11 ms·

I think everyone agrees that once the Russian army started moving it was to late to stop them invading Ukraine. The issue I have is that "Putin wanted to occupy

by roenxi 3y ago

I think everyone agrees that once the Russian army started moving it was to late to stop them invading Ukraine. The issue I have is that "Putin wanted to occupy Ukraine" is too simplistic. We should be asking why he felt forced to occupy Ukraine. Russia can't realistically afford to do what they're doing, it is ruinous for them too and they all know it. The US strategy is to bleed them white while expending Slavic blood on both sides. Which to be honest is a pretty good and cost-effective strategy locally speaking, I'd actually say it was a good idea except Russia has nukes, oil and strategically the US really need to be working on isolating China which this failed spectacularly at. Russia underestimated how active the US was in Ukraine. They weren't expecting the level of resistance they encountered and it is pretty obvious that Ukraine would have folded immediately if the US wasn't backing them. Given that the Russians are probably moving from fear of NATO and it turns out NATO was conspiring against them in Ukraine, I have difficulty accepting that "Putin wanted this". It looks a lot more like "Putin thought he could find a diplomatic solution and realised the only option left was to invade, but it was too late and didn't send enough forces". If their rationale was the obvious one (fear of NATO moving in Ukraine) then the invasion revealed that not only are those fears justified, but they were in fact underestimating the threat.

simion314 3y ago
If you are not Russian then I am so sorry for you falling for their conspiracies, Russia is not the victim here, they always think of themselvees as a super power that God himself given them the right to screw smaller countries over. I do not think diplomacy could have solved this, only way this could have been prevented if is Kremlin would not have been so corrupt and incompetent, if Putin would have known that the 3 day operation would be at least a 3 year one he would not have started this war. (or special operation if you live in that democratic country where you are not allowed to name a war a way ). I was just reading this https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2023/12/28/russian-poet-sentenced-to-seven-years-in-prison-for-anti-war-verse-en-news https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2023/12/28/russian-poet-sen... Putinists explain how Russia was forced to put people in prison for their opinions.
- me_me_me 3y ago
  > Putinists explain how Russia was forced to put people in prison for their opinions. Only if those poor people did not have opinions - said heartbroken krenlin apparatchik It boggles my mind how people can come up with victim narratives for a conquest war, but here we are.
TheCleric 3y ago
> We should be asking why he felt forced to occupy Ukraine. We can certainly think about that academically, but it matters about as much as why Hitler invaded Poland. The reason matters far less than the fact that sovereign nations have no valid reason to attack another sovereign nation without being attacked first or defending an ally who has been attacked.
mopsi 3y ago
> It looks a lot more like "Putin thought he could find a diplomatic solution and realised the only option left was to invade, but it was too late and didn't send enough forces". Ironically, this is the simplification that you speak of. It is an extremely simple narrative that people are trying to sell as a sophisticated analysis. It completely ignores the immediate 70 years of history still in living memory, and the preceding five centuries. No "scholar" and "expert" pushing this narrative ever speaks about Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and others, about the secret protocol between the USSR and Germany that divided Europe for half a century; about occupied countries and genocide committed by Russians, and the legacy of all that and its influence on the present day. Completely missing. For example, explain within your framework why in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Sweden abandoned neutrality that they had maintained since the Napoleonic era.
- hackandthink 3y ago
  Sweden has been close to NATO for decades. There is not much to explain. It just does not matter very much, Russia would not have invaded Sweden anyway. It's different for the baltic states. They were lucky to be able to join NATO without any major trouble from Russia. Russia was still weak in 2004. I think it was in 2007 that Putin felt strong enough to oppose NATO enlargements in eastern Europe (his speech at Munich security conference). Georgia caved in in 2008, they don't like dying for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The nationalists in Ukraine are less pragmatic, even Minsk 2 was too much for them. https://www.thelocal.se/20220314/explained-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-sweden-joining-nato https://www.thelocal.se/20220314/explained-what-are-the-argu...
  - mopsi 3y ago
    > It just does not matter very much, Russia would not have invaded Sweden anyway. Swedish military experts think otherwise. If Russia were to invade Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, then one could reasonably expect that they would close the Suwalki gap that connects Lithuania and Poland, to cut the land route between them end rest of Europe, and invade the Swedish island of Gotland, to prevent any supply over sea or air routes. It would require an effort comparable to Normandy landings to liberate the invaded countries; unlikely to happen. Hence the Swedish reaction, to prevent that chain of events from starting in the first place: > During the 20th century, infantry, artillery, air force and naval elements were stationed on Gotland as part of Sweden's defense system, until all permanent military units were stood down in 2005. With tensions in Northeastern Europe and Russia escalating in 2014–2015, the Swedish government has taken a new interest in remilitarizing the island. And in September 2016 regular troops were once again stationed on the island, albeit as an interim measure until a permanent garrison could be reestablished. As of 1 January 2018 Gotland has re-established the Gotland Regiment. And even larger policy shift followed the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, from entry into NATO to establishment of joint air force command for Norway, Sweden and Finland - because the scale of Russian aggression against Ukraine made abundantly clear that none of them would be equipped to fight something like that off alone, and that Putin was willing to unleash it without provocation. The typical "america bad" narrative pushed by useful idiots completely fails to explain these developments.
me_me_me 3y ago
> We should be asking why he felt forced to occupy Ukraine That's a hell of a take, I will give you that. I am not even sure where to start off with it. Looking back to europe's past. Poor hitler was forced to attack poland and rest of europe due to Treaty of Versailles. Helpless uncle stalin did same as his oppressed people buckled to outside influences. Your statement is hair away if not already trying to justify the invasion. > The issue I have is that "Putin wanted to occupy Ukraine" is too simplistic Its simplistic but the reasons that caused it are more complicated. For one putin is dreaming of recreating ussr. He made many statements about it, he wrote an academic paper about it too. His power is slipping, he needed a distraction, a win. Dictators need to perpetuate image of being strong and successful - putin riding a bear with AK waving russian flag. That image was degrading as putin's popularity was waining. Natural resource grab. The anexed republic are rich in new oil and other heavy industry. New source of money for putin and his mafia to loot. Growing internal opposition, Navalny while not such saint himself exposed and fought image of putin as beloved ruler
- roenxi 3y ago
  1) The Treaty of Versailles led directly into to WWII. At the time, I would have been strongly with Keynes - it was a stupid treaty, it caused massive amounts of damage, the victors should have negotiated a fair peace and the allied powers may as well have started re-arming immediately on the assumption that war was coming. If you assumed German policy was motivated by some level of cause-and-effect it is hard to avoid that treaty being an expensive mistake. And in the aftermath of WWII, note that the policies were occupation and rebuilding. Indeed, the US's learning "don't do another Versailles" lead to the peaceful reconstruction of Japan and Germany in a way that should be the gold standard for every post-war strategy. 2) Your statement is hair away if not already trying to justify the invasion. If you take a holistic view, you'd probably guess (correctly) that I think this invasion is unjustified, but is in the same class of unjustified invasions as Iraq or Afghanistan - unjustified, they happen from time to time and the best that can be done is just calm the situation down ASAP. It was always a better option to go with more diplomacy and the US should be assisting in that. But the Ukraine invasion wasn't a flight of fancy, everyone who has looked at the topic seriously agrees there is a long backstory of build ups. The only real debate point is which ones are more significant. I think US pressure, since the US is the most powerful entity involved in the war there and it is unlikely that started with Russia crossing the border.

by roenxi 3y ago

simion314 3y ago

If you are not Russian then I am so sorry for you falling for their conspiracies, Russia is not the victim here, they always think of themselvees as a super power that God himself given them the right to screw smaller countries over. I do not think diplomacy could have solved this, only way this could have been prevented if is Kremlin would not have been so corrupt and incompetent, if Putin would have known that the 3 day operation would be at least a 3 year one he would not have started this war. (or special operation if you live in that democratic country where you are not allowed to name a war a way ). I was just reading this https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2023/12/28/russian-poet-sentenced-to-seven-years-in-prison-for-anti-war-verse-en-news https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2023/12/28/russian-poet-sen... Putinists explain how Russia was forced to put people in prison for their opinions.

me_me_me 3y ago
> Putinists explain how Russia was forced to put people in prison for their opinions. Only if those poor people did not have opinions - said heartbroken krenlin apparatchik It boggles my mind how people can come up with victim narratives for a conquest war, but here we are.

TheCleric 3y ago

> We should be asking why he felt forced to occupy Ukraine. We can certainly think about that academically, but it matters about as much as why Hitler invaded Poland. The reason matters far less than the fact that sovereign nations have no valid reason to attack another sovereign nation without being attacked first or defending an ally who has been attacked.

mopsi 3y ago

> It looks a lot more like "Putin thought he could find a diplomatic solution and realised the only option left was to invade, but it was too late and didn't send enough forces". Ironically, this is the simplification that you speak of. It is an extremely simple narrative that people are trying to sell as a sophisticated analysis. It completely ignores the immediate 70 years of history still in living memory, and the preceding five centuries. No "scholar" and "expert" pushing this narrative ever speaks about Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and others, about the secret protocol between the USSR and Germany that divided Europe for half a century; about occupied countries and genocide committed by Russians, and the legacy of all that and its influence on the present day. Completely missing. For example, explain within your framework why in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Sweden abandoned neutrality that they had maintained since the Napoleonic era.

hackandthink 3y ago
Sweden has been close to NATO for decades. There is not much to explain. It just does not matter very much, Russia would not have invaded Sweden anyway. It's different for the baltic states. They were lucky to be able to join NATO without any major trouble from Russia. Russia was still weak in 2004. I think it was in 2007 that Putin felt strong enough to oppose NATO enlargements in eastern Europe (his speech at Munich security conference). Georgia caved in in 2008, they don't like dying for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The nationalists in Ukraine are less pragmatic, even Minsk 2 was too much for them. https://www.thelocal.se/20220314/explained-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-sweden-joining-nato https://www.thelocal.se/20220314/explained-what-are-the-argu...
- mopsi 3y ago
  > It just does not matter very much, Russia would not have invaded Sweden anyway. Swedish military experts think otherwise. If Russia were to invade Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, then one could reasonably expect that they would close the Suwalki gap that connects Lithuania and Poland, to cut the land route between them end rest of Europe, and invade the Swedish island of Gotland, to prevent any supply over sea or air routes. It would require an effort comparable to Normandy landings to liberate the invaded countries; unlikely to happen. Hence the Swedish reaction, to prevent that chain of events from starting in the first place: > During the 20th century, infantry, artillery, air force and naval elements were stationed on Gotland as part of Sweden's defense system, until all permanent military units were stood down in 2005. With tensions in Northeastern Europe and Russia escalating in 2014–2015, the Swedish government has taken a new interest in remilitarizing the island. And in September 2016 regular troops were once again stationed on the island, albeit as an interim measure until a permanent garrison could be reestablished. As of 1 January 2018 Gotland has re-established the Gotland Regiment. And even larger policy shift followed the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, from entry into NATO to establishment of joint air force command for Norway, Sweden and Finland - because the scale of Russian aggression against Ukraine made abundantly clear that none of them would be equipped to fight something like that off alone, and that Putin was willing to unleash it without provocation. The typical "america bad" narrative pushed by useful idiots completely fails to explain these developments.

me_me_me 3y ago

> We should be asking why he felt forced to occupy Ukraine That's a hell of a take, I will give you that. I am not even sure where to start off with it. Looking back to europe's past. Poor hitler was forced to attack poland and rest of europe due to Treaty of Versailles. Helpless uncle stalin did same as his oppressed people buckled to outside influences. Your statement is hair away if not already trying to justify the invasion. > The issue I have is that "Putin wanted to occupy Ukraine" is too simplistic Its simplistic but the reasons that caused it are more complicated. For one putin is dreaming of recreating ussr. He made many statements about it, he wrote an academic paper about it too. His power is slipping, he needed a distraction, a win. Dictators need to perpetuate image of being strong and successful - putin riding a bear with AK waving russian flag. That image was degrading as putin's popularity was waining. Natural resource grab. The anexed republic are rich in new oil and other heavy industry. New source of money for putin and his mafia to loot. Growing internal opposition, Navalny while not such saint himself exposed and fought image of putin as beloved ruler

roenxi 3y ago
1) The Treaty of Versailles led directly into to WWII. At the time, I would have been strongly with Keynes - it was a stupid treaty, it caused massive amounts of damage, the victors should have negotiated a fair peace and the allied powers may as well have started re-arming immediately on the assumption that war was coming. If you assumed German policy was motivated by some level of cause-and-effect it is hard to avoid that treaty being an expensive mistake. And in the aftermath of WWII, note that the policies were occupation and rebuilding. Indeed, the US's learning "don't do another Versailles" lead to the peaceful reconstruction of Japan and Germany in a way that should be the gold standard for every post-war strategy. 2) Your statement is hair away if not already trying to justify the invasion. If you take a holistic view, you'd probably guess (correctly) that I think this invasion is unjustified, but is in the same class of unjustified invasions as Iraq or Afghanistan - unjustified, they happen from time to time and the best that can be done is just calm the situation down ASAP. It was always a better option to go with more diplomacy and the US should be assisting in that. But the Ukraine invasion wasn't a flight of fancy, everyone who has looked at the topic seriously agrees there is a long backstory of build ups. The only real debate point is which ones are more significant. I think US pressure, since the US is the most powerful entity involved in the war there and it is unlikely that started with Russia crossing the border.