Russia-Ukraine War

[mr.WHO]

This issue baffles me, I cannot think of any grand reason, either economical or political, where Russia has to gamble so much for so little.

Unfortunately it really counts much militarly, politically and economically for Russia:
- plugs the buffer zone gap between Russia proper & NATO (you could say the Baltics would be the last gap and obvious next target).
- Ukraine soil is most fertile in Europe - Russia proper is still not self-sufficient with food production.
- Ukraine (especially eastern parts) industry is useless on it's own, but still complementary with Russian industry.
- Ukraine has a lot of russian speaking population (potential new russian, willing or not) which is very important resource. Russia is bleeding out population (due to negative growth and emigration).


It might looks like stupid move from Western perspective, but it makes a lot of sence from Russian perspective..

[Teladi CEO]

Can't remember Russians causing big waves of immigration to destabilising Europe. Why is that, actually? Oh, yes, they didn't invade other countries and make people to leave their homes because they were bombed out.

I know of four separate wars Russia had fought within Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Chechen
Georgia
Ukraine
Tranistria

All of these wars absolutely devastated Russia’s neighbors and yes, caused refugees and destabilization in Europe. This conversation also isn’t about the US, it’s about stopping Russia from making the same actions as the US, which no one in the world needs. And no one in the world needs the US to be doing it either. If you wanna talk about US foreign policy my guess, but this is about Russia. If your defending Russia by stating they are only doing what the US has done, then Russia is violating all of its own diplomatic complaints and issues its raised about US interventions and wars.

[notaterran]

Perhaps Putin has problems at home and a war with Ukraine would serve as a nice distraction for the masses?

[Chips]

Most of the pro Russia arguments don't stack up.

Nato has been on Russia's border for 18 years - just look at the damned map

Ukraine applied to join in 2008, but it was suspended in 2010 and then shelved by Yano guy. The interim gov allegedly kept the neutrality, and it was only after Russian involvement with Crimea that the Ukraine pivoted again to joining NATO. Quelle surprise that occurred huh. I bet Putin never saw that coming.

To be honest, with Putin's drive to modernise the armed forces two decades ago; the provocation in Ukraine when it wasn't joining NATO... can't help but wonder if this hasn't been planned in the very very long term and steps taken to engineer this scenario. Who'd have imaged that breaking off chunks of the Ukraine would cause them to look to join military alliances -- something so dangerous and intolerable you'd have to invade them in response to.

You'd have to be a psychic to see that one surely (maybe too much sarcasm? ).

Whataboutery over "Well, USA bad so Russia should be bad" is schoolyard stuff - two wrongs don't make a right should be the stock answer; however, "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones..." is a perfectly viable comeback. Neither of these
justify any incursion by Russia into Ukraine, period.

As for putting missiles in Cuba etc - get on with it, who cares. Europe has lived under "next door nuclear missiles" for 50+ years; Russia and USA are a pair of snowflakes.

NATO is the excuse, the smokescreen, the "but.. but... reasons!". The reason this is happening is Putin. End of.

I mean, if Ukraine did join NATO, what precisely do you think is suddenly going to happen? Whatever, lets just hope this all leads to nothing more than troop repositioning and a cooldown.

For those who support the Russian point of view you may enjoy Simon Jenkins article in the Guardian about this. For those who don't support that perspective, you may find it disturbing. Either way, worth a read (and the comments as for why it is so disturbing as plenty point out history, and also just how bad his opinion is ). It also contains links to other articles, which address/cover the falsity of the "promise not to expand to the East" as being part of any treaty. It wasn't.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... er-dispute

[mr.WHO]

Most of the pro Russia arguments don't stack up.

Nato has been on Russia's border for 18 years - just look at the damned map

Exactly!
If we accept Russian excuses, then basically we sanction Russia doing the same to Baltic states (doesn't matter that they are EU/NATO members) in a few years in future.

It's the same distance from Riga to Moscow as it is from Kiev.

[greypanther]

Dare I imply similarities with Hitler and appeasement? After all certain parallels can be drawn...

As an aside for anyone interested, I can recommend this fictional read about a mad Russia and China and the build up to a WWIII. written buy an ex soldier and with certain things that ring true. Well written too.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stand-2015-Ill ... C61&sr=1-1

[felter]

I have not been following this thread, but here's my take. Russia have been preparing for this for years, they have been testing out Europe and the surrounding areas for weakness in their military protection, so they know what they can and cannot do if they have to. They have also been testing out what nations would do, like state sponsored assassinations. They also have the EU by the balls as they hold the EU's energy in its hands as it supplies around 80% of the EU's gas supply. So if they do eventually go into Ukraine the Eu is not going to do much, as if they do Russia cuts off the gas supply and the EU is screwed as they will have no gas and will be fighting each other for what they do have.

They have been messing around with America for several years and probably know more than the Americans would want them to know, Trump probably sold all the information to them that they needed. They also have a naval advantage over America right now, what with their newest submarines. The American navy want's you to think they are on par with their submarines, but they are way far better, they are actually so good the Americans cannot track them, and they have no idea where they are. They are so silent, they could be sitting under an American naval fleet and the Americans wouldn't even know it until it was too late. They even can't defend against the Russian subs armaments, as the torpedoes they are using can't be detected till boom. And they all carry some really nice missiles, which they recently showed off to the world.

Furthermore, they keep threatening Russia with sanctions, but Russia doesn't care about sanctions, once again hit them with sanction, and they can just turn off the gas. Russia holds all the cards right now, and there is sod all we can do about it, they know how to hurt us and are not frightened to do so.

The question is why do they want to take over Ukraine to start with, it's all to do with water. When Russia annexed Crimea all those years ago one thing they didn't take into account was water as Crimea does not have a source of fresh drinking water at the time all of it's drinking water came from Ukraine but of course as soon as Russia annexed Crimea Ukraine cut off the supply leaving Crimea high and dry. Right now, all of Crimea's water is shipped in on trucks over a bridge that Russia has built, but when you have to supply water for around 2.5 million people every day by truck it gets more than a little bit tedious. So I reckon this is what Russia is after, just a supply of plain fresh drinking water, and they are willing to kill for it.

[EGO_Aut]

@felter

According to US reports in 2008 , Putin is said to have spoken in the NATO-Russia Council that if Ukraine joined NATO, Crimea and eastern Ukraine could be detached from Ukraine and annexed to Russia.
-2014 they took over Crimera.

RU has a "small" border line with NATO (Estland, Lettland, Lituania), its not in their interest to expand it.

PS: I think soon east Ukraine will be an independent neutral buffer zone. Similar happend with Georgia.
Its not about water, they could simple pipeline it.

[felter]

Its not about water, they could simple pipeline it.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple, if it was, don't you think they would have done that by now. Right now they use hundreds if not thousands of trucks to transport all the fresh water over land and sea. These Trucks go into Crimea to deposit their water turn around and leave empty, and they do this 24 hours a day 7 days a week 52 weeks a year non-stop, back and forth they go.
Remember, we are talking about supplying fresh water to 2.5 million people, you know how much water that amount of people use every single day, a simple garden hose pipeline wouldn't cut it you are talking about having to install a major water network, and it would have to come from all over not just the one water supply, meaning they would have to install hundreds if not thousands of miles of water pipework over land, then they also have the task of having to pipe all that water over or under a sea, and we are talking about a pipe network that a person would be able to easily traverse in. Then you have to think on the cost, we are talking hundreds of billions in any currency to put this infrastructure in place, let alone the amount of time you are probably looking at years not days weeks or months.

Meanwhile, in Ukraine there already is a pipeline that can do the job ready to go with just some maintenance and wars have been fought over a lot less.

[fiksal]

I cant read Putin's mind. But I can read the official word via the official news.

And the word is: that NATO needs to be destroyed; West is corrupt and invents reasons to destroy Russia; US should've / could've been nuked when Crimea 'joined' Russia; Russia is basically at war and is under attack; Russians are under attack everywhere; Ukraine is not a separate country; disappearance of USSR is a tragedy.

If you grow this for awhile, it gets to be fruitful.

What do you think will happen? Nothing? Will war break out between Russia and the Ukraine? Will Russia and the West start a new Cold War?

to answer the original post, I actually dont know, it can go either way.

technically, Putin has nothing to lose. Crimea and Donbas proved that there are no downsides to this. Ukraine showed that it won't be a walk, so Russia settled for a trophy, an island, lawless territory and an airliner. US and NATO really dont want to be involved in Ukraine, but they are also slightly more active now. In Syria, US decided to back off. And Russia didnt mind when Turkey shot down a military plane there. Turkey is best friends. Everyone walked away happy from Syria except for all the dead.

An unknown to me - is Ukraine. With large Russian population, yet with unhealthy and understandable effect of Nationalism, growing hatred for Russians, - this potentially will not be as quiet as before. Military of course doesnt match up, but there's more to war than just this.

I plan to keep my TV on.

[Chips]

I cant read Putin's mind. But I can read the official word via the official news.

And the word is: that NATO needs to be destroyed; West is corrupt and invents reasons to destroy Russia; US should've / could've been nuked when Crimea 'joined' Russia; Russia is basically at war and is under attack; Russians are under attack everywhere; Ukraine is not a separate country; disappearance of USSR is a tragedy.

Yep, info (or misinformation). As grey mentioned earlier, this draws parallels with many wars being waged - the most obvious of which was...

The rhetoric being spouted is going to legitimise the actions being taken, and especially the legitimacy of the hardships people will find due to various economic sanctions that'll be levied. Persuade them this is a legitimate course of defence of the realm/people, and they'll endure hardships that they never would otherwise. Why? Because they believe it's for a good reason (and nationalism helps). It's all NATO's fault... and if he can persuade everyone that's the case then he'll be safe from revolts/civil disobedience if sanctions are significantly harsh.

There's been several papers written previously whereby the postulated (and simulated) the impact of various hardships on populations and the legitimacy of the causes. If the hardships are severe, and the legitimacy of the cause significant, people will be more willing to endure and obey. If the legitimacy is non existent (either leadership or perception of the cause for hardships) then they'll turn into outbreaks of civil violence/looting and so on.

To hark back to WW2 - the UK population went through years of hardship, but were accepting of it and maintained a strong national spirit in the face of it. Why? Because it was legitimate. Try doing that level of rationing and more in the present day... there'd be significant unrest. Well, the media mouthpiece of Putin looks to be stoking up the former to ensure the latter does no occur. If that's really what the media are trotting out around the clock, then it would appear a war is inevitable.

[fiksal]

Persuade them this is a legitimate course of defence of the realm/people, and they'll endure hardships that they never would otherwise. Why? Because they believe it's for a good reason (and nationalism helps)

You are right. It's been going on, the sanctions are for a good cause, the internal "sanctions" that target products in Russia, are too for a good cause.

Enough of people that is needed to keep the king in power, agree.


The media in Russia is quite blood thirsty, it's a bit of a run away train. As if it's only held back when something unexpected happens, off the script, for which they then need to wait a message from the higher power, to see if they should proceed. That's when an awkward pause occurs, like when a friend takes down your military plane.

So. Depends on when you tune in, you may find out that Ukrainians, with American's help no doubt, literally crusify children in Donbass, like Romans did. Comes with some gruesome imagery on TV.

[notaterran]

Ukraine is not a separate country

I wonder how many Russians believe that, and if the propaganda is working.

[Warenwolf]

And this is being posted on youtube channels and fake news sites these days:

The Ukrainian military threatens to destroy Russian civilian aircraft.

After the Armed Forces of Ukraine deployed the Buk-M1, S-125 and S-300 complexes in the Donbass, it became known that Ukraine was threatening to start using these weapons against Russian civilian aircraft. The data on this subject were announced by FSB Major General Alexander Mikhailov, noting that the risk of an attack on Russian civilian aircraft is very high, especially since the air corridors lie in close proximity to the Ukrainian border.

Source:
https://avia-pro.net/news/ukraina-ugroz ... oih-granic

(note - above mentioned site is used as front for fake news generated in Russia).

Let see whether this is preparation for some sort of Gleiwitz incident or mental preparation of Russians public for what is coming next

[mr.WHO]

Russia doing some things and Germany is friendly patting them on the back?

That sounds oddly familiar.

"Nord Stream" is a private endeavour.

That sounds oddly familiar too.

I recall there was a guy who used private endeavour to build tractors and planes in Russia, very specific endeavour...for a painter.

I'm sure it all ends well.

[notaterran]

When asked on whether the German government would halt the opening of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, Scholz told the Post that he would not get into specifics, but that Germany's "answer would be united and decisive."

"It is absolutely clear that in a situation like this all options are on the table," Scholz said.

Scholz emphasized his support for strategic ambiguity, saying that "this is critical for giving this strong message that it will be very costly — so they cannot go to a computer and count whether it will be too expensive or not."

Link

It seems that Scholz either wants to walk a fine line, or is low-key running interference for Russia. I'm thinking of former German chancellor Gerhart Schröder, who ended up working for a Russian oil company (Link). Will Scholz also end up with a lucrative job in a Russian company?

[EGO_Aut]

This said Putin
https://youtu.be/loPiNhH5ViM

PS: I bet in a few years, Scholz will get a nice US job.

Edit: even if underexposed people see it differently, it's not about Jews.

[Warenwolf]

This said Putin
https://youtu.be/loPiNhH5ViM

PS: I bet in a few years, Scholz will get a nice US job.

Warning :
source "Russian Insider" Ego_Aut linked to is russian propaganda channel*. To save the people some research time, they blamed jews for problems in the world in the last 30 years** (yep...never heard that one before...).
Also the way youtube suggestion algorithm works, your suggestion list on that channel will be swamped with conspiracy theories and political extremism. So unless this is your thing, log out from youtube before clicking the link and clear the cookies after you have clicked on the link above.

So let me finish this with an apt WH40K reference : "A suspicious mind is a healthy mind."

Sources:
*
https://www.interpretermag.com/is-russi ... far-right/
**
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premiu ... -1.5770080

[Cpt.Jericho]

A truly suspicious mind would also ask when is this imminent invasion actually happening? The "any day now" theme has been going on since last year and yet Russian troops have been sitting on their side of the border doing - well - nothing. To me this seems more like a smokescreen from the Biden administration to divert interest from domestic problems.

[Warenwolf]

A truly suspicious mind would also ask when is this imminent invasion actually happening? The "any day now" theme has been going on since last year and yet Russian troops have been sitting on their side of the border doing - well - nothing. To me this seems more like a smokescreen from the Biden administration to divert interest from domestic problems.

"any day now" is straw man argument.

War will happen when Putin thinks he can get away with it. You don't raise and place 100 000 men on the border for fun. It may never happen if he thinks that the cost is way more than the benefit.

Lack of war is no proof of involved parties being pacifist.

Besides, with Biden declaring long ago that he will not help militarily Ukrainians if war starts is not exactly smokescreening anything. It just makes him look weak.