Looking for neutral geo-political analysis.
They'll use this to inform their localized (3-6 month scope) game plan. (And they'll execute no matter what, it's just a matter of how and where--always executing is their psychological burden.) Their strength is contextual analysis informing quick execution. Their military preference is to play the trickster role, with a cat-like approach. Tactical plans aimed a spike in execution (sprints, like a cat hunting) meant to gain a disproportionately intimidating result. Flexing.
Their blind spots include refinement, culture, global persona, capture of popular will, and logistics. So the most obvious responses for the west would include engaging and bearing down on each one of those virtual fronts for extended periods of time. The west could also use this situation to place immense pressure on China.[1]
PS, the west could also really benefit from this opportunity to build more settling space for recent internal civil conflicts. If western governments are smart that's exactly how this'll play out. Russia is obviously complicit in these conflicts from an evidentiary standpoint so engagement with them at all reasonable levels could be an equitable way to direct the tensions & focus.
1. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/Ukraine-cris...
This impasse has been ongoing ever since the deal was inked.
Every now and then Moscow escalates trying to push Kiev to implement the agreement. It now seems to be more serious (or desperate) than ever.
1. Russia has a deep seated psychological worry about invasion from the west across the open plains of Eastern Europe (Poland/Ukraine) (Napoleanic wars, Ww 1, ww2) so creating a buffer is of geostrategic importance (old Soviet Warsaw Pact / satellite states. Merely having a nato member bordering Russia may stoke this anxiety (if Ukraine were to join nato)
2. The window for action is closing driven by a)population decline b) decreasing foreign reliance and wealth created from Russian energy wealth (oil/ nat gas)
May ask you, did you really learned about early 20th century history or Molotov-Ribbentrop act is the only thing you know about it?
Um, how is that fair? I mean, any “first” on ”dividing Europe” drawn during recorded history is going to be somewhat arbitrary, but pointing to the piece of Czechoslovakia that Poland annexed right after Germany annexed the Sudetenland and then forced the transfer of other Czechoslovakian territory to Hungary as making Poland the first to start dividing Europe is beyond ludicrous.
Instead of reforming the country, he will continue to play strong, warlike despot. His main goal is self-preservation. Using propaganda and by creating conflicts, he will continue to stay in power[1]. His current goal is to force Ukraine and West for concessions.
Create an unrelated shit show in order to create a favourable position for some other negotiation seems to be a frequent tactic in today's politics.
Might be less believable if we hadn't just seen this same play performed in the Persian gulf.
If you’re thinking of a more long-term end-game for Russia, I would recommend reading about the Primakov Doctrine.
They've sure been working hard lately (at considerable expense) to make it look otherwise.
NATO continuing to send troops and arms to countries sourounding Russia is like trying to provoke an attack
The situation in Ukraine is much like Syria, but the other way around, USA supporting the government, Russia the rebels. Of a government that celebrates Nazism
Crimea had been a gift from the USSR to Ukraine as good faith for them to keep being neutral. Funny how it turned out
If this was happening in USA border like Mexico, people wouldn't even be discussing this, USA would already have invaded Mexico in the name of "National security" and everyone would be clapping for freedom
That's a weak excuse for using a "gray zone war" for safeguarding their naval fleet passage. Ukraine can do what it wants ( well, actually because of Russia it can't). But i'm pretty sure if Russia continues, it could counteract quicker than they think ( USSR tried these tactics already, see: Prague spring and Hungarian revolution)
"A symbolic gift, while they acknowledged it was a natural extension of the Ukranian steppes"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea
> The transfer was described by some of the Supreme Soviet as a gift to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Pereyaslav[2] in 1654 when the Cossack Rada apparently decided to unify with Muscovy, putting in place the eventual acquisition of Ukraine by Russia. Other reasons given were the integration of the economies of Ukraine and Crimea and the idea that Crimea was a natural extension of the Ukrainian steppes.[15]
> The transfer increased the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine by almost a million people. Prominent Russian politicians such as Alexander Rutskoy considered the transfer to be controversial.[17] Controversies surrounding the legality of the transfer remained a sore point in relations between Ukraine and Russia for the first few years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and in particular in the internal politics of the Crimea. However, in a 1997 treaty between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, Russia recognized Ukraine's borders, and accepted Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea.[18]
BUT, i did learn something new about this. Thanks!
Russian history is essentially the story of Russia getting invaded time and time again. The Mongols, Napoleon, Hitler, the list goes on and on and on. This, combined with borders that are difficult to defend (no mountain ranges or other natural barriers), has left the Russian psyche with a sense that their position is always precarious. It seems reasonable to me, given Russian history, and the fact that less than 100 years ago their society was nearly eradicated by Nazis. So the Russians are always wary of other powers and are always concerned about their borders.
Now, since the end of the Cold War, Russia has lost quite a lot of territory. This territory has all been snapped up by NATO, even though the Cold War was apparently over. NATO has now slowly expanded to the point that it is right up on Russia's border in the Baltics. The Russians look at this, and look at the failures of "shock therapy" economics in the 90s, and look at their demographic crunch, and look at the increasingly unstable political situation of their Western neighbors. They conclude that now is the last and best possible time to make an aggressive chess move against the West, and snatch up Ukraine before the West can.
So that's what this is about - it's a response of geopolitical insecurity. Russia thinks the West is very aggressive and unstable, and seeks to put Ukraine in its "sphere of influence" before it's too late. To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border. How would Americans feel if we lost the cold war and Russia started trying to dominate Mexico and Canada?
0% people voted for Taliban in Afghanistan (as no Taliban politician was allowed to participate in elections) yet they clearly enjoyed support of majority of population.
Exile happened in 2014, due to closeness to Yanukovitch, for a portion of politicians. That was rather voluntary for them, mainly related to their stance on Crimea and so on. New “pro-Russian” figures came on the scene.
There are still pro—Russian political parties in parliament , which have media support (they are backed by powerful oligarchs) The richest man of Ukraine was the backer of Yanukovich, he hasn’t lost his influence or assets.
There is still internet, for example those blocked channels are very active on Youtube.
There is plenty of data that show suppport for those parties through out the years and it is pretty consistent with what I say - since 2014 it is around 10 - 15 % due to a number of reasons.
On the ground situation is very different than on RT or alike.
Historically, most of multi-national empires in Europe (Austria-Hungary; Germans; Osmans) has fallen in the beginning of 20th century, but this one has mostly survived. Poland and Finland were lucky enough to separate, some other countries (Baltics, Ukraine) were less successful and got reintegrated into the new, totalitarian XX century edition of the empire.
It's natural that any neighbouring country not willing to become a playground for now less totalitarian but still oppressive and oligarch-run empire of Russian Federation would unite with anyone who could help, especially NATO. For example NATO and US could be the only reason for Estonia still being independent and successful just 100 km away from st. Peteresburg
By doing so it sounds as if you group the people living in Russia, together with Putin.
But this maybe-invasion would be the deed of a dictator and his men. Not Russia-the-people. The people suffer under Putin.
Yes definitely. Thing is, when someone writes "Russia" but in fact means "Putin and his men", or writes "China" but means "the CCP",
then I'm afraid this pushes the people (ordinary citizens) living in those places,
away from the people in Europe and the US.
Because when you write "Russia" and "China", they likely think about that, as including them -- they'd feel that anything critical, was criticizing them too.
Whilst if one writes "Putin and his men", then, ordinary people living in Russia will clearly see that you don't have anything against _them_ -- that you might even be their friend. And maybe one day they (the people in Russia) and the West together can try to do something about Putin.
(If you share with others this different way of writing, maybe we could split 330M+450M / 2. But maybe you live elsewhere)
As a former citizen of Czechoslovakia I could not disagree more. Our countries are still recovering from decades of communism and Russian "help" and to this day Russia tries to exert influence over us. I hope Ukraine joins NATO one day.
Now this is controversial, so don't take this the wrong way, but I'd feel a lot better about the US defending Europe if Europe would also shoulder some of the burden. I honestly don't see why the US needs to spend so much on this project, while other NATO members are unable to even meet the 2% spending commitment. As a regular American it just kind of seems like Europe is riding on our backs with this. As much as I love Europe, Europeans, and European culture, I can't get behind spending tax dollars on defending countries that don't care enough to spend money to defend themselves.
Europe needs to grow up and get able to defend itself.
Does Russia have any business being in their "near abroad" any more? Given their "not kind" history conducting themselves in these countries?
Would you like to give us your own synopsis of this "not kind" history in Ukraine, specifically?
Fortunately we are not glorifying WWII Germany, even though we could (moon landing, etc.) and by extension also WWI Germany (even though the whole guilt here is highly debatable). Stalin Russia should get the exact same treatment. And while we are at it, we can also put the US in there (e.g. for what they did to Japan). All emperors should reside in the same bucket: They are all essentially a bunch of war criminals invading other peoples countries. We can look at positive second degree outcomes, but should not forget the cruelty of war.
That's a lot of "what-if", and more than a lot of hyperbole there. In any case the U.S. isn't trying to dominate any of the former Soviet republics (or even former Warsaw Pact) countries in any meaningful sense.
To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border
So how do most Ukrainians feel about the issue? Does that matter to you at all?
They conclude that now is the last and best possible time to make an aggressive chess move against the West, and snatch up Ukraine before the West can.
Since you're basically saying a Russian invasion is essentially justified - please tell us how exactly how many civilian + military deaths (and severe maiming and dismemberment) you are willing to "accept" (on behalf of the Ukrainian citizenry) as the natural, inevitable price for this bold, strategic move you are advocating.
Hint: something on the order of 10x the number in the Donbas conflict to date (which I'm sure you know) would be a good place to start.
They conclude that now is the last and best possible time to make an aggressive chess move against the West, and snatch up Ukraine before the West can.
They conclude
They
In case you didn't notice, the title of this post is "What's Russia's Endgame in Ukraine?" I literally attempted to respond to the question by saying what Russia's government wants. I'm an American guy, I'm not advocating any deaths or dismemberment as you say, I don't like war either. I'm simply saying that I understand the Russian position here, it's something you could get from reading a simple news article. Christ almighty.
Russia thinks the West is very aggressive and unstable, and seeks to put Ukraine in its "sphere of influence" before it's too late. To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border.
Which suggests a strong overlap between "their" position and your own.
So perhaps you'd like to clarify: Would Russia be "not in the wrong" if the actually invaded Ukraine? If that's what it ultimately takes to put Ukraine back in their sphere of influence?
Because it sure sounds like you would be more or less OK with such an invasion.
Now, since the end of the Cold War, Russia has lost quite a lot of territory. This territory has all been snapped up by NATO, even though the Cold War was apparently over.
Which "Russian territory" are you referring to as being "snapped up by NATO"? It would have to be the Baltics (and perhaps Poland), right? As "Russian" territory?
Please do clarify.
If you think the Baltics somehow "belong" to Russia, or that Russia would be justified in taking "action" to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO (which is definitely what you were implying in your posts) -- then just come out and say it.
It's the implication that these are somehow naturally "Russian" territories (and that the world just needs to step back and accept this fact) that I find kind of -- strange.
I'm not sure what additional gains they can attempt, but I feel Russia has fallen into a trap she created a few years ago.
* This request was by Putin few years before the Afghan war. Russia at that time was sharing intelligence with the US on the dangers of the Taliban to the West. In the initial phases of the invasion Russia also provided some logistical support to the Western forces.
it's not because he thinks NATO would attack
it's because he cannot invade NATO countries.
So, the more NATO countries, the smaller his future Great Russia would be.
That being said, it's also possible for NATO to form strategic alliances with countries bordering Russia without explicitly making those countries NATO members. Therefore I think it's in Russia's interest to exert pressure on these countries and make it explicit that partnership with NATO and the West may lead to armed conflict.
It would be based on nostalgia and dreams for Russia to take on the greatness that the USSR had when he was a young man.
More people dead (civilians and soldiers from Ukraine) -- would just make Putin feel more proud and important himself. The opposite to how "normal" people's brains work.
(Some others here believing Russia feels "threatened" by the EU and Nato, fundamentally don't understand how people like Putin function. Such things are just what Putin says to mislead the masses. There's no noble or ethical reasons for what Putin is doing -- it's just a machiavellian person having fun, from his perspective. Or making himself less bored.)