On Feb. 24, 2022, I—Vladimir Putin—sent troops into Ukraine to conduct a special military operation. As the president of Russia, I obviously expected resistance from leaders of certain key world powers, but I must say I’ve been surprised at how the United States, specifically, has reacted.
Letting the Russian government oppress Ukraine won’t solve this either. We’d all prefer no fighting, but fighting is better than letting Russia bully their way.
There is no scenario here where Ukraine can win against Russia. All this does is prolongue the suffering of the people there. The only ethical thing to do is to help find a diplomatic solution and encourage negotiations. Unfortunately, western powers have been doing the opposite of that encouraging Ukraine to continue fighting and sending weapons.
The reality is that the west doesn’t actually care about the people of Ukraine, and just wants to use them as pawns to drag Russia into a prolonged conflict there. It’s a ghoulish thing to do.
If the Russian government believes it can just roll tanks into any neighbouring country as it fancies, cheaply and quickly, confident that the citizens of that country will surrender happily and have their freedoms taken away from them, they will start more wars and claim more territory.
In war, there are mainly losers. It’s true Ukraine cannot win this war, but at this point, nor can Russia. Russia doesn’t even have enough soldiers to hold the entire country of Ukraine at this point, and maintaining control over any territory it captures will be expensive. That’s why they are focussing on capturing the Donbas region so they can claim victory and gain territory without losing face.
We have to take into consideration that if Russia did annex Ukraine, it would likely lead to extreme amounts of sufferring anyway - possibly including civil war, insurgency etc. that could go on for decades.
You appear to be woefully misinformed about this war. You’ll get a better idea of how it’s going in a month or so.
It’s very likley that in a month or so Russia will have achieved some of their new targets in the east of the country. But this will not come cheaply and they will have lost more than they stand to gain.
Here’s what was officially said on March 5th, I’m not aware of any change in their position since. So, not sure what these new targets you speak of are.
I’m also curious what you’re basing the statement that they will have lost more than they stand to gain on. They see NATO as an existential threat, and pushing NATO out of Ukraine for good is what they wanted to gain all along.
Russian forces have withdrawn from most areas in the north of Ukraine, presumably to be redeployed in the east of the country.
War is not cheap, and nor are the sanctions that have been placed on Russia. That’s the cost. And what will Russia get in return? NATO has not changed at all, it’s not clear that Russia’s unprovoked assault has done anything on that front except possibly make Finland and Sweden seek to join the block. In fact, NATO now poses even more of a threat because they can use the invasion as an excuse to justify whatever warmongering shit they desire.
Ukraine may not join NATO, sure, but that’s hardly a win because Ukraine is unlikely to have a pro-Russia government in the near future (probably in Vlad’s lifespan). Installing such a government was clearly the goal of the assault on Kyiv.
And it’s worth pointing out, war in the Donbas region will be slow and expensive for both sides. Compared to the potential for a rapid “blitzkrieg” success with an attack on Kyiv.
Since I’m not a military person myself, I prefer to defer to the opinions of professionals who actually know what they’re talking about. Here’s what an actual expert on the subject matter has to say.
War is not cheap, but it’s absurd to think that Russia hasn’t considered that before starting the war. On the other hand, the sanctions appear to be hurting the west more than Russia at the moment.
What Russia gets in return is financial independence from the west and recognition of its sphere of influence. NATO has been training and arming Ukraine for the past 8 years. Numerous experts have warned that this would provoke a violent reaction from Russia. Calling this unprovoked shows stunning lack of understanding of geopolitics and history.
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Academics, such as John Mearsheimer, gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
What’s going to matter long term is the economy and EU has completely gutted theirs at this point. The current atlanticists governments are unlikely to survive long term. We already saw Orban sweep elections in Hungary by refusing to break relations with Russia, and Le Pen is now running head to head with Macron who had a solid lead before the trade war started. The west was completely unprepared for a protracted economic war, and as the impact on the living standards becomes apparent there will be a strong public reaction.
I recommend reading up on how things worked out in Chechnya if you think that.
Expert or no, I’m not watching a two-hour video.
It’s very apparent from the strategies employed by the Russian army (attacking on multiple fronts with too few troops to last in drawn out conflict) that they were expecting the war to last a matter of days or at most a couple of weeks, before the majority of the troops holding major cities in the centre and east of the country had surrendered. So yes, of course Russia knows how expensive it is, that’s precisely why they are withdrawing troops in the North.
How is this a gain? They could have this at any time they please?? The west has been (and will continue) to turn a blind eye to the activities of Russian oligarchs.
If you call Ukraine arming itself “provocation”, you have no respect for the sovereignty and independence of the Ukrainian people and culture. Ukraine’s army 10 years ago would have been wiped out in days, Ukraine would no longer exist.
The only justification for war against another nation is self-defense. Wars of aggression are inherently immoral and unjustifiable, and imperialist. Yes, many NATO countries (e.g. US, UK) have blood on their hands for such actions all over the world.
Sure, but mainly due to the pandemic rather than anything to do with Ukraine. Energy security is a big problem, but one that needed solving ten years ago to prevent catastrophic climate change.
Orban’s government is a propaganda machine of epic proportions. Both politicians are right-wing populists which are very trendy at the moment in the west, for reasons unrelated to Putin. Le Pen as far as I’m aware is not pro-Putin in the slightest.
Did you read the part I quoted? There’s a lot that could be done to disable the Russian government instead of just trying to prolong the war.
So you want Ukraine to join NATO now? Or establish a no fly zone which means NATO war with Russia??
Sorry I live in Germany I value my life and non-radioactive city.
I am pro sending weapons though, Ukraine seems to want them.
Holy fuck, obviously Russia isn’t going to try and single-handedly take on all of NATO. They’d have to back off which is why the US is sending weapons instead of deescalation, because “defense” and weapons is one of the biggest drivers of the US economy.
hmm I am not sure if I am willing to gamble that.
This is so funny because Russia has the most advanced military in the world. Particularly hypersonic missiles, which the u.s. wont have for years. And working missile defense systems.
What are you even talking about? The US has far superior armed forces as this conflict has shown. Russia couldn’t even achieve a victory over a much smaller, weaker neighbor. And the US isn’t years off from hypersonic weapons. It just did a test run last month.
Russia destroyed the UAF as an organized fighting force during the first day with standoff weapons alone. And Russia did test runs of hypersonic weapons years ago, they are already deployed with frontline units.
Again, you’re comparing Russia, a country of 144 million people, with Ukraine, a country with 100 million fewer people. And even then, Russia’s having a hard time of things. It also has proven to have piss poor logistics, terrible maintenance, and cringe worthy communication security that has gotten multiple generals killed. And if they’re avoiding civilian targets like they claim, they’re doing a piss poor job of that too. Even when the US was fighting wars on two fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq for an extended period of time from nearly the opposite side of the planet along with various other engagements around the globe, it wasn’t this bad.
I’m not saying this because I’m like “'Murica! Fuck yeah!” I just don’t like a thoroughly inaccurate claim to go unchallenged.
Lmao you are swalling the nato propaganda hook line and sinker. Zero objectivity.
Removed by mod
The elensky regime wants weapons, but the people who get terrorized by war crimes certainly dont. They are even giving out weapons to released prisoners and to people in the street. Many of those will end up on the black market, or in the hands of terrorists targeting Europe.
I think I might have gotten mixed up as to what parts are ironic and what parts aren’t