Russia-Ukrainian War

[John Hjorth]

I don't think there is any logical reasoning behind that, not even from a warfare perspective, but it may be me unable to comprehend things correctly as is.

 

And where the heck are all those international help organizations related to all the suffering of the people hit severely by that event with that dam?

[Spekulatius]

18 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

I don't think there is any logical reasoning behind that, not even from a warfare perspective, but it may be me unable to comprehend things correctly as is.

 

And where the heck are all those international help organizations related to all the suffering of the people hit severely by that event with that dam?

How are they going to help, it's an active war zone? Besides, it seems that mostly the Russian controlled side is flooded.

[John Hjorth]

The dam disaster at the Dnipro shows that Russia is not waging war in Ukraine as a country that expects to rebuild what it has conquered.

 

What kind of imperialism in the imperialism playbook is that? It's simply beyond me.

 

That is based on the assumption that Russia has done this. That assumption may be wrong, but I doubt it is.

 

And I really don't care if the people hit severely by this action are Ukraines or Russians. It's a war crime. And the thug giving this order has to be held reponsible.

 

All this is going on a few thousand kms from where I live my cosy life.

[Spekulatius]

29 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

The dam disaster at the Dnipro shows that Russia is not waging war in Ukraine as a country that expects to rebuild what it has conquered.

 

What kind of imperialism in the imperialism playbook is that? It's simply beyond me.

 

That is based on the assumption that Russia has done this. That assumption may be wrong, but I doubt it is.

 

And I really don't care if the people hit severely by this action are Ukraines or Russians. It's a war crime. And the thug giving this order has to be held reponsible.

 

All this is going on a few thousand kms from where I live my cosy life.

They blew the dam 6 month ago, but it wasn't totally destroyed. The second charge obviously did the trick.

This event has very little outcome on the war. This is nothing new either, just look at how the liberated cities Mariupol or Bakhmut look like.

 

My guess is that any Ukrainian offensive will occur in this area. It's the ideal terrain, flat and no major cities in the way and it would cut off the Russian landbridge from Crimea.

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Spekulatius

[Ulti]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-elite-is-souring-on-putin-s-chances-of-winning-his-war/ar-AA1cgOHF

[Spekulatius]

Looks like the long awaited counter offensive has begun- one thrust around Zaporizhzhia around Orikhiv and another one around Bakhmut:

 

[shhughes1116]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

Looks like the long awaited counter offensive has begun- one thrust around Zaporizhzhia around Orikhiv and another one around Bakhmut:

 

The Russians will have to choose to defend one and move their reserves accordingly.  Will it be Bakmut or Polohy/Tokmak?  With short interior lines of communication and supply, Ukraine can pressure in both areas, wait for a breakthrough, and then move their mechanized forces accordingly.  I think Ukraine has about 15 brigades in reserve waiting to exploit weak/broken lines. 
 

I still think the main focus is Polohy with follow-on thrusts to Mauriopil, Berdyansk, and Melitpol.

[changegonnacome]

9 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I think tearing it down is plan B.

Plan A was to swallow it whole and get little Russia (which is how they call Ukraine) back into big Russia.

 

We've talked about this before - invading, occupying and conquering the whole of Ukraine was never the plan.....how could it have been?.......an army of perhaps 250,000 max was gathered on the borders of Ukraine in Belarus before the invasion. The plan was to topple the Zelensky government........remind the population of Ukraine it lives in the shadow of Russia....get a pro-Russian or at least not pro-Western government.......and get a deal for the Russian-speaking Oblasts in Eastern Ukraine. 

 

To try and occupying and conquer the whole of Ukraine, with Russia's limited military capacity, would be just beyond their capability.....Eastern Ukrainians have no interest in being part of Russia, they would be nightmare to try and control......occupying this part of Ukraine would be like trying to swallow a Porcupine (in Mearsheimar words).

 

It's a Western fantasy to think that was the plan.......pro-Russia government, puppet government....for sure.....I think their long term territorial ambitions extended & still only extend to effectively what they occupy today....an area that before the invasion was something like ~40% ethnically Russian & 60% ethnically Ukrainian........the invasion has I'm sure completely upended the demographics and made the Donbas even more Russian than it could have claimed to been before.

 

Short version IMO -

 

Plan A - was to topple Zelensky, in a swift drive to Kyiv......remind (scare) the Ukrainian people that Russia will always and forever be their large neighbour to the East with a military capability that far exceeds theirs........in doing a puppet government or even just a scared Ukrainian centrist wartime coalition government would go to the negotiating table with Putin and hand over the Donbas & sign away Crimea.

 

Plan A clearly failed. The Ukrainians fought like lions and the Russian forces proved inept. The West rallied in a way Putin couldn't believe.

 

Plan B - is to invade, occupy and ultimately conquer the Donbas territories while keeping Crimea and absorb them into Russia proper......what remains of Ukraine....the non-ethnically Russian regions the part IMO Russia has no interest in absorbing/owning..... as they quite rightly believe it would be impossible to permanently control anyway (perhaps 75% of the Ukrainian landmass)......will be sent back to the stone age with artillery fire & bombing till such a time that the Kyiv government comes to Russia with signed assurances around the future of Ukraines neutrality......no nato, no EU, limits even on Ukraine offensive military capabilities........Russia wants to neuter Ukraine........it would prefer it to be Belarus a vassel state....but neutering would work too......until such a time that happens the plan is to just wreck it such that its no good to anyone.....Ukrainian, American, EU or NATO.......Russia never had any plans for this part of Ukraine so destroying it costs them nothing.

[Spekulatius]

@changegonnacome It was the plan to swallow Ukraine, be it with a pupped regime or otherwise. Putin spoke to this several times, he believes little Russia (Ukraine ) belongs to Russia. With a puppet regime , Ukraine would ended up like Belarus. Belarus is basically Russia at this point.

 

I would say plan B (demolishing) is failing too, Charkov, Kiev, Odessa  and the other major cities are not demolished due to western air defense. Electricity grid was on the ropes, but wasn’t destroyed either.

 

On a related note, I still would like to know what happened to Nordstream. An Ukrainian faction being responsible is a strong possibility. I think the fact that the investigation is dragging out is no accident either.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-had-intelligence-ukrainian-plan-attack-nord-stream-pipeline-washington-post-2023-06-06/

[John Hjorth]

With regard to Nordstream I think it fits the total narrative that Russian behavior is to destroy infrastructure, if impossible to win. I Think it is the same here. F*** u* with a gas pipeline getting sacrified, if this is needed to break and bring down the total European economy. It not just failed - it backfired dearly, Europe now moving fast away from Russian gas as energy source, and this process will never be reversed after this.

 

So much for long term being a gas station with no customers.

 

So the greater picture of this is highly concerning with regard to what Russia is actually willing to do, if it can't get its way :

 

GIS Report [June 7^th 2023] : Nordic media take aim at Russian threats - Stefan Hedlund

 

So a lot of things seems to go on under the surface , litteraly.

 

Think all these giant wind power installations in the waters around Great Britain, the Nordic countries and the Benelux countries, and add to that all the Norwegian O&G infrastructure at sea.

 

It's actually beyond comprehension how much damage a lunatic can do in that area.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

On the dam :

 

CNN [June 8^th 2023] : Here are the key theories on what caused Ukraine’s catastrophic dam collapse .

 

 

[Spekulatius]

1 minute ago, John Hjorth said:

With regard to Nordstream I think it fits the total narrative that Russian behavior is to destroy infrastructure, if impossible to win. I Think it is the same here. F*** u* with a gas pipeline getting sacrified, if this is needed to break and bring down the total European economy. It not just failed - it backfired dearly, Europe now moving fast away from Russian gas as energy source, and this process will never be reversed after this.

 

So much for long term being a gas station with no customers.

 

So the greater picture of this is highly concerning with regard to what Russia is actually willing to do, if it can't get its way :

 

GIS Report [June 7^th 2023] : Nordic media take aim at Russian threats - Stefan Hedlund

 

So a lot of things seems to go on under the surface , litteraly.

 

Think all these giant wind power installations in the waters around Great Britain, the Nordic countries and the Benelux countries, and add to that all the Norwegian O&G infrastructure at sea.

 

It's actually beyond comprehension how much damage a lunatic can do in that area.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

On the dam :

 

CNN [June 8^th 2023] : Here are the key theories on what caused Ukraine’s catastrophic dam collapse .

 

 

 

@John Hjorth yes, it fits the narrative that the Russians have destroyed Nordstream, but so far the admittedly scant evidence suggest otherwise. The investigation is also very slow moving in my opinion.

 

I like to go with evidence rather than narrative, but we will see where this goes.

[John Hjorth]

I actually think that both the investigations have been finished and the reports have actually already been made, but are kept confidential at top level in the respective governments, including the Danish government.

 

My minister of foreign affairs Lars Løkke Rasmussen alluded to that in an interview on Danish television some time ago, without any elaboration or indication of the content and conclusions. Hard to judge what to think and what to get out that. 

[changegonnacome]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

With regard to Nordstream I think it fits the total narrative that Russian behavior is to destroy infrastructure, if impossible to win.

 

57 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

My minister of foreign affairs Lars Løkke Rasmussen alluded to that in an interview on Danish television some time ago, without any elaboration or indication of the content and conclusions. Hard to judge what to think and what to get out that. 

 

Your kind of dancing around the answer it seems.

 

Like any crime its a question of means and motive - and whats the phrase - when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

 

In terms of Russia. Destroying ones own infrastructure……..doesn’t stack up. This is Nordstream…owned and operated by Russian companies…..a piece of infrastructure that had benefited Russia financially in the past….and in a post Ukrainian war/sanctions scenario could benefit Russia financially in the future….….and it’s Russia that is selling the gas in the pipe right?

 

Why blow up something that yours and where you control the flow of the strategic valuable contents going through it anyway?…withholding the gas causes problems for Europe, the pipe is just a pipe…..at the end of the day to stop the gas flowing Russia decides to turn a valve at the other end end. Simple you dont need to blow up anything to deny gas or strangle the EU of energy. Russia has the means to do it but not the motive. As the culprit they dont stack up.

 

Ukrainian operatives…….would certainly have the motive but Id be very surprised if they had the means to do so.

 

It wasn’t, for sure, the European union heading into the winter of 2022 desperately trying to fill up their gas storage tanks.

 

I wonder who else had the means and the motive to blow it up?…….like who has long despised and counseled the EU & lobbied Merkel against Nordstream and ever increasing economic ties with Putin…….who benefits strategically & economically longer term from a severing of the economic & political relationship between the EU/Russia. Who has gas to sell and would benefit from a permanament switch to other suppliers? Who benefits from Russia being economically crippled & isolated over the long. The US had both the means and the motive here. Did they do it - I have no idea.

 

I dont like conspiracy theories…I also dont like admitting that a country I love and admire could do not nice things…..but countries doing not nice things in their own self-interest is like the history of the world…..but for sure you can’t rule out the possibly that the US blew it up. Means and motive fits…..what doesn’t fit of course is that one of the ‘good’ guys could carry out an act of such blatant self-interest…..it doesn’t fit with the good guys and the bad guys world of moral simplification that we like to live in. The fact the investigations and reports are completed yet various European governments sit on the information is a little bit of the tell here…the investigative conclusion dont fit the narrative of the day so they are put in the vault…..…if it was Russia that blew it up the results of the investigation would be all over the news.

[John Hjorth]

@changegonnacome,

 

We wil be referred to our ongoing speculations [, where we ATM all are entitled to our own] untill those reports get to see the daylight, when ever that may be, maybe never.

 

Like to you, to me this fact simply has an fishy odor in an open and enlighted democracy.

 

I have material different expectations to where European Energy and European Energy policy is headed from where we actually are right now, mine compared to the expectations of yours.

 

Have you ever heard of the Baltic Pipe Project, that commenced operations on December 1^st 2022. Why should we buy gas from a thug, when we have friendly neighbours to the North that have so much gas that they are selling of it? We will in this case forget, understand and tolerate that they speak a bit funny!

 

From EIA website on Norwegian gas production :

 

 

The Nordstream pipelines are actually owned by a German company called Nord Stream AG, a sub of Gazprom PJSC. That company is as far as I'm informed defunct and bankrupt, the pipelines in reality according to German law owned by the creditors of the company with an ideal share to each creditor corresponding to the share of the total debt in the bankruptcy estate.

 

Somebody forgot to pull the plug on the company website.

Edited June 9, 2023 by John Hjorth

[Saluki]

Well Putin has said in past interviews that his greatest regret about the fall of the Soviet Union was the millions of ethnic Russians that were now living on the other side of national borders. So when he took Crimea with no consequences, it's not an easy leap to think that he wanted all of the donbass region and probably as much of Ukraine with the russian speaking population that he could get. 

 

There are some dog whistles in his speeches. He brings up fascists to invoke the patriotism that the Russians associate with WWII.  He refers to the Crimea/Donbass are as Novorossia (new Russia) which is what Catherine the Great called that area when she conquered it.  It would be like a Texan invoking the Alamo. For a foreigner, they might not get it, but a Russian speaker would hear that and think that it's part of Russia's historical territory during it's golden age. 

 

To me, it seems likely that Belarus is close to Russia and he didn't like Ukraine tilting westward so he made his move while he still could. He probably underestimated the unpreparedness of the Russian military. Apparently a lot of the money for upkeep of those tanks was siphoned. It's ironic that he didn't foresee that possibility since that's how allegedly made a great deal of his fortune when he was in St Petersburg. A quick win would be a warning to Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia and other neighbors to not stray too far off the reservation.  

 

A lot of oligarchs have died under mysterious circumstances since the beginning of the war and if he pulls back now, someone may try a power move against him, so he's all in on this one, unfortunately.  I don't know if there is any truth to the rumors that he is ill, but if so, is he just trying to cement his power so his wealth passes to his family and cronies or if not, what else? 

[changegonnacome]

24 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

fishy

 

Thats a good word for it .......the likely culprit will come out in time I think......the fact the definitive finger hasn't been pointed at Russia/Putin when it would be so advantageous & frankly politically popular to do so now.....strongly suggests  (but of course we cant say for sure) that it certainly wasn't the Kremlin......after that its a means & motives game.

 

Nord Stream AG - a sub of Gazrprom......like I said a Russian pipeline........without even checking......& assuming/pretending under the sanctions regime post-invasion that Nord Stream AG & its assets were seized by Germany it would still not make sense as Russian to blow it up. Why? Clearly in a negotiated settlement a rolling off of all sanctions and a return of seized assets to Russian entities would part of any deal. Again you dont blow up that which is yours.....or that which might be your again in the future.

 

Anyway pure speculation but somewhat of fun mystery.

[changegonnacome]

8 minutes ago, Saluki said:

Well Putin has said in past interviews that his greatest regret about the fall of the Soviet Union was the millions of ethnic Russians that were now living on the other side of national borders.

 

I think thats the case for sure.........his territorial aspirations articulated prior to the invasion of Feb 2022....only ever really extended to the Oblasts he occupies now in Ukraine + Crimea obviously......regions where 40% plus of the population identifies as ethincally Russian. These are/were complicated regions where national identity is concerned.....akin to Northern Ireland or the Basque or Catalan regions of Europe. The UN's national border framework gets complicated when you get into the reality on the situation on the ground in these places.....your ideas of national sovereignty and identity get a little warped......its very hard for most people, cause most people are used to identifying strongly with the country written on the outside of their passport....they find it hard to conceive of situation where that isn't so.

 

Anyway in terms of Putin's territorial aspirations of the past or in the short/medium & long term..........I think we can all agree that its the Western consensus and narrative that he is an imperialist & land hungry......the counter argument and non-consensus view is that Putin is not interested in re-creating the old borders of the the old USSR...he has neither the capability or the desire to do so...........but that ultimately he is chiefly concerned with Russian security....as it pertains to NATO/EU/US/West satellite regimes ending up on his doorstep.......but what about Finland already on on his doorstep or Latvia or Estonia? he never invaded Finland etc.......to that I say go get a map & especially one from WWII.......armies marching through Belarus & Ukraine....as they did in WWII......are the land borders through which Russia's existence could ever actually be threatened....exactly as it was in WWII.........Russian security in a very real sense demands a neutral Ukraine & Belarus.....you go a long way to securing your Western borders from an attack that could ever hope to topple or blitzkrieg to Moscow. See map below......nations are chiefly concerned with their survival.....Russia's survival on its western flank is secured by ensuring Belarus and Ukraine as buttress.....it was through Belarus & Ukraine that the Nazi's got within spitting distance of Moscow (see below)......if your Russian, if your sitting in the Kremlin you never forget that.

 

Moscow-Russia topples via an invading land army that marches through Belarus & Ukraine......whats the phrase "tells me how/where I'll die and just wont go there".......well this is how Russia (dies) gets invaded, occupied and conquered.......100,000's of military boots & tanks walking and rolling across Belaurus & Ukrainian fields......in the same way that the USA would only ever truly be invaded, occupied & conquered via an army coming down from Canada or up from Mexico (sea invasions just hardly ever succeed.....D-day is an amazing outlier event)

 

 

 

Mearsheimar has a challenge in all his recent lectures to those out there that hold the imperialist view about Putin and his historical designs on Ukraine which I think @Spekulatius holds and many others do too........which is to find a direct source, prior to the invasion of Feb 2022, where Putin in his speeches or essays said that he believed the whole of Ukraine should not exist and should instead be part of Russia.

 

Mearsheimar's report after years of offering this challenge to the Putin imperialists is not a single person has delivered any primary evidence of Putin saying anything akin to this prior to Feb 2022........to the contrary there exists primary public pronouncements about the Ukrainian people right to sovereignty.......what exists is hearsay from George Bush Jnr......in which Putin reportedly said "Ukraine is not a real county"........what else exists are speeches/articles in which Putin talks of the Ukrainian & Russian peoples shared histories......in some of these articles you can see him speak of them as 'one' but in the same article he talks about partnership & sovereignty of the Ukrainian people to decide. Ambiguous sure.....but not a raging outwardly imperialist pronouncement like China is in regards to Taiwan...there the aims are clearly stated July 2021 essay with some of the Putin languange that characterized his 'position' prior to Feb 2022- http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

 

I dont want to sound like a Russian apologist - I'm not - what they've done is disgusting especially the war crimes & bombings of innocent children & civilians.....war is never the answer.........but I'm also not willing to accept always at face value exactly what I'm told by my government & my 'news' stations.

 

The world is way more complicated than headlines & 30 minute news programs with 7 minute segments separated by commercials.....I suggest folks go look at the recent Mearshiemar lecture I linked too....I'm not saying he's 100% right, but I can assure you having reflected on his arguments, having done a Masters in International Relations....and worked on the fringes of diplomatic interactions between nation states.......he is not 100% wrong either. Putin is guilty as charged as the aggressor......has the US/EU/NATO mis-steps & mis-calculations compounded by domestic Ukrainian political miscalculations contributed to the mess today or put another way is their alternative reality where Ukraine wouldn't be in ruins today, its borders in-tact & four hundred thousand casualties to date on both side uninjured......yeah there was pathway there.......and there's plenty of blame to go around......when problems bedevil me in life I usually start the man in the mirror before I go looking for villains.....I think the future trajectory of this situation would benefit from 'our' side reflecting a little more such that it can aid in the solutions to this moving forward. That reflection it feels like might be a decade away.

[changegonnacome]

Put another way - and let me help with a visceral image here designed shock and stir folk in the US's sense of safety......what would happen if Canada & Mexico were considered joining the Sino-North Korean-Russia Partnership for Peace & Trade......pivoting to the East...such that in the populations mind the map started looking a little like this:

 

 

[shhughes1116]

7 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

Put another way - and let me help with a visceral image here designed shock and stir folk in the US's sense of safety......what would happen if Canada & Mexico were considered joining the Sino-North Korean-Russia Partnership for Peace & Trade......pivoting to the East...such that in the populations mind the map started looking a little like this:

 

 

this already happened.  You just need to move your Russian flag about three inches to the right and rewind about sixty years.

 

We gave a shit about Soviet influence in Cuba because the USSR was moving nuclear missiles into Cuba.  These were missiles which had no other purpose than to attack the United States.  
 

How many western countries do you see attempting to move nuclear missiles into Ukraine?
 

apples and oranges here. 

[changegonnacome]

17 minutes ago, shhughes1116 said:

How many western countries do you see attempting to move nuclear missiles into Ukraine?
 

apples and oranges here. 

 

I'm not saying nukes were heading into Ukraine imminently and that was the plan.....of course not......but if you think of a PROCESS whereby US nukes COULD end up in Ukraine....and think about it for a sec as Putin, as a Russian.

 

Quite honestly to grapple in an intellectually robust way with these problems of sovereignty and nationalism you've got to put yourself in your opponents shoes. We did this the whole time in my International relations masters course....split into debate teams where you took the opposition side. Walking a mile in another nations shoes.....turns once unreasonable demands into understandable ones. We are shaved apes......you've no concept of the scale by which your monkey brain with its tribalism/nationalism/troop-ism 'sub-routines' messes up your thinking. Its one of the key things I took away from the Master's I did......and I've applied it to every negotiation I've ever been in to good results. People's brain's get turned to mush by nationalism & tribalism - just ask the German people........half that country went mad with it. You think your immune to what drove a half a nations as outstanding & logical as the German's into madness.

 

Nationalism/tribalism is a gift and curse....it puts men on the moon.........and women and children into gas chambers.

 

But back to the nukes in Ukraine problem........and think about the process by which nukes could end up in Ukraine.

 

See Turkey joined NATO in 1952........by 1961 the USA and to this very day TODAY.......there are about ~50 USA produced nukes sitting in Turkey armed and ready to roll and under pentagons control I dunno a couple of 1000's miles away from Moscow? - https://fas.org/publication/nukes-out-of-turkey/

 

Now when George Bush walks out of the Bucharest summit in 2008.....and says Ukraine is going to be allowed to join NATO......just like Turkey is a member of NATO....ya know the same Turkey above with the 50 US nukes sitting inside its borders......& just ya know the fact that Ukraine which is even closer to Moscow......you dont think alarm bells go off in the Kremlin? You dont...if you walk a mile in their shoes....feel a little threatened, a little outraged that worlds superpower is inching up closer to your doorway. That this NATO Ukraine may actually be step one in a process whereby nukes could end up in Ukraine? Then you actually go look at a map and then it dawns on you that the North Eastern Ukrainian border is not 2000 miles away from Moscow like Turkey but god damn 300 miles away as the crow/ missile flies!

 

Dont know about you - but generally an ounce of prevention is worth a tonne of cure........to ensure US nukes never end up in Ukraine......the best strategy is to ensure Ukraine never ends up in NATO. No? That not a good strategy you think as the temporary Russian leader you currently are in your imagination?

 

Its hard to conceive off....because of course you would say that we would never launch nukes at Russia unprovoked.....to which a Russian would say of course we would never launch nukes at the USA unprovoked.....we were simply moving nukes to Cuba as nuclear deterrent....these were not OFFENSIVE nukes, they DEFENSIVE nukes.......the problem with nukes......is that they are both.....and the problem with international security as it pertains to national actors & survival......is that the correct posture always.....is to assume the worst of intentions in your enemy.......in international security the paranoid survive.....every seemingly defensive move must be interpreted as offensive.....the survival of your DNA demands.......so NATO expansion into Ukraine....we know and believe here in the West to be of benign intent it is a defensive alliance after all........however if your Russian you've got to assume the worst of intentions. Remember the golden rule  - in international security the paranoid survive

 

In the exact same way that Kennedy, rightly, assumed the worst of intention when Kruschev put those nukes on ships heading to Cuba. Kennedy brought the world to nuclear armageddon......on the principle that ounce of prevention is worth a tonne of cure......and on the principle that sovereign leader must ALWAYS assume even defensive positioning by your enemy may actually be an offensive maneuver. Kennedy had his red lines........and I know, because Putin has written and spoken about it, he has his red lines......Belarus & Ukraine will never be members of NATO......the world had its Cuban missile crisis.....if things keep moving the way we are now our generation wiill have it owns 'Ukraine NATO crisis'.......and my guess is Putin and his successors will be bring the world to nuclear armageddon to maintain that red line & like Krushev & Kennedy....the question will become whom has the greater resolve in the battle of wills around the Ukraine/NATO question......and I'd posit to you if/when that time comes.....Russia will have the greater resolve to keep Ukraine out of NATO, than the West has to let Ukraine into NATO......like Kennedy & Cuba nukes......Russia has deemed it to be of existential  important & a red line in the sand, one willing to bring them close to hit the red button......& like Kruschev with Kennedy the West will realize a credible threat when they see one........and will ultimately turn the NATO membership ships around.

[Spekulatius]

Easy to find sources of what Putin thinks about Ukraine statehood  before the invasion. He stated what he things many times as early as 20 years ago, if not earlier. Google search will get you quite a few hits. The book, I mentioned in thr book section of this site had plenty of sources..

https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/03/opinion/stent-putin-ukraine-russia-endgame/index.html

 

At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, Vladimir Putin told a surprised George W. Bush, “You have to understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a country. Part of its territory is in Eastern Europe and the greater part was given to us.”

[changegonnacome]

24 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, Vladimir Putin told a surprised George W. Bush, “You have to understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a country. Part of its territory is in Eastern Europe and the greater part was given to us.”

 

Yep I referenced that famous quote in my original post and excluded it from the 'challenge' - its hearsay......George Bush said he said that......wouldn't stand up in a court of law 

 

But even that quote - speaks to a territorial claim......aligned with the East of Ukraine.....the 40% ethnically Russian part.......swallowing Ukraine.....the Western part that hates Russia....would be like trying to 'swallow a porcupine'

 

The "Mearsheimar challenge" on Putin desire to invade and take back Ukraine whole back into Russia prior to Feb 2022.......is to find a primary document - a speech he gave, verifiable speech transcripts and/or essays or recorded pronouncements from Putin's mouth/pen.........

 

I played the game, did the challenge - I used Google..I'm pretty good...I couldn't find one.......every ambiguous reference to the 'oneness' of Russia & Ukraine's history....was followed later in the same speech by a reference to Ukraine's sovereignty & right to choose....with a strong bias obviously suggesting to Ukraine to respect their 'shared brotherhood'.

 

The below essay by Putin from July 2021....is effectively a re-run of the position he has spoken & written about since 2008 when the NATO accession train began. Everything I found in the Mearsheimar challenge was like this.....a line or two when you say.....I got you Putin but then its qualified later.......so in short you will find lines you can quote out of context even in the below.....but a paragraph later it qualified.

 

http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 

 

I'll just, as I always do, go back to the facts of the invasion.......if the plan was to invade, occupy and re-absorb Ukraine back into......doing with only 250,000 men.......ranks as one of the largest miscalculations relative to history around what it would take to occupy/control  a country of that size. It so nuts....it strains credibility as a theory....except in the Putin has lost his mind theory...which I cant rule out but find very unlikely.

Edited June 9, 2023 by changegonnacome

[Spekulatius]

I don’t speak  Russian is not good enough to do primary search, but here is his famous “white paper” from 2021, clear as mud:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians

 

Here is another analysis written in 2016 of Putin speeches which seems inline with what I read in the Book “What everyone needs to know about Ukraine”.

Mearsheimer has a very selective interpretation of facts as it relates Putin, imo.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Spekulatius

[Viking]

3 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

Dont know about you - but generally an ounce of prevention is worth a tonne of cure........to ensure US nukes never end up in Ukraine......the best strategy is to ensure Ukraine never ends up in NATO. No? That not a good strategy you think as the temporary Russian leader you currently are in your imagination?

 

Clearly i am an idiot. ‘Ounce of prevention’? Seriously? What have they prevented? And check out the ‘tonne of cure’ below… that is a cure? Seriously? 

 

So Russia decided to invade a sovereign country because of the risk of nukes getting placed there. As a result of their actions, they also are now directly responsible for:

1.) forcing Finland to join Nato. Hello nukes very close. FYI, Finland is about the same distance from Moscow as Ukraine (in rocket terms).

2.) forcing Sweden to join Nato. The Baltic Sea now belongs to Nato.
3.) revitalizing Nato, which was crumbling and close to becoming obsolete before the invasion.
4.) forcing all countries in Europe to aggressively re-arm, including big ones like Germany. So in the coming years Russia is going to be surrounded by hostile and armed to the teeth neighbours. (Yes, people in Europe get hostile when they see the atrocities of what Russia is doing to Ukraine today).

5.) killing to date 20,000 of its own citizens (Russians!) with 100,000 casualties (Russians!)

6.) materially impairing the living standard of most Russians, likely for a generation

7.) materially impairing the future prospects of most Russian children

8.) forcing hundreds of thousands of young Russian men to flee the country to avoid fighting in the war

9.) economically speaking, has effectively become China’s concubine

 

Man looks to me like Russia just nailed it with this invasion. My list above is just scratching the surface of what they have ‘achieved’. 

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Viking

[changegonnacome]

10 minutes ago, Viking said:

Clearly i am an idiot. ‘Ounce of prevention’? Seriously? What have they prevented? And check out the ‘tonne of cure’ below… that is a cure? Seriously? 

 

I gave you the motivation for the invasion...counter to the consensus narratives of Putin the imperialist............to say it hasn't worked out is an understatement.....clearly.....my thread has been focused on the cause, motivations and reason for the invasion on Feb 21st....and what precipitated it.

 

Have a read of what I wrote...you've misunderstood what I've said.....and mischaracterized it.

 

Can I ask @Viking do you think that the West courting Ukraine to be a close alley, even hanging out NATO membership might have played even a small part in antagonizing Russia, its 800ilb gorilla neighbor with nukes. Might't

 

I also explained why Belarus/Ukraine.....remain a special case and a redline re: NATO....Finland/Sweden joining NATO would not have triggered an invastion the same way a pathway to Ukraine joinig NATO would.....and its to do with a land invasion from Central Europe.....its how Russia dies, if it ever dies....its certainly how Russia most recently nearly died in WWII: