this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024
285 points (83.1% liked)
Memes
45868 readers
1259 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I can't figure out exactly why Russia invaded Ukraine, but I don't think it's capitalism. The oligarchs certainly didn't appreciate it very much now. My guess is it was for some misguided desire for legacy?
They've openly stated that it's to demillitarize Ukraine as a consequence of NATO encirclement around Russia. Russia was rejected from NATO membership 2 decades ago on account of it turning ultranationalist and regaining the industry sold to the West after the dissolution of the Soviet State, so NATO has been pressing around Russia to force them to capitulate and open up again.
Do you believe this is wrong, and if so, why do you think so many Russians are going along with it?
Watch what governments do, not what they say. If they were concerned about NATO, (especially their air forces) they wouldn't be throwing away their stockpile of anti-air missiles to hit ground targets.
Hi tankie
Why do you think? Because if you go against it you go to jail.
Putin retains fairly high popularity among the Russian people, so it isn't just fear.
Of course. Can't forget the propaganda as well.
Sure, but propaganda works more by "licensing" than "brainwashing." There are underlying material conditions for the conflict.
If the war kicked off because of NATO encirclement, and there are now two more NATO members than before the war... What's the end goal?
Regardless of morals, Ukraine is being demillitarized, and Donetsk and Luhansk are being folded into Russian territory. These are 2 explicit goals of Russia's that are hard to deny at this point. What matters more for Russia isn't necessarily the total number of NATO countries, but their relative proximity and millitary power. Much of NATO is de-industrialized and doesn't actually have much of a long-standing fighting force except the US. Russia is now less encircled than before, but the NATO-aligned and non-NATO aligned countries are at a higher split than before.
I guess they're trying, but at what cost and to what end? If the idea is that they're afraid NATO is going to encircle and then invade them, they kind of overplayed their hand. Everyone now factually knows Russia is a paper tiger, and they've squandered a significant portion of their Soviet stockpiles and hundreds of thousands of killed and wounded for a few km of land. If NATO wanted to invade, they could get to Moscow in no time. I assume putin is keeping his best reserves near Moscow, but we've seen from the kursk offensive that russian capabilities behind the front lines are severely lacking.
Also the bit about reducing NATO military power.. The US made bank selling HIMARS to Russia's neighbors after seeing how effective they were. They're stockpiling to protect against Russia.
That's not really materially accurate. Russia is an industrialized country and has been producing vast amounts of missiles and weaponry, and moreover the reveal of an ICBM with a conventional warhead, Oreshnik, fundamentally changes the landscape of war until another country reveals they have even 1 of them. You cannot defend against that, and the devastation is similar to that of a tactical nuke without triggering MAD. HIMARS can't defend against such a weapon, and Russia has the industrial capacity to manufacture more.
Russia can't really be considered a paper tiger here, they are the only ones that can afford a war of attrition and bleed NATO dry, and many of the weapons sent by the US are damaged, old, or otherwise unusable, something Zelensky has repeatedly complained about. It will be interesting to analyze after the war is complete, where Ukraine went wrong and what they should have done, etc.
The missile is just more saber rattling until it actually does something. It's kind of pointless to use it against Ukraine. They have plenty of other missiles that will reach, even a hypersonic one, though that hasn't turned the tide much. And if they reach out and touch anyone else, it'll spark retaliation and maybe even a broader conflict.
But I was specifically referring to vehicles, ammo, and tactics. Russia has been fielding truly ancient Soviet stock. T-90s are rare. I don't know if they even have T-14s on the front anymore. They're losing vehicles faster than they can make new ones. It's not a huge issue because of the massive Soviet stock, but they're still fielding inferior vehicles and depleting stockpiles.
Ammo-wise, they've leaned very heavily on north Korea for the past year at least. And as for tactics? Basically none. A huge portion of the soldiers are poorly trained, and basically sent forward in meat waves. Ukraine won't try to hold indefensible locations, so it does work to push them back slowly.
Specifically, I mean in conventional warfare. Not nukes.
We're about 3 years into a 3 day SMO. For all of the previously mentioned reasons, Russia could not go toe to toe with any other major power, especially elsewhere. Their logistics are suffering and the front line is next door. Getting counter-invaded was a massive embarrassment as well. Additionally, they lost the proxy war in Syria, either due to pulling resources or Ukrainian involvement with the rebels.
Can't say I agree with your analysis, but time will tell.
Fascist dictatorships openly make false statements all the time, often to hide their real intentions. Russians go along with it because of some combination of fear, nationalism, nostalgia, and actually being in favor of fascism.
So then what is the actual, mechanical reason for the invasion?
A fascist doing fascist things, Make Russia Great again. He thought it would strengthen his position, he thought it would be easy, and he thought he could get away with it.
So you reject the stated logical, mechanical, economic reasons, and ascribe it to madness and absurdity? Occam's razor needs to be applied here, you need to justify your claims that absurdity is the reason in spite of evidence otherwise.
Not madness or absurdity. Was it absurd for Hitler to invade Poland and France or for Saddam to invade Iran and Kuwait? With the benefit of decades of hindsight we can say that it didn't work out for them, sure, but these were deliberate and calculated moves made by serious men. Absurdity is taking the word of an enemy dictator at face value.
Then, again, why do you think it is out of madness?
It's not, it's likely ego and want of power. You think that's madness?
I think that's an extremely silly view of the situation when a much more reasonable motive was outright stated, and therefore significant evidence is required to prove the alternative. Vibes do not count.
Watch what governments do, not what they say. If they were concerned about NATO, (especially their air forces) they wouldn't be throwing away their stockpile of anti-air missiles to hit ground targets.
Because Putin is saying that they just kill Nazis. Which os obviously wrong. And russiuans either believe it or understand its fake and move to other countries and hate Putin.
Alone in my city are 200 Russians in a Telegram Community going to University. I visited some events like a large Birthday Party and another event. Noone is for Putin and many did flee from Russia 2 Years ago when the war started.
Agreed, Russia is using the good ‘ol’ playbook of saying they’re anti-fascists as the excuse of the invasion. Just repeating history