3 ms·

It's all about connecting the dots, which are more than the sum of the parts. And taking into account the last 350 years of history. In this context, the abov

It's all about connecting the dots, which are more than the sum of the parts. And taking into account the last 350 years of history. In this context, the above incidents (and the cat-and-mouse games with Sweden) can be seen as shots across the bow. If you look at Transnistria, it's definitely not a random civil war, but very much a proxy conflict (like breakaway republics in Georgia, or what Russia was doing in Eastern Ukraine 2014-2022). In my opinion a random assortment of incidents like the ones you named are hardly enough to draw the conclusion that Putin wants to reestablish the Soviet Union The Soviet Union, no. But what he does want is as much re-establishment as possible of Russia's historical "sphere of influence", and in Putin's mind, of Russia's role as the protector of Slavic culture and Eastern Orthodox values. There are plenty of statements in support of this, all over the place, and very easy to find.

danbruc 3y ago
Personally I think there is no convincing evidence that Russia has a desire to go to war against other countries in eastern Europe, but for the sake of argument I will grant you that. The thing is, just having a desire to go to war with some country is only the first step. Does Russia have the means to do it? Does Russia believe it could win the war? Could Russia win the war? Could they occupy and control the country for long enough that resistance would subside? And maybe to add to the first point, sure, Russia certainly wants as much influence as it can get, but that is no different than every other country. There is of course a wide spectrum of means to achieve this, from economical cooperation, to supporting a coup d'état, to starting a war and a million things in between. Some we would consider legitimate, some not. That Russia would immediately jump to one of the most expensive options requiring a commitment for decades to succeed, that needs some pretty good evidence in my opinion.
- khokhol 3y ago
  That Russia would immediately jump to one of the most expensive options requiring a commitment for decades to succeed, that needs some pretty good evidence in my opinion. That they have done so already in Ukraine is all the evidence we need, in my opinion.
  - danbruc 3y ago
    Only if you think that the goal of the invasion of Ukraine was to annex the entire country or bring it under permanent Russian control. I do not think that this is the case and that the reason of the invasion is solely or at least primarily to prevent NATO expansion into Ukraine. I think that is what essentially all the evidence indicates and that there is essentially no evidence that conquering Ukraine was the goal.
    - khokhol 3y ago
      Only if you think that the goal of the invasion of Ukraine was to annex the entire country or bring it under permanent Russian control. The entire country, no. By all indications, they only wanted to annex about 60 percent of it -- including of course the capital, the entire Black Sea coast, and likely a good chunk of buffer territory. The remaining regions, being almost entirely non-Russian speaking, would have been left as battered rump state, to be perhaps dealt with later. The goal was clearly and unambiguously to wipe independent Ukraine off the map, and to eliminate as many of the intelligentsia on its kill lists as it could find. The remaining population was to be forcibly expelled or assimilated, as has already happened in the occupied regions. All of which, by their planning, would have been basically cakewalk, and over and done in a matter of weeks. Whether they wanted to properly annex 60 percent or 100 percent of Ukrainian territory is irrelevant in this context - and basically amounts to splitting hairs.

danbruc 3y ago

Personally I think there is no convincing evidence that Russia has a desire to go to war against other countries in eastern Europe, but for the sake of argument I will grant you that. The thing is, just having a desire to go to war with some country is only the first step. Does Russia have the means to do it? Does Russia believe it could win the war? Could Russia win the war? Could they occupy and control the country for long enough that resistance would subside? And maybe to add to the first point, sure, Russia certainly wants as much influence as it can get, but that is no different than every other country. There is of course a wide spectrum of means to achieve this, from economical cooperation, to supporting a coup d'état, to starting a war and a million things in between. Some we would consider legitimate, some not. That Russia would immediately jump to one of the most expensive options requiring a commitment for decades to succeed, that needs some pretty good evidence in my opinion.

khokhol 3y ago
That Russia would immediately jump to one of the most expensive options requiring a commitment for decades to succeed, that needs some pretty good evidence in my opinion. That they have done so already in Ukraine is all the evidence we need, in my opinion.
- danbruc 3y ago
  Only if you think that the goal of the invasion of Ukraine was to annex the entire country or bring it under permanent Russian control. I do not think that this is the case and that the reason of the invasion is solely or at least primarily to prevent NATO expansion into Ukraine. I think that is what essentially all the evidence indicates and that there is essentially no evidence that conquering Ukraine was the goal.
  - khokhol 3y ago
    Only if you think that the goal of the invasion of Ukraine was to annex the entire country or bring it under permanent Russian control. The entire country, no. By all indications, they only wanted to annex about 60 percent of it -- including of course the capital, the entire Black Sea coast, and likely a good chunk of buffer territory. The remaining regions, being almost entirely non-Russian speaking, would have been left as battered rump state, to be perhaps dealt with later. The goal was clearly and unambiguously to wipe independent Ukraine off the map, and to eliminate as many of the intelligentsia on its kill lists as it could find. The remaining population was to be forcibly expelled or assimilated, as has already happened in the occupied regions. All of which, by their planning, would have been basically cakewalk, and over and done in a matter of weeks. Whether they wanted to properly annex 60 percent or 100 percent of Ukrainian territory is irrelevant in this context - and basically amounts to splitting hairs.