3889 replies to this topic

[Big Nake]

I know there were a couple of other meandering threads about this a couple months ago but wanted to ask two specific questions.  One, has Putin ever explained his intention for invading Ukraine?  Has he said what he wants, given any reason, etc?  At first I thought it was so that they had access to the sea but a quick check of the map shows that the southern border of Russia already has access to the Black Sea which then gives them access to the Mediterranean.  I realize that the old "Soviet Union" had many more countries/territories/satellite lands that were lost in 1989 (ish?) so is this just Putin saying that he wants to get the band back together?  That leads to the second question:  Does anyone know or have a link that clearly explains the history of the soviet-era territories?  Was Ukraine always a part of Russia but cracked off when the iron curtain went down?  I see that the Soviet Union was intact from about 1922 until 1991.  Countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, East Germany, etc. became a part of the union after WW2 and then became sovereign nations again.  What is the history of Ukraine itself?  Some Google results show that Ukraine has had some very turbulent times, established itself as an independent nation in 1921 but was quickly grabbed again by Russia.  Sometimes it takes a conflict to understand all the historic variables.  

[Sidney Porter]

https://www.aljazeer...kraine-tensions

In a nutshell Russia doesn't want Ukraine to be involved with the west/NATO. Russia supports a rebellion by proxy on the far western end of ukraine

Edited by Sidney Porter, 28 January 2022 - 11:34 AM.

[Big Nake]

That's helpful.  I forgot about the "Ukraine wants to be a part of NATO" thing.  But Ukraine is an independent nation, right?  How is Russia allowed to have any say in what happens to another independent nation?  Yes, they have regional similarities and a long history but a sovereign nation has its own identity and rights, no?  I'm just trying to understand it.  Some have mentioned that this has "1938 written all over it" and maybe it does but I would rather not make a lazy comparison.  

[Enid Puceflange]

The short answer is that Putin has given a list of demands before he pulls the troops back, but no, he has not given reasons for them being there in the first place.

 

The best guess is that Russia is in a pretty poor situation economically right now. It's pretty much dependent on oil and gas exports, and the population is shrinking. The general mood of Russians is not good because a large part of the money that flows in is siphoned off by the oligarchs at the top, Putin's circle. Thus Putin is blaming others, specifically NATO and the USA for the domestic situation, and attempting to divert attention. It's mostly working as well - Putin is still relatively popular within Russia.

 

As to whether he would indeed invade, that's a great unknown. The consequences are shaping up to looking REALLY bad for Russia generally should he do it, but it might be possible to target the oligarchs rather than broad sanctions like kicking Russia out of SWIFT. I imagine that freezing the assets of a large number of the super wealthy Russians in London and Cyprus would put substantial pressure on

 

As to whether Putin would use the threat or reality of cutting Europe's gas supplies - that's really interesting. Russia currently has about $600B in dollar reserves in the central bank, so the loss of the money coming in from Europe for gas sales wouldn't cause immediate horror. However, the penalties that Gazprom would face for not meeting contracted supply would probably bankrupt the company pretty rapidly, and ALL consumers of Russian gas - specifically China - would look at it as a deeply unreliable supplier and almost certainly diversify away. In effect, that's a weapon that can only be used once, and the damage it does to Russia in the end would probably be greater than the damage to Europe.    

[Enid Puceflange]

Also, Russia historically has seen itself as under threat from abroad, and has also historically defended itself against that by imposing buffer zones between Russia and the threats. It is quite possible that the Russian defense establishment and Putin really does see this as a defensive action against an assertive NATO. 

 

However, the result of this is probably going to work the opposite way - if Russia DOES invade, Finland and Sweden will almost certainly join NATO, and it has already had the effect of generating more than a little bipartisan action here in the US, and would be a unifier for European nations that generally have been drifting away from NATO. 

[AspenLeif]

 Thus Putin is blaming others, specifically NATO and the USA for the domestic situation, and attempting to divert attention. It's mostly working as well - Putin is still relatively popular within Russia.

 

 

Well, and the fact that you go and kill or make your dissenters and anti-journalists 'disappear' is another way to appear popular.   

[Big Nake]

Also, Russia historically has seen itself as under threat from abroad, and has also historically defended itself against that by imposing buffer zones between Russia and the threats. It is quite possible that the Russian defense establishment and Putin really does see this as a defensive action against an assertive NATO. 

 

However, the result of this is probably going to work the opposite way - if Russia DOES invade, Finland and Sweden will almost certainly join NATO, and it has already had the effect of generating more than a little bipartisan action here in the US, and would be a unifier for European nations that generally have been drifting away from NATO. 

On your first part, wasn't it Russia that got all grabby after WW2 and took over in some countries with little-to-no opposition?  Sure they were a force in WW2 but that was clearly an offensive action that lasted for close to 50 years and I also have to assume that the citizens of those countries probably suffered from that offensive action by Russia.  Suggesting that they're being squeezed by outside forces does not give Russia the right to invade a sovereign nation regardless of history or geography.   

[toonces]

On your first part, wasn't it Russia that got all grabby after WW2 and took over in some countries with little-to-no opposition?  Sure they were a force in WW2 but that was clearly an offensive action that lasted for close to 50 years and I also have to assume that the citizens of those countries probably suffered from that offensive action by Russia.  Suggesting that they're being squeezed by outside forces does not give Russia the right to invade a sovereign nation regardless of history or geography.   

The Soviet Union lost lots and lots of people, both military as well as civilian, during WW2.  Some of it even due to hunger.  Never mind that Stalin and others saw an opportunity to expand their control, they used the situation to peddle the propaganda of influences from the West as being the downfall of civilization. And created the need and want of a barrier between 'Mother Russia' and the West.  Some of that thinking still prevails.

[TonyBrown]

The Soviet Union lost lots and lots of people, both military as well as civilian, during WW2.  Some of it even due to hunger.  Never mind that Stalin and others saw an opportunity to expand their control, they used the situation to peddle the propaganda of influences from the West as being the downfall of civilization. And created the need and want of a barrier between 'Mother Russia' and the West.  Some of that thinking still prevails.

[Big Nake]

Am I in any personal danger? 

[SnowMan]

Am I in any personal danger? 

 

Swipe left if she comes up on your dating app. 

[Enid Puceflange]

On your first part, wasn't it Russia that got all grabby after WW2 and took over in some countries with little-to-no opposition?  Sure they were a force in WW2 but that was clearly an offensive action that lasted for close to 50 years and I also have to assume that the citizens of those countries probably suffered from that offensive action by Russia.  Suggesting that they're being squeezed by outside forces does not give Russia the right to invade a sovereign nation regardless of history or geography.   

I did try to explain that what appears to us as an aggressive act - taking the eastern part of Europe after the war and installing pliable governments that would do their bidding - was and is seen in Russia as a defensive act, in response to Nazi aggression. WW2 hurt the soviets very very badly, and they determined that in no way was it gonna happen again. That's a lot of the thinking here, both at a Putin level, and also at the level of the common folks, because NATO expansion looks an awful lot like a hostile force gobbling up territory and coming closer to the borders.

 

Throw in some recent history lessons about what happens when strongmen leaders try to retire (Kazakhstan) and the idea that a successful western-style European Ukraine would show the Russians next door how bad they have it, and ....*gestures at Ukraine and Belarus*

[Enid Puceflange]

Am I in any personal danger? 

Interesting question.

 

Immediately? No. However, if Putin DOES decide to invade (by no means a dead cert at all) then several things are going to happen pretty fast. First, it will give the long global supply chain economic model a hearty kicking while it is down. This means that we would see increased supply chain disruptions, and there would be an immediate oil price shock since whatever else happens there will be substantial sanctions on Russia immediately and that would be on oil and gas, as well as minerals, so you could reasonably expect a significant global recession. Inflation would definitely spike, since oil prices would scamper well above $100/barrel.

 

If Europe gets the gas turned off, you can also expect a significant spike in electricity and gas prices here in the US, since we would be exporting LNG to Europe as fast as we could.

 

Will it be the oil embargo of 1970s? No. Will it be like June 2008? Much more likely.    

[deejaydan]

I personally wonder if it's a feint, to distract and put attention to Ukraine while something else is going on that doesn't get attention, and that's the real thing. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/...europe-60130151

 

Why would Russia have wargames off of Ireland?

 

Well, the map of cables might be part of it... could they bug the cables?

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/

 

Is it something else that Putin in planning?  Maybe?

[Enid Puceflange]

It doesn't seem on the face of it to be a good strategic move. While Russian forces might indeed manage to change the government in Kiev they are going to lose a lot of men doing it, and the population has already thrown out one lot of pro-Russia politicians so when the troops leave it seems likely they would do it again, and that time they likely WOULD try to join NATO. There's also rather too much to lose for the oligarchs that bankroll the kleptocracy - they aren't going to enjoy the sanctions one little bit.

[BlueBoy]

This must become my profile pic

[BlueBoy]

I personally wonder if it's a feint, to distract and put attention to Ukraine while something else is going on that doesn't get attention, and that's the real thing. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/...europe-60130151

 

Why would Russia have wargames off of Ireland?

 

Well, the map of cables might be part of it... could they bug the cables?

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/

 

Is it something else that Putin in planning?  Maybe?

do you even hunt for Red October, bro?

 

THOR’S TWINS!!!

[davelew]

Ukraine has always had a seat in the UN separate from Russia’s seat. It wasn’t exactly independent from Russia, but it wasn’t exactly part of Russia either. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union and Russian Federation, it has been more independent, but still not totally independent. Russia subsidized cheap natural gas for Ukraine, and encouraged Ukrainians to build houses without insulation— then threatened to cut off the gas subsidies if the government didn’t obey Moscow.

Ukraine has been more or less Russia’s bitch for the last 800 years. It is currently in a “less” phase, and Russia would like it to be more of an obedient client state.

[Julius H Gardetto]

The Soviet Union lost lots and lots of people, both military as well as civilian, during WW2. Some of it even due to hunger. Never mind that Stalin and others saw an opportunity to expand their control, they used the situation to peddle the propaganda of influences from the West as being the downfall of civilization. And created the need and want of a barrier between 'Mother Russia' and the West. Some of that thinking still prevails.

Wait. I mean, will anyone know?

[orudis]

Also, Russia historically has seen itself as under threat from abroad, and has also historically defended itself against that by imposing buffer zones between Russia and the threats. It is quite possible that the Russian defense establishment and Putin really does see this as a defensive action against an assertive NATO.

However, the result of this is probably going to work the opposite way - if Russia DOES invade, Finland and Sweden will almost certainly join NATO, and it has already had the effect of generating more than a little bipartisan action here in the US, and would be a unifier for European nations that generally have been drifting away from NATO.

There’s hints of bipartisanship, but there’s also a real chance the GOP ends up siding with Putin IMO.