Putin is a particularly deranged type of fascist though, much like Bush, who is okay making the poor calculation of a Ukrainian invasion for the benefit of a wartime economy. Even German ambassadors in Ukraine were caught off guard having to leave that night.
Modi is a different type of beast, he's a long term political power that doesn't need a wartime economy, and is still establishing his internal power. He's going to have to deal with the insane SS brigade he's fostered eventually. Also while Putin and others thought that Ukraine would fall like Afghanistan (quickly), zero people think that Pakistan is going anywhere within this eon. While it's not the graveyard of empires, it's definitely the hospice.
> Putin is a particularly deranged type of fascist though, much like Bush, who is okay making the poor calculation of a Ukrainian invasion for the benefit of a wartime economy
While Putin is undoubtedly deranged, I think his goals with invading had much more to do with delusions of grandeur and trying to rebuild the Russian/Soviet empire than wanting the "benefit" of a "wartime economy". Russia was drastically unprepared for a long war, and its economy, heavily reliant on export of raw materials and import of finished goods, has suffered.
There's as many theories about why Putin and Kremlin did what they did as there are war analyst books on it. Some of them are more right than others, but at the end of the day, if I'm honest, I'm as confused as I was in 2014. Which is a problem not only for my curiosity: if Western policymakers are as confused as me, it's difficult to craft a good policy: we're effectively playing half-court tennis (to quote Sarah C. Paine).
I think it still makes sense to me that they were too used to just rolling in and assuming power like happened many times after WW2. Czechoslovakia, Hungary, post-Berlin interventions like in Georgia, then Crimea most recently. I think they expected Kiev to be the same. The real question is why did the latest intervention turn out different? What changed?
This is a choice though. The decisions aren’t as hard as leaders are making them. Pulling support or giving support would end the war. Neither has actually occurred and support has been drip fed, bleeding both countries.
> The decisions aren’t as hard as leaders are making them.
Is there a statement that is more "armchair-policy-maker"?
In all seriousness, I have a similar sentiment about support for Ukraine, but I'm saying that it's difficult to have a robust policy (especially when it involves so many parties) when you struggle to understand the opponent's perspective.
I agree with most of this except maybe the "soviet empire" bit. His recent mentions of it (within the last 3 years) has been about how the fall of the Soviet Union broke up the "historical russian" borders. For Ukraine specifically he compared himself to Russian Czar Peter the Great.
A long time ago he lamented the fall of the Soviet Union which is especially hilarious as he was very likely involved in and vultured on the remains of it's demise.
> Russia was drastically unprepared for a long war
He, much like all of military officials in NATO at the time, assumed it was going to be over after they landed in Kiev.
The only exception is the pipeline, but then who could have expected that the US would sabotage an ally's ability to heat it's citizens? (assuming you ignore the last 100 years of american doctrine)
But its far from bottom of how much general russian population is willing to suffer before next bloody revolution happens. I don't talk about wealthy educated people from moscow or st petersburg (at least those that didn't leave), they are on purpose less targeted by whats happening, but rather permanently subjugated populations from poor regions whose lives changed comparatively little compared to cold war.
Prigozhin had a last real chance, you could see how much common folks and most of army immediately aligned with them. But when they took hostages whole families of his mercenary group leaders, they backed down with predictable results. Interestingly not all aligned generals were executed, I expected bigger purge. Maybe he would be much worse though.
>He, much like all of military officials in NATO at the time, assumed it was going to be over after they landed in Kiev
Military officials knew with no doubt whatsoever that the Ukrainians would fight like hell, and that they were better man-for-man, dollar-for-dollar, than the Russians.
NATO officials' first-hand knowledge of the Ukrainian will to fight is why they begged their governments to allow shipments of materiel to Ukraine.
As a peer mentioned, the 'Kiev will fall in 3 days' came from Mark Milley (US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time), not Russia. Beyond that, the decision was then near immediately made to lock all men of "fighting age" in the country, prevent them from leaving, and begin mass conscription.
This is something that I hope, in the future, will be seen as no less barbaric than slavery. If people want to fight for their country, then they absolutely should. But if people don't want to fight for their country, then they should never be able to be forced to - it's a mockery of any notion of human rights.
There's many things in this world I would be willing to die for, but a country? The notion feels quaint. Of course I realize this means that any country that does set aside such rights would have a tremendous military edge, but perhaps in such a world where human rights are held as more than a placard of convenience, the notion of dying for one's country might no longer seem so quaint.
Further claims from Ukraine: they've had 30,000 total deaths, are inflicting casualties at a 10:1 rate, have a 'Ghost of Kyiv' single handedly flying around taking on Russia, Russia is out of missiles, and so on endlessly.
you stand in a room with two doors .one always lies. you use the right door because its a old thing now. Everyone knows its a lie. Why the door and its noise is still around is a mystery .
At this point we can, more or less, objectively assess who has been being honest throughout the war. And as is usually the case in war, the truth is on the side that's winning. The way to do this is simply to look at what each side is saying and contrast it against what happened, which you can easily do with web archives.
The only question is when to start. And I think May 2023 was probably the critical point in the war. That was shortly before Bakhmut would fall, and also shortly before the Ukraine counter offensive would be launched and also ultimately fail. The war was arguably effectively decided by July 2023. So here are state media from May 1st 2023. You can skim forward using the widget in the top right corner.
> There's many things in this world I would be willing to die for, but a country
> human rights
I see where there is a gap in your understanding. Ukrainians and the Ukrainian army aren't fighting for the abstract concept of a geopolitical entity (the country of Ukraine), they're fighting for their people, culture, language, existence, safety, freedom. Russia is proudly performing a genocide in Ukraine [1], and Putin has already stated that Ukrainians are just misguided Russians.
What do you think a Russian occupation of Ukraine would look like? They're already kidnapping children [1] and indiscriminately murdering and torturing civilians.
Yes, it was horrible that every single man of fighting age was conscripted. But desperate times force desperate measures.
1 - in case you've missed the news, Russia is indeed (without trying to hide it, it's all out in the open, their chief of staff and various ministers have talked about it) kidnapping people and specifically children from Ukraine. Those children are being educated to be good Russian citizens, which is genocide as per the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (to which Russia is a signatory), Article II (e).
This doesn't sound factual to me. The children you quoted as being "kidnapped" lived in regions of Russia that voted to secede from Ukraine. They are defacto Russian citizens. Their parents voted for it.
Voting with a foreign military presence doesn't count.
Also, a lot of the kids are orphans (their parents having been murdered by the Russians). And a lot have parents trying to trace them and get them back (there's a whole association for this).
(guessing you are American) and there have been similar abuses by US troops, like infamously in Haiti in the early 20th century, where the locals had to ask a US Marine for the ballot of the candidate they wanted to vote for.
But I'm not aware of anything of this type happening today. Do the US soldiers in e.g. Rammstein go to police how people vote?
The economy seems to be working still (numbers go up), because its a full on war-economy. You eat your country from the inside out, everything you produce explodes, and there's no way to transition out of it except by winning the war.
How do you come to this conclusion - have you been studying Putins' speeches in the last 3 years, or analysed some of the policies that led to this conclusion?
Did you see his recent interview on Croatian TV where he discusses this specifically?
EDIT: hey downvoters - is it not valid to study world leaders' directly rather than going through a third party .. ?
You mean his PR which is pretty pathetic but I presume its fine with... say less educated folks downing bottles of vodka like there is no tomorrow for whom its intended?
Bunch of lies, massive ego masturbation, constant feeling of being hurt by various external enemies (thats sort of russian trademark), a massive inferiority complex while expressing grandeur and superiority above others completely ignoring the fact russia as a nation, culture, philosophy, system etc. is the most hated one globally.
They view even rest of slavic megatribe as subhumans variously not worthy of independence, freedom, self-determination. Just look at their actions, his talk or his lapdog peskov' doesn't matter. The important thing you seem to miss to look primarily on actions, not some empty PR for simpler folks. Dude, I've been enslaved by russian/soviet military forces most of my childhood, I know very well what they bring to any society and how they shape it to their liking.
Just a typical sociopathic dictator out of touch with reality, nothing special there. The fact he is smart and put few sentences together doesn't matter at all, he is a vicious mass murderer completely out of touch with reality internally and externally, and a horrible manager of russia, damaging it severely and destroying any respect that nation and culture ever had. This started well before covid but that period cut him off completely.
Same assessment here. There is absolutely an excessively punitive element in Russian policy. I only really saw it due to their actions in the NKAO (peacekeepers simply letting Azerbajijan starve people, and then doing nothing about an invasion), but it's clearly a thing also in the Ukraine war.
> based on potential future events, you've come to this conclusion
No. I'm saying by the goals he set out before the war, he has failed.
> You saw his interview on Croatia TV recently? His statements refute your position
Putin is sort of like Trump in that he messages multiple messages. We cannot know what is in his mind. But Putin has repeatedly made revanchist nonsense statements about Russia's sphere of influence and imperial downfall. He's also said that's not what Russia wants. But that's (a) recent and (b) unsubstantiated by the facts ont the ground.
>No. I'm saying by the goals he set out before the war, he has failed.
Fine, but what were those goals, where/when did he set them out and what is the current status? I'd like to study this issue myself - so any sources you can provide?
>We cannot know what is in his mind.
Yet you claim to know, which is why I'm interested - if you don't believe his words, what basis do you have to make the assertion that you know his real intentions?
As far as I can tell (and I am merely hours away from the Ukraine border), the land he has occupied is precisely what he set out to achieve, and it doesn't look like that is about to change any time soon.
So please, share your references. I'd quite like to understand how you can make such conclusions with such certainty, while doubting the words of the very individual responsible for it. I remain unconvinced you've observed any of his recent public statements with regards to Russia's position with Europe.
> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, has been overcome. Yes, at a great cost, yes, through the tragic events of a de facto civil war, because now brothers, divided by their belonging to the Russian and Ukrainian armies, are still shooting at each other - but Ukraine as anti-Russia will no longer exist. Russia is restoring its historical completeness, gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together - in all its totality of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians. If we had refused this, had allowed the temporary division to become entrenched for centuries, then we would not only have betrayed the memory of our ancestors, but would also have been cursed by our descendants - for allowing the disintegration of the Russian land.
Note that referring to Ukrainians as "little Russians" is grossly offensive but fits with the big picture idea (which you can see scattered in this very thread! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43913680) that Ukraine isn't a real country or a separate nationality. This year we have been provided a very easy parallel: the rhetoric that Canada isn't really separate and should just be the 51st state. (What a coincidence!)
Here's another short video I always share on this topic, with John McCain laying things out in 2014 after Russia seized Crimea. We're about halfway through his predictions, I'd say. https://youtu.be/HLAzeHnNgR8
> As far as I can tell (and I am merely hours away from the Ukraine border), the land he has occupied is precisely what he set out to achieve, and it doesn't look like that is about to change any time soon.
Is that why the best Russian forces attacked Kyiv, including a paratroop landing to capture Antonov airport, which is in the Kyiv suburbs? You don't do that kind of thing if you're not expecting to capture the city. Also, why did Russia need to mobilise if it got what it wanted?
Add in Russia's claims that they're just removing the Ukrainian government, which it accused of being neo-Nazis.
> Putin's address was aired during an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on the situation in Ukraine that began on the evening of 23 February.[14][15] At the meeting itself, Vasily Nebenzya, Russia's representative to the UN, stated: "We are not carrying out aggression against the Ukrainian people, but against the group that seized power in Kyiv."[16]
> Our plans do not include the occupation of Ukrainian territories
That's called delusional backpedaling by both the Russians, and people like you who seem intent on giving them the benefit of the doubt for no apparent reason. Russia is not a rational actor, and no, nothing that has happened has been to plan, unless you believe their plan included having to mobilise, and losing the Black Sea fleet to a country with no navy.
"People like you" - you lost me here. I'm asking out of interest, not because I'm a useful idiot for Russians, and I'm not challenging your position because someone might consider that "you are a bootlicker for Western war-mongers", but because I have a legitimate interest in the conclusions you've made and the means you've taken to reach them, and I want to see the details - not the anecdotes, not the vitriol - based on evidence that can be reviewed and which is not keyed to emotional levers being pushed and pulled depending on which 'side' you are on.
I'm not interested in the vitriol - name-calling and invalidation of ones intelligence is a limited technique in terms of effectiveness - I am interested in the source of your understanding, such as it is. I work with refugees regularly from various conflicts, including Gaza and Ukraine, so my personal insight is based on on-the-ground assessments from civilian victims of these conflicts, whose voice is not often heard in the masses. What I know so far: nobody in the civilian cadre wants these wars, only their utterly insane leaders do.
So, again, what of the Russian governments' official positions have you evaluated against the reality of the facts on the ground?
Russia got its land corridor to Sebastopol, Crimea, where they continue to operate their nuclear-armed naval base: a requirement they made very clear early on in the conflict.
Russia have gained control over the territories in the east where they claimed that Ukraine was committing crimes against the mostly-Russian speaking population prior to their invasion. A consequence of their actions has been the result where, a significant portion of Europes' population now have a greater understanding of the nature of the various groups involved in the conflict - and yes, that includes a broader understanding of the Ukrainian and Russian extremist groups involved.
And .. a million men are dead because neither side had what it took to actually maintain peace.
>Russia is not a rational actor
By which standard can you make this claim of any nation which has invaded and demolished sovereign states this century? There are literally no states involved in any conflict today which can be considered rational actors.
States are, by very stint of necessity, duplicitous and calculating in their actions - which is why I think it is very selective to make conclusions on the state of the conflict in Ukraine on the basis of public statements and propaganda - from both sides of the conflict. I'd like to have a distinct set of statements which can be verified against the current reality, but this is not forthcoming - so far, the vitriol is getting in the way of rational discussion.
So .. What do you think of Putins' statements made on Croatian Channel 4 TV on Monday, regarding Russia's position vis a vis its relationship with Europe? All lies? Should be ignored on the basis of some masterful application of coffeeshop psychology techniques?
> I want to see the details - not the anecdotes, not the vitriol - based on evidence that can be reviewed and which is not keyed to emotional levers being pushed and pulled depending on which 'side' you are on. /---/ What I know so far: nobody in the civilian cadre wants these wars, only their utterly insane leaders do.
It goes without saying that nobody in Ukraine wants the war, but indeed, let's examine facts and not personal anecdotes. KIIS and other surveyors have consistently found ~80% support for continuing to resist the invasion (graph 6): https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1509&page=1
Likewise, saying that the Sevastopol naval base "continues to operate" is quite a stretch when we look at the facts:
* Even there, unmanned Ukrainian naval drones continue to pose a significant danger. In the past week, in the first ever aerial combat of this kind, they shot down two fighter jets near Novorossiysk: https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukrainian-naval-drones-shoo...
Quite a different picture from the victory parade you were trying to draw us. When reality and narrative differ this much, "people like you" labels shouldn't offend, because you indeed represent a certain distinct type.
> "People like you" - you lost me here. I'm asking out of interest, not because I'm a useful idiot for Russians
I'm sorry, but you are. Might not be your intention (I strongly doubt it), but you are.
> and I want to see the details - not the anecdotes, not the vitriol - based on evidence that can be reviewed and which is not keyed to emotional levers being pushed and pulled depending on which 'side' you are on.
I linked you a Wikipedia page with the timeline, quotes and Putin's official announcement of the war on kremlin.ru. What do you have to say about that, other than "wanting to review the evidence"? Come on, gave you plenty, go ahead and review it, and come back to us telling us how Russia supposedly achieved its aims.
> So, again, what of the Russian governments' official positions have you evaluated against the reality of the facts on the ground?
Their starting position, which is that they're bringing peace to the bad Ukraine Nazis, and that they're fighting NATO encroachment, both of which are objective failures - Ukraine is still there, and NATO got even closer to Russia with Sweden and Finland.
> Russia got its land corridor to Sebastopol, Crimea, where they continue to operate their nuclear-armed naval base: a requirement they made very clear early on in the conflict.
Cool, and the Black Sea Fleet is still in Sevastopol, right? Wait, there's a Black Sea Fleet, right? Right?
Russia lost the Black Sea Fleet to a country with no navy. It had to evacuate whatever was remaining of it to Novorossiysk, far out of range of Ukrainian drones. They could have saved a lot of lives and their fleet by just moving the fleet there in the first place.
> A consequence of their actions has been the result where, a significant portion of Europes' population now have a greater understanding of the nature of the various groups involved in the conflict - and yes, that includes a broader understanding of the Ukrainian and Russian extremist groups involved.
One party, Russia, invaded and is genociding the other [1]. Ukraine had a negligible problem with neo-Nazis in a militia. Totally the same "extremist groups on both sides", right?
> What do you think of Putins' statements made on Croatian Channel 4 TV on Monday, regarding Russia's position vis a vis its relationship with Europe? All lies? Should be ignored on the basis of some masterful application of coffeeshop psychology techniques?
So, I Googled around, and saw some youtube/facebook/linkedin links talking about that and how Russia isn't Europe's enemy (even though they're literally invading a European neighbour and threatening others, sure mate) and bla bla nonsense. But on further searching... there is no such thing? Grok (not that it's very reliable) says that it can't find any proof of such statements. Googling with HRT 4, the name of the Croatian channel, finds nothing. Their website with the Putin tag shows nothing: https://www.hrt.hr/tag/vladimir-putin
So it's fake... Good job being a useful idiot for the enemy of Europe.
1 Russia is indeed (without trying to hide it, it's all out in the open, their chief of staff and various ministers have talked about it) kidnapping people and specifically children from Ukraine. Those children are being educated to be good Russian citizens, which is genocide as per the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (to which Russia is a signatory), Article II (e).
The fact you could not find that interview is very telling - it means you are living in a state-provided bubble of censorship which doesn't allow you access to adequate information to make a proper assessment:
I thought he invaded because of historical and not at all unfounded fears of western encirclement. Ukraine was getting pretty close to NATO, after all. I don't doubt that there were imperialist intentions, I'm just saying there is also a certain strategy and logic to the invasion.
Hopefully this will finally teach the nations of the world they can't rely on the likes of the US for their protection. If they want to survive and keep their sovereignity, they should really start developing missile technology and stockpiling nukes. If they don't, they will simply get steamrolled by nuclear armed opponents while the US does pretty much nothing about it despite promising to because they're not actually willing to risk global thermonuclear war with Russia over some eastern european country.
Modi is a different type of beast, he's a long term political power that doesn't need a wartime economy, and is still establishing his internal power. He's going to have to deal with the insane SS brigade he's fostered eventually. Also while Putin and others thought that Ukraine would fall like Afghanistan (quickly), zero people think that Pakistan is going anywhere within this eon. While it's not the graveyard of empires, it's definitely the hospice.