5 ms·

I recall very similar comments a year ago talking about how there was no way that Putin would attempt to invade Ukraine and it was just American jingoism.

chii 4y ago
While that's true, i think crimea and the associated warm water port (sevastopol) is of strategic value. After the crimean invasion, the mainland of ukraine has cut off the water canal, which meant that the peninsular needs to be constantly supported by the russian mainland. It's not quite sustainable in the long term for russia to do that. The land bridge is their "solution". I don't see taiwan as similarly strategic to china. It's more politically motivated - that taiwan has turned into a democracy that is pro-west, right on their door step, instead of "returning". On the other hand, an invasion of taiwan is something that can be used to quell domestic problems...
- InTheArena 4y ago
  The Russians could have (and indeed should have) just taken Donetsk and Luhansk and protected the waterway if that was their goal. Their goal was (and is) not that. Their goal was the destruction of Ukraine as a country, and it's forced reunification with Russia as a foundational step in the re-emergence of a Russian empire. If you read Chinese defense arguments about Taiwan, they basically make the same hypothesis. Control of Taiwan forces the strategic sublimation of Japan and Korea, and re-establishes a Chinese empire. Dictators don't come up with new ideas.
- mlindner 4y ago
  The "solution" was to not invade Crimea in the first place, forcing Ukraine's hand followed by a second invasion of Ukrainian territory in the west. You're conveniently forgetting that Crimea was not the only territory invaded by Russia.
- zopa 4y ago
  > While that's true, i think crimea and the associated warm water port (sevastopol) is of strategic value. Russia already had naval basing rights is Sevastopol, before the invasion of Crimea. I don’t think the strategic explanations hold up.
  - ilammy 4y ago
    They had it on a lease from Ukraine until 2017. Renegotiation of the lease barely passed Ukraine's parliament back in 2010.
    - riku_iki 4y ago
      they prolonged it for another 30 years I think thanks to pro-Russian president.
      - ilammy 4y ago
        Yes, and then 2014 happened and Russia withdrew from the agreement entirely, since they didn’t really need it anymore.
  - chii 4y ago
    russia wants permanent, irrevocable access, not just rights granted by an uncontrollable gov't. The writing was on the wall at the time - ukraine was leaning towards the west. Not saying this was the only reason for the invasion, but it is a factor.

chii 4y ago

While that's true, i think crimea and the associated warm water port (sevastopol) is of strategic value. After the crimean invasion, the mainland of ukraine has cut off the water canal, which meant that the peninsular needs to be constantly supported by the russian mainland. It's not quite sustainable in the long term for russia to do that. The land bridge is their "solution". I don't see taiwan as similarly strategic to china. It's more politically motivated - that taiwan has turned into a democracy that is pro-west, right on their door step, instead of "returning". On the other hand, an invasion of taiwan is something that can be used to quell domestic problems...

InTheArena 4y ago
The Russians could have (and indeed should have) just taken Donetsk and Luhansk and protected the waterway if that was their goal. Their goal was (and is) not that. Their goal was the destruction of Ukraine as a country, and it's forced reunification with Russia as a foundational step in the re-emergence of a Russian empire. If you read Chinese defense arguments about Taiwan, they basically make the same hypothesis. Control of Taiwan forces the strategic sublimation of Japan and Korea, and re-establishes a Chinese empire. Dictators don't come up with new ideas.
mlindner 4y ago
The "solution" was to not invade Crimea in the first place, forcing Ukraine's hand followed by a second invasion of Ukrainian territory in the west. You're conveniently forgetting that Crimea was not the only territory invaded by Russia.
zopa 4y ago
> While that's true, i think crimea and the associated warm water port (sevastopol) is of strategic value. Russia already had naval basing rights is Sevastopol, before the invasion of Crimea. I don’t think the strategic explanations hold up.
- ilammy 4y ago
  They had it on a lease from Ukraine until 2017. Renegotiation of the lease barely passed Ukraine's parliament back in 2010.
  - riku_iki 4y ago
    they prolonged it for another 30 years I think thanks to pro-Russian president.
    - ilammy 4y ago
      Yes, and then 2014 happened and Russia withdrew from the agreement entirely, since they didn’t really need it anymore.
- chii 4y ago
  russia wants permanent, irrevocable access, not just rights granted by an uncontrollable gov't. The writing was on the wall at the time - ukraine was leaning towards the west. Not saying this was the only reason for the invasion, but it is a factor.