The war was planned at least 6 months ahead of time, it barely matters what happened days before the war, whether the claim is true or not.
Everything else in your comment is just an excuse to start a war. Only thing missing is all the nazis in Ukraine that Russia needs to demilitarize.
It seems to me that US intelligence did to proper thing in loudly declaring the (accurate) plans of russian forces; though at what cost to their future sources remains to be seen.
If we can believe this story[1], some FSB guys were tasked throughout the years with bribing Ukranian military leaders to just lay down their weapons when the invasion begins. The FSB guys thought, "You're giving me cash to prepare for something (Ukranian invasion) that'll never happen, and you don't expect a receipt? Wahey, call the Mercedes dealership, and look up villas on the Black Sea coast!". And when Putin told them the invasion was going to happen, they panicked, and thought how to prevent it from happening and their embezzlement to be caught, "If we leak the plans to CIA, then Putin might get cold feet.". That's why the US seems to have been very well informed about it.
[1] http://www.thelowdownblog.com/2022/03/is-putins-invasion-fai...
In any case, this whole reply thread is off-topic to the article (which is about hunger, which will be real whoever provoked the war in reality and people's messed up's minds) and it's because top commenter is butthurt about one word...
I'm not sure this would be as controversial if posters considered that it is possible for both 'sides' to be wrong. Of course the article has a way to frame the issue. It exists on one 'side' of the issue.
Similar to how these shortages are largely blamed on the war, rather than the sanctions or the pandemic restrictions.
It isn't just the (perhaps misplaced) controversy that I find interesting here. It is the constant transitioning from one crisis to the next, each one with economic implications. A cynical conspiracy theorist might even wonder if these crises are manufactured to suit these economic ends. Is attributing motive even important? We are here now, dealing with the results.
Just the same, the constant state of emergency demanded by these fear promotions and the short attention span of those who indulge them does remind me of a cat chasing a laser pointer.
Seems to me Russia blundered pretty badly. Even if it had been as easy as they were assuming they would always come out of this having paid an extremely heavy toll diplomatically and economically. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why they couldn't use the same tactics their opposition was using and keep it out of the hot war it's turned into.
It explains why thy were willing to risk such harsh consequences.
>I don't understand why they couldn't use the same tactics their opposition was using and keep it out of the hot war it's turned into.
They were using other means in Ukraine to avoid full scale war for decades, but loosing badly at them (eg politics, manipulation, trade offers, ect)
That 8 years comes from when Russia annexed Crimea. It was Russia that has been doing all they could to provoke Ukraine into seeking protection from Russia.
A war over an “unwritten understanding”? Thats one of the saddest excuses for an argument I’ve ever seen, not even a defunct treaty to wave around as defense, just an “unwritten understanding”. That wouldn’t fly in a contract negotiation, let alone as a casus belli.
Nevermind how Putin’s own words put lies to your post a fucking month ago. Shame on you for repeating such obvious nonsense. Putin made it very clear that this was about him seeing Ukraine as a fake state; I have no idea why you would keep repeating the line that Putin himself cast away before starting an illegal war.
Also, it drives me absolutely nuts that everyone keeps acting like it’s NATO that is expanding into Ukraine. Are we just pretending that Ukraine is a puppet without its agency and agenda? Hint: there is a pretty obvious reason why Ukraine wanted in NATO. It’s pure chauvinism to ignore this.
Incredible how valueless identity politics has become as a phrase, other than as a way to signal disagreement.
> The truth of the matter is the West provoked a war through utter inept diplomacy and they are making things worse every day.
“The world isn’t black and white. Anyways, I am going to blame one party alone for a geopolitical disaster. If you disagree you’re either wrong or doing identity politics”.
> As someone else commented it's like we have children at the wheel. The sad part is even a large part of HN is just towing the party line blindly.
Valueless ad hominem.
Also, it’s “butt hurt”. Please try and at least spell your insults correctly, they lose a lot of their impact when riddled with typos.
> west proceeds to deeply fuck with ukraine for 8 years while russia repeats the above and totally ignores it
There is a reason why I accuse those who take this line of being chauvinists. First of all, for the past 8 years Ukraine has been begging for Western weapons and assistance, because Russia had already invaded their territory. You’re ignoring the fact that Ukraine has their own agenda and own initiative, and they can request assistance legitimately.
Second, “mess with Ukraine and we’ll invade” is not a legitimate stance to take. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, not a Russian puppet state that Putin can put claims on. Especially when that “messing” is in the form of legitimate arms deals between sovereign nations. Russia can complain all it wants, but Ukraine trying to buy Javelins is not a legitimate casus belli.
Third, again, Putin made it very clear in his initial speech that he views Ukraine as a fake state, which is wildly out of line with the argument you’re trying to make, and much more characteristic of Russian chauvinism towards Ukraine.
1. What should I do?
2. How do I sell it to the people at home?
3. How do I sell it to the rest of the world?
I think that accounts for why some correctly observe Putin claimed Ukraine needed to be "liberated" from all the Nazis (#2 above). It's also why Russia has said repeatedly that NATO caused the war (#3 above).
As for the actual cause (#1 above), like all wars, there are probably multiple factors, like:
1. Former KGB Putin and plenty of others longing for the "glory days" of the USSR.
2. A desire to stop NATO expansion by intimidating anyone else who might want in.
3. Removing the Zolynksy government and replacing with a pro-Russia government.
4. Solidifying access to the Black Sea and claims to Crimea.
...
ETA: also remember, if news reports are accurate, Putin thought this war would be a 5-minute cakewalk. I suspect Russia might not have invaded if they knew the cost in lives and dollars this war would bring.
How can they be? They can’t go into Putin’s head
Yes. I believe it is possible to pack up and go home. The Russian invaders path is open and clear for that.