How will the Russian invasion of Ukraine play out?

submitted by Zapped from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]StillLessons 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

I was considering a similar post to this one, but my question was subtly different.

The western side is portraying this as "Russian aggression" and plucking the usual emotional fear that Russia is aiming - in the long run - to conquer as much of Europe as they can. This is an emotional note the western elite have played on for 75 years now. it was a joke when I was growing up: "The Russians are coming!"

My question would be: is that interpretation correct, or has Russia acted fundamentally defensively here? The Russians had a hostile government on their western border which they needed to eliminate in order to secure their flank.

In the construct of the western elite, the Russians are the active aggressors. In the construct of the Russians, the western elites are the aggressors, and the Russians are reacting to prevent the threat of invasion of Russia.

Which of these two stories makes more sense to each of us determines how we react to the events we are witnessing.

To answer your question more directly, I can only say I have no idea. We'll need more time to see how events play out. This is very early moments in an active military campaign, and the fog of war is still the dominating factor.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

I think it's pretty clear which side is the invading force here.

No amount of word play or whataboutery is going to hide that.

[–]StillLessons 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

You're treating "here" according to the past 72 hours, but the Russians argue that they are responding to 8 years of Ukrainian hostility to and murder of Russian interests and innocent Russian people in eastern Ukraine.

The question is: was the government installed by the US in 2014 (now being attacked) legitimate? If that government represented only a catspaw for the puppetmasters in DC and Davos, which is worse? Corrupt US/Davos government or corrupt Russian government? These aren't "whataboutery"; they are fundamental questions of legitimacy.

Another central part of the problem is considering Ukraine to be a single entity. If there is one thing that is completely clear, it is that people in the Donbass and Crimea do not align with people in western Ukraine. What would be considered a legitimate government for western Ukraine is not the same as what would be considered a legitimate government for the Donbass and Crimea.

It'll be interesting to see what Putin and the Russian security state do from here. If they try to hold on to western Ukraine, the tables will have been turned. Rather than the Ukrainian government wasting resources trying to hold on to the Donbass, it will become the Russian government wasting resources trying to hold on to western Ukraine. If they're smart, they will eliminate the Ukrainian military threat and then withdraw to the Donbass, leaving the Ukrainians and their western backers in control of that part of Ukraine where Russia is viewed as the arch-enemy.

[–]Zapped[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Wouldn't that give reason to accept Ukraine into NATO, unless Russia can negotiate a truce for withdrawing?

[–]StillLessons 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

That's a very good point.

If the US/Davos crew is remotely capable of accepting any Russian legitimate interest in self defense, Russia would make that a condition of exiting Ukraine, that Ukraine can never join NATO. This would be simply to state formally what Russian military actions today are making abundantly clear. For Ukraine to be part of NATO would be from the Russian perspective equivalent to a declaration of war on Russia by US/Davos. Basically, this is what we are seeing today. Even without a formal declaration of alliance, Russia sees Ukraine acting in the US/Davos interests, and they will not accept that under any scenario. I keep repeating, from the Russian perspective, Ukraine as an ally of US/Davos is an existential threat to Russia itself. That they are willing to go to war over this demonstrates this is beyond politics for Russia. They feel existentially threatened and are acting accordingly.

[–]HiddenFox 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Good points seeing it from Russia's POV. It would kind of be like if...I don't know... Cuba joined up with Russia and starting putting Russian ICMBs in their territory?!? What would the USA do?

[–]Zapped[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I was thinking about that. The big difference is that Russia put nuclear warheads on those missiles aimed at the U.S. from 90 miles away. Does the U.S. have nuclear missiles in Europe? They have conventional (gravity) bombs at several airbases, but I don't know of any missiles.

[–]HiddenFox 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

My brother is in the navy. Once, my father asked him if he was ever worried about getting into a real fight one day. My brother answered with "We are pretty much just for show these days. We will never fire a missile at someone who could really fight back. War is fought with economics and computers now." That was back around 2006 when he said that.

My point is, with Ukraine aligned with the west, they can further imposes economic hardships on Russia. (Think of that pipeline for starters) While not nukes, it's just as devastating in it's own way. Economic strangulation is its own WMD.

[–]Zapped[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think you should post that question. It is a good and valid one. I sort of agree, but it seems to me to be a calculated preliminary move that assumes the worst for Russia if they didn't move in. I think they are risking more than they could possibly gain. Putin has a lot of avenues for influence all over the world, but if they are disrupted, he could lose it all. I feel like this is an act of desperation. It has been said that Russia's economy is not doing well, so maybe he feels like he is not risking much. This will cause oil and natural gas prices to go up, but if he has no way to move it now, how does this help?

[–]StillLessons 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The people who would be interested in the question I pose will read this post, because your question is of equal interest. Thus they will see the question here.

I agree this is an act of desperation. That's part of why I lean against the "Russia as aggressor" camp. To my eye, the Russians are not thinking in terms of gain; they're thinking in terms of survival. They know that taking Ukraine has destroyed huge amounts of potential business and development; they're not stupid. They have sunk billions of dollars into the Nordstream projects. They know those investments are severely threatened by their current actions. If they were in "expansion" mode, they would be protecting the vehicles of that expansion. The fact that instead of protecting those assets, they are putting this investment at risk tells me they see the existential threats to them as sufficiently dangerous that they cannot afford to worry about "getting more". They are now acting to try to defend what they have. As they say in football, "the best defense is a good offense." I see the Russians taking that dictum to its logical conclusion.

[–]Zapped[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I wonder what has been going on covertly between the West and Russia that we haven't heard. The West could be putting screws to some of Putin's "avenues" I referred to that would explain why he feels the need to take this risk.

[–]StillLessons 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Germany is also a very interesting player here. While the risks to Russia are now obvious and becoming reality in real time, we shouldn't forget that the other end of Nordstream is Germany, and what do they do if the gas is actually cut off? These kinds of risk are not just one sided... are the Germans ready to face the cost of this conflict head on?

[–]Zapped[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wonder what agreements and concessions by the rest of the West will be made to help them out.

[–]On-Point 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Which country invaded the other?