Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[The Brain]

The main problem with his thinking was that he thought that the Russian military could not only defeat Ukraine, but do it in 48h. He should have known his sorry ass better, as Sun Tzu would have said.

[Josephus]

The logical reason for Putin's war-- and one that realists hold-- is that Russia feels threatened by the expansion of NATO and would do anything to prevent that. And that from the other side does make sense. I don't doubt, though, that the war goal has changed a lot since.

[Tamas]

The logical reason for Putin's war-- and one that realists hold-- is that Russia feels threatened by the expansion of NATO and would do anything to prevent that. And that from the other side does make sense. I don't doubt, though, that the war goal has changed a lot since.

I am quite very ready to call BS on that. Even seeing comments of ordinary Russians like Gaijin was here it makes it quite clear nobody -least of all supporters of forcing Ukraine under a Russian sphere of influence- honestly believe NATO is looking to do some kind of aggression against Russia.

The most plausible version I have read is that Ukraine was (and now more than ever is) a threat to Putin and his regime because it started on the road of alignment with the West and democracy. A brotherly Slavic ex-Soviet people becoming successful part of the Western model would completely invalidate all the excuses Putin's regime has come up with to explain oppression and the sub-standard state of their economy.

This would be a perfectly standard Russian way of operating. For example this was the very reason why they intervened against Hungary in 1849 - they could not let the idea of some ethnicity rising up and de-throning the God-appointed monarch to go unchallenged. Same for 1956 or Czechoslovakia 1968.

[Malthus]

The logical reason for Putin's war-- and one that realists hold-- is that Russia feels threatened by the expansion of NATO and would do anything to prevent that. And that from the other side does make sense. I don't doubt, though, that the war goal has changed a lot since.

Disagree - Putin had made numerous claims of this type, mostly to paint himself the victim who was "provoked" - but this isn't what lies at the root of the conflict.

To understand that, you have to see the world through Putinite eyes.

To Putin, he's the guardian of a unique Russian civilization and historic legacy. In that legacy, Ukraine is very important. Kyiv was the "mother of cities", the capital of the Kyivian Rus of the medieval era. A Russia that doesn't include Ukraine is a mutilated, incomplete entity, lacking its historic roots.

This veneration of history doesn't extent to present-day Ukrainians. To Putinites, Ukraine isn't a real nation, and its language isn't a real language. They are just backwards and bumpkinish versions of Russians and Russian language. It's a shame and disgrace that such "little Russians" appear to want to spit off from holy "great Russia". Indeed, they have been led astray - because the other part of the Putinite vision is that Russia is engaged in a clash of civilizations with Europe.

Russian civilization is of course superior, being virile and pure, but "degenerate" European civilization is seductive, and some Ukrainians (a minority of agitators and traitors) have been misled by it - hence "Euromaidan". This explains the otherwise bizarre fixation of Putinites on homosexuality. Ukraine has its own issues with homophobia (as do many Eastern European nations), but to Putin, a desire to join Europe (and leave the sphere of Russia) can usefully be smeared as a desire to embrace acceptance of gays, something wholly degenerate. It's culture wars on steroids (which also in part explains the strange attraction Putin holds for Western far right types).

In summary, in Putin's eyes, the war ought to end with all of Ukraine absorbed into the Russian cultural sphere, and Ukrainians duly re-educated to being loyal Russians.

The idea that Russia is simply supporting breakaway republics full of loyal Russians is, in their eyes, merely stepping stones towards this ultimate goal - Putin will never be happy until Kyiv is part of Russia.

[Josquius]

What I find curious is on a logic of kyiv being mother of cities, birthplace of Russia, etc... It's therefore ukriane which is the fake nation to be absorbed into its neighbour.

[Josephus]

I'm not saying the realism argument is my argument, although it has some valid points. The realist argument holds that if a state feels threatened in any way it will do whatever it can to protect itself. It makes sense, with this argument that Russia feels threatened with the steady encroachment of its primary enemy on its border, and more importantly vis-a-vis Ukraine, right in its sphere of influence.
There's a good recent article on this in The Hill

From beginning to end, what has happened in the case of the Russo-Ukrainian war is exactly what realism would, and many realists did, predict. Russia came to believe that Ukraine was drifting out of its sphere of influence and ever more fully into the Western orbit. When no viable diplomatic solution to the problem could be found, Moscow then launched an invasion intended to keep the West, in the form of NATO and the European Union, from further encroaching on its borders.

When Kyiv successfully resisted Moscow's opening offensive and the Russian invasion stalled, the United States and its European allies provided just enough military assistance to deny Russia a victory and to, as U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, put it "see Russia weakened." And the war has continued to this point because neither of the two combatants has yet been defeated and both still believe victory is just around the corner.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3643585-how-the-ukraine-war-vindicates-realism/

[Malthus]

What I find curious is on a logic of kyiv being mother of cities, birthplace of Russia, etc... It's therefore ukriane which is the fake nation to be absorbed into its neighbour.

It is indeed odd, but that is how they think. To them, they are like Justinian retaking Rome for Byzantium. They are the true inheritors of "Russian" civilization.

[Malthus]

I'm not saying the realism argument is my argument, although it has some valid points. The realist argument holds that if a state feels threatened in any way it will do whatever it can to protect itself. It makes sense, with this argument that Russia feels threatened with the steady encroachment of its primary enemy on its border, and more importantly vis-a-vis Ukraine, right in its sphere of influence.
There's a good recent article on this in The Hill

From beginning to end, what has happened in the case of the Russo-Ukrainian war is exactly what realism would, and many realists did, predict. Russia came to believe that Ukraine was drifting out of its sphere of influence and ever more fully into the Western orbit. When no viable diplomatic solution to the problem could be found, Moscow then launched an invasion intended to keep the West, in the form of NATO and the European Union, from further encroaching on its borders.

When Kyiv successfully resisted Moscow's opening offensive and the Russian invasion stalled, the United States and its European allies provided just enough military assistance to deny Russia a victory and to, as U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, put it "see Russia weakened." And the war has continued to this point because neither of the two combatants has yet been defeated and both still believe victory is just around the corner.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3643585-how-the-ukraine-war-vindicates-realism/

To my mind, this is just incorrect. Putin isn't motivated by keeping NATO at a distance - for example, he was annoyed when Finland and Sweden applied to join NATO (a predictable outcome of his aggression), but hardly seemed to care all that much. From a "realist" perspective, that is just as dangerous. Russia could have bullied Ukraine into not joining NATO easily enough - to join requires unanimous approval of the other NATO members, which was never going to be granted with Russia breathing down their necks.

Yet he didn't go for that. Why? Because that isn't his motive. He wants Ukraine for fulfilment of his historic vision. It isn't sufficient (and never will be sufficient) to merely prevent Ukraine from drifting into the Western "camp". Prying Ukraine loose from the West is merely a stepping stone to his real goal - taking the country (or "reuniting it).

This is why he isn't as concerned over Swedes and Finns. They aren't an integral part of great Russia itself.

[Syt]

IMHO Russia is worried about NATO encroaching on former parts of the WP/USSR ... but only because it means they aren't the big bully on campus anymore who still (largely) get to keep calling the shots in those territories, not because of a genuine worry NATO wants to dismantle/destroy Russia militarily.

[The Larch]

IMHO Russia is worried about NATO encroaching on former parts of the WP/USSR ... but only because it means they aren't the big bully on campus anymore who still (largely) get to keep calling the shots in those territories, not because of a genuine worry NATO wants to dismantle/destroy Russia militarily.

Yup, it is not about a potential military confrontation, it is about loss of influence within its immediate neighbours7former vassals.

[Zanza]

This is supposedly the x-ray of the truck that carried the bomb on the bridge. It is noticeable that one of its axis is apparently made from stealth material that does not show on an x-ray image. And you have to wonder why they even bother with the x-ray if they let the truck loaded with a bomb continue onto the bridge. 

[The Brain]

Seems legit.

[Barrister]

Here's a nice little Twitter thread.  Russians are building seemingly a WWI or WWII series of trenches and obstacles in Luhansk Oblast.

UIkrainians are taking hi-quality video of it with a drone.

Kind of sums up this whole war.

https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1580192286348279809

[Berkut]

The logical reason for Putin's war-- and one that realists hold-- is that Russia feels threatened by the expansion of NATO and would do anything to prevent that. And that from the other side does make sense. I don't doubt, though, that the war goal has changed a lot since.

As I said before the war, I absolutely reject that, and don't think that is the view that "realists" hold at all.

[PDH]

I think he's stupid, venal, and has no planning depth beyond knee-capping an opponent.  He has gotten lucky so far in his ability to bribe, intimidate, or bully weaker groups and people - this has given him an air of invincibility (for some who view him) that he craves, but he must maintain it.  It ends when he is stood up to and it all come crashing down.

Wait, is this the Trump thread?