4 ms·

In Ukraine it was specifically a change to the political regime, which didn't work. Don't know what the current aim is, could be simply a suppression of Ukrain

In Ukraine it was specifically a change to the political regime, which didn't work. Don't know what the current aim is, could be simply a suppression of Ukraine through continuous damage so that it slowly becomes another Syria over the next decade. There's also damaging "the evil West" in whatever way is possible, mostly by subverting the democratic processes. They did help with a few political movements (help, not necessarily start), we have evidence for that on both sides of the Atlantic. This goal probably didn't change.

rainworld 4y ago
In Ukraine it was specifically a change to the political regime, which didn't work. You’re so anxious to proclaim this over, when the main course hasn’t even begun. And, having read the Zalushny interview, you should know full well that what they need amounts to yet another army, their third in this conflict pretty much. And there’s no indication that they will get it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
danbruc 4y ago
This seems a reasonable explanation to me, the troop size used is much more compatible with going after the government than wanting to conquer the entire country.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  Russia believed that it could achieve a lightning-fast invasion of Kyiv that would enable them to install whichever puppets they wanted, and appear to have put more effort into planning their new puppet government than the actual military invasion. They still do not have the necessary military force to conquer Kyiv, which is a necessary precondition for achieving regime change. However, even a conquest of Kyiv isn't necessarily sufficient to effect regime change; you'd need to demonstrate control of sufficient parts of the country to make a rump government or government-in-exile infeasible. That's likely to require controlling more or less everything east of the Dniper, Kyiv, and Odesa. Or basically everything outside of Western Ukraine around Lviv. In short, Russia did not have anywhere near the military force needed to achieve even their most limited war aims if Ukraine were able to put together any kind of defensive force (which they did).
  - danbruc 4y ago
    That all seems totally reasonable to me, much more reasonable than Putin just wants more land and after Ukraine he would move further west. I especially agree, even if you manage to overthrow the government, it will be a long uphill battle to achieve anything remotely resembling stability. This leads to the next question, why does Putin want a regime change, after all regime change is not an end goal? What other avenues are there towards the underlying goals, i.e. how could he change strategy or where could be ground for a diplomatic resolution?
    - mindslight 4y ago
      It's nonsensical to talk about a "diplomatic resolution" with a counterparty focused on unilateral taking. You offer 10, they demand 20. You offer 15, they demand 30. The only winning move is to offer nothing, because it's not a good faith negotiation. The end scenarios you're looking for are Russia voluntarily retreats out of Ukraine, Putin gone (dead or at the Hague), or Russia isolated as the next North Korea. The alternative is the breakdown of the system of international borders and end of US hegemony. And nobody is in the western world should be taking these for granted in favor of a different empire, despite their well-trodden flaws.
      - danbruc 4y ago
        So you suggest to keep hitting Russia as hard as possible? You know what the Russian policy for nuclear weapons usage says? The Russian Federation retains the right to use nuclear weapons [...] when the very existence of the state is put under threat. I would think twice if hitting Russia as hard as possible - whether militarily or economically - is really in the best interest of everyone. It is certainly in the best interest of the USA, the weaker Russia becomes, the better, more energy to spend on China, but I am very unsure that hitting Russia as hard as possible is in the best interest of Ukraine.
        mindslight 4y ago
        The general question implied by your argument is "Does merely having nuclear weapons allow a country to attack whatever non-nuclear country it wants?"
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Don't know what the current aim is, could be simply a suppression of Ukraine through continuous damage so that it slowly becomes another Syria over the next decade. The current aim may be to continie the war so as to defer the costs of failure. While the war continuing doesn’t guarantee that (see, fall of the Russian Empire), the return and demobilization of troops after a failed war isn’t without risks from those who opposed the war and those who supported it and are angry about the retreat and those who, whatever they thought about the war, are dissatisfied with the post-war conditions, which the war continuing can often defer.

rainworld 4y ago

In Ukraine it was specifically a change to the political regime, which didn't work. You’re so anxious to proclaim this over, when the main course hasn’t even begun. And, having read the Zalushny interview, you should know full well that what they need amounts to yet another army, their third in this conflict pretty much. And there’s no indication that they will get it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

danbruc 4y ago

This seems a reasonable explanation to me, the troop size used is much more compatible with going after the government than wanting to conquer the entire country.

jcranmer 4y ago
Russia believed that it could achieve a lightning-fast invasion of Kyiv that would enable them to install whichever puppets they wanted, and appear to have put more effort into planning their new puppet government than the actual military invasion. They still do not have the necessary military force to conquer Kyiv, which is a necessary precondition for achieving regime change. However, even a conquest of Kyiv isn't necessarily sufficient to effect regime change; you'd need to demonstrate control of sufficient parts of the country to make a rump government or government-in-exile infeasible. That's likely to require controlling more or less everything east of the Dniper, Kyiv, and Odesa. Or basically everything outside of Western Ukraine around Lviv. In short, Russia did not have anywhere near the military force needed to achieve even their most limited war aims if Ukraine were able to put together any kind of defensive force (which they did).
- danbruc 4y ago
  That all seems totally reasonable to me, much more reasonable than Putin just wants more land and after Ukraine he would move further west. I especially agree, even if you manage to overthrow the government, it will be a long uphill battle to achieve anything remotely resembling stability. This leads to the next question, why does Putin want a regime change, after all regime change is not an end goal? What other avenues are there towards the underlying goals, i.e. how could he change strategy or where could be ground for a diplomatic resolution?
  - mindslight 4y ago
    It's nonsensical to talk about a "diplomatic resolution" with a counterparty focused on unilateral taking. You offer 10, they demand 20. You offer 15, they demand 30. The only winning move is to offer nothing, because it's not a good faith negotiation. The end scenarios you're looking for are Russia voluntarily retreats out of Ukraine, Putin gone (dead or at the Hague), or Russia isolated as the next North Korea. The alternative is the breakdown of the system of international borders and end of US hegemony. And nobody is in the western world should be taking these for granted in favor of a different empire, despite their well-trodden flaws.
    - danbruc 4y ago
      So you suggest to keep hitting Russia as hard as possible? You know what the Russian policy for nuclear weapons usage says? The Russian Federation retains the right to use nuclear weapons [...] when the very existence of the state is put under threat. I would think twice if hitting Russia as hard as possible - whether militarily or economically - is really in the best interest of everyone. It is certainly in the best interest of the USA, the weaker Russia becomes, the better, more energy to spend on China, but I am very unsure that hitting Russia as hard as possible is in the best interest of Ukraine.
      - mindslight 4y ago
        The general question implied by your argument is "Does merely having nuclear weapons allow a country to attack whatever non-nuclear country it wants?"

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Don't know what the current aim is, could be simply a suppression of Ukraine through continuous damage so that it slowly becomes another Syria over the next decade. The current aim may be to continie the war so as to defer the costs of failure. While the war continuing doesn’t guarantee that (see, fall of the Russian Empire), the return and demobilization of troops after a failed war isn’t without risks from those who opposed the war and those who supported it and are angry about the retreat and those who, whatever they thought about the war, are dissatisfied with the post-war conditions, which the war continuing can often defer.