What is Putin's objective....it's not primarily sizing Ukraine

[Chernosoth]

Russia wanted to be more integrated with Europe as an equal trading partner. The wealthier parts of the EU and US wanted to strip Russia's wealth for their own enrichment, like they have been doing to the poorer parts of the EU and US. Building back up to a position of comparative strength would have taken more decades without the matching American decline. Now Russia is turning towards Asia and away from Europe. It needed a show of strength, a proxy war to say it's not the EU's bitch anymore. Without Russian fuel, Europe has a steep decline ahead, a return to its preindustrial status as many dirt poor little nations that will be mostly ignored by the world.

 

[KeithD]

When Russia wanted to be more integrated with Europe, that was a good thing for everyone and was welcomed and aided by the West. I don't know that they are turning to Asia as much as they are turning in on themselves. What drove a spike into Russia's development was an old KGB agent named Vladimir Putin. The Russians will be a poor, snubbed country until they get rid of him.

 

[Rightguide]

Source:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/06/putin-american-democracy/610570/

This article comes closer to most at explaining what Putin's long term objective is...the downfall of the US by furthering political polorization.

Why didn't Putin make these moves during the 45 administration? It fairly simple to understand....45 was a useful asset to Putin. He would not invade Ukraine or any other country as that would diminish the very favorable relationship he had with 45. He played 45 like a adolescent school boy and he wants more of this.... relationships with doddards who can be easily played and manipulated.

So he waits, til after the election. Putin dispises the establishment in the US and those who will hold him to task... like Biden, the Clintons, the Bushes. Etc... It is way more politically useful to put this burden of an invasion on Biden and the establishment. It favors and promotes more political polorization and upheaval.

Putin is a master...he is playing his cards extremely well and those on both the left and right are amateurs....falling right into his hands.

"Events in the United States have unfolded more favorably than any operative in Moscow could have ever dreamed: Not only did Russia’s preferred candidate win, but he has spent his first term fulfilling the potential it saw in him, discrediting American institutions, rending the seams of American culture, and isolating a nation that had styled itself as indispensable to the free world. But instead of complacently enjoying its triumph, Russia almost immediately set about replicating it. Boosting the Trump campaign was a tactic; #DemocracyRIP remains the larger objective."

Right now his objective is staying alive.

 

[mayfly13]

When Russia wanted to be more integrated with Europe, that was a good thing for everyone and was welcomed and aided by the West. I don't know that they are turning to Asia as much as they are turning in on themselves. What drove a spike into Russia's development was an old KGB agent named Vladimir Putin. The Russians will be a poor, snubbed country until they get rid of him.

Yes.

While people are understandably horrified by what's going on in Ukraine & recalling Russia's horrid past.
They gloss over the fact that it was THANKS TO GORBATCHEV that the USSR was dismantled.
He'd started preparing the satelite states & their presidents Long before the 1988-1990's.
Spontaneous my ass, they were able to separate without bloodshed because Russia allowed it.

Now his main aim was to save Russia from the disaster it was sliding into, I doubt that he aimed for the disolution of the USSR,
but he was aiming for a more benign version of his country.

 

[JohnEngelman]

This is an interesting article, but I remain skeptical. I think Putin did not like the way NATO enlisted former members of the Warsaw Pact, and thought the invasion of Ukraine would be easy. The results have not been what Putin expected. NATO countries are becoming more united against Russia. They are sending weapons to Ukraine and increasing their military budgets. Sweden and Finland are thinking about joining NATO.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Political polarization in the United States persists. Nevertheless, there does not seem to be much support for Putin, even in the fever swamps of American's hard right.

 

[mayfly13]

This is an interesting article, but I remain skeptical. I think Putin did not like the way NATO enlisted former members of the Warsaw Pact, and thought the invasion of Ukraine would be easy. The results have not been what Putin expected. NATO countries are becoming more united against Russia. They are sending weapons to Ukraine and increasing their military budgets. Sweden and Finland are thinking about joining NATO.

the other striking thing is that

while the West were deliberately wrong about Crimea: most of it's inhabitants Wanted to join Russia, they said overwhelmingly yes in the referendum

Putin & were so tone-deaf about Russians from other regions of Ukraine:
it was not just Ukrainians, but local Russian speakers too who opposed the invasion

 

[Rightguide]

Political polarization in the United States persists. Nevertheless, there does not seem to be much support for Putin, even in the fever swamps of American's hard right.

I wouldn't mistake people on the right who are against going to war in Europe, or those who have some empathy for the Russian people as a whole who are now going to be made to suffer under sanctions, with being pro-Putin. Among informed people in America, I doubt there's more than a smidgeon of empathy for Putin as we speak. If it does exist, it's in the State Department among those too timid and misguided to be there.

 

[butters]

Turkey closes its airspace to all russian flights to Syria
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...pc=U531&cvid=4f2461b046804671a2e3ba0ecaf77791

 

[JohnEngelman]

What Russia's Losses In Ukraine Could Mean For Putin And Russia​

The following passages come from Tao Te Ching, by Lao Tsu, translated by GIA-Fu Feng

Thirty
Whenever you advise a ruler in the way of Tao,
Counsel him not to use force to conquer the universe.

Sixty-Nine
There is no greater catastrophe than underestimating the enemy.

I regret this war not only because of my concern for the Ukrainian people, but because of my affection for the Russian people. Even if Russia eventually wins, Russia's will be a Pyrrhic victory. If Russia loses the Russian Federation may collapse the way the Soviet Union did.

This invasion was so unnecessary. Ukraine had no intention to join NATO. Ukraine posed no threat to Russia. Russia has abundant natural resources, and an intelligent, well educated population. Russia has no need to conquer smaller nations on its periphery. Conquering smaller nations that do not want to be conquered is an unnecessary burden to Russia.

 

[pecksniff]

Without Russian fuel, Europe has a steep decline ahead, a return to its preindustrial status as many dirt poor little nations that will be mostly ignored by the world.

Europe took over a lot of the world before the industrial revolution.

 

[mayfly13]

I split & collaged it because for me there are some contradictory thingsin my understanding of your post.
Could you ellaborate further?

I regret this war not only because of my concern for the Ukrainian people, but because of my affection for the Russian people.

Love your statement!


On one hand we're witnessing hideous massacres and mass gang-rapes committed by Putin & on the ground Russian military
----And mind you - These ARE NOT racial incidents, like atrocities committed by rogue racist Australians in Aphghanistan https://www.npr.org/2021/04/25/9895...etail-alleged-killings-by-australian-military
Brutal killings were a more general Russian MO too in Syria and Aphghanista
And mass gang-rapes were their mo too, when they took over East Berlin and former Germany allies after ww2.

BUT not all Russian soldiers were like that,
----and the Rusophobes who generalize and claim "Russians superior, imperialist"
•never mingled with Russian immigrants to get to understand their warm and sensitive soul, cause too unwashed for an Anglo
•never read Russian literature

This invasion was so unnecessary. Ukraine had no intention to join NATO. Ukraine posed no threat to Russia.

Wrong.

Not only Putin, but Gorbatchev too --who helped disolve the USSR--
had been screaming for years his concerns about Crimea and NATO expansion.
Most Russian laypeople were concerned too.

The difference being, had Gorbatchev been president and not Putin or some other imperialist,
maybe things would have been better.

1. What Russia's Losses In Ukraine Could Mean For Putin And Russia​

2. I regret this war not only because of my concern for the Ukrainian people, but because of my affection for the Russian people. Even if Russia eventually wins, Russia's will be a Pyrrhic victory. If Russia loses the Russian Federation may collapse the way the Soviet Union did.

Here comes the part that sounds either manipulative because you conflate the two, or poorly thought.
Russian laypeople # Putin # Russian federation

 

[ll74]

Russophobe isn't a word. Rusophobia is a word.

 

[mark_j]

In a word?

Odessa.

The minor is to control the land access to the Crimea as Sevastopol is essentially a useless Russian controlled port if there is no viable land bridge. Without controlling the entire Ukraine by way of a puppet government, this may be the best they can hope for.

 

[pecksniff]

Walter Lippman:

Now it happened in one nation that the war party which was in control of the foreign office, the high command, and most of the press, had claims on the territory of several of its neighbors. These claims were called the Greater Ruritania by the cultivated classes who regarded Kipling, Treitschke, and Maurice Barres as one hundred percent Ruritanian. But the grandiose idea aroused no enthusiasm abroad. So holding this finest flower of the Ruritanian genius, as their poet laureate said, to their hearts, Ruritania's statesmen went forth to divide and conquer. They divided the claim into sectors. For each piece they invoked that stereotype which some one or more of their allies found it difficult to resist, because that ally had claims for which it hoped to find approval by the use of this same stereotype.

The first sector happened to be a mountainous region inhabited by alien peasants. Ruritania demanded it to complete her natural geographical frontier. If you fixed your attention long enough on the ineffable value of what is natural, those alien peasants just dissolved into fog, and only the slope of the mountains was visible. The next sector was inhabited by Ruritanians, and on the principle that no people ought to live under alien rule, they were re-annexed. Then came a city of considerable commercial importance, not inhabited by Ruritanians. But until the Eighteenth Century it had been part of Ruritania, and on the principle of Historic Right it was annexed. Farther on there was a splendid mineral deposit owned by aliens and worked by aliens. On the principle of reparation for damage it was annexed. Beyond this there was a territory inhabited 97% by aliens, constituting the natural geographical frontier of another nation, never historically a part of Ruritania. But one of the provinces which had been federated into Ruritania had formerly traded in those markets, and the upper class culture was Ruritanian. On the principle of cultural superiority and the necessity of defending civilization, the lands were claimed. Finally, there was a port wholly disconnected from Ruritania geographically, ethnically, economically, historically, traditionally. It was demanded on the ground that it was needed for national defense.

In the treaties that concluded the Great War you can multiply examples of this kind. Now I do not wish to imply that I think it was possible to resettle Europe consistently on any one of these principles. I am certain that it was not. The very use of these principles, so pretentious and so absolute, meant that the spirit of accommodation did not prevail and that, therefore, the substance of peace was not there. For the moment you start to discuss factories, mines, mountains, or even political authority, as perfect examples of some eternal principle or other, you are not arguing, you are fighting. That eternal principle censors out all the objections, isolates the issue from its background and its context, and sets going in you some strong emotion, appropriate enough to the principle, highly inappropriate to the docks, warehouses, and real estate. And having started in that mood you cannot stop. A real danger exists. To meet it you have to invoke more absolute principles in order to defend what is open to attack. Then you have to defend the defenses, erect buffers, and buffers for the buffers, until the whole affair is so scrambled that it seems less dangerous to fight than to keep on talking.

 

[Rightguide]

Walter Lippman:

Why do you always cite the writings of CPUSA radicals?
https://www.cpusa.org/authors/walter-lippmann/

 

[pecksniff]

Right now his objective is staying alive.

Disco is coming back?

 

[pecksniff]

Why do you always cite the writings of CPUSA radicals?
https://www.cpusa.org/authors/walter-lippmann/

Because that doesn't matter. It does not discredit the source the way an association with white nationalism or flat Earthers or creationists or global-warming denial or something equally silly would.

As you know.

 

[Chernosoth]

Most people need to believe they are good people, which is more difficult for the USA's middle and upper classes if they admit their wealth and luxuries come from exploitation, extortion, theft, and murder in weaker nations and some regions in their own nation. They need to believe they earn their comfort by work and intelligence in a meritocracy. They don't want to admit the USA used Ukraine as an ATM.

 

[mayfly13]

In a word?

Odessa.

The minor is to control the land access to the Crimea as Sevastopol is essentially a useless Russian controlled port if there is no viable land bridge.

^^ This.

Not many discussions in massmedia about it.

 

[icanhelp1]

^^ This.

Not many discussions in massmedia about it.

Putting Odessa aside for a minute, I'm sitting here reading about the massive amount of death and destruction brought on by Russian leaders and soldiers alike. The rape and murder of women, the killing of babies, the arbitrary ganglike killings. These are decisions made by individual soldiers to commit these atrocities, it's a very personal evil to commit rape or shoot unarmed people in the head by the thousands. In the US military a soldier is not required to obey an unlawful order. As I sit here contemplating the news feeds, the fact that these Russian soldiers would commit these atrocities I can't help feel that maybe we're too quick to be giving the Russian people a pass, that the Russian people are good people just does not reflect what's actually going on on the battlefield. These soldiers are the offspring of these Russian parents ( people). The fact that these soldiers are able to commit these atrocities has to be somewhat aligned to Russian culture. Just seems that there's a lot of this cruelty that permeates throughout Russian military history and directly reflects upon Russian civilization. I understand German atrocities against Russia but at the same time the Russians tried to invade Finland with the same brutality. IMHO

 

[Rightguide]

Because that doesn't matter. It does not discredit the source the way an association with white nationalism or flat Earthers or creationists or global-warming denial or something equally silly would.

As you know.

Yeah sure, Comrade.

 

[Rightguide]

Putting Odessa aside for a minute, I'm sitting here reading about the massive amount of death and destruction brought on by Russian leaders and soldiers alike. The rape and murder of women, the killing of babies, the arbitrary ganglike killings. These are decisions made by individual soldiers to commit these atrocities, it's a very personal evil to commit rape or shoot unarmed people in the head by the thousands. In the US military a soldier is not required to obey an unlawful order. As I sit here contemplating the news feeds, the fact that these Russian soldiers would commit these atrocities I can't help feel that maybe we're too quick to be giving the Russian people a pass, that the Russian people are good people just does not reflect what's actually going on on the battlefield. These soldiers are the offspring of these Russian parents ( people). The fact that these soldiers are able to commit these atrocities has to be somewhat aligned to Russian culture. Just seems that there's a lot of this cruelty that permeates throughout Russian military history and directly reflects upon Russian civilization. I understand German atrocities against Russia but at the same time the Russians tried to invade Finland with the same brutality. IMHO

Russian military doctrine supports the destruction of civilian populations and infrastructure in order to bring pressure on the enemy government to cease hostilities. Only the West supports the laws of war.

 

[icanhelp1]

Russian military doctrine supports the destruction of civilian populations and infrastructure in order to bring pressure on the enemy government to cease hostilities. Only the West supports the laws of war.

I have a good understanding of Russian military doctrine. Western leaders are quick to come to the rescue of the Russian people, I think that that's a flawed observation or opinion of Russian culture.

 

[Chernosoth]

Did anyone else notice the spelling error? Sizing a nation is generally not a military agenda.