Whether or not Crimea or the Donbas regions were of some historical nature connected back to Russia... doesn't somehow validate Russian invasion of them and the further attempted invasion of further parts of Ukraine.
And I don't think I say it does. But as long as people want to talk about the history related to these conflicts, let's talk about it, because IF Ukraine does retake these territories, they'll be confronted with the same problems they've had for the last 30 years, which would allow for Russian interference.
Is it your belief that had the original battle plan executions succeeded in taking the capital and other major areas of Ukraine at the outset of the war, that Putin would have simply been like: OK, now that I have all this, I will give it back...
I think what happened was coercive diplomacy gone wrong, and I think this piece makes a good case for that.
Also, come on man, you are ignoring some long complex history here with this nonsense.
Crimea was part of Russia... sure, but the Soviet Union spent a lot of time essentially decimating the local population by moving them and over time many Russians moved there, almost kind of like old folks going down to Florida here. There is a complex history of Sevastopol as well, with how the Black Sea Fleet was split up after the fall of the Soviet Union and with Russian forces there playing a heavy role in local support, forces, and personnel.
No one is ignoring that. I specifically mentioned the Tatars in post 15 - that would be the Crimean population decimated and has only returned in the last 30 years.
"Coercive diplomacy"
Seriously, Putin himself couldn't come up with better propaganda than this. A full scale invasion across multiple fronts targeting a nations capital, with little regard for human loss of life along the way, and apparent war crimes along the way, is not "coercive diplomacy"
Cutting off pipeline supplies to Europe is coercive diplomacy.
Seriously, Putin himself couldn't come up with better propaganda than this. A full scale invasion across multiple fronts targeting a nations capital, with little regard for human loss of life along the way, and apparent war crimes along the way, is not "coercive diplomacy"
The invasion was the result of a failure of coercive diplomacy (if you read the article); hence coercive diplomacy gone wrong (if the threat doesn't work, your choices are basically back down or follow through). What about this invasion makes you think it was well thought out or planned?
This article from August 2021 discussed the April 2021 military exercises and their relation to coercive diplomacy. Those exercises did not result in an invasion. This time the build up did; that was - arguably - a failure. Unless you ascribe different, maximalist motives to Putin, which I don't think are supported by Russia's actions or the history.
Over the past six days, Ukraine’s armed forces have broken through the Russian lines in the northeastern corner of the country, swept eastward, and liberated town after town in what had been occupied territory. First Balakliya, then Kupyansk, then Izium, a city that sits on major supply routes. These names won’t mean much to a foreign audience, but they are places that have been beyond reach, impossible for Ukrainians to contact for months. Now they have fallen in hours. As I write this, Ukrainian forces are said to be fighting on the outskirts of Donetsk, a city that Russia has occupied since 2014. . . . That original mission has already failed. There will be no such “new era.” The Soviet Union will not be revived. And when Russian elites finally realize that Putin’s imperial project was not just a failure for Putin personally but also a moral, political, and economic disaster for the entire country, themselves included, then his claim to be the legitimate ruler of Russia melts away. When I write that Americans and Europeans need to prepare for a Ukrainian victory, this is what I mean: We must expect that a Ukrainian victory, and certainly a victory in Ukraine’s understanding of the term, also brings about the end of Putin’s regime.
To be clear: This is not a prediction; it’s a warning. Many things about the current Russian political system are strange, and one of the strangest is the total absence of a mechanism for succession. Not only do we have no idea who would or could replace Putin; we have no idea who would or could choose that person. In the Soviet Union there was a Politburo, a group of people that could theoretically make such a decision, and very occasionally did. By contrast, there is no transition mechanism in Russia. There is no dauphin. Putin has refused even to allow Russians to contemplate an alternative to his seedy and corrupt brand of kleptocratic power. Nevertheless, I repeat: It is inconceivable that he can continue to rule if the centerpiece of his claim to legitimacy—his promise to put the Soviet Union back together again—proves not just impossible but laughable.
To prepare for Putin’s exit does not mean that Americans, Europeans, or any outsiders intervene directly in the politics of Moscow. We have no tools that can affect the course of events in the Kremlin, and any effort to meddle would certainly backfire. But that doesn’t mean we should help him stay in power either. As Western heads of state, foreign ministers, and generals think about how to end this war, they should not try to preserve Putin’s view of himself or of the world, his backward-looking definition of Russian greatness. They should not be planning to negotiate on his terms at all, because they might be dealing with someone else altogether.
This is not a battle of soldiers and weapons, but one of rubles.
All Ukraine had to do was hold out long enough for this war to cost too much for Putin, and in that respect, they have succeeded. Worse, they've embarrassed the Russian military, which puts even more pressure on Putin.
So there seems only two outcomes to me. Either the embarrassment will cause Putin to invest everything, to sacrifice the future of Russia itself, just to prove to the world how big his dick is, or he is going to be removed somehow, and Russia will negotiate a peace.
This is not a battle of soldiers and weapons, but one of rubles.
All Ukraine had to do was hold out long enough for this war to cost too much for Putin, and in that respect, they have succeeded. Worse, they've embarrassed the Russian military, which puts even more pressure on Putin.
So there seems only two outcomes to me. Either the embarrassment will cause Putin to invest everything, to sacrifice the future of Russia itself, just to prove to the world how big his dick is, or he is going to be removed somehow, and Russia will negotiate a peace.
Freon
I agree with your post. I'm hoping its the latter....
But boy, as long as Putin remains in power, I hope russia suffers....in the context their only allies are other more authoritarian states...the west should continue to isolate this jerk of a man until their people decide having a little former communist, and current dictator is not in their best interest...let them take their vacations in china.
Seriously, Putin himself couldn't come up with better propaganda than this. A full scale invasion across multiple fronts targeting a nations capital, with little regard for human loss of life along the way, and apparent war crimes along the way, is not "coercive diplomacy"
The invasion was the result of a failure of coercive diplomacy (if you read the article); hence coercive diplomacy gone wrong (if the threat doesn't work, your choices are basically back down or follow through). What about this invasion makes you think it was well thought out or planned?
This article from August 2021 discussed the April 2021 military exercises and their relation to coercive diplomacy. Those exercises did not result in an invasion. This time the build up did; that was - arguably - a failure. Unless you ascribe different, maximalist motives to Putin, which I don't think are supported by Russia's actions or the history.
The Biden administration spent weeks warning the world Russia was about to invade. We knew for over a month they were amassing resources to invade. Most were shocked at how abysmal, dysfunctional, and horrifically executed their invasion was. You are conflating the difference between results and effort. I think it is quite clear Putin spent considerable time planning for the invasion, as some presumed back when he took Crimea that wouldn't be the end... but the many years of corruption and ineptitude in military readiness were laid to bare for the world to see when their initial plans to try to steam roll the country fell through.
So... here we are 6 months later. What do you think Putin is doing?
Last Edit: Sept 12, 2022 21:04:00 GMT by Monster Man
The Biden administration spent weeks warning the world Russia was about to invade. We knew for over a month they were amassing resources to invade.
There wasn't exactly agreement about whether they would invade. You're acting like it was absolutely concluded that Russia would invade; that wasn't the case early on. See here.
I think it is quite clear Putin spent considerable time planning for the invasion...
The logistical issues, the comms issues, etc., etc. would suggest otherwise. So, he spent considerable time planning the invasion but didn't work out the logistics?
as some presumed back when he took Crimea that wouldn't be the end... but the many years of corruption and ineptitude in military readiness were laid to bare for the world to see when their initial plans to try to steam roll the country fell through.
That assumes there was a plan to steam roll the entire country. There's no consensus on that. Many people advancing that view seems to be making that argument based primarily on ideological grounds (such as the author in the OP).
So... here we are 6 months later. What do you think Putin is doing?
As I said earlier, I think he's concentrating on holding Crimea and Donbas, the regions that have been part of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, with the hope of permanently gaining those territories. That's basically been the goal from the beginning. It was what they wanted even before the invasion. And when this war is finally settled, it might be what they end up with.
The Biden administration spent weeks warning the world Russia was about to invade. We knew for over a month they were amassing resources to invade.
There wasn't exactly agreement about whether they would invade. You're acting like it was absolutely concluded that Russia would invade; that wasn't the case early on. See here.
I think it is quite clear Putin spent considerable time planning for the invasion...
The logistical issues, the comms issues, etc., etc. would suggest otherwise. So, he spent considerable time planning the invasion but didn't work out the logistics?
as some presumed back when he took Crimea that wouldn't be the end... but the many years of corruption and ineptitude in military readiness were laid to bare for the world to see when their initial plans to try to steam roll the country fell through.
That assumes there was a plan to steam roll the entire country. There's no consensus on that. Many people advancing that view seems to be making that argument based primarily on ideological grounds (such as the author in the OP).
So... here we are 6 months later. What do you think Putin is doing?
As I said earlier, I think he's concentrating on holding Crimea and Donbas, the regions that have been part of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, with the hope of permanently gaining those territories. That's basically been the goal from the beginning. It was what they wanted even before the invasion. And when this war is finally settled, it might be what they end up with.
Yeah, on any given thing there are varying opinions. That point remains... Putin amassed forces for months pointing to an invasion. Then... Putin invaded.
Again, you are conflating outcomes with effort. I was in the Marine Corps for 12 years and have engaged in various levels of combat operations planning exercises, including numerous of the live fire exercises out in 29 palms. We spent a lot of time planning for things, preparing, and then having things go spectacularly wrong. I don't think Putin was planning for 6 months of war, but that doesn't mean they were not planning or prepared to execute what they hoped to be a much faster invasion effort.
Putin already held Crimea and Donbas. He had held them for years. But yeah, sure, there was no "consensus" on thinking they would take Ukraine much more quickly, but even less of one that he would have executed this invasion with the hopes of merely keeping what he already had.
Yeah, on any given thing there are varying opinions. That point remains... Putin amassed forces for months pointing to an invasion. Then... Putin invaded.
Putin has amassed forces on Ukraine's borders several times. Before the invasion, as recently as April 2021.
Again, you are conflating outcomes with effort. I was in the Marine Corps for 12 years and have engaged in various levels of combat operations planning exercises, including numerous of the live fire exercises out in 29 palms. We spent a lot of time planning for things, preparing, and then having things go spectacularly wrong. I don't think Putin was planning for 6 months of war, but that doesn't mean they were not planning or prepared to execute what they hoped to be a much faster invasion effort.
They were having logistical problems from the moment they invaded. Same with comms. This isn't an issue that arose as the conflict ground on.
Putin already held Crimea and Donbas. He had held them for years.
Russian forces held Crimea. They didn't hold Donbas; that was separatist territory (obviously supported/aided by Russia) that has been at war with Ukraine for the last 8 years. It's disputed territory, unlike Crimea which has been pretty securely in Russian control. But he wants that occupation ratified in treaty. He wants a legal seal on it.
But yeah, sure, there was no "consensus" on thinking they would take Ukraine much more quickly, but even less of one that he would have executed this invasion with the hopes of merely keeping what he already had.
There are other things Russia wants. It wants a neutral Ukraine. That was an aim of the coercive diplomacy, and it was also part of negotiations that ended in April (along with the status of Crimea and Donbas). That's pretty much out the window at this point; the coercion has backfired in that regard. But a negotiated settlement probably gets him those 2 regions and a face-saving "victory."
The Biden administration spent weeks warning the world Russia was about to invade. We knew for over a month they were amassing resources to invade.
There wasn't exactly agreement about whether they would invade. You're acting like it was absolutely concluded that Russia would invade; that wasn't the case early on. See here.
I think it is quite clear Putin spent considerable time planning for the invasion...
The logistical issues, the comms issues, etc., etc. would suggest otherwise. So, he spent considerable time planning the invasion but didn't work out the logistics?
as some presumed back when he took Crimea that wouldn't be the end... but the many years of corruption and ineptitude in military readiness were laid to bare for the world to see when their initial plans to try to steam roll the country fell through.
That assumes there was a plan to steam roll the entire country. There's no consensus on that. Many people advancing that view seems to be making that argument based primarily on ideological grounds (such as the author in the OP).
So... here we are 6 months later. What do you think Putin is doing?
As I said earlier, I think he's concentrating on holding Crimea and Donbas, the regions that have been part of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, with the hope of permanently gaining those territories. That's basically been the goal from the beginning. It was what they wanted even before the invasion. And when this war is finally settled, it might be what they end up with.
Putin didn't invade Ukraine to keep what he already had, he invaded to decapitate and replace the government.
You choose to not ascribe any maximalist motivations to Putin, but Putin had surrounded himself with maximalist hardliners for years, and their voice was the only voice he heard in the end. They thought the Ukrainians would either embrace them or at least shrug when they installed their own people at the helm in Kyiv. They were deluded.
Sept 22, 2021 rabbitreborn: We shouldn't all be under the same government. We can either decide this peacefully, or it will inevitably become violent. There really is no other alternative.
Dec 3, 2020 rabbitreborn: I’ve been advocating the dissolution of the US for near two decades.
June 22, 2024 Queshank: But the disgust grows. And that disgust sure helps me understand why the right hates you so much they'd pick up arms and kill you rather than let you win.
Putin didn't invade Ukraine to keep what he already had, he invaded to decapitate and replace the government.
He didn't really have Donbas; it's been disputed territory since 2014 with an ongoing conflict since that time (hence the various Minsk agreements which were brought up by Putin prior to the invasion). Plus these weren't the only aims, which included a neutral Ukraine.
I do think he hoped to collapse Zelensky's government, but I don't think an invasion was what Russia planned or intended. It was one of the options they were left after coercion failed, and they weren't going to back track.
You choose to not ascribe any maximalist motivations to Putin, but Putin had surrounded himself with maximalist hardliners for years, and their voice was the only voice he heard in the end.
I choose not ascribe maximalist aims based on what I see and what I read. I've read Applebaum and others who ascribe maximalist aims to Putin, I've read the contrary arguments, and I've watched the events as they unfold. I think the contrarians make the better argument.
The Biden administration spent weeks warning the world Russia was about to invade. We knew for over a month they were amassing resources to invade.
There wasn't exactly agreement about whether they would invade. You're acting like it was absolutely concluded that Russia would invade; that wasn't the case early on. See here.
I think it is quite clear Putin spent considerable time planning for the invasion...
The logistical issues, the comms issues, etc., etc. would suggest otherwise. So, he spent considerable time planning the invasion but didn't work out the logistics?
as some presumed back when he took Crimea that wouldn't be the end... but the many years of corruption and ineptitude in military readiness were laid to bare for the world to see when their initial plans to try to steam roll the country fell through.
That assumes there was a plan to steam roll the entire country. There's no consensus on that. Many people advancing that view seems to be making that argument based primarily on ideological grounds (such as the author in the OP).
So... here we are 6 months later. What do you think Putin is doing?
As I said earlier, I think he's concentrating on holding Crimea and Donbas, the regions that have been part of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, with the hope of permanently gaining those territories. That's basically been the goal from the beginning. It was what they wanted even before the invasion. And when this war is finally settled, it might be what they end up with.
A few things:
Firstly, these aren't things (logistics and communications) that can be 'worked out' on a sand table or on training exercises, because in addition to putting those things into practice on a while driving around on a notional battlefield, they omit the most important thing - your opponent. In this case, the UKR armed forces, which are just as well equipped (though not as numerous) as the RUS forces - and fighting on their own turf.
Furthermore, we are talking about fighting a fluid, mobile campaign along multiple axises of advance, which is something the aggressor hasn't done in over 75 years. Logistics and communications in a training environment are hard enough. Multiply that by a hundred when people are shooting at you and you haven't trained enough to know how to make it work under duress.
Secondly, the attempted decapitation of the UKR government made the RUS intentions plain enough. Had it succeeded, the RUS occupation of all of UKR was a given.
Yeah, on any given thing there are varying opinions. That point remains... Putin amassed forces for months pointing to an invasion. Then... Putin invaded.
Putin has amassed forces on Ukraine's borders several times. Before the invasion, as recently as April 2021.
Again, you are conflating outcomes with effort. I was in the Marine Corps for 12 years and have engaged in various levels of combat operations planning exercises, including numerous of the live fire exercises out in 29 palms. We spent a lot of time planning for things, preparing, and then having things go spectacularly wrong. I don't think Putin was planning for 6 months of war, but that doesn't mean they were not planning or prepared to execute what they hoped to be a much faster invasion effort.
They were having logistical problems from the moment they invaded. Same with comms. This isn't an issue that arose as the conflict ground on.
Putin already held Crimea and Donbas. He had held them for years.
Russian forces held Crimea. They didn't hold Donbas; that was separatist territory (obviously supported/aided by Russia) that has been at war with Ukraine for the last 8 years. It's disputed territory, unlike Crimea which has been pretty securely in Russian control. But he wants that occupation ratified in treaty. He wants a legal seal on it.
But yeah, sure, there was no "consensus" on thinking they would take Ukraine much more quickly, but even less of one that he would have executed this invasion with the hopes of merely keeping what he already had.
There are other things Russia wants. It wants a neutral Ukraine. That was an aim of the coercive diplomacy, and it was also part of negotiations that ended in April (along with the status of Crimea and Donbas). That's pretty much out the window at this point; the coercion has backfired in that regard. But a negotiated settlement probably gets him those 2 regions and a face-saving "victory."
Why do you keep insisting that Putrid only wants part of Ukraine?
He has pulled back only because militarily he was unable to seize the rest. But that doesn't mean it's his ultimate goal.
To repeat an earlier excerpt:
The reality, it now transpires, is considerably less elaborate and infinitely more chilling. Putin has launched the largest European conflict since WWII for the simple reason that he wants to conquer Ukraine. Inspired by the czars of old, Putin aims to crush his neighbor and incorporate it into a new Russian Empire.
Putin elaborated on his imperial vision during a June 9 event in Moscow to mark the 350th birthday of Russian Czar Peter the Great. He spoke admiringly of Czar Peter’s achievements during the Great Northern War and drew direct parallels to his own contemporary expansionist policies. The lands taken from Sweden during the Great Northern War were historically Russian and Peter was merely returning them to their rightful owners, Putin stated. “Apparently, it is now also our responsibility to return (Russian) land,” he said in a clear reference to the ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
Putin’s latest comments underline his imperial objectives in Ukraine and expand on years of similar statements lamenting the fall of the Russian Empire. For more than a decade, he has questioned the historical legitimacy of Ukrainian statehood and publicly insisted that Ukrainians are really Russians (“one people”). Putin has also repeatedly accused Ukraine of occupying ancestral Russian lands and has blamed the early Bolsheviks for bungling the border between the Russian and Ukrainian Soviet republics.
His unapologetically imperialistic attitude toward Russian-Ukrainian relations was laid bare in July 2021 in the form of a 7,000-word essay authored by Putin himself which set out to explain the alleged “historical unity” binding the two nations together. “I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. For we are one people,” Putin the amateur historian concluded. This bizarre treatise was widely interpreted as a declaration of war against the entire notion of an independent Ukraine and has since been made required reading for all Russian military personnel.
[ibid]
“Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.” ― George Bernard Shaw
Firstly, these aren't things (logistics and communications) that can be 'worked out' on a sand table or on training exercises, because in addition to putting those things into practice on a while driving around on a notional battlefield, they omit the most important thing - your opponent. In this case, the UKR armed forces, which are just as well equipped (though not as numerous) as the RUS forces - and fighting on their own turf.
They're using unsecured communications - cell phones. That doesn't really speak to months of planning for an invasion to me.
Furthermore, we are talking about fighting a fluid, mobile campaign along multiple axises of advance, which is something the aggressor hasn't done in over 75 years. Logistics and communications in a training environment are hard enough. Multiply that by a hundred when people are shooting at you and you haven't trained enough to know how to make it work under duress.
I think Russia did this in Chechnya didn't they? Granted that was well before this conflict, but they did do it (twice - first time didn't go so well).
Secondly, the attempted decapitation of the UKR government made the RUS intentions plain enough. Had it succeeded, the RUS occupation of all of UKR was a given.
I don't think it would've been a given seeing the problems they've had so far.
I hope that by now we can all agree on at least one thing: Putin's got to go.
There's one thing the forces for good understand, and that's going into another sovereign country in attempt to overthrow that country's government with violence or covert operations cannot be tolerated.
Period. Full stop.
The f***ing nerve of these foreign governments, honestly.
And if that means further impoverishing the regular people of the Good Countries, so be it.
"...continuing the adoption of masks, social distancing, and even lockdowns will be vital in preserving the human race against covid." -Ulysses
"...maybe this was Trump's last attempt to STAY in power by killing the VP, Pelosi and most of Congress." -Greg
"Did you know that about 2% of babies are intersex? That means that they are born with the physical appearance of one sex, but actually have functioning gonads of another. 2%!" -Freon
Why do you keep insisting that Putrid only wants part of Ukraine?
He has pulled back only because militarily he was unable to seize the rest. But that doesn't mean it's his ultimate goal.
To repeat an earlier excerpt:
For the reasons I've said. 1) It's what they wanted before they invaded (they had other demands, but in terms of territory, this is what they were talking about). 2) Whatever motivations you think Putin had/has, the situation has clearly changed and the military is focused on shoring up control of these areas.
You keep citing this article which also claims that Putin also wants Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the nations of Central Asia. Really? If the author is going to make that kind of ridiculous claim, it doesn't exactly bolster anything else claimed in that article, so just posting it over and over doesn't really do much.
I hope that by now we can all agree on at least one thing: Putin's got to go.
There's one thing the forces for good understand, and that's going into another sovereign country in attempt to overthrow that country's government with violence or covert operations cannot be tolerated.
Period. Full stop.
The f***ing nerve of these foreign governments, honestly.
And if that means further impoverishing the regular people of the Good Countries, so be it.
