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.
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Russian forces have withdrawn from most areas in the north of Ukraine, presumably to be redeployed in the east of the country.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.
If you can’t be arsed to watch a two hour video on the subject perhaps you shouldn’t be debating it in the first place. All your arguments are addressed in detail there.
It’s a gain from pretty much every perspective. The west will not be able to sanction Russia going forward. Oligarchs won’t be able to funnel money out of Russia into the west. Domestic industry is going to continue being more developed and diversified.
Once again, I’ve linked you expert views on the subject that you evidently ignored.
I’m not justifying the war, and I completely agree that self defence is the only justification for wars. However, understanding what concerns countries have and using diplomacy is a way to avoid wars. Russia has been raising its concerns about NATO expansion since USSR fell, and the west ignored that instead of engaging in diplomacy.
Past few weeks make it very clear that the economic war between the west and Russia is going to have enormous impact on every aspect of European economy.
The reason these politicians are able to gain support is because material conditions are declining. The west went through three major economic crashes in as many decades. This is what’s been driving right wing nationalism. Conditions are about to get much worse now.
Oh I’d happily dedicate more than two hours of my life towards becoming more informed on the issue, I’m just not convinced your video will do that.
It simply isn’t. Russia is not the USSR, as much as that may sadden Putin. The country is not willing or ready to go it alone. The oligarchs losing their power abroad will hurt Putin, not help him.
Complete nonsense. Some industries will be greatly affected, including the most important such as energy. But the reality is that Russia cannot afford to stop selling fossil fuels to the EU, and can do nothing to stop the inevitable transition away from fossil fuels over the next few decades. Once that is complete (something that should have happened years ago), Russia will have no bargaining chips left.
You’re right. What does this have to do with Putin?