Hacker News Reader

Comment by oblio | Hacker News Reader

> The entire gambit was to take UA quickly and then use it as a pawn to get concessions from the West.

Nope, it was to take Ukraine quickly and parade it as an internal trophy, while also taking out a possible big competitor for the oil and gas market.

Putin didn't want any concessions from the West, just business as usual. He wanted to be left alone to "digest Ukraine" and ponder next steps.

Edit: I'd want to hear proof for contrary opinions.

View on HN

As is usually the case when monstrous plots are afoot, the villain cheerfully told the world exactly what he was planning to do and why. He wants to recreate the Soviet Union.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/22/putin-...

Initial "peace proposals" from Russia included a rollback of NATO's military assistance to its 1997 condition, explicitly limiting the sovereignty of Poland and the Baltic states:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-...

It is, of course, absurd to think that Putin would have stopped at Ukraine's borders, if given a free hand (and a functioning army). He is a follower of Alexander Dugin's geopolitical school, in which Russia is the rightful caretaker of "Eurasian" civilization:

https://theconversation.com/alexander-dugin-eurasianism-and-...

> The entire gambit was to take UA quickly and then use it as a pawn to get concessions from the West

How does your comment follow logically from this one?

"We'll occupy Ukraine and we'll keep occupying it and we want you to give us more!"

What kind of negotiation with Ukraine was that?

A deeply deluded, aggressive one. Russian soldiers seem to have genuinely believed they’d be welcome.

I never said that the plan was to use Ukraine as a pawn to get concessions from the West. That was someone else. Putin sees his conquest of Ukraine as a milestone in his own country's spiritual destiny.

My reply was to that comment...

Proof of contrary opinions is required, but proof of yours isn't?

Typical.

I'm not sure anyone knows the "real" reason for all this, although we've heard a lot of stated ones.

Ukraine was "not negotiable" Russian according to multiple statements from Putin, so that part about "negotiating concessions" is provably false.

Why that was the case is indeed complex.

Russia did not try to negotiate Ukraine away initially. The messaging was clear: it's ours. Now they might negotiate something because Ukraine is kicking their teeth in, but that's after the fact and completely forced.

Lies of the Russian government about non-negotiability can be ignored much like the statements about non-invasion turned out to be lies. I don't see how they'd prove anything.

> Ukraine was "not negotiable"

Like cutting the gas supply to the country itself to drop the transfer fees?

Expecting concessions or not, it is undeniable that a quick victory wouldn’t have brought this amount of pain and isolation. Foreign reserve confiscation was enacted immediately and definitely unexpected, but other measures are being enacted with every passing day the conflict lingers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com