4 ms·

The only reason he wants physical assets is to achieve his objective. Russia is one of the richest nations on earth in terms of natural resources, and Ukrainian

The only reason he wants physical assets is to achieve his objective. Russia is one of the richest nations on earth in terms of natural resources, and Ukrainian land can't add much to that. It's only worth is to show the West that they can't stop him and destroy the belief in the USA/EU/NATO/Democracy. Ukraine was a zero threat to him, but the ideals of the West were his destruction.

talldayo 2y ago
> but the ideals of the West were his destruction. If you earnestly believe that, then he succeeded with his "Little green men" back in 2014. I legitimately think you are being hyperbolic about the "death of democracy" et. al. because the Ukraine incident is not unprecedented. The only thing that's new is America rolling over to give a shit - Crimea already proved to the world that the United States is more interested in domestic security than foreign affairs, and Ukraine is just reconfirming what we already know. And look - while I personally want Ukraine to remain independent, you can't close your eyes to the realpolitik at play. America has virtually no reason to stand against Russia over Ukraine, besides to virtue signal the fact that they still consider Russia an adversary (which nobody really doubted anyways). Europe has a motivation to protect Ukraine to project their power and emphasize their defensive stance, but Ukraine also isn't part of NATO so not every nation is required to mobilize. Russia is the only power that can justify sending braindead-tier infantry waves into a meat grinder for the sake of recouping some USSR nostalgia. Nobody else cares enough, it's plain to see in the mobilizations. > It's only worth is to show the West that they can't stop him and destroy the belief in the USA/EU/NATO/Democracy. That's a very Western perspective. I think you're correct that this is what a lot of NATO members feel right now, but also NATO wasn't attacked. Russia has a lot of objectives in this war, and I feel confident that saying "sowing distrust among NATO members" wasn't the primary goal.

talldayo 2y ago

> but the ideals of the West were his destruction. If you earnestly believe that, then he succeeded with his "Little green men" back in 2014. I legitimately think you are being hyperbolic about the "death of democracy" et. al. because the Ukraine incident is not unprecedented. The only thing that's new is America rolling over to give a shit - Crimea already proved to the world that the United States is more interested in domestic security than foreign affairs, and Ukraine is just reconfirming what we already know. And look - while I personally want Ukraine to remain independent, you can't close your eyes to the realpolitik at play. America has virtually no reason to stand against Russia over Ukraine, besides to virtue signal the fact that they still consider Russia an adversary (which nobody really doubted anyways). Europe has a motivation to protect Ukraine to project their power and emphasize their defensive stance, but Ukraine also isn't part of NATO so not every nation is required to mobilize. Russia is the only power that can justify sending braindead-tier infantry waves into a meat grinder for the sake of recouping some USSR nostalgia. Nobody else cares enough, it's plain to see in the mobilizations. > It's only worth is to show the West that they can't stop him and destroy the belief in the USA/EU/NATO/Democracy. That's a very Western perspective. I think you're correct that this is what a lot of NATO members feel right now, but also NATO wasn't attacked. Russia has a lot of objectives in this war, and I feel confident that saying "sowing distrust among NATO members" wasn't the primary goal.