changegonnacome

Yep agree thats the other explanation.......but the unlikely one IMO.....the plebe year in West Point (freshman intake) could tell you 190k men isn't enough to occupy a city the size of Kiev let alone the country of Ukraine. Now maybe Putin has scared his Generals so much that nobody had the courage to point this out to him and therefore all his Generals knew this but Putin was oblivious to first year level military math, so yeah thats possible but again unlikely i think. I do think the Ukranian resistance surprised them & for sure has slowed progress.......but lets also be clear that from reports Ukraine is in the negotiating room right now essentially conceding to the demands Putin had BEFORE the invasion & really his demands have been pretty consistent for the last decade (Annexxed regions + No NATO) . So yes slower progress for the Russians, an element of under estimation of Ukrainian resistance for sure & the economic cost I think is way higher than Putin probably estimated.........however he will get his demands IMO. The question then is whether the exercise cost too much economically, militarily & politically......but if you ascribe to my view, that NATO/EU/USA encroachment into Ukraine was an existential threat to Russia, then Putin would argue no cost is too high when mother Russia faced an existential threat. The same way JFK would argue almost bringing the world to the brink of a nuclear fallout in 1962 to get Russian missiles out of Cuba was also 'worth it' because this was an existential threat to America. You can argue Russia had nothing to fear from NATO/EU expansion & therefore Putin's existentialist threat fears are unfounded but you know he is the undisputed autocrat of that country so his opinion right or wrong matters.

I’m not saying they aren’t there bombing these places in ‘core’ Ukraine and reigning terror down but the purpose of this is to bend Ukraine to Russia’s demands not to occupy ……so let’s be clear what I’m saying….… I’m saying that a military force of 190,000 men is just not structurally capable of invading AND capturing AND then occupying & holding on a permanent basis a country the size of Ukraine or even the city the size of Kiev. You can perhaps do one and half of those three with 190,000 men but you can’t get number three done, not by a long shot. So what do we do with this fact, in light of the media narrative that he wants the “whole” of Ukraine back into mother USSR and he’s going to take over the whole country and make it Russia again ……well as I’ve said….you have to completely throw out that theory that Putin/Russia ever intended to take over the whole of Ukraine and occupy it on a long term basis because that idea doesn’t stand up to the evidence or the facts. The evidence of course being provided by US military intelligence which is where the 190,000 figure comes from.

Yeah I agree the contested territories (Crimea etc.), the ones where effectively a war has been going on since 2014 will be annexed and officially handed over (or shared) in the peace deal being negotiated right now. I would also say just from a domestic Russian PR perspective, the mothers of Russia in exchange for their sons coming back in body bags, need to see some land won in exchange. So were in agreement here and I said the same some threads back. However the idea that Putin is attempting to invade, capture & occupy the other 95% of Ukraine is the part I disagree with strongly and just isn't the case & for which I see the media constantly spin the narrative about invasion, caputure & occupation as if this is Poland in 1945 or something. It isnt. I cant remember the name of the General who was on CNN who spoke exactly to this point, that Putin's army amassed as it was around Ukraine is/was too small to be an occupying force......it is effectively a demolition crew.....his example he gave was when he was in Afghanistan he took a city with 100,000 men at his command, occupied the local government buildings and called his commander to tell him - "hey listen we took the city with 100k men, thats the good news, to occupy & hold the city we'll need 300,000 more men". This is the kind of military math that anyone who studies these things can see. The generals point is my one too - 190,000 Russian troops amassed as they were tell you by military math the fact that Putin/Russia never intended to invade, capture & occupy the whole of Ukraine...........but this idea floating around in the media and on this board that he was heading to Kiev to occupy government buildings and stay there forever forever is just flat out wrong & the facts back it up. But alas the facts don't fit the narrative & that gets a-lot of peoples backs up, which I understand.

You nailed tribalism here @cubsfan with this line - an almost case study expression of tribalistic thinking devoid of any sense of putting yourself in the other tribes shoes, admitting to some agency about how 'we got here' to this moment even for a second, to try and understand the other sides motivations/reasoning/actions/concerns...........in tribal thinking the other sides reasons don't matter, 'we' can only be right & 'they' can only be wrong. Which I think you've perfectly captured in the above post & for that reason (incl. your "full of yourself" jibe) not really interested in conversing further on this subject with you & we'll leave it there i think.

This is a nonsensical sentence. Firstly he doesnt want Ukraine.....he's currently bombing the shit out of it precisely because he doesn't want it after. Secondly and I dont think you get the dynamic here............Europe is NATO, NATO is Europe......I'm sorry your showing a lack of understanding here of geography, political & military alliances .......get a map of the member states of the EU out and then a map of geographic Europe & then a map of NATO members.....they are for all intensive purposes the same thing when you look at it from a Russia threat assessment & national security basis. But hey who am I stop you from your tribal urges to say "the other team" fucked up despite ALL the factual evidence to the contrary....which is spread across mine and lots of other peoples posts on this thread

I think you've missed my point completely - which is whether you believe something or not & that something has got to do with Russian security your opinion or thoughts are immaterial & pointless........Putin the all powerful ruler of Russia gets to decide what he considers to be an existential threat or not to his country, he thinks it, therefore it is so (re: Russian sovereignty/security). The USA/NATO/EU/the West doesn't get to decide but they sure do have to deal with consequences of his assessment as we're seeing now. This was my point which you exaggerated to absurdity while using an analogy completely divorced from the context in which my point was made.

I disagree but does it matter? - if Putin believes it to be so, then it is and the world needs to optimize for his/Russia's perception I'm not sure what country your from - but do a thought experiment.......North Korea builds ties with your neighboring country.....those ties result in North Korea being allowed to construct a missles silo 15 miles from your countries borders and within 15 minute striking distance of your countries largest city.......North Korea & partner says they are not a threat to you and have no expansionary aspirations and your country would be crazy to think that would be possible............but tell me how would you and your family & your countries leadership FEEL about that???

I know folks want to believe that Putin/Russia having got all they want......have still somehow "lost"........but let's be clear Russia has/will achieve their strategic objects (NATO expansion off the table / Separatist regions annexed). The only argument left is that the price Putin had to pay was way higher than he expected........but what is the cost of anything versus an existential threat like NATO coming to your doorstep threatening your very existence & security.........

https://citywire.com/funds-insider/news/wednesday-papers-ukraine-can-t-join-nato-says-zelensky/a2382549 "Zelensky said yesterday that Ukraine had to accept that the “door of Nato” had closed." "Russia has continued to pressure Ukraine to formally renounce its intention to join Nato and formally recognise the separatist provinces of Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea." There's your deal right there - and Zelensky should bite their hand off and he will.

Doing everything to help, short of helping

1000000% agree @Spekulatius The converse is true.........and Iran and North Korea et al are watching this closely...........building a nuclear capability IS the most important thing any tin pot dictator does on a daily basis with the resources of his country......

I'm afraid Ukraine has learned four very hard lessons: (1) Geography is destiny....you need to be a pragmatic when your a relatively small country book ended by two large powerful neighbors...having good relations with both is important & in fact a necessity (2) Be wary of the West with its promises of support for democracy & freedom in your country....they are always found wanting when the rubber hits the road & bullets start flying (unless your country is strategic to them) (3) Ukraine is strategically important for Russia (they've proved this) & not strategically important for the EU/NATO/USA (they've proved this) (4) International law sounds good until you really need....for the permanent members of the UN security council i.e. the Great powers......it effectively doesn't exist, only norms do...

Russia/Putin is not planning to invade Europe....if that was the plan yes he's made the job harder for himself........the aim of course was to make it so that Ukraine didnt become a NATO country on his doorstep.....Russia/Putin has been consistent on this since NATO Bucharest summit in 2008 (look it up)....you seem to imagine he has Pan-European aspirations....he doesnt.....he has Russian FIRST security & sovereignty in mind.....and NATO expansion into Ukraine was a threat to that. These have been his 'demands' since 2008 and immediately preceding the war, during the war and if he gets his demands at the end of the war......yes it called a victory......when you get exactly what you want. Independence is a very strong word for a country so destroyed by its neighbor, thats its neighbor tells it how to direct its sovereignty after the war i.e. forcing it to commit to not joining NATO. This is where it will end up now. I'm sure of it. You dont need to change the regime when you direct what it can or cant do. I'm afraid you're repeating Russian propaganda here - Russia's objectives re:Ukraine have been clear since 2008, what you listed here is the pretense that Putin used to begin the war. Even the USA government has called them that. The strategic objective clearly now was to (1) Teach Ukraine a lesson (2) Remind it the West wont spill a drop of its own blood to defend you, no matter what they say in Brussels or D.C. i.e. you are on your own against Russia and dont forget that again & (3) make it so Ukraine does not join NATO any time (4) Annex & formalize the annexation of the ethnically Russian regions of Crimea etc........which post the conclusion of this war will be officially integrated into Russia with Ukrainian consent under a binding international treaty Russia, as I explained previously @Viking, is a permanent member of the UN security council & the holder of the worlds largest nuclear warhead arsenal........it is not going away on the international scene or at the United Nations, nor is it wise for any right thinking politician to do so to make such a nation a pariah state and I expect a lot of pragmatism in the coming months as politicians play to the gallery while 're-integrating' Russia back into the global system. Germany will need its gas next winter.....no LNG terminal will be built that quickly......& the United States trust me wants more than anything else in its foreign policy dreams a stable situation in Eastern Europe vis a vis Russia such that it can pivot back to Asia where the real rising power with global ambitions is. This is the way I'm afraid. Your framework for thinking about this @Viking is idealistic and somewhat naive of the realpolitik of this whole situation. Like I mentioned above nation states don't have friends or enemies, they have only interests & as I've hoped I've outlined it is in the interests of the USA, UK, Germany, France etc. to return the situation in Eastern Europe back to lets call it 2007.....when no one ever dreamed possible that Ukraine could join NATO.

Let's see..............my prediction is that sanctions become defacto part of the peace negotiations.......and the big tickets ones for the Russian economy.....energy, swift access, frozen assets, BIS etc. etc. are either removed or scaled back so aggressively that they might as well not exist but will remain only to function as a fig leaf for Western politicians to hide behind when they suggest that sanctions remain because they are being 'tough' with Russia

Talk on 'the wires' that Ukraine & Russia peace talks are centering around Ukraine ceding effective control of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk to Russia AND committing to not joining NATO.......and in response to a peace deal 'the West' will, in the main, lift sanctions. I'm sorry if thats the deal where we end up, then Putin/Russia has "won"...........you can argue all day that it turned out to be harder than Putin thought or it didn't go well blah blah bah. If he gets these three things he has won.

The one reliable in international affairs is how unreliable 'partners' turn out to be or to paraphrase De Gaulle i think......Nations don't have friends or enemies, only interests !

My apologies at @Viking your correct on this. I'm both responding to you in my post but at the same time responding to a mixture of the message threads that are not yours. Conflating the two is imprecise and leaves ambiguity where I'm 'putting words in your mouth' so to speak. So totally agree on that & your right to call it out. Let's agree its too soon to call the war an unmitigated disaster for Russia, way too soon. For example do we know for certain the plan was to 'take Kiev' in three days? Nobody knows, so lets see. We also need to define what success would be for Russia in this, what are the strategic aims? Nobody knows for certain...but my opinion is that this was about NATO/EU encroachment and putting a stop to it. The question, which can only be answered after this war is over is the key one - in terms of whats left of Ukraine, is whats left more or less likely to be joining NATO/EU any time soon or not. If its more likely - Putin has lost. Less likely - Putin has won. My point also, not directed at you but impreccily landing near you - was that simply like Putin's media tells his people Russia is performing great in the war......our media tells us what we want to hear......that the side we back is doing really well. I'm not saying this is not true but what I'm saying is we should be always mindful of media in any form that tells us things we might like to hear. Especially in conflicts with tribal overtones - East vs. West, Democrats vs. Republicans, Liberals vs. Conservatives. Remember were just monkeys with guns and money. Agree the probability has risen........from impossible to basically impossible..........but also as per my line above........thinking about Putin err'ing and getting himself overthrown for 'messing' with the West pleases our tribal monkey brains such that we tell ourselves that. Its wishful thinking......which doesn't fully capture the reality that it remains highly highly unlikely an as I think Mearsheimar points out in some ways sanctions and ostracizing Russia stirs up feelings of nationalism and tribalism in Putin's own population....in some ways counter-acting whatever negatives might have led to his personal situation becoming more precarious. Yes but laws are made by men, & are imperfect & enforced by power & they can be ignored or twisted when suited & the truly great powers hold the veto.......as Russia does on the UN Security Council as a permanent member (the others are China, France,the United Kingdom, and the United States). Technically Russia can never be sanctioned under the internaitonal 'law' you referened which is really just the UN & whatever resolutions or sanctions it can pass to punish the 'guilty'.......see Russia has a veto......ergo it cannot be 'found guilty' under International by the only body that enforces this law because it sits on the jury with a veto. So you see how imperfect our "International law" law is.....and why I speak about the law of the jungle behind it? I think few people realize this - they think international law is like the law in their own country. You break it, your found guilty, your punished. Not so in international law. Yep you nailed - I had in mind other peoples threads earlier in the messages and should have been clearer on that I think what he's saying is that in some YES the great powers can do what they want, to an extent, but just not in other great powers spheres of influence such that they create existential fears for each other. The international system or rule of law exists but it is enforced by the great powers fundamentally and when it doesn't suit them they ignore it - because they hold a strange dual role as both policeman and perpetrator.......as I just outlined given the FIVE permanent member of the UN Security Council with VETO power. Russia, China, France,the United Kingdom, and the United States - depending on whats happening can be simultaneously the perpetrator, the policeman, the judge and jury. THIS is international law & you can see how imperfect it is and why the law of the jungle sits underneath. Yes it is - a man or country who hold the very destruction of the planet & human civilization at his fingertips has a power never wielded before in human history. Russia might be 50 -100 years behind the West economically but on this point there is no ambiguity - it is an 800ilb gorilla. I think what Mearsheimer means is that international law as we think of it is kind of fallacy and nebulous concept. Its made by great powers and enforced by consensus of great powers - as I've outlined above with its contradictory issues of veto power at UN etc...........this makes it so that right or wrong such that transgressions between Great powers can be punished by somebody doesn't exist in reality or practice for the permanent members of the UN secruity council ...............for example we all think on this board & agree that what Putin did was mortally wrong and breaks international law on sovereignty as written down........SO if thats the case @Viking.......show me the charges & the guilty verdict handed down by the only arbiter of international law that exists today in the International law system - the UN? There isn't one because the Great Powers have made it so that they can never be truly "found guilty" by the enforcement body of that the law, the UN. So you can see - might equals right...........in the sense that the mighty (the FIVE) can never be found 'wrong' under international law as constructed today.

I somewhat agree - however what differentiates Russia from say Cuba/Iran/North Korea.....is what I referenced above, its place at the very top of the 'Great Power' table vis-à-vis its nuclear capability.........its not good risk management to leave a country with 6,000+ ballistic nuclear warheads so economically backed into a corner forever as it is now....& effectively barred from the international system (SWIFT / BIS etc.). To do so, I'm afraid, would be a mistake that would endanger us ALL over the long run and THIS above all else should be avoided at all costs. I don't like it one bit, but this is the reality and I hope the politicians are wise enough to know this........or put another way if Twitter polls decided world affairs I'm certain the human race would have been obliterated already by a thermonuclear catastrophe. Let's hope the politicians turn off Twitter, CNN, Instagram, Fox & focus groups when the real decisions need to be made.

@Viking I think in this discussion & in your comments above.....there is lots of idealism & wishful thinking (Russia losing war / Putin to be overthrown), the ideal Ukrainian soverignity & self-determintion, there is also element of tribalism...in that everything 'we' do is good, what 'they' do is bad. Perhaps personally I have fierce contrarian bias that clouds my thinking too that acknowledge. Below is a clip from a recent interview with John Mearsheimer......and his assessment chimes with my read of the situation...its pragmatic with not a shred of idealism.. ....I think his thinking is well reasoned & what we should all aspire to, as investors/thinkers, which is a detached realistic assessment of reality, based on historic evidence (sanctions) & game theory with an overlay of how in reality flimsy international "law" is in certain circumstances. And for a definition of 'great power'........even in a declining state like Russia, with a tiny GDP & not that technologically advanced......the only requirement in our world to get into that great power group is to have pretty much any ballistic nuclear capability......and then a special place is reserved a the top of the great power group for those with a balisitic nuclear capability that can destroy the whole world (this group includes only two member the USA (5,500 warheads) & Russia (6257 warheads) with China way below with only 350 warheads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons Like it or not Russia is great power........Putin/Russia literally controls the destruction of the whole planet & human race at his fingertips. When you strip away "society" and "law" there exists an undeniable third pillar of life.......the law of the jungle which sits below everything.....or as Mearsheimer says in the clip below "might equals right". It's not comforting to acknowledge this but it is the reality.

1000000% agree, it was beyond stupid to not leave this option on the table....such that the potential costs would be raised as Putin weighed up what to do next. Biden PR's gurus in the background must have told him that with Afghanistan still looming large in focus group discussions.....having an ambiguous position on troops in Ukraine would not "play well" at the Mid-terms........well look whats happened now the Democrats are going to be destroyed at polls with energy prices ramping up & inflation prints about to get worse (when without this war they were likely going to get better)

Just want to be clear, lest some of my comments earlier in this thread came across as some kind absolution of Russian responsibility or agency here. Russia is the aggressor and transgressor of international norms and laws here. They say war is the failure of politics & 'they' are right.....to get to this point and then simply layer on a victim & the perpetrator narrative is not to understand how we got here but also more importantly, for an investing forum, trying to predict the future..........how this will end.

Final thought on the motives of Europe here............is that I can almost hear the whispered voices of the diplomats & beaucrats in the Brussels......."God I wish it could just go back to the way it was, we shouldn't have encouraged Ukraine to become so Western, what we were thinking, we like peace on the continent why did we let the American's meddle on our doorstep we've seen what they do in other regions of the world. We should have told them to back the fuck away from American interventionism & tokenism in Ukraine" My prediction is the EU & Russia will get to do the time warp......Russia will withdraw from Ukraine in exchange for the majority of sanctions being lifted and they'll figure out a way to go back to 2007......when the idea of Ukrainian accession to NATO was just not even imagined as possible.

I've explained a couple of times now - its not in support of Ukraine.......don't you see its to protect the EU/NATO, cause it now feels threatened that Russia is now officially at its door step? See Europe liked Ukraine as a buffer too and its being reminded of that now. To support Ukraine would be to go fight there.

I think you missed my earlier point @Viking.......which was to point out that the EU27's reaction to this is not surprising at all, you seem impressed & surprised by the coordination & solidarity.......and I'm simply explaining the fact that when a buffer state like Ukraine that sits between two opposing factions (the West & Russia) becomes not a buffer state.......which by the way can happen either through MILITARY intervention or POLITICAL intervention......one faction on either side shits its pants.......so i just neatly explained two things......Why Russia Invaded Ukraine while ALSO explaining the EU27's solidarity that your surprised by and reading hell of alot into without considering the obvious which is the EU/NATO feels threatened ITSELF by Ukraine not being the buffer they thought it was. The EU/NATO couldn't give a shit about Ukraine, if they did they would be there fighting right now.

Sorry you posted while i was writing the below - Europe's response to Ukraine should not be seen in the context of supporting Ukraine.....it should be seen in the context of blind self interest.......if they cared about Ukraine they'd go fight there......they aren't, not a drop of blood has been spilt by the EU27, because they don't really care............what they care about is the even dim prospect that Putin would continue on past Ukraine into Poland etc. THIS is what Europe is reacting to and why the solidarity was found to come together. 1 hour ago, Viking said: Yep its amazing when a country/bloc feels an existential threat isn't how they'll react, so I'm not that amazed on the solidarity of the Europeans????Existential threats get reactions....Cuban Missle crisis?........& I dunno like NATO/EU/USA encroaching into Ukraine set off existential threat thoughts in Russia.....well mind fuck guys.....Putin just did to the Europeans/NATO/USA what they had been doing to him for the last 10 years......Putin/Russia encroached into Ukraine and made it not neutral and not a buffer state.....and the West literally shit its pants and managed to rally together on sanctions etc................so...............how does everybody stop wearing adult diapers in the West and in Russia?............well Ukraine goes back to being a buffer state again and everybody behind closed doors agrees it was madness to ever get into a tangle ever again over Ukraine.