7 ms·

Russia has been very clear about their goals. They want to reestablish the Soviet borders (and later to expand them). The only question is who will they invade

by lawn 2y ago

Russia has been very clear about their goals. They want to reestablish the Soviet borders (and later to expand them). The only question is who will they invade first, and will they have capacity to do so?

kombine 2y ago
Russia proved incapable of invading all of Ukraine in 3 years. They do want all of former USSR but it is clearly impossible. And with that in mind, it is criminal and on the Western side to not provide Ukraine with enough military assistance to decisively defeat Russia. I don't know what West is doing, honestly.
- mediumsmart 2y ago
  So true. In Germany alone are about 250000 Ukrainian men of fighting age eager to get back and crush the Russian invasion as soon as the west gives them some gear and a gun. How hard can it be?
  - gitaarik 2y ago
    Well, isn't it because there is threat for a nuclear war, and we should watch out the fight doesn't escalate?
    - plz_throw 2y ago
      Putin said this over and over again and no red line actually startet the nuclear war he threatened everyone with [1]. On the other hand, our reactions to crossing red lines are also nonexistent [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrai...
      - roenxi 2y ago
        > Woodward writes that Biden's national security team at one point believed there was a real threat, a 50 per cent chance, that Putin would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. ~ https://www.9news.com.au/world/new-book-reveals-candid-behind-the-scenes-conversations-of-biden-trump-harris-and-putin/7de56512-ad89-4039-81f7-102754fee09b https://www.9news.com.au/world/new-book-reveals-candid-behin... Hopefully they are exaggerating for effect. A strategy of actively probing for Russia's breaking point is ruinously stupid; when you find it the odds are pretty good that it will be because they are at the point where they are willing to go nuclear. They might try some sort of escalate-to-de-escalate strike on NATO but there must be a pretty decent chance that would just escalate and the Russian command would be aware of that. Not lobbing missiles in to Russia is an entirely reasonable red line. We got all the way through the Afghan war and the Iraq war without anyone launching missiles into the US and that restraint didn't seem to cause any long term problems. Extending similar courtesies to Russia is appropriate.
        somenameforme 2y ago
        FWIW the US is also 100% aware of this. See the Proud Prophet wargames. [1] It was one of the most extensive, largescale, and 'realistic' wargames ever executed. It was essentially working out a variety of military strategies to try to gain an edge over the USSR - demonstrative nuclear strikes, limited-scale nuclear war, decapitation strikes against leadership, and so on. The outcome of literally every single scenario was essentially the end of the world with billions dead and the Northern Hemisphere rendered largely inhospitable. This wargame was carried out in 1983. Its conclusion lead the US military and leadership to change course from the previous pattern of escalation as a means of victory, to de-escalation and collaboration. By 1991 the Soviet Union would collapse with their leaders holding hands with American leaders. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet
        roenxi 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure the military industrial complex has had those leaders replaced with ones of the "let's hit them, they're bluffing" variety. The fact they're even testing the limits they've already broken through seems like a case study in strategic incompetence. AFAIK there is literally nothing in this for the US apart from an opportunity to set China up for greater success. Which, while a noble move, is probably not intentional.
      - somenameforme 2y ago
        Amazing logic. We keep poking this bear and it hasn't yet stirred. Let's poke it even harder. What could go wrong.
        plz_throw 2y ago
        So what is your plan ? Keep ducking away and enabling Russia to live out it's dreams of a new USSR?
        gitaarik 2y ago
        Well, what is wrong with "let them fight out their fight"? Ukraine is not member of NATO, and helping Ukraine too much can escalate things. If Russia attacks another country or group of countries, it's another situation and another story. I understand the threat, and that we shouldn't let us be walked over. But we should also not think that we can do anything without things escalating.
        ben_w 2y ago
        When the only options appear to be nuclear holocaust or nuclear blackmail, it's time to think outside the box. This is easier said than done, of course, but limiting yourself to the dichotomy guarantees one or other outcome.
        somenameforme 2y ago
        This obviously isn't their goal anymore than the Russians are running out of missiles, the ruble is rubble, this 'game-changer' will imminently end the war (instead of obv just escalating it), and so on endlessly. Russia started negotiations to end the war 4 days (!!!) after the war began when, at that point, it wasn't even a war, but little more than some performative demonstrations! And the main thing they wanted is what they've said all along - Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO or host foreign military bases. Everything else was negotiable - they were even willing to compromise on the exact status of Crimea! Then we got good ole Boris Johnson telling Zelensky to 'just fight'. One brilliant leader offering wisdom to another, with the outcome anybody could expect when such minds come together. Notably Putin has also somewhat uncharacteristically shared the details of conversations he was having with Biden shortly prior to the war. And it was again all about Ukraine's NATO status. Biden refused to budge beyond agreeing to delay Ukraine's entry by 10-15 years (which was probably a defacto sort of 'we'll wait until you die' offer). Russian began amassing forces relatively shortly after that conversation.
    - lawn 2y ago
      So, because Russia has nukes we should let them do whatever they want? With that logic we should let them takeover the entire Europe, continuing their genocide until the Holocaust seemed like a small-scale event. Then you can give yourself a pat on the back for a job well done.
- tim333 2y ago
  It is odd. I don't think throughout Biden was willing to say he wanted Ukraine to win and take back it's territories. The drip feed of aid seemed more aimed at having a stalemate. I've seen the theory they were worried that if Putin was defeated his government would collapse and the US was worried what would then happen to Russia's nukes.
ekianjo 2y ago
> Russia has been very clear about their goals. They want to reestablish the Soviet borders Do you have an actual source for that extraordinary claim?
- mola 2y ago
  Russia under the tzar was imperialistic, Russia under communism was imperialistic, why is it extraordinary to believe Russia under Putin is imperialistic? Especially given what it did in Georgia Ukrain and Belarus etc.
  - lionkor 2y ago
    There is a massive difference between belief and fact, and I would expect someone on this forum to know that. If you don't have a source, and you can't find one, then please make clear in your comment that that's your belief, not a fact. This goes for the OP, too
    - nobunaga 2y ago
      Comrad, I would expect you on this forum to not make it so obvious that you are the source of misinformation. Please, make it less obvious
      - lionkor 2y ago
        I'm German, please don't try to belittle someone's point just because you believe them to be from someplace, that's not how it works on this forum. Please go read the guidelines linked at the bottom of the page. Specifically, respond to the strongest possible interpretation of what someone says, not the weakest.
        nobunaga 2y ago
        And im from Mars. Believe me
    - The_Colonel 2y ago
lionkor 2y ago
Source?
fulafel 2y ago
This is overstating it. The actual stated posture is brazen enough not to need exaggeration, stated eg in this 2022 speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_concerning_the_events_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_concerning_the_events_... and the historical background written about here: https://theconversation.com/how-moscow-has-long-used-the-historic-kyivan-rus-state-to-justify-expansionism-178092 https://theconversation.com/how-moscow-has-long-used-the-his... (Soviet union included more states, like the stans)
Applejinx 2y ago
The United States, and not really, no. All their warfare that's effective is the methods used to produce Brexit and elect Donald Trump. That's been way more effective than WWII munitions, and if they were satisfied with that, the world would be 'the Zone' for our lifetimes. But those who control Russia are old, and want land, territory. They've already spoken of wanting Alaska, and once you concede Crimea and Ukraine as 'really first', they'll be wanting to surprise everybody by taking the United States. This is not realistic. They've got the power to destabilize to a shocking extent, but only while unobserved. To actually take territory, formally, from the United States would change a lot, and yet that's their dream. By contrast, they're not fighting Finland first: not because Finland is that much tougher than the US, but because Finland knows them and is prepared.
- coffeebeqn 2y ago
  I’ll have what you’re having. The US is literally the worst place to try to invade on earth

by lawn 2y ago

kombine 2y ago

Russia proved incapable of invading all of Ukraine in 3 years. They do want all of former USSR but it is clearly impossible. And with that in mind, it is criminal and on the Western side to not provide Ukraine with enough military assistance to decisively defeat Russia. I don't know what West is doing, honestly.

mediumsmart 2y ago
So true. In Germany alone are about 250000 Ukrainian men of fighting age eager to get back and crush the Russian invasion as soon as the west gives them some gear and a gun. How hard can it be?
- gitaarik 2y ago
  Well, isn't it because there is threat for a nuclear war, and we should watch out the fight doesn't escalate?
  - plz_throw 2y ago
    Putin said this over and over again and no red line actually startet the nuclear war he threatened everyone with [1]. On the other hand, our reactions to crossing red lines are also nonexistent [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrai...
    - roenxi 2y ago
      > Woodward writes that Biden's national security team at one point believed there was a real threat, a 50 per cent chance, that Putin would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. ~ https://www.9news.com.au/world/new-book-reveals-candid-behind-the-scenes-conversations-of-biden-trump-harris-and-putin/7de56512-ad89-4039-81f7-102754fee09b https://www.9news.com.au/world/new-book-reveals-candid-behin... Hopefully they are exaggerating for effect. A strategy of actively probing for Russia's breaking point is ruinously stupid; when you find it the odds are pretty good that it will be because they are at the point where they are willing to go nuclear. They might try some sort of escalate-to-de-escalate strike on NATO but there must be a pretty decent chance that would just escalate and the Russian command would be aware of that. Not lobbing missiles in to Russia is an entirely reasonable red line. We got all the way through the Afghan war and the Iraq war without anyone launching missiles into the US and that restraint didn't seem to cause any long term problems. Extending similar courtesies to Russia is appropriate.
      - somenameforme 2y ago
        FWIW the US is also 100% aware of this. See the Proud Prophet wargames. [1] It was one of the most extensive, largescale, and 'realistic' wargames ever executed. It was essentially working out a variety of military strategies to try to gain an edge over the USSR - demonstrative nuclear strikes, limited-scale nuclear war, decapitation strikes against leadership, and so on. The outcome of literally every single scenario was essentially the end of the world with billions dead and the Northern Hemisphere rendered largely inhospitable. This wargame was carried out in 1983. Its conclusion lead the US military and leadership to change course from the previous pattern of escalation as a means of victory, to de-escalation and collaboration. By 1991 the Soviet Union would collapse with their leaders holding hands with American leaders. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet
        roenxi 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure the military industrial complex has had those leaders replaced with ones of the "let's hit them, they're bluffing" variety. The fact they're even testing the limits they've already broken through seems like a case study in strategic incompetence. AFAIK there is literally nothing in this for the US apart from an opportunity to set China up for greater success. Which, while a noble move, is probably not intentional.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      Amazing logic. We keep poking this bear and it hasn't yet stirred. Let's poke it even harder. What could go wrong.
      - plz_throw 2y ago
        So what is your plan ? Keep ducking away and enabling Russia to live out it's dreams of a new USSR?
        gitaarik 2y ago
        Well, what is wrong with "let them fight out their fight"? Ukraine is not member of NATO, and helping Ukraine too much can escalate things. If Russia attacks another country or group of countries, it's another situation and another story. I understand the threat, and that we shouldn't let us be walked over. But we should also not think that we can do anything without things escalating.
        ben_w 2y ago
        When the only options appear to be nuclear holocaust or nuclear blackmail, it's time to think outside the box. This is easier said than done, of course, but limiting yourself to the dichotomy guarantees one or other outcome.
        somenameforme 2y ago
        This obviously isn't their goal anymore than the Russians are running out of missiles, the ruble is rubble, this 'game-changer' will imminently end the war (instead of obv just escalating it), and so on endlessly. Russia started negotiations to end the war 4 days (!!!) after the war began when, at that point, it wasn't even a war, but little more than some performative demonstrations! And the main thing they wanted is what they've said all along - Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO or host foreign military bases. Everything else was negotiable - they were even willing to compromise on the exact status of Crimea! Then we got good ole Boris Johnson telling Zelensky to 'just fight'. One brilliant leader offering wisdom to another, with the outcome anybody could expect when such minds come together. Notably Putin has also somewhat uncharacteristically shared the details of conversations he was having with Biden shortly prior to the war. And it was again all about Ukraine's NATO status. Biden refused to budge beyond agreeing to delay Ukraine's entry by 10-15 years (which was probably a defacto sort of 'we'll wait until you die' offer). Russian began amassing forces relatively shortly after that conversation.
  - lawn 2y ago
    So, because Russia has nukes we should let them do whatever they want? With that logic we should let them takeover the entire Europe, continuing their genocide until the Holocaust seemed like a small-scale event. Then you can give yourself a pat on the back for a job well done.
tim333 2y ago
It is odd. I don't think throughout Biden was willing to say he wanted Ukraine to win and take back it's territories. The drip feed of aid seemed more aimed at having a stalemate. I've seen the theory they were worried that if Putin was defeated his government would collapse and the US was worried what would then happen to Russia's nukes.

ekianjo 2y ago

> Russia has been very clear about their goals. They want to reestablish the Soviet borders Do you have an actual source for that extraordinary claim?

mola 2y ago
Russia under the tzar was imperialistic, Russia under communism was imperialistic, why is it extraordinary to believe Russia under Putin is imperialistic? Especially given what it did in Georgia Ukrain and Belarus etc.
- lionkor 2y ago
  There is a massive difference between belief and fact, and I would expect someone on this forum to know that. If you don't have a source, and you can't find one, then please make clear in your comment that that's your belief, not a fact. This goes for the OP, too
  - nobunaga 2y ago
    Comrad, I would expect you on this forum to not make it so obvious that you are the source of misinformation. Please, make it less obvious
    - lionkor 2y ago
      I'm German, please don't try to belittle someone's point just because you believe them to be from someplace, that's not how it works on this forum. Please go read the guidelines linked at the bottom of the page. Specifically, respond to the strongest possible interpretation of what someone says, not the weakest.
      - nobunaga 2y ago
        And im from Mars. Believe me
  - The_Colonel 2y ago

lionkor 2y ago

Source?

fulafel 2y ago

This is overstating it. The actual stated posture is brazen enough not to need exaggeration, stated eg in this 2022 speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_concerning_the_events_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_concerning_the_events_... and the historical background written about here: https://theconversation.com/how-moscow-has-long-used-the-historic-kyivan-rus-state-to-justify-expansionism-178092 https://theconversation.com/how-moscow-has-long-used-the-his... (Soviet union included more states, like the stans)

Applejinx 2y ago

The United States, and not really, no. All their warfare that's effective is the methods used to produce Brexit and elect Donald Trump. That's been way more effective than WWII munitions, and if they were satisfied with that, the world would be 'the Zone' for our lifetimes. But those who control Russia are old, and want land, territory. They've already spoken of wanting Alaska, and once you concede Crimea and Ukraine as 'really first', they'll be wanting to surprise everybody by taking the United States. This is not realistic. They've got the power to destabilize to a shocking extent, but only while unobserved. To actually take territory, formally, from the United States would change a lot, and yet that's their dream. By contrast, they're not fighting Finland first: not because Finland is that much tougher than the US, but because Finland knows them and is prepared.

coffeebeqn 2y ago
I’ll have what you’re having. The US is literally the worst place to try to invade on earth