Putin's first mistake is to have underestimated the Ukrainian resistance and to have overestimated his own forces.
He also directly strengthened NATO and the role of the US, the European nations saw through the aid to Ukraine that the US is a reliable ally and that it is indispensable for their security, in addition to strengthening the European and American military presence in Poland etc. Without forgetting Finland which became the new member state of NATO.
At the economic level Putin has put his country in international sanctions of an unprecedented magnitude, and despite the circumvention of sanctions in different ways, he has made his country extremely dependent on China which is not very good.
And finally on the ground today it seems unlikely that Russia will take over the whole of Ukraine.
How could Putin have miscalculated the interests of his country?
This presumes that Mr. Putin did miscalculate the interests of his country. While there is no doubt that he has made several tactical errors, in fact Russia's position is not so dire as it has been made out to be.
To start, in purely military terms there would seem to be a fair case that Mr. Putin underestimated Ukraine's capacity to resist a Russian invasion. Insofar as Mr. Putin seems to have attempted the contemporary version of a blitzkrieg, he failed however.
However, historically speaking, "lightning war," and quick victories have not been Russia's specialty. See also the Winter War of 1939-1940 between the USSR and Finland. The Finns were stunningly effective in repulsing the initial Soviet surprise attack. Yet the Soviets (Russians) absorbed the loss, withdrew and then counterattacked in a slow steamroller offensive that simply overwhelmed Finland.
In short, Finland was defeated not by the USSR's lightning strike, but by its subsequent slow motion steamroller offensive that relied not on Soviet tactical acumen, but rather on Moscow's sheer weight of numbers. A pattern that has been repeated throughout Russian history.
See also Russia's defeat of Napoleon. See also its defeat of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. In both cases the attackers relied on strategic flexibility, tactical dexterity and the element of surprise, and while initially victorious, were ultimately defeated by Russia's strategic depth and sheer weight of numbers.
As one German general put it, "The German army attacking the Soviet Union is like an elephant attacking a host of ants. The elephant may kill thousands, perhaps even millions of ants. Yet in the end the ants sheer weight of numbers will overwhelm the elephant and it will be eaten to the bone."
This is what Ukraine faces. In the long run, in purely military terms, it cannot win. It lacks the strategic depth. Moreover, to prevail, the Ukrainians would have to march all the way to Moscow and this they lack the power and resources to accomplish. Thus, barring unforeseen diplomatic or great power military interventions, the Ukrainians are in a "no-win" situation.
As to the diplomatic and economic factors, the problem is that the great powers have bigger fish to fry. In economic terms, this is not the first time that Russia has faced serious economic sanctions and, in any case, these are increasingly being offset by other powers with no interest in Ukraine and who believe that there is something to be gained by supporting Russia.
Thus the Arab states have been sending oil to Russia. Thus China has been doing end runs around the sanctions. Not to mention that the Russian people have a long history of enduring economic hardship.
As far as Western unity, it is illusory. So far the NATO sanctions, broadly speaking, have held. However, Germany has quietly sought to expand trade with Russia. The USA has an interest in Ukraine not losing the war, but with other global fish to fry it has no particular interest in Ukraine emerging victorious. Italy has been generally hostile to Russia but has muted that somewhat to appease Turkey which - in order to counter Iran - has taken a softer line on Russia than has been historically the case.
In short, while it is arguable that Mr. Putin, insofar as he was seeking a quick victory, may have overestimated Russian power, over the long run he is playing out Russia's historic role - both military and diplomatic - with uncanny effectiveness. In short, the West needs to take Russia more seriously and to stop patting itself on the back for victories it has presumed but not actually won.
Yes, but the situation was slightly different in 39-40, and the USSR did not succeed in taking all of Finland's territory, even though Finland was dispossessed of 10% of its territory and 20% of its industrial potential under the terms of the Moscow Treaty. It also ceded one of the country's largest cities, Vyborg (Viipuri in Finnish). However, the Finns retained their sovereignty and gained international recognition, with propaganda elevating the notion of sisu (the Finnish spirit of tenacity) to a national myth.
Many people questioned the military capacity of the USSR, including Hitler himself. The rest of the war was different because the USSR benefited from very important economic and logistical support from the USA and even from the United Kingdom, which took part in the continuation war alongside the Russians.
Today, even if we have to nuanced qualify a "Russian failure", after all the war is far from being over, but honestly I have difficulty to see a great success. First of all the USA and the West do not support Russia anymore as it was the case during the second world war, and even if Russia has found alternative means in fact Putin has enlarged the dependence of his country on China, although I suppose that Putin will try to counterbalance this by establishing closer relations especially in Africa and South America which are quite sensitive to the Russian discourse.
Moreover, Putin who denounced the presence of NATO has succeeded in doing the opposite because today there is a new NATO member state close to Russia.
And Kissinger himself said quite recently "Before this war, I was opposed to Ukraine becoming a member of Nato because I feared that it would cause exactly the process that we see now" "But now that this process has reached this level, a neutral Ukraine under these conditions would no longer make sense," he stressed by video conference, adding that "a membership of Ukraine in Nato would be an appropriate outcome" once the conflict is resolved.
I understand that Ukraine is the opening of the former Russian Empire and then the former USSR on the Black Sea, at the southern end of the great isthmus linking northern and southern Eastern Europe. This isthmus is a commercial and strategic route of primary importance, since it leads to the Mediterranean and thus allows Russia to escape the curse of continental isolation. Add to this the fact that Ukraine is one of the most important producers of cereals and that Ukraine would offer Russia an additional strategic depth.
Therefore believe me I do not see in this conflict a bad guy or good guys, I understand that we are in the "Realpolitik", However for the moment for the reasons cited above I do not feel that this story for the moment leaves well for the Russians...
Well, if your argument is that if things were different, they would be different, I can't argue with that. Obviously if the Russians could have scored a quick victory, they would have done so.
However, to take that to the next step - i. e. to assume that Russia failed to get a quick victory the West will triumph and Ukraine emerge victorious - is a step too far. In terms of resources, numbers and the solidity of its' alliances, Russia is in a far stronger position that commentators in the West give it credit for.
The West - post-Cold War - is subsumed in a sense of self-satisfaction and overconfidence that is NOT borne out by current circumstances. The West is far more divided, its societies in tumults not seen since the 1960s and 70s, that do not conduce to the successful assertion of Western interests. Indeed, even in the United States the Republicans - typically the more hawkish of the two parties - is badly divided over whether the US even has ANY strategic interests in Ukraine. Suffice to say, given the West's internal divisions and given Russia's unlimited resources as compared to Ukraine, it is far too optimistic to assume that Putin is losing.
Has Putin made mistakes? Yes. However, they hardly reach the level of fatal errors and, as someone once said, even in the most successful of campaigns, there will be a litany of failures and mistakes along the way.
P. S. By the way, I meant to mention two other things.
As far as Finland and the 1939-1940 Winter War, the Finns were able to retain their sovereignty and much of their territory - though they lost key bits of territory including near what was then Leningrad - because Germany successfully invaded Denmark and Norway. This then causing the Soviets to hold back, keeping Finland as a sort of neutral zone and also allowing Stalin to consolidate his forces at key strategic points.
It was NOT Finnish tenacity that saved Finland. Rather, it was the fact that Stalin had to deal with Germany and that worked to Finland's advantage. (Indeed, as you recall, in due course, Finland joined the Axis alliance.)
As far as you losing sight of realpolitik, I don't think you have. Rather, I think you have miscalculated the nature of the balance of power within that realpolitik context. For you - as for me - this is not about democracy vs. dictatorships and other ideological issues. Rather it is about where we see the material balance of power playing out and who has the advantage in that context.
Finally, as to Dr. Kissinger, please note what he said. Ukraine being in NATO is a logical outcome of a Ukrainian victory.
Hard to argue with that, if Russia's power is broken, NATO needs to step in to fill the void. However, as long as the conflict is ongoing, NATO membership is out of the question. Also, of course, if Russia wins, such membership will not be an option.
One last thing: If, in your estimation, Russia has fatally miscalculated, please explain how that plays out. How does Ukraine win? What does that victory look like and how are the Russians defeated? Base your scenario on a comparison of the resources that each side has and on the basis of what we currently know of each side's resources.
For the moment, Ukraine has managed to take back 20,000 km of land and has succeeded in its winter campaign, the Russian attempts during this period having failed. And if we look at the evolution of the control of the territory since then, Russia has conquered only 0,02 per cent of the Ukrainian territory, which represents 70 km2 (I speak for March). At the present rate it would take several centuries for Russia to conquer only the Donbass, we can see that in the long run at this rate the war will not be sustainable.
At the material level we observe a certain stability, for every 15 Russian materials destroyed, there are 4 on the Ukrainian side every day since the beginning of the year. And since the beginning of the war we observe more important losses on the Russian side. This forces Russia to use its stockpiles and older equipment. And Russia, for example, is losing 5 times more tanks than it is able to produce.
In terms of human losses, it is very difficult to estimate, but it is estimated that the Ukrainians lost about 130 thousand soldiers, while the Russians lost more about 200 thousand soldiers.
So if we look at the material perspectives we are on a trend that cannot change, that is to say that the Russian army is structurally less and less equipped (which increases even more the destruction rate), these units cannot compensate for its losses, especially since the only country that really helps Russia is Iran through the sending of drone etc, even China for example following its last state visit despite the great declarations has withdrawn its largest logistics company which will no longer trade with Russia, and the Americans have put enough pressure on China not to provide military equipment to large scale. On the contrary, the West, and especially the US, is sending massive amounts of equipment and quality intelligence to Ukraine. Even the United Arab Emirates is sending equipment to Ukraine and the list of countries that help Ukraine is growing. In sum, none of Russia's partners is able to provide it with what the West is providing to Ukraine, which again forces the Russians to use older and older equipment in its stocks, and Russia is in industrial incapacity to keep up with the pace, it can only hold on to its old stocks, but even its stocks are dwindling.
Now we have to wait for the Ukrainians counter-offensive, if during their offensive the Ukrainians lose as many soldiers as the Russians did If during their offensive the Ukrainians lose as many soldiers as the Russians did during their last offensive then the front will stabilize, on the contrary if the Ukrainian counter-offensive resembles the one they did between September and November, we can bet that they will continue to progress by successive waves as long as the allies will continue to support them, because I don't bet on a collapse of the Russian army if locally with its advances.
So even though I wouldn't say that Ukraine is going to win the war, based on everything we know, I don't see a Russian victory. Probably they will have to find a compromise.
Agree with you on the last point. My only point is that, for all the ballyhooing about how well Ukraine is doing, my point is that it is not going to be good enough.
Russia can continue to absorb blow after blow and keep going. It has both the space and the material resources to continue the fight in a way that Ukraine does not.
Indeed, Ukraine's position is, ironically, approximately that of Germany in WWII. The Ukrainians can win victory after victory - and yet still cannot win the war. As I have said, the Ukrainians would have to march all the way to Moscow to win the war. This they obviously cannot do.
So then, what does a compromise look like? The Russians have a staying power and a presence on Ukrainian soil that will be hard to dislodge. Moreover, on the off chance that the Russians are completely driven off Ukrainian soil, do you believe that Putin would be willing to negotiate a compromise peace at that point?
For that matter, if there is a compromise peace, will Russia not demand - as part of that compromise - that Ukraine remain outside NATO? In that event, would Ukraine be willing to continue a war that is costing it dearly so that it can join NATO?
As I said before, Putin has made mistakes - human beings tend to do that - but overall, on balance. he had the advantage and retains it. The West has been far too complacent about Ukraine's prospects.
For the moment we observe that Russia is unable to follow industrially the capacities of the number of materials and the quality that the Westerners provide to Ukraine. This forces it to use up its stocks of very old equipment, which still does not compensate for the loss of equipment suffered.
And if the two countries are forced to make a compromise peace, it will be largely a half success for the Russians who will be far from having succeeded in their military objectives that they had set at the beginning of the war. For Ukraine no one expected that it would still be there, therefore a compromise peace in relation to what was promised as a future to Ukraine, will be something miraculous and they will have managed to limit the damage, by still having a country, when we know that everyone thought that Ukraine would not exist after a few weeks.
If Russia would take the whole of Ukraine it would not be a good thing for the credibility of the Westerners and Russia would risk to come out stronger from this war. This is not a good prospect.
I would like to add a few things that are not very important for our topic, but as you mentioned, I would like to say that Napoleon was not defeated by the number of soldiers that the Russians could oppose to the French army during the Russian campaign.
You have set a rather low bar for a Ukrainian victory. They secure a compromise because they were not expected to is not exactly a measure of victory.
Rather, it is what that compromise looks like and who will have the stronger negotiating position. What I don't hear from you is what it is that will force Russia to the table. There is nothing to dat that suggests, for all its' difficulties, that Russia sees any need or has any motive to seek a compromise.
Again, in that connection, what would that compromise look like? Who has the greater resources in terms of the size of their populations, territories, economies and so on?
The problem with your point about Napoleon is that you have reduced the formula to a simple question of manpower. It was more than that. You must take a measure of the resources - manpower, raw materials, territory, etc. - that each side can bring to bear.
Again, you need to make the case that - based on the totality of their resources - Ukraine has the advantage. By a strict geopolitical and economic analysis, I would be hard pressed to say that Ukraine holds the high cards.
Indeed, with Russian soldiers on its's soil, the odds are that any compromise between Russia and Ukraine will come at the price of lost territory and population and a reduction in its diplomatic maneuvering room. Russia holds the knife, however inexpertly it may wield it any given moment.
Ukraine doesn't have the necessary resources alone, with western help the situation is slightly different, because once again Russia is unable to follow industrially the losses that occur, they are forced to draw from their old stocks of material, while Ukraine receives a massive amount of quality material, and all we can see is that Russia can't keep up, which explains why the great Russian offensive has failed miserably with losses of material twice as important on the Russian side than the Ukrainian side.
Besides, compared to the beginning of the war, the Russians have been forced to drastically reduce their attack capabilities, even the missile attacks have been drastically reduced, besides, because of the sanctions, the Russians are even forced to use anti-missile missiles as attack missiles
Therefore, as long as there will be Western aid at the material level that delivers material in number and quality, Russia will be unable to follow industrially the quality and quantity, which again forces them today to use their old stocks and sends on the field more and more old tanks for example.
The day when the Western aid will stop, then the Russians will take the advantage in terms of material capacities etc., for the moment it is not the case.
As for your reflection on Napoleon it is not understandable, in no case the Russians were able to align as many resources, man, quality of materials etc. as France.
Unfortunately @nightdrot , Julie refuses to reason on this subject. Ukraine will not win the war because it is a war of attrition and the West will not spend its time to provide equipment to Ukraine, when this moment arrives then Ukraine will lose. Russia will confirm its place as the 3rd world geopolitical power, despite a weaker economy (for those who know history, Russia has often had a weak economy, but thanks to its military power and resources has always been able to impose itself as a geopolitical giant).
Moreover, thanks to this victory, some countries will seek to ally themselves with Russia for their security and the credibility of the West will be weakened.
@Matthias345 Well, @julie4 is a good person, she is just prone to a bit of unwarranted optimism. As someone once said, "The optimist believes that we are living in the best of all possible world - and the pessimist fears that he is right."
The French had a larger army to start because they had fully mobilized whereas Russia had not. Yet the bottom line is that France was defeated because of a lack of resources compared to its' opponents.
Russia has a GDP of 1.78 trillion (USD). Ukraine, by comparison, has a GDP of 200 billion (USD.)
Russia has a population of 144.5 million. Ukraine has a population of 44.6 million.
By any measure Russia has the larger resources to draw on. Add in that Ukraine is not a vital interest to the USA - which is to say the USA does not Ukraine to win, only not to loose. Suffice to add that a Chinese move against Taiwan will cripple the USA by forcing it to divide its' resources and leave Ukraine helpless.
Bottom line, if absolutely NOTHING changes, Ukraine may endure. That said, we know enough to know that the only constant - particularly in the boiling pot that is the international arena - is change. More to the point, by measuring the resources that each side has and what they can bring to bear, the West as a whole is, at this time, at serious risk.
The Tsar himself knew that alone he could not beat the French army, that only the participation in large coalitions would allow Russia to win. The Russians had once confronted the French army alone in the battle of Friedland, which cost Russia a lot of money and soldiers , and they were forced to sign the Treaty of Tilsit. In the previous wars it was in the framework of coalition and they had lost too.
Russia could not align as many soldiers as France, that's why the Tsar Alexander instead of facing directly the French army preferred to practice the tactic of the scorched earth although at the beginning he had planned with the general Koutozov to oppose an army to Napoleon what will be a failure because in only one day the Russian army had lost 45 thousand soldiers, what obliged Koutozov to abandon the ground and to practice the scorched earth. The disease, the famine, the winter, at decimate the French army not the Russian army.
For Ukraine I just say that as long as Ukraine will have the western help, it will hold
No need to answer this last message, because the Russian campaign of the 19th century was not our subject and we have already said everything about Ukraine.
I hope you and your family are well, give them a kiss for me đ
@nightdrot , I like Julie but like many people in the West her heart is on the Ukrainian side, which prevents her from having a correct analysis of the situation.
@Matthias345 Well, there is a strong tendency in the West to allow one's wishes to become the father to one's thoughts.
However, what has interested me about this discussion is that she is offering us a perspective from a French citizen. She is much more positive about Ukraine's situation than I have seen from Americans and that surprised me. (This leaving aside the actual facts of the argument.)
You and I are on the same page and - if I may add - I thought you captured brilliantly the state of affairs between Russia in Ukraine in just one paragraph what I have been articulating in pages of writing.
Still, the stereotype is that Americans are the irrepressible optimists and the Europeans are more skeptical. Suffice to say, in this case, it appears to be the reverse.
@nightdrot Thank you very much for your compliments, we have already exchanged in the past and I have always appreciated your politeness and the fact that you always take the time to explain your answers. It is rare on the networks to have courteous exchanges.
It's funny because despite the validity of some of Julie's arguments she seems to focus only on the details and she forgot the big picture.
Oh yes she is an optimist, we will keep it a secret for us but I think it's her American side.
I made a mytake on it at the start of the war which holds up pretty well but to summarize the situation, Putin had good reasons to believe that Russia would be able to win over Ukraine with very little resistance.
First of all, Putin has actually attempted to modernize his military for a very long time, both by pumping a ton of money into it (which all disappeared into various officials pockets) and by trying to instill various kinds of nationalism and pride to try combat the corruption in question. The Wagner group for example was an attempt to create a more professional unit and arguably that has worked to some degree but he also tried to use the legacy of the Soviet Union by handing out the name "Guard" for elite units such as the first guards army or the first guards tank army.
These guard titles are a big deal in Russian culture.
Suffice to say, no matter how much money he pumped into the military or any of his other schemes he could not fix the fundamental problem in the end.. But he was not informed of how bad the situation actually was. Why? Because corruption. The people in the army did not perform their duties and the people whos job it was to oversee and control check were also corrupt and they did not do their job either. All Putin got on his desk was reports that everything was just as it should be.
Of course, Putin is not that stupid. He knew there was problems but in this case he massively underestimated just how BAD it actually was and in the end he simply did not have the tools to actually find out before it was too late.
As for the situation in Ukraine, Putin believed he had a pretty good read on the situation. Putin comes from a career in the KGB and he has always been biased towards covert operations as a result. Putin puts heavy emphasis on pretty much every aspect of intelligence and counter intelligence which is why Russia keeps messing with everyone through covert means such as hacking or assassinations etc..
He put in quite a lot of preparations before the event with countless agents and people working to undermine Ukraine and ease the invasion. However, here once again corruption bit him on the arse. More specifically people not doing their jobs again. Perhaps they did not believe an invasion was going to happen or whatever, but from what I have heard there was a bunch of agents that made false reports about how they had organized groups of people to help with Russias causes and would help fight a guerilla war in the event of an invasion but of course, the agent would need some resources to train and arm them.. monetary resources.. cash.. which they just put in their own pockets instead. So Putin was probably under the assumption that he had a veritable army of partisans that would help him inside the country already but they never actually existed.
After the failure in Ukraine, Putin has been especially ruthless in punishing his own secret service just to give you an idea of just how badly they screwed up for him which must suck since that was his "baby" so to speak.
But the biggest problem with the intelligence work was that they were working with old information. During the invasion Russia has been seen working with old soviet maps and intelligence from before the collapse, which is fine and all since the Soviet Union produced good quality shit when it comes to spying but because it is hopelessly out of date they keep making basic mistakes like attacking old locations or making bad assumptions about the strength of things.
Ukraine has made HUGE changes ever since Russia invaded and occupied Crimea and other parts in 2014. Russia has done a very bad job of updating their information on Ukraine ever since so they believed they were going to face the same or a similar country from Ukraine back then which they fairly easily crushed. But Ukraine is no longer the same country. They have been at war with the Russian backed separatist states ever since 2014 troops have been gaining real combat experience before being cycled out and replaced with new troops resulting in hundreds of thousands of reservists with recent combat experience.
One thing that was truly out of left field that I dont think anyone predicted however was just how powerful of a leader Zelenskyy would become. Before the war he was not that popular and struggled keeping the country together. He also used to be a wacky comedian and actor so people did not think he would be particularly brave or effective a leader if Russia invaded. More the type to run away from the country like his predecessor. But Zelenskyy has turned out to be a pretty effective leader in unifying the country against an outside enemy which has ruined many Russians plans in this war.
So Ukraine looked to be the same country that Russia easily steamrolled in 2014 and Putin believed his military and intelligence service was primed for an easy win. What else?
Domestically, Russia has been preparing for western sanctions for a very long time. Because Russia exports a bunch of oil and such, they can very easily build up reserves of gold and foreign currency so that they can pretty much ignore normal sanctions indefinitely. This turned out to be only somewhat true, Russia DOES have immense resources but they lost control over large parts of it when various countries froze their assets and this resulted in various problems. For example, I think Russia defaulted on a bunch of loans because they simply could not use their US dollars in the bank and the loan participants did not want to be paid in Russia Rubles so they had the money, just in the wrong currency.
Russia also was forced to trade a bunch with China but China also did not want Rubles so they have literally been forced to fly planes to China loaded up with gold for trading. So overall, the economic aspect worked fairly decently for Russia outside of the small complications, they just did not expect the war to drag on for so long.
Now, lets talk about diplomacy. More specifically, what Russia believed the EU and USA would be doing as well as poking a bit at China. This is getting much longer than I anticipated so I am just going to state a few things. NATO has been in trouble for a while now. Among the problems is how USA dragged NATO into Afghanistan after 9/11 which no one is happy about and the fact that Turkey, who is a NATO member has been causing problems since they are increasingly aligning with Russia and sabotaging NATO from the inside. There has also been a bunch of drama with USA becoming ever more isolationist and bitching about the 2% GDP contribution to army spending that NATO is supposed to uphold.
The EU was also looking fairly weak especially after the UK left which was partially achieved through Russian secret service controlling the situation from behind the curtains. Putin had fairly good reasons to believe that neither were interested/in a position to do much if Russia invaded Ukraine unless the war dragged on for too long. Suffice to say, that Russia became a good motivator for USA and the EU to get their act together. Then lets talk briefly about China, more specifically about how China also wants to start a war to invade Taiwan and how they are NOT FUCKING HAPPY with Russia failing so badly in Ukraine and kicking both the EU and USA awake and thus ruining Chinas opportunity to invade Taiwan without them reacting.
lastly lets just mention that Russia did not have much choice in this. If they wanted to achieve "security" and retake their power that they lost in the fall of the Soviet Union then this was the last chance they had. If they waited much longer then Ukraine would align themselves with the EU and Russia would be unable to single out Ukraine for invasion again. Putin was pretty happy to let Ukraine slowly merge with Russia like Belarus is doing back when he controlled their president directly but when he fled the country after a revolution that forced Putins hand.
That was a lot of typing. Hope that answers some of your questions. This is by no means an exhaustive list but I really tried to cover all the major angles. Putin thought that his war would be over in weeks, if not months and from his point of view he had good reasons to believe that. Problem is, most of the things he thought he knew was false.
Thank you very much for this answer. So according to you Putin did this because for him it was the moment when never to try to take back the Ukraine and to find a past greatness that also meets the security needs of Russia?
Indeed. He had other plans for Ukraine before but the Maidan Revolution ruined his plans for a slow takeover and set Ukraine on the path to a swift joining of the EU and possibly NATO. OF his remaining available alternatives he opted to first take control over Crimea because that is a vital naval base for the Russian navy and alongside Russias common strategy of establishing "independent" states within other countries as can be seen in Moldova and Georgia.
The success of these two operations gave Putin a lot of faith that he could be more aggressive and launch a full scale invasion as Ukraine had not put up any meaningful resistance the first time.
Russia is partners with China.. they are the biggest army and have the biggest nuclear bombs... if they really wanted they could kill us all. Ukraine is stupid and shouldn't of tried to join NATO because now the prices are through the roof on everything... so if they die they deserve it for disrupting my life and my spending.. and America and UK are stupid as fuck for trying to push their agenda and causing all this BS.
What if a Mexico began bombing and murdering Americans and those friendly to the U. S. in northern Mexico, and those people were crying out for help from the U. S?
And then, after a Russian or Chinese engineered coup d'etat, Mexico joined an alliance of countries who wanted to destroy the U. S. and began building chemical and biological warfare factories and military bases, and amassing troops and sophisticated armaments near the U. S. border. And part of the plan was to annex the U. S. west coast naval bases in California (former Mexico). And Mexico refused, after 8 years of attempts to negotiate, to agree to a peaceful resolution.
What do you think the U. S. would do?
It's too bad that people believe the U. S. government and mainstream media, know nothing about geopolitics and U. S. ambitions and tactics, and don't read a little bit of history.
Claims that Russia is weak and couldn't take Ukraine tomorrow if it wanted to are propaganda. The Ukrainian military is suffering at least 7 to 1 casualties and it is practically out of weapons. The only reason why Russia is suffering casualties is because, unlike Ukraine, it is doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties.
Crimea and Donbas voted to join the Russian federation. They weren't invaded.
Russia doesn't want to occupy or annex all of Ukraine. It certainly has no plans to expand further into Europe. It just wants a safe border and to retain its warm water naval base in Sevastopol (Crimea) that it started building in 1772 during the Russo-Turkish war.
It's the U. S. (and it's corporate masters) who wants Ukrainian resources. And the U. S. military wants Ukraine as a base from which to threaten Russia. But no matter how hard they try, they will fail. Russia has drawn a line in the sand and it has the means to see it through if peaceful negotiations continue to be rebuffed.
This is the assessment from military experts who are not Putin puppets or Russian apologists. It's just the facts, despite State Department claims to the contrary.
Exactly. The text under the commenter's question reads like propaganda from MSNBC or some other such outlet. She's been totally misinformed about what's happening in Ukraine and what the war is all about in the first place.
It's funny to me that you care so much about Russia's border, Russia, which conspired with Hitler to divvy up Poland, Russia, which brutally occupied Eastern Europe for four decades after WW2 and shot people trying to flee.
But Ukraine's border? Ukraine's security concerns? Every country threatened by Russia and its mass-murdering dictator?
They apparently don't matter to you, as long as your favorite dictator is happy.
@EpicSnail. I can tell that you really know your stuff. Jeeez. You don't even know the difference between modern Russia and the USSR. LOL Go back to watching CNN.
I think it comes down to mindset. I have seen some interesting stuff recently on the psychology of imperialism and it is convincing to me. There is not so much rational logical reasoning but strong emotional reasoning occurring - on both sides by the way.
The first side is Russia has been an empire for a long time. It is thoroughly embedded into Putin and pretty much all Russian people that Russia is entitled to it's empire and as such is entitled to subject nations on it's perimeters. This is the McKinder Heartland geopol theory in essence and is still in play. See Kissinger and Meshermein. Powerful countries are entitled to their sphere of influence. Subordinate nations just have to suck it up and take one for the team (that's an ironic emotive counter).
Undoubtedly having got into power the first thing Putin set about was to embed himself in power. That entailed getting rid of anybody who could was capable and could challenge him. As a consequence from Putin down, the hierarchy is not as competent as it might be and bringing adverse views is not going to be welcomed and most likely he will only hear reinforcement of his thought. We saw that on TV. Putin is announcing the Special Operation to his ministers and asks for their opinion. "Speak PLAINLY" he says a few times to one who is diplomatically trying to say it is a crap idea before kow towing to Putin (probably out of fear for his life).
Putin having rebuilt the military would want to believe he had an effective force and be vulnerable to reinforcement. Similarly with his view that Ukrainians were misguided Russians. This is possibly the best most recent illustration of the confirmation cognitive bias leading to disastrous decisions (worth reading about cognitive biases and how they lead to bad decision making).
Peter Zeihan has a nice point that no matter how talented Xi is, it is simply not possible for one person to run a country. Ditto Putin (Xi & Putin have taken the same path of personal rule).
The Russian people, commensurate with an empire attitude, have an embedded 'good king' view. Nothing is the Presidents fault. It is the imperfect corrupt implementation of Putin's directions that is the problem - not Putin's directions themselves. That is why we see personal appeals to Putin from those suffering. It is like what Tyler believing good King Richard II in the 1381 Peasants Revolt who, after granting relief, then had the rebels hunted down and killed.
The conflict is essentially a belief in imperialism on the Russian side versus a right to self determination and governing on the western side. My emotional bias is viscerally to the later.
To a very large degree a belief in imperialism is a root cause of all the damage. That and a strong man rule is the source.
See, I'd argue that his first mistake was trying to build lasting glory atop a mountain of skulls. That's what the Mongols tried, and you'd think a Russian, of all ethnicities, would know that that doesn't work. I don't know if he's the one who negotiated the deal that let him station troops in Crimea before they invaded- allowing Russia access to the Black Sea opened up a LOT of commercial options- but he IS the one who had those soldiers invade the rest of the country.
When your economy is based on the exportation of natural resources, you don't have an economy; you just have resources. I doubt we'll ever know just how much this war is costing Russia, but I'll bet you ANYTHING that he'd've done better by his people investing it in infrastructure and building up a better, more stable economic base. True, that kind of thing doesn't exactly endear you to the people, since it's mostly invisible, and being the "great war hero" DOES, but that only applies if you win the war, and besides, I don't think those elections are exactly legitimate.
The West didn't react to invasion of Crimea almost 10 years ago. They tried to appease him. Now it became obvious that the mafia in the Kremlin are too obsessed with their messianic ideology to stop at that. They will continue their conquests as much as the can. Everybody thought Ukraine wouldn't even last a week. Some even believed that Kiev would fall in less than week. People in both Russia and in the West thought so. This is indicative of how well Russian propaganda spreads everywhere, creating this paper tiger that the Russian army is (we can also see this in the numerous European "patriotic movements" that support Russia's genocidal campaign because they are somehow the "good guys" but this is a whole different subject). Soviet Russia won in 1945 thanks to Western aid. This aid doesn't exist today. It is provided to Ukraine. This is a war of attrition that Russia cannot win and I don't feel sorry for them. I want every Kremlin-led Russian soldier in Ukraine to die a horrible death.
I would not use such harsh words for the soldiers but what is sure is that in our countries we have politicians who are the spokesmen of the Kremlin and would be ready to sell their country to Russia
This may be (slightly) off-topic, but I will just say this. The day the war began, people (in the West at least, probably not in Russia or Ukraine) actually seemed to believe that the Russian Army would take over the Ukraine in less than about three weeks, or maybe even one week, and that if they didn't then that meant that the Russian armed forces were weak, corrupt, incompetent and poorly-trained, and that eventually Ukraine would (somehow) win in the end.
Well, that's just silly. Ukraine isn't a small nation, it's larger than France in area and has a population of approximately 44 million people. It is highly urbanised, and prior to the war had comparatively strong armed forces (compared to the Western nations of Europe, that is). There was NO chance the war would be over in less than a month, and the people in Moscow who planned this knew that. The objective isn't to absorb Ukraine, but to keep it out of NATO, to prevent the country from becoming yet another place where the U. S. has military bases. And all of this ridiculous talk about "having to stop Putin, because if we don't then Poland is next" is retarded beyond belief! Poland, Rumania and other states close to Russia are now NATO members, so for that reason alone he wouldn't attempt to do something so stupid.
Y'all need to stop comparing the war in Ukraine to what happened in Europe during World War 2, when the victims of Germany's aggression fell so quickly because they were so utterly unprepared, and not because Germany was strong; it wasn't. The Germans in 1939 in Poland were still largely reliant upon horses to move equipment, for example. This war in Ukraine was never going to be like that, and people should be embarrassed for ever thinking that it would be.
Itâs quite simple. He surrounded himself with yes men and not only refuses to listen to countervailing opinions but has exercised brutal authoritarian censorship, persecution and intimidation with anybody who disagrees with him. Side note: which political party in the USA is more prone to doing that lately?
His ego just canât handle the truth and itâs costing Russians and Ukrainians unnecessary lives both militarily and innocent civilians. Itâs destroyed Russiaâs reputation and relationships. Itâs devastated their economy (but they are still very oil rich).
Although there is no such as a âgood warâ this conflict is allowing the USA to greatly weaken a geopolitical enemy without costing any American lives. We have however lost a ton of taxpayer money with no forseeable positive ROI. Besides harming Russia what exactly will the Ukraine do for us after the war is over? Nobody is asking about that nor planning that far ahead.
What are you retarded? The publicly stated war goals were demilitarization, denazification, and âliberationâ of the territories of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts. Russia never publicly set a war goal of annexing any part of Ukraine. They are absolutely mopping the fucking floor with the Nazis. They wonât be able to demilitarize Ukraine until their allies stop importing arms or all willing Ukrainians die, but long run attrition works in Russiaâs favor due to their larger population and superior loss exchange ratio. Itâs really a no brainier. Luhansk is already occupied and most of Donetsk oblasts is occupied. Ukraine has made no gains, and lost everything. When they sue for peace, Ukraine will have no chips to bargain with and Russia will get everything they ask for.
Can't get over American guys who only listen to shit far-right Ukraine takes from the likes of Tucker Carlson and just verbatim repeat Putin's justifications for the war as if Putin isn't a dictator who has spent his entire career murdering anyone who did any investigative work into his dealings. The combination of childish gullibility and sneering arrogance is something to behold. Somehow in their pea brains they manage to square this with a purported passion for "free speech". Maybe they should go visit the graves of Putin's victims, many of which were investigative reporters for a reminder of what an actual commitment to truth and free speech can cost a person.
@EpicSnail So you're retarded as well. What a surprise... Try reading it again. Why don't you show the world where I quoted "Tucker Carlson"... Oh wait you can't because I didn't. Wait let's give you another chance, how about you quote where I made any personal justification for what is happening... Oh wait you can't because I didn't. You're such a retard. You can't even read. I just made an objective observation of the conditions on the ground. It's just math retard, why don't you go learn some.
@EpicSnail A country stating their war goals publicly, has nothing to do with my personal opinions. It is just their casus belli. They justified their reasons for declaration of war and have set out to perform specific tasks to resolve said problems. If a country sets war goals and they achieve them then they are victorious. Playing make believe that they are trying to live out your propaganda fantasies just shows what a numbskull you are. You don't even know how to think. You just regurgitate propaganda like a fucking parot.
Well, you need to find identify Russia's interests as Russia sees them, not as non-Russians do. The Russians will probably succeed in conquering western Ukraine, albeit at great expense, once the Ukrainians run out of troops. Russia may end up in hock to China, and certainly comparatively weaker, a real concern knowing that the CCP covets Siberia and its natural resources.
I support Russia and Putin. This whole thing is nothing but a proxy war by the US leftists against Christian Nationalism. Anywhere with nationalists is attacked by globalist Marxists when they fight back. Look at Trump, Bolsinaro, Modi, the late Japanese PM, Viktor Orban and Putin. They all are fighting the evils of globalism and leftists and the leftists retaliate in typical fashion. Your whole viewpoint above sounds like it's taken directly from MSNBC propaganda.
Turks live on the island of Cyprus and in 1974 the Turkish army occupied the northern part of the island. Cyprus is very important for Turkey. In my opinion, Ukraine has a similar importance for Russia, especially the Donbass region. That's why Putin took the risk.
I think Russia accomplished what it wanted a buffer zone using the captured eastern provinces of Ukraine. The thrust to Kiev in early stages was possibly a feint while they took the east.
At this stage so long as west supplies Ukraine and russia is supplied by its allies the fight will never end.
Peace will be Russia keeps the areas it captured. That will be their demand.
18.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Like Hitler, he thought the west wouldnât help as much we did. Russians have had a love affair with tanks since WW2. But city fighting ainât for tanks. And the US keeps supplying rocket launchers (larger ones -Javelins?) that take them out in one hit.
There is this old German proverb which fits nicely: "Wenn es dem Esel zu wohl ist, geht er aufs Eis." Literally translated it reads "When the donkey feels too well, he walks onto the ice."
Did you assume Putin has any interests of "his" country? It sure as death looks like he's destroying it slower than he destroys Ukraine while bringing in a new NATO member country and it's right on Russia's northern border.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(45 Plus)
+1 y
If you can't tell that this is a proxy war started by the US there is really no helping you.
I wish i could say that I am glad that you are so entertained by your ignorance but Im not, it's people like you who are going to be the death of us all you are just too stupid to understand why.
No, it is not the USA that makes the war by proxy. First of all, the USA would have done without the war in Ukraine, because the USA would prefer to concentrate means in the Indo-Pacific than in Europe, therefore the war in Ukraine is not welcome for the USA.
Moreover, nobody forced Putin to invade Ukraine, it is him who decided so. And no NATO is not responsible. In the past, NATO did not exist, but it has never prevented Russia from invading its neighbors.
Clearly you do not have the first idea how starting a war works in a democratic country. You must first convince the people that it is under attack, you can't just attack whoever you want openly. So you make up stories or you USE A PROXY.
The Ukraine is not in the Indo-Pacific but Taiwan is, that will most likely be the 'reason' for a war between the US and China and that will be coming later, if China has any fucking sense at all it will engage the US while there is a still a Russia.
You are beyond ignorant if you think that the US has done nothing to provoke Russia in the Ukraine, you simply do not have the first clue what you are talking about.
I suppose you think that Russia blew up it's own fucking gas pipeline?
It is Russia who interferes when the US is invading someone.
Even before the existence of the USA the Russians had a strange tendency to invade other countries, therefore the Russians never needed the USA or NATO to invade other countries, therefore the only argument of NATO or USA is damn limited to explain the reasons of the war, because the Russians never needed that to invade others.
And I still maintain that it was not in the US interest to provoke a war in Europe, it is much more important for the US to devote resources to the Indo-Pacific region for security, economic and commercial reasons than to Europe.
Moreover, you seem to forget that the USA has spent most of its existence knowing Ukraine under Russian domination, without this harming American interests or preventing their domination, so for the Americans whether the Russians take Ukraine or not does not change much to their interests especially since the Russians anyway can never go further than Ukraine, so the American influence on the whole of Europe cannot be threatened by the Russians even if they took possession of the whole of Ukraine.
The USA have indirect interests in Ukraine, if they bring a massive support to Ukraine it is mainly to reassure its allies and to show its credibility as a reliable partner, which worked because the member states of NATO especially in Europe trust more than ever in NATO to ensure their security (it is enough to see the failure of the idea of a European army to allow Europe to be more independent. )
Nevermind what may have been happening 400 years ago when Russia was ruled by the same family as the UK royal family etc.
If the US does not give a shit about what is happening in the Ukraine, why did it immediately start pumping guns into it?
Why?
That makes no sense.
When someone doesn't care about something they don't do anything at all.
Please don't embarrass yourself by saying something stupid like they actually give a shit about the people of the Ukraine by the way, that is infantile and easily dismissed by pointing they didn't give a shit about any of the other people of the world, so no it isn't that.
I know you don't care about history but you know "a state makes the politics of its geography. " I said that the USA had indirect interests and I explained which ones. And once again the US has spent most of its existence to know the Ukraine which was under Russian domination without that harming the American interests and without that preventing them from becoming the first power of the world, that the Russians possess or not the Ukraine will not change that, more especially as the Russians will not be able to venture further than the Ukraine consequently the American influence on Europe still has a beautiful future.
Note that I said that the Americans have indirect interests and not that they have no interests.
Why are the US the TIP OF THE FUCKING SPEAR with regard to pumping guns into the Ukraine?
Why did they blow up the fucking pipeline?
The US has 'interests' in the entire fucking world.
It has MILTARY BASES IN THE UKRAINE.
It has BIO WEAPON LABS IN THE UKRAINE.
But no, nothing like that could be a reason for Russia to not want the US in the Ukraine, Right?
Clearly looking back through history it is well established how the US has a high tolerance for nuclear threats on its doorstep, like in Cuba for example..
I think he did this because he was desperate. I think he wanted to do this as soon as possible because the Russian birth rate is very low so there will be less and this military age men to fight to fight 20 years from now.
Because he is a narcissistic PoS who wanted to be reverse Napoleon, and he is surrounded by yes-men who are afraid to question his decisions for fear of losing their jobs or worse.
For he had closed the ports of Russia to the French and opened them to the United Kingdom, while he had signed in 1807 the Treaty of Tilsit, where he committed himself to close his ports to English trade, the problem being that it was inapplicable for the Russians given the dependence of the Russian economy on English products, and that there was also the situation of "Poland" that Russia threatened to invade. It is for all these reasons, after many refusals of dialogue on the part of Tsar Alexander I, that Napoleon decided to declare war on Russia.
But you make a parallel in the sense that the Russian campaign caused the loss of Napoleon, the war in Ukraine will cause the loss of Putin?
What hasn't changed in the Russians since history is a military failure.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(45 Plus)
+1 y
TruNews has reported that Russian forces are doing very well. They have had very little done to them, compared to the heavy losses suffered by the wicked Nazi Ukrainians
0
1 Reply
Opinion Owner
+1 y
Putin is a GREAT calculator, and a very patient man. God's blessings have been transferred to Russia, and AWAY from the immoral USA
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
