This is probably why he gave such a strong warning against NATO intervention (re: veiled nuclear threat), he doesn't want anyone interfering with that initial push, which could then lead to a long drawn out conflict.
And this is also probably why Trump, Tucker and other hard right leaders and factions are still parroting pro-Putin propaganda. If "Shock and Awe" works, then the "post-war" narrative is going to switch to something like "See that wasn't a big deal, the media was just scaremongering, the Ukrainian people did not want to fight, and prefer to be a part of Russia. Everyone needs to chill out and move on."
This is not to say that I don't think Putin is crazy. But just trying to read between the lines, I think they think they can get away with this. After all they did invade Crimea with little pushback. On one hand, I hope Ukraine will pull through, but on the other hand, I do worry that the longer this draws out, the further we get away from Putin's playbook, and then more erratic he will be. But if this thing is over in a few days, watch for the right wing to start pushing for a quick return to normalization with Russia.
He’s quite happy to sacrifice the lives and prosperity of millions of Russian people if necessary in pursuit of this plan. He’s quite happy to preside over chaos and destruction and call it peace.
Putin won’t stop until he is stopped with force and he has very clearly stated his long term goals - the expansion of the Russian empire for his profit. He has not been subtle about this, the invasion was planned at least weeks ago and the signs were all there:
Except those countries are actually in NATO, so the circumstances will be quite different. Won't stop him from influencing pressure though.
His stated goal is to reconstitute the USSR. One route past the nato problem would be to fund opposition groups in these states, poison opponents and induce them to leave NATO prior to invasion.
If he is allowed to take Ukraine he will not stop there.
Not everything comes down to dollars and cents. The Russian president spelled out in his speech that he believes that Ukraine has always been a region of Russia, and never an independent state, and therefore he believes it has no right to an independent existence. The motivations are mostly in historical terms, even if there are economic gains for Russia in the end.
Also, an authoritarian state like Russia using its military might to shut down a nascent democracy like Ukraine is a pretty powerful narrative for the pre-emininence of the former type of government over the latter. There has been quite a bit of solidarity on this subject between authoritarian governments like Russia and China in recent years.
A quick search gives this as the answer to who their largest oil buyers are: China, the European Union, South Korea, India and Japan.
China will do what China wants here. But South Korea, Japan, and the European Union will end up being harder to sell to, if possible at all, in the near future. India is a toss-up, depends on how they decide to participate in all this.
Yes. From Putin's POV: two mehs and one thumbs way up
For unknown reasons Ukraine started to want to join EU and/or NATO.
If Ukraine joins NATO then Russia would be basically surrounded by NATO forces.
The biggest issue here is that USA has been placing rockets near the borders of Russia in NATO countries and these rockets just happen to face Russia. If Ukraine joined NATO, who's to say that USA wouldn't place rockets there's as well and thus have an incredibly huge reach into Russia.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a pacifist, if I could I would remove all militaries, there's really no reason to have them, since I believe that with rational conversation you can solve any and all issues.
But a fact is still a fact even if you don't like it...
I've been waiting for ten years and am still waiting for my country to legalise marijuana.
Everyone just needs to chill~
Can't we just pass the joint around and be friends?
Also, what strategic value does Ukraine have, that for instance the Baltic countries (also NATO members) do not? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I can’t shake the feeling that the “Russia doesn’t like NATO and Ukraine becoming a member is a bridge too far” argument feels more like a straw man than anything else.
I’m probably just too dumb to get it, so if someone more enlightened would like to clarify why invading Ukraine helps the Russian anti NATO effort I’d be much obliged!
That's mostly because in terms of NATO war isn't allowed, thus generally speaking there's isn't a lot of reason to be scared of the huge army that NATO represents.
What's really annoying to me as a coder and gamer is that, strategically speaking what Russia did was logical and expected. I'm speaking from a point of view of if this was StarCraft, EU4, CK2 or Civ5. And from that point of view, my biased monkey brain is telling me that if US left the EU alone, there wouldn't be a possible WW3 brewing...
Mildly interesting note, my father is studying Multinational law thing and we were talking about the role of NATO, the function it serves. We got to that topic because my argument was that my country (Slovenia) should either stop having a military or focus on having few but very specialised units, because as it is now, it's mostly just a waste of money, that's because we've got a population of ~2 million and about ~4-7k military units, depending on how you count them. Regardless, it's a number that compared to other countries is not even note worthy. Which is why my argument was that our military in its current state is a waste of money. BUT because we're so small we don't really have air forces, which is where NATO comes in. Because we don't have air forces our air is protected by currently Hungarian forces and the ones from Italy a few years ago.
What I was trying to find out with the conversation with my father was, if there's a way to gain the protection of NATO without having an army. But sadly that's not possible, because too be in the NATO, you have to have an army... There also UN which could protect you, but there response isn't guarantied and the response time is much longer then NATO. Thus ima way you're kinda forced to have an army...
I would still prefer removing our army, I mean... We've got pretty lakes and nice mountains, also good wine, why would anyone want to attack us? :D
But I agree that in the modern world, conventional armies tend to be a massive waste of money. It's just that occasionally a Putin-level threat comes along, and at that point you'll be glad you have them.
This is obviously a very sensitive topic at this time, and I hesitate even to post this comment. But I think everyone should be free to draw their own conclusions.
This is a pretty low quality source for anything Russia related.
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/vladimir-putins-apologists-sp...
Could it perhaps be related to the fact that they were promised neutrality (also by Russia) in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons... and then Russia invaded Crimea anyway?
The reason is simple and trivial: because EU and NATO are much better friends than Russia. This is why countries willingly join it.
That's your problem. Putin doesn't care about Russia. This invasion has nothing at all to do with the economic or strategic well-being of the nation of Russia. This has to do with the preservation and expansion of the political power of one single man and his oligarchal cronies. The rest of the country can burn as long as they hold power.
Biggest mistake the West has made is thinking that soft power will work with Putin. He just doesn't care. Sanction some oligarchs and he still goes home to his palace like nothing ever happened.
It's simply not true. He has enriched them not the other way around.
It's very common amongst leaders who have been in power for so long.
Also given his age he is unlikely to be around to see the negative decline of Russia as a result of this action.
This was one of the pivotal moments: "US President George W Bush, in 2002, pulled the US out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which banned weapons designed to counter ballistic nuclear missiles." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565
Since then it has been slow and steady escalation https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/timeline/
while we fritter away the time that would allow us to deal with Climate Destruction.
Yes Putin == $BAD_MAN. Yes USA == $OTHER_BAD_MENS. No, neither of those justifies military action on either side.
This is a stupid waste of time.
"I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners."
I don't know enough about Russia's changing attitudes towards the USA: how much of it was hope that they could work things out together to jointly oppress the rest of the world; how much of it was biding time in a weakened state before they could mount a plausible defence against the USA.
But it does seem probable that the prospect of being left without the possibility of firing nuclear weapons at the US while staging bases are set up ever close to Russia would be undesirable to Russia.
Do not take from this that I am defending Russia's actions. I have no interest in either a US nor a Russian Imperium and think that the Ukranian right to manage their own affairs without being attacked is paramount. The same way that I believe that Venezuela and Iran have a right not to be attacked.
All the neighbors of Russia have always known that one must expect that Russia will invade them at the first opportunity, so they made efforts to join NATO as it was obvious that like Ukraine, they do not have enough resources to fight alone against Russia.
Entering NATO was not easy for them, because the main NATO countries imposed a lot of conditions and the new NATO members had to actually unofficially pay their membership with billions of dollars in contracts awarded to companies from various old NATO members.
The NATO membership was not a free gift and it was paid dearly precisely because the new members were those who wanted the NATO expansion, to be protected against the Russians.
It was not the old NATO who desired the expansion towards Russia.
Moreover, calling the new NATO members as "ex-Soviet satellite states" is an insult. They have never been satellite states by their own will.
All the countries from the Eastern Europe are states who have been invaded by the Russians during WWII and where the Russians were able to install puppet governments and steal whatever they wanted as a consequence of the agreements between USA and Great Britain with Stalin.
The states from Western Europe have paid their freedom from Hitler with little of their own money but mostly with what was not theirs to give, i.e. with the countries from Eastern Europe, which were given to the Russians.
This idea that it somehow coercing Eastern European countries to join is baseless and ridiculous.