I doubt that was the endgame here, the west doesnt want to do a real war with russia they just want to pressure them into letting western companies extract all that natural gas for themselves.
I’m going to heavily disagree obviously. It’s very clear that nato was building up a military force to push into the Donbas, that’s the entire premise the special military operation was built on. The Donbas has a large portion of Ukraines natural resources and also a majority of its production capacity. I’m not trying to be argumentative or anything, but I gotta ask, why exactly would nato want that stuff if the plan was not to take Russian resources by force at a later time? They could simply buy it on the market right now, but instead they chose to coup a government on Russias border, arm and train them to nato standards, make war with its Eastern oblasts, then once Russia actually did something about it, nato dumps even more billions of dollars into its armed forces. Ultimately what you’re saying is “nato wouldn’t do that” but that’s IS exactly what I expected from nato to be honest.
Nuclear winter is not very profitable.
You and I understand that, but profit seeking is not always logical. In nato stockpiles right now there are tactical nukes (nukes that have a small enough payload that they could theoretically destroy one city or so) as if any nuclear nation on this planet would not immediately release their entire nuclear arsenal at the thought of being nuked in any capacity. Being nuked isn’t profitable, neither is climate change ultimately, doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it though.
The invasion is not a good thing and I dont see russia as justified here, given the harm on the civilian poulation is far worse in this scenerio.
Time and time again Russia has been shown to take great care NOT to deliberately attack civilian populations. For example civilian casualties in European wars have historically been 1:1 with military casualties. Ukraine has suffered losses estimated to be closing in on 500,000. Their civilian population however has casualties in the ~20-30,000 range. No where near a 1:1 even if you included the casualties of the pre invasion Donbas war (~12-14,000).
No the war as a whole is not good, but to throw that blame at Russia is not right. the invasion was justified because had Russia not done anything Ukraine would have at least invaded the Donbas region with NATOs approval and assistance. Because of the invasion Russia has defeated NATOs easternmost army, drained a huge chunk of NATOs stockpile that will take years to build up again, secured and is in the process of rebuilding the Donbas, and has given many nations across the globe a sign that nato is not as powerful as it appears. The only thing bad about this is it did it as the Russian federation and not the Soviet Union which is EXTREMELY disappointing. It’s easy to simply be against war, if that’s your position then I understand, but when looking at the situation at hand Russia really did make the best play it could from a shit hand that it was dealt.
Thanks for the writeup, this prospective is actually pretty agreeable, but I still feel like a direct land invasion of Russia doesnt fit NATO's modus operandi. Do you think a color revoltion in Russia might have been their primary goal instead? If NATO baited Russia into war and then used it as propagana against them to sow dissent in the Russian population, that might serve as a decent basis for an insurrection. Seems like it might be a "damned if you do damned if you don't" type situation for the Kremlin.
Actually from what we now know, NATO’s intention was to use the unprecedented sanctions to crush Russia’s economy, which they apparently expected would collapse within weeks. Ukraine’s job was to hold out the Russian advances for a few weeks until the collapsing economy forces Russia to retreat, and for the Russians come back to beg the US/EU to let them sell oil and gas again.
At the same time, we also know that Ukraine had been building up its military since 2014, with the explicit goal of recapturing Donbass and Crimea. If Ukrainian army had reached Donetsk city, it would have been a nightmare for the Russians to retake it again. The civilian casualties could easily go magnitudes of order higher. In this sense, Russia’s pre-emptive strike was almost inevitable if the goal was to prevent the Ukrainians from reaching Donetsk at all cost.
You’re welcome, thank you for not taking it negatively, I didn’t want to come off as argumentative as I said before. As far as direct land invasion I’m pretty sure that if that plan was in the works it would have been at least 30-50 years out. I believe the plan was to win the war against the Donbas with the Ukrainian army, take the resources in the Donbas, make the Donbas the new military supply hub for nato, take Crimea, then eventually start war with Russia. In the meantime color revolution is always on the table. That color revolution would partially look like the sanctions that ended up failing anyways and also maybe terrorism from the ukronazis who would theoretically be occupying the Donbas in this scenario. You could kinda see that taking place with the few units that have crossed into Russian territory proper.
I’m going to heavily disagree obviously. It’s very clear that nato was building up a military force to push into the Donbas, that’s the entire premise the special military operation was built on. The Donbas has a large portion of Ukraines natural resources and also a majority of its production capacity. I’m not trying to be argumentative or anything, but I gotta ask, why exactly would nato want that stuff if the plan was not to take Russian resources by force at a later time? They could simply buy it on the market right now, but instead they chose to coup a government on Russias border, arm and train them to nato standards, make war with its Eastern oblasts, then once Russia actually did something about it, nato dumps even more billions of dollars into its armed forces. Ultimately what you’re saying is “nato wouldn’t do that” but that’s IS exactly what I expected from nato to be honest.
You and I understand that, but profit seeking is not always logical. In nato stockpiles right now there are tactical nukes (nukes that have a small enough payload that they could theoretically destroy one city or so) as if any nuclear nation on this planet would not immediately release their entire nuclear arsenal at the thought of being nuked in any capacity. Being nuked isn’t profitable, neither is climate change ultimately, doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it though.
Time and time again Russia has been shown to take great care NOT to deliberately attack civilian populations. For example civilian casualties in European wars have historically been 1:1 with military casualties. Ukraine has suffered losses estimated to be closing in on 500,000. Their civilian population however has casualties in the ~20-30,000 range. No where near a 1:1 even if you included the casualties of the pre invasion Donbas war (~12-14,000).
No the war as a whole is not good, but to throw that blame at Russia is not right. the invasion was justified because had Russia not done anything Ukraine would have at least invaded the Donbas region with NATOs approval and assistance. Because of the invasion Russia has defeated NATOs easternmost army, drained a huge chunk of NATOs stockpile that will take years to build up again, secured and is in the process of rebuilding the Donbas, and has given many nations across the globe a sign that nato is not as powerful as it appears. The only thing bad about this is it did it as the Russian federation and not the Soviet Union which is EXTREMELY disappointing. It’s easy to simply be against war, if that’s your position then I understand, but when looking at the situation at hand Russia really did make the best play it could from a shit hand that it was dealt.
Thanks for the writeup, this prospective is actually pretty agreeable, but I still feel like a direct land invasion of Russia doesnt fit NATO's modus operandi. Do you think a color revoltion in Russia might have been their primary goal instead? If NATO baited Russia into war and then used it as propagana against them to sow dissent in the Russian population, that might serve as a decent basis for an insurrection. Seems like it might be a "damned if you do damned if you don't" type situation for the Kremlin.
Actually from what we now know, NATO’s intention was to use the unprecedented sanctions to crush Russia’s economy, which they apparently expected would collapse within weeks. Ukraine’s job was to hold out the Russian advances for a few weeks until the collapsing economy forces Russia to retreat, and for the Russians come back to beg the US/EU to let them sell oil and gas again.
At the same time, we also know that Ukraine had been building up its military since 2014, with the explicit goal of recapturing Donbass and Crimea. If Ukrainian army had reached Donetsk city, it would have been a nightmare for the Russians to retake it again. The civilian casualties could easily go magnitudes of order higher. In this sense, Russia’s pre-emptive strike was almost inevitable if the goal was to prevent the Ukrainians from reaching Donetsk at all cost.
You’re welcome, thank you for not taking it negatively, I didn’t want to come off as argumentative as I said before. As far as direct land invasion I’m pretty sure that if that plan was in the works it would have been at least 30-50 years out. I believe the plan was to win the war against the Donbas with the Ukrainian army, take the resources in the Donbas, make the Donbas the new military supply hub for nato, take Crimea, then eventually start war with Russia. In the meantime color revolution is always on the table. That color revolution would partially look like the sanctions that ended up failing anyways and also maybe terrorism from the ukronazis who would theoretically be occupying the Donbas in this scenario. You could kinda see that taking place with the few units that have crossed into Russian territory proper.