3 ms·

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

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…
- danbruc 4y ago
  It very nearly was though? I guess we were using the word conquer differently and your usage is probably the more accurate one. Is was thinking of occupying the country and controlling it with force as opposed to marching to Kyiv and overthrowing the government. So I meant that occupying Ukraine with 200,000 soldiers was unrealistic and nothing that I think Putin would attempt. For overthrowing the government on the other hand this seems not to unreasonable and, as you point out, this might actually have been a close call. He also stated that his aim was to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine - isn't that asserting control over the country? My interpretation is that demilitarization means going against increasingly stronger ties to NATO including weapon sales and denazification means going against increasing anti-Russian sentiments. No judgment about the validity of those points implied, I just think it is much more useful to find a interpretation that makes sense in the greater context than ignoring it as incoherent rumbling and making fun of it because Selenskyj is a jew. And I would agree, it is a form of control. I think he really wants Ukraine not in NATO, which is a kind of control, and because he could not get this any other way, he eventually tried to get there by trying to overthrow the government with force. But I am a bit wary of using very general terms like control, every international agreement is a form of control, albeit one where the involved parties agree. So we were probably again using the word control somewhat differently, you more like some control, I more like full control. And, as I said, I think he wants some control but not full control, he wants Ukraine outside of NATO but I don't think he wants Ukraine a part of 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. I mean I am certainly not a pro-Russia propaganda guy, but I still think that this explanation is the most likely one. I don't know what exactly the pro-Russia propaganda guy version looks like and I would certainly not agree with all of it, for example, as you mentioned, nobody forced the eastern NATO members into NATO, but I consider the general idea of Russia being afraid of NATO expansion and this eventually leading to the war as the most likely explanation. Not at last because there is no credible alternative explanation with reasonable evidence for it.
  - smcl 4y ago
    Ah I'm sorry man, it really was honestly not my intent to cast you as some Putin shill but I guess it is bound to appear that way regardless of whether I included the disclaimer :) But I didn't include it flippantly, there was a reason behind why I raised this, I just didn't articulate it very well. The reason I mentioned it is that I've seen this line so many times in the context of these pro-Putin/Z guys and the stuff they copy-paste every time that it nearly lost all meaning to me - it's just line noise that is the same as all the other Putin propaganda. The only way it could be elevated beyond that is if it was validated by Russia also invading Finland (which they definitely won't ... I hope). Because that right there is very real NATO expansion on Russia's doorstep, a massive new NATO border and two very militarily-capable nations joining, in Putin's eyes, an organization hellbent on your destruction. Remember that Ukraine's accession was certainly not guaranteed prior to 2014, was definitely not going to happen while Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea were occupied (since that would mean NATO was suddenly and willingly at war with Russia) and is now a near-certainty if Ukraine succeed in driving Russia out. So it just seems so self-defeating - if the intent is to reduce conflict with NATO and discourage any countries from joining then why do something that demonstrates the value of being a NATO member in a country that was not in the position to become a NATO member? I cannot stress enough how much of a profoundly bone-headed own goal it is, if that was the intent. Sorry I'm maybe just repeating myself at this point. But it just seems more insane a reason to me than a quick patriotic land-grab or some "regime change" does, regardless of what we anyone in the Kremlin says.

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…

danbruc 4y ago
It very nearly was though? I guess we were using the word conquer differently and your usage is probably the more accurate one. Is was thinking of occupying the country and controlling it with force as opposed to marching to Kyiv and overthrowing the government. So I meant that occupying Ukraine with 200,000 soldiers was unrealistic and nothing that I think Putin would attempt. For overthrowing the government on the other hand this seems not to unreasonable and, as you point out, this might actually have been a close call. He also stated that his aim was to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine - isn't that asserting control over the country? My interpretation is that demilitarization means going against increasingly stronger ties to NATO including weapon sales and denazification means going against increasing anti-Russian sentiments. No judgment about the validity of those points implied, I just think it is much more useful to find a interpretation that makes sense in the greater context than ignoring it as incoherent rumbling and making fun of it because Selenskyj is a jew. And I would agree, it is a form of control. I think he really wants Ukraine not in NATO, which is a kind of control, and because he could not get this any other way, he eventually tried to get there by trying to overthrow the government with force. But I am a bit wary of using very general terms like control, every international agreement is a form of control, albeit one where the involved parties agree. So we were probably again using the word control somewhat differently, you more like some control, I more like full control. And, as I said, I think he wants some control but not full control, he wants Ukraine outside of NATO but I don't think he wants Ukraine a part of 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. I mean I am certainly not a pro-Russia propaganda guy, but I still think that this explanation is the most likely one. I don't know what exactly the pro-Russia propaganda guy version looks like and I would certainly not agree with all of it, for example, as you mentioned, nobody forced the eastern NATO members into NATO, but I consider the general idea of Russia being afraid of NATO expansion and this eventually leading to the war as the most likely explanation. Not at last because there is no credible alternative explanation with reasonable evidence for it.
- smcl 4y ago
  Ah I'm sorry man, it really was honestly not my intent to cast you as some Putin shill but I guess it is bound to appear that way regardless of whether I included the disclaimer :) But I didn't include it flippantly, there was a reason behind why I raised this, I just didn't articulate it very well. The reason I mentioned it is that I've seen this line so many times in the context of these pro-Putin/Z guys and the stuff they copy-paste every time that it nearly lost all meaning to me - it's just line noise that is the same as all the other Putin propaganda. The only way it could be elevated beyond that is if it was validated by Russia also invading Finland (which they definitely won't ... I hope). Because that right there is very real NATO expansion on Russia's doorstep, a massive new NATO border and two very militarily-capable nations joining, in Putin's eyes, an organization hellbent on your destruction. Remember that Ukraine's accession was certainly not guaranteed prior to 2014, was definitely not going to happen while Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea were occupied (since that would mean NATO was suddenly and willingly at war with Russia) and is now a near-certainty if Ukraine succeed in driving Russia out. So it just seems so self-defeating - if the intent is to reduce conflict with NATO and discourage any countries from joining then why do something that demonstrates the value of being a NATO member in a country that was not in the position to become a NATO member? I cannot stress enough how much of a profoundly bone-headed own goal it is, if that was the intent. Sorry I'm maybe just repeating myself at this point. But it just seems more insane a reason to me than a quick patriotic land-grab or some "regime change" does, regardless of what we anyone in the Kremlin says.