and done, you can probably make a much better case for rational and ruthless than stupid.
      - lostmsu 4y ago
        Maybe before he got senile.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    He is lunatic and lots of other words because he and his cronies actively destroying 2 countries one of which is their own. He is also pathetic as all that huge income from oil, gas, grains, metals etc. got basically stolen. His precious army appears to be a "shining" example of his policies.

by smcl 4y ago

danbruc 4y ago

[...] what Putin wants, [...] is [...] to conquer and control Ukraine. What evidence do we have for that? Because that is really important, if you get the goals wrong, you risk making very bad decisions about your response.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
smcl 4y ago
Ok so let's put it as "conquer and/or control". But really, how else should we interpret one country launching a full-scale invasion of a neighbour while declaring that it doesn't have a historical reason to exist and belongs to them? I just don't know how else we're supposed to interpret this.
- danbruc 4y ago
  Ok so let's put it as "conquer and/or control". This seems implausible to me. There was never a chance to conquer and control a country the size and population of Ukraine with 200,000 soldiers. When Germany invaded Poland, a country half the size of Ukraine and roughly comparable population, they brought 1.6 million soldiers and two weeks later the Soviet Union attacked from the other side with an additional 0.6+ million soldiers. I can not imagine that Putin would think 200,000 soldiers would be enough, he does not seem to be that kind of idiot. [...] while declaring that it doesn't have a historical reason to exist and belongs to them? This seems to be based on Putins essay »On the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians«, right? The following is also from that essay. Things change: countries and communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect! You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome! [...] The Russian Federation recognized the new geopolitical realities: and not only recognized, but, indeed, did a lot for Ukraine to establish itself as an independent country. And yes, it also talks about historic ties and disputed land and all that stuff, but you can not take this essay and draw the conclusion that Putin wants to conquer Ukraine unless you cherry-pick parts of it. I just don't know how else we're supposed to interpret this. Just as Putin said in his public address after the invasion started, he considers NATO expansion a threat to Russia and Russia will do whatever is necessary to make this not happen.
  - smcl 4y ago
    > I can not imagine that Putin would think 200,000 soldiers would be enough, he does not seem to be that kind of idiot It very nearly was though? Were it not for some hilariously self-inflicted logistical blunders during the early blitz we could've seen Russian tanks rolling through Kyiv and either a peace treaty signed on some very Russian-friendly terms or a rout of a not yet fully prepared or mobilised Ukrainian army in and around the capital and the north. We know now that it didn't transpire, but let's not pretend we didn't all fear the worst when we read the news and saw those maps of Ukraine showing red tendrils of Russian control reaching towards Kyiv. Throw in the suspicion that the Ukrainian army would've been less willing to fight, the surprisingly poor condition of the Russian military, the belief that there would be pockets of pro-Russian sentiment - it's not unreasonable at all to suggest that this was all planned to annex or at least subdue the country. > Just as Putin said in his public address after the invasion started, he considers NATO expansion a threat to Russia and Russia will do whatever is necessary to make this not happen. He also stated that his aim was to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine - isn't that asserting control over the country? To be honest, he's said a lot of things about his "special military operation" - it is impossible not to "cherry-pick". > he considers NATO expansion a threat to Russia I know this is probably not your intent, but this is the exact line all the pro-Russia propaganda guys use - Putin is an uwu smol bean who just feels very threatend and scared. It's applied with mental gymnastics to suggest that this is an inevitable result of NATO's reckless military conquest of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czechia, Slovakia etc (who they suggest joined NATO at gunpoint, rather than because they had been miltarily threatened by Russia or the USSR in the last century). It's a weird one not least because invading Ukraine inevitably led to Finland and Sweden quickly allying with and applying to join NATO. Which was fairly idiotic and brings me back to your original point - I think it comes down to whether what kind of idiot you think Putin is: 1. an idiot with imperial ambitions who did not comprehend how rotten, corrupt and unprepared his military is 2. an idiot who didn't think invading Ukraine cause a Western neighbour they share a ~1300km border with and who they have invaded in the past to join NATO Because he's traded the impossibility of Ukraine joining NATO (so long he ensured Luhansk and Donetsk remained "independent" and Crimea annexed) for an enormous new NATO border. I guess we’ll see - if he’s truly concerned about NATO on his borders he’ll surely be invading Finland right? They’re not yet a member…

FpUser 4y ago

>"Well, the person in control doesn't see it that way" Said person is definitely lunatic but I bet none of us have any real clue on what he sees and why.

danbruc 4y ago
Said person is definitely lunatic [...] I would not make this judgment too quickly, rationality paired with ruthlessness is enough to produce some dire outcomes.
- lostmsu 4y ago
  Nah, never attribute to malice, that which can be reasonably explained by stupidity.
  - danbruc 4y ago
    Looking at the public record of what Putin has said and done, you can probably make a much better case for rational and ruthless than stupid.
    - lostmsu 4y ago
      Maybe before he got senile.
- FpUser 4y ago
  He is lunatic and lots of other words because he and his cronies actively destroying 2 countries one of which is their own. He is also pathetic as all that huge income from oil, gas, grains, metals etc. got basically stolen. His precious army appears to be a "shining" example of his policies.