Instead, goaded on the by the USA and Europe, they are fighting a losing war that will hurt tens or hundreds of thousands over the coming years. There is 0 chance Russia will back off. Of course, it will also weaken Russia, which is what Europe and the USA actually want. Putin fell right into their trap, and Ukraine thinks it's being helped.
By that logic wouldn’t the Russians be much better off if they had worked with the international community to avoid this war as their industrial base is crumbling around them and they are losing massive amounts of manpower?
Russia could take Ukraine today with no more materiel losses and they will be worse off than when they started. The only way they could consider this a win is if they consider ideological reasons, but if you include those you can’t say the Ukrainians would be better off if they value freedom more than they value staying alive
Stopping this expansion at Ukraine, and reminding their people the immoral lengths they are willing to go to when their interests are threatened, is a major strategic goal for Russian leaders.
> By that logic wouldn’t the Russians be much better off if they had worked with the international community to avoid this war as their industrial base is crumbling around them and they are losing massive amounts of manpower?
Absolutely, and what I'm saying is not justification for this disturbing invasion. The invasion obviously puts Putin and other Russian elites' interest above those of their citizens, as can be expected from an authoritarian oligarchy.
And Ukraine reminding Russia that they will fight to the death and leave scorched earth behind, so invading will cost more than they earn isn’t a major strategic goal? I don’t have a problem with the justifications you have on Russias side of the argument, it’s just that you seem to view that as inevitable so the Ukrainians are the ones being unreasonable by providing any resistance. They both are trying to accomplish strategic goals here and Ukraine didn’t decide on war just because they were “goaded”
Essentially Ukraine has agreed to become a proxy for NATO in a bid to cripple Russian power. NATO has little lose if this fails, but Ukraine's leaders are gambling the lives and livelihoods of an awful lot of people. I do wish I am wrong and they are right, but as I said elsewhere, I don't beleive Russia will stop at anything not to let that happen.
When I say I don't think it's in their best interest to do so, and that I think they are misjudging Russia's determination if they believe they can win, I'm not taking away their agency. As such, I don't believe my leaders are doing them a service when they are supplying them with weapons and military intel, and if it were in my power, I would stop this supply (all the leadership, and the vast majority of the public, in my country is almost rabidly anti-Russian and pro-NATO, so this is an extremely theoretical exercise).
In the end, I believe NATO is playing chicken with Russia, but putting Ukraine in the speeding car instead of driving it themselves. I don't think this is wise, and definitely not good for Ukraine.
If you don't invade your neighbors, you have nothing to fear from NATO.
Edit due to rate-limiting: OK, I'll amend my comment. Don't invade your neighbors or commit genocide, and you don't have anything to fear from NATO. Better?
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, NATO activated Article 5 because the US was attacked by terrorists based in Afghanistan on 9/11, but my understanding is that the coalition forces that went into Iraq were not NATO-affiliated. Is that understanding incorrect?
You have to be kidding about this. Have you ever heard of Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan?
In fact, NATO has never defended an invaded country before Ukraine - the record is all aggression.
Edit: I should mention that the aggression against Serbia was probably morally justified - what they were doing in Kosovo was truly despicable.
I’d need to see some documentation on that as, as far as I am aware, every NATO member responded to the call and did not leave NATO
The invasion of Serbia was much more morally justified, as it helped stop a genocide that Slobodan Milosevic was committing against the Islamic Albanian minority, mainly in Kosovo.
As far as NATO is concerned another party punched a member in the face and and the defensive pact responded as they had laid out in their public treaties. If other nations want to construe that as not a real attack and the defensive pact needed to take it slow and capitulate the the internal legal demands of an aggressor state, that’s a position they can take. They are however, going to be repeatedly surprised when NATO doesn’t take that stance under advisement
NATO acquiesced to the invasion because the USA was out for blood, and their closest toadies weren't about to get in the cross hairs.
Look outside the NATO sphere and very few countries actually agree with the US justification for the war.
Even if they are planning on showing the “immoral lengths” they are willing to go, all they’ve done is drive more nations into their enemies arms.
Edit: also lol did you really bring up that countries outside NATO didn’t agree with their decision making in a thread where you’re arguing that Russia had to do this invasion and everyone should have just let them?
You must be in incredible shape with how frequently you move these goalposts
1) The issue of 'NATO Aggression' vis-a-vis Russia is propaganda.
The Russians are not 'afraid of NATO' - we know this, they know we know this, we know they know we know - and yes it goes on. Notice that they now have 1000Km of 'NATO Border' with Finland, does that change the equation?
'Oh, that's fine' Putin said a few days ago.
2) That NATO Article 5 has not been used is more or less evidence that it is working.
3) Iraq War 1, which might arguably be a NATO-driven war, was utterly justified, Saddam invaded Kuwait, it was bad.
4) Intervention in Afghanistan of 'some kind' was also justified, and initially there were hardly any serious military action, it was a mess, and therefore probably a mistake, but that's very different than Soviet involvement there.
5) Iraq War 2 was an American, not NATO enterprise.
Russia's conquest of Ukraine is blatantly Imperialist, this is Putin's quest to reclaim the USSR, it's not even something he really hides.
He says 'NATO expansion' as a convenient excuse for the 'useful idiots' (that is a term coined by Stalin for this exact situation), and of course this repulsive fantasies about 'Ukrainian Nazis' all over Ukraine.
FYI - should not that Putin was behind 'both side' of the conflict of 'football hooligans with AK47's' in 2014 Donbas, using his GRU to funnel money to the supposed 'Nazi Azovs' (many of whom were even Russian) fighting against 'victim loyal Russians'.
The 'future' of Ukrainian acquiescence to Putin is evident in Belarus as an example: a laughable stooge of a corrupt bag of lard, verbally farting his way through nonsensical press conferences, while doing the bidding of Putin, repressing those around him etc..
The Ukrainians as a whole have the right to fight if the want, so long as they want we should support them, and frankly, we should likely have a material presence on the ground, just not quite up to the point of direct face offs between NATO and Russian forces.
And the same for Georgia, and whoever else.
Literally today, the Kremlin was threatening the 'End of Human Existence' if NATO continued to interfere with Russia's genocidal murder [1]. These are psychopaths with nukes, and we probably cannot afford to exist with them, something likely has to be done, or, they can be little hermits like North Korea.
The Russians don't bother to hide their real ambitions, they can do this because when asked in a public forum, they give the 'NATO' and 'Denazification' excuses willy nilly out of the other side of their mouths - because our system of information isn't competent enough to call it out for what it is contextually.
We far too often just take their words at face value. We know what their foreign policy textbooks require, and in their purview 'public communications' don't have to have any bearing whatsoever on reality, ergo, we should assume that whatever they are saying is just a constructed lie with the truth occasionally thrown in.
Read Putin's own words on how 'Ukraine is not a country or a people' and how that area of people 'naturally belongs under his power'. [2]
Russia has nothing to say about Ukraine - either from a 'security' or 'cultural' perspective - they are the antagonizing force in all of this, and have been for 20 years.
[1] https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1636688/putin-russia-uk...
NATO is a hostile military alliance to Russia - one that is far more powerful than it in every way. To claim that Russia doesn't fear NATO, or that it has no reason to, is simply absurd.
NATO has a habit of involving itself anywhere the USA has an interest. They were "justified" in intervening against Saddam in his war with Kuwait, but of course when Saudi Arabia invades Yemen, that's not our problem, and we can still sell them "defensive weapons". When a group of 20 terrorists led and financed by a Saudi noble attacks the USA, it's the country where he was staying at the time that NATO must invade, and remain in for 20 years.
Even for Iraq 2, while NATO itself wasn't involved, several NATO states were, not just the USA - even ignoring the fact that, given their overwhelming military superiority, the lines between the USA and NATO are quite blurry.
So yes, the claims that Russia is denazifying Ukraine are utter bullshit. The claims that Ukraine has no legitimacy as a nation are utter bullshit. The claims that Russia has Ukrainians', or even Russian ethnics' best interests at heart are utter bullshit.
But so are NATO's claims that it is a purely defensive alliance and that Russia has nothing to fear from them.
It's also important to note that, had territorial expansion been the biggest aim for Putin, he has much easier, and richer, neighbour's to attack. Ukraine is impossible to hold after a hostile invasion, and Putin can't be idiotic enough not to understand that he can't control a country of 50M people. Why not attack Mongolia if he really wanted more land?
And if you think it's absurd for Russia to fear NATO, hearing NATO countries like Poland and my own Romania fearing a Russian invasion is truly comical.
It is clearly absurd for Russia to fear NATO because both parties have peacemakers aka nuclear weapons. The threat of nuclear retaliation keeps both in check. Any agreement on the NATO side to not use nuclear weapons is a defacto dissolution of NATO for countries that do not have nukes.
Russia has nothing to fear because NATO is a loyal customer of fossil fuels. There is no political, cultural, economical basis for attacking Russia. Really the only argument in favour of getting rid of Russia is to get rid of an enemy with nuclear weapons and that can't be done through conventional warfare, you're going to need to slowly let the economy crumble over decades until it loses nuclear capabilities. If those things are happening right now, you should be complaining about the man in charge e.g. Putin he ran the country to the ground. At best this could mean that Putin is a NATO puppet. The more we assume that NATO is a threat to Russia the more absurd the reasoning must become. If Putin is a NATO puppet then why does he start a war against a NATO aligned country (by that I mean Ukraine wants to join NATO)? We are now running into a irreconcilable contradiction. NATO could either bait Russia into war with Ukraine to justify expanding NATO or it could bait Russia into fighting a conventional war with the expectation that Russia loses the war and then hopefully loses its nuclear capabilities from the damage caused to the economy.
The problem with imagining that NATO is a threat is that it would be winning so hard, it is unbelievable how well things have been going for NATO as if they were orchestrating the entire thing from start to finish. I don't believe in such a coincidence that is effectively a conspiracy theory.
No, it is much easier. Russia doesn't consider NATO a threat which is why they believe they can get away with openly fighting a war in Ukraine. Western countries denied the war until the last minute. If anything they were too soft and lenient, maybe even submissive towards russian interests. The German Energiewende for example was a strategy that is utterly dependent on russian natural gas to get to 80% renewable production as gas is easier to throttle than coal and more flexible and emits less CO2. Putin is inflicting a lot of pain to Europe.
>hearing NATO countries like Poland and my own Romania fearing a Russian invasion is truly comical.
What? That just means NATO isn't a threat and Putin isn't a NATO puppet. I personally think that Putin being a NATO puppet is comical.
Well, yes. I don't know anyone who would seriously argue otherwise. I don't think the person you are arguing with disagrees with you on this.
Their concern is not 'industrial base' - it's 'Imperial Conquest'.
As of today, they've expanded their territory and now have Crimean, most of Donbas and S. Ukraine as acquisitions.
Theoretically we could get to a peace agreement and in 40 years, Russia will be 'just fine' and Putin will be a 'grand hero' of Russia along the lines one of their big baller Tsars.
All of this 'But their GPD is crashing' stuff is incredibly short sighted, of course it matters, but much less in the long run.
I suggest Ukrainians probably will prevail, and Putin will mostly 'lose' - but only because he lost ground, not really for any other reason, in the eyes of 'Net future Russian Historical Perspective'.
If this debacle turns into Putin being toppled and Russia as an empire collapsing, and increasing casualties and quality of life declining further for Russians, how is this going to help anybody's dream of imperial conquest?
Even if this alleged empire doesn't fall, if it gets isolated and dependent on, say, China (as some claim will happen), how is this going to help these dreams of imperial conquest? A subservient empire.
Ukraine has had its own independent culture for thousands of years. Russian propaganda doesn't erase history. Russia's ultimate goal is to erase Ukraine.
What's the compromise between "you need to stop existing" and "we exist", again?
It worked fabulously for Neville Chamberlain didn't it? </sarc>
And negotiation is always the winning strategy, since in war everyone loses.
That kinda overlooks several thousand years of history.
The reason is why Ukraine is existential threat to current Russian regime is because they have democracy and personal freedom, which spreads around (Belarus, Kazahstan, etc) and challenges foundation of Putin regime.
Now that the war has started, but only is NATO pouring weapons and Intel into Ukraine, they are actually providing detailed targeting data for much of Ukraine's long-range weaponry. NATO guns are being wielded by NATO-trained soldiers deployed in positions suggested by NATO tacticians based on NATO intelligence gathering. The guns are targeted by NATO computers. Ukrainians are basically only pulling the trigger, and of course taking the bullets.
So saying "there was no NATO in Ukraine" is quite absurd.
On the other hand, Putin has clearly misjudged this invasion, and it has already become a costly mistake from all points of view. Finland and Sweden joining NATO is a major blow, in addition to the economic sanctions, while the initial failure of his all fronts invasion has surely been a major blow to the image of the Russian military.
However, while this is great news for NATO, it doesn't mean that it's also great news for Ukraine, which has already sacrificed much. And personally, I believe this invasion is Russia's last stand: that will either crush Ukraine into dust (assuming Ukraine doesn't acquiesce), or they will crumble themselves. I don't think nuclear weapons are off the table for Russia if it thinks the alternative is pulling out of Ukraine with no guarantees it will abandon cooperation with NATO.
Could you provide any references on this? NATO needs to agree on this unanimously, and afaik several countries explicitly opposed this.
> had been pouring money, weapons
This is not true. NATO refused to even sell heavy weapons to Ukraine because afraid to anger Russia. Ukrainians built their army by recovering 50y old tanks from soviet junk yards.
> Last year, they had held joint military exercises, with NATO troops temporarily stationed inside Ukraine.
Could you provide reference?
Sure: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-idUSL017971462008040... .
> This is not true. NATO refused to even sell heavy weapons to Ukraine because afraid to anger Russia. Ukrainians built their army by recovering 50y old tanks from soviet junk yards.
This is disputed.
Here is for example the Ukrainian minister of defense claiming that shipments of weapons from NATO countries started in 2014:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29198497
Here is a story about the USA supplying arms to Ukraine under Trump:
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/lethal-we...
> Last year, they had held joint military exercises, with NATO troops temporarily stationed inside Ukraine.
Sure: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-h...
yes, Ukraine wanted to join NATO in 2008, it was rejected, and under pressure from USA they promised "maybe some time in the future", which never happened and political bs.
> This is disputed. > Here is for example the Ukrainian minister of defense claiming that shipments of weapons from NATO countries started in 2014:
They shipped like hundred javelins in 7 years. It is not heavy weapon you can fight Russia with.
> Sure: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-h...
At the end it was 300 american soldiers. https://www.army.mil/article/250444/us_nato_ukraine_enhance_...
The war started immediately after Ukraine threw out the Russian puppet government.
They didn't successfully resist the initial anything; Russia seized Crimea and infiltrated and set up proxies in Eastern Ukraine, and Ukraine was unable to do much about it.
> Instead, goaded on the by the USA and Europe, they are fighting a losing war that will hurt tens or hundreds of thousands over the coming years.
The war Russia initiated and bears full responsibility for has hurt millions already (and in fact had hurt millions before the 2022 escalation), not mere tens or hundreds of thousands.
> There is 0 chance Russia will back off
They will back off before or after they collapse from the cost of the war, but either way they will back off. They’ve lost vastly more in lives and treasure in a few months than the much larger USSR did in a decade in Afghanistan. Putin may dream of recreating the Empire of Peter the Great, but he's heading more toward Nicholas II.
> Putin fell right into their trap
I mean, if you mean by the 2022 escalation, it was a pretty well-marked trap. The US and other friends of Ukraine spend most of a decade openly arming and training Ukraine after the 2014 invasion, repeatedly saying Russia should stop interfering and warning, with increasing urgency, of their knowledge of and commitment to opposing Russia’s plan for a new, large scale invasion in 2022, going so far as to release detailed intelligence of the orders for that invasion that Putin has given.
Pretty easy trap to avoid if you don't want to fall into it, what with everyone pointing out where it is, how bad it would be to step in it, and how to avoid it.
I'm not sure I agree. That there was a trap was obvious, I think, but this doesn't mean there was necessarily an alternative way for Putin to react without losing face. I imagine the forces that move this kind of things along have a form of inertia measured in years or decades. Especially if there are other forces (backers, allies, whatever) goading him and pushing his government to take action. Maybe he thought the alternatives were worse.
I think it's evident now Putin made a mistake, even by his own calculations, and that it might be too late for him to back off now.
Neglecting US involvement in that revolution/coup hides a big part of the story. The US ambassador to Ukraine and Victoria Nuland were discussing who should replace Russia's puppets a full two weeks before the people actually got rid of him - which Russian spies discovered and published.
> The war Russia initiated and bears full responsibility for has hurt millions already (and in fact had hurt millions before the 2022 escalation), not mere tens or hundreds of thousands.
Right - I was thinking more of deaths, but you're right harm has indeed come to millions of people, from Russia's unjust war.
> They will back off before or after they collapse from the cost of the war, but either way they will back off. They’ve lost vastly more in lives and treasure in a few months than the much larger USSR did in a decade in Afghanistan. Putin may dream of recreating the Empire of Peter the Great, but he's heading more toward Nicholas II.
I honestly believe there is a high chance Russia would rather throw the dice and nuke Ukraine before allowing the war to end, unless they get down guarantees that NATO involvement in Ukraine will stop completely. What would happen next is impossible to predict, as we would be stepping into an entirely new world.
> I mean, if you mean by the 2022 escalation, it was a pretty well-marked trap.
The trap was constant escalation of NATO presence in Ukraine, culminating in the joint military exercises in 2021, forcing Putin to react.
You don’t “work with Russia”. You either surrender completely and have leadership controlled from Moscow or get labeled a nazi regime itching to invade Russia.
China is significantly more powerful player than Russia. Germany and France don’t share a border with russia.
Its more they are part of NATO, which Russia not ready to confront directly.
To be fair, there were some significant disagreements between Kazakhstan and Russia after Putin made comments about their traditional statehood, prompting several threats from their own authoritarian leader, but when Kazakh leadership felt threatened by protesters, they appealed to Russia for troops to quell the popular revolt.
Putin required the direct vassalage and control of Ukraine, much like he does with Belarus.
Ukraine obviously posed no material threat to Russia.
The attempted conflation of those different scenarios is intellectually repulsive.
While this would have obviously been Putin's strong preference, it's hard to say whether he would have accepted a compromise solution, with Ukraine being committed to neutrality.
As it is though, Ukraine got rid of Putin's puppet with significant US involvement (but also popular will), and then became committed to doing everything it could to join NATO - working very closely with them in the meantime.
> Ukraine obviously posed no material threat to Russia.
A neutral Ukraine would have not, but NATO bases in Ukraine would pose an extraordinary threat to Russia, given NATO's hostility, overwhelming military might, and Ukraine's geographical position, with a direct line of access to Moscow that has been exploited in all previous major western invasions of Russia (newly by Hitler and Napoleon).
Finland proved that a country at Russia's border can maintain decent relations with Russia without becoming a puppet state, as long as they don't join hostile military alliances. Mongolia and to a lesser extent Kazakhstan on the other side of the world are similar examples.
Russia has several thousand thermonuclear weapons, a couple dozen of which might actually work. Consequently, the only conceivable threat to Russia is the man currently occupying the Kremlin. No one else can lay a finger on Russia.
Again, everyone knows this. The Russians know this, we know they know, they know we know they know.
Due to interference in Ukraine, Russia now has another 1000km NATO border with Ukraine, that could (may very well) host nuclear weapons.
And yet what was Putin's reaction? 'Ok, that's fine'.
Russia's posture that '1000km of NATO border with Finland is no big deal, but 1000Km of NATO border with Ukraine is enough to invade a country' is bullshit at face value.
The 'NATO' issue has a 'tiny bit' of validity, in that, yes, it's advantageous for Russia to have a material 'buffer zone' - definitely - but it's not enough to substantiate the invasion.
Moreover - Ukraine was not really trending towards NATO. NATO denied them entry before, and likely would have denied them in the future, because the West/NATO doesn't really need/want bases in Ukraine. What the West wants, is just for Ukraine not to be a vassal of Russia.
In short - the 'default situation' that Russia said it so desperately wanted, i.e. a 'buffer zone' - was what the Russians had.
A 2022 'negotiation' would likely have yielded nothing.
The West would probably have accepted 'No NATO' for Ukraine, but required in return 1) get out of Crimea, and Donbas and 2) No interference in Ukraine politics etc. whatsoever.
Russia would not agree to #1, and would agree to #2, but then not heed the agreement.
The reality is, Putin/Russia have had plans to re-conquer Ukraine (and whatever else) since the breakup of the USSR.
Putin's 'special operation' in Ukraine is the same as it was for Hungary and Czech, i.e. put those stupid fledgling paupers under our thumb, part of the Empire.
In their cynical view of the world, everyone is a vassal of either them or the US, and that's it.
I don't see how any negotiation with Putin would have resulted in anything.
The best thing to do might have been to put NATO Air Patrols and Air Defence over Ukraine (At least West of Dnipro), train them on F16s, MLRS, M777 etc.. and then if Putin decides to invade, back it up with tit-for-tat i.e. if Russia launches Kaliber, then NATO launches cruise missiles, if Russia has S300, then NATO uses Patriot, if Russia blockades Odessa, the NATO blockades Crimea. Ukraine pre-trained on patriots, stingers, mid-range AA, American mannned Patriots, NATO Air Superiority over most of Ukraine, tons of arty, pre-trained MLRS units, and a lot of trained troops ... this war would be over.
Finland could perfectly be next Russia's target after Ukraine. They just don't have enough resources at the moment.
You know what's stopping the Russians? Javelins and Bayraktars.