World Politics

[Sandman21]

It appears Ukraine has stuck inside Russia:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/huge-explosions-major-russian-ammo-26587639

Apparently it turned out to be human error and not Ukrainian fire?

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-ukraine-strike-arms-depot-russia-belgorod-military-town-1693286

Considering the Russian's biggest success in this whole ****-show has been accidentally creating Europe's 5th largest army in Ukrainian Farmers, I could see this being a goof on their part, especially since I would have thought they would use this as a false flag action.

[Gamble1]

Not sure I buy Russian Defense reporting. How does no one get hurt in an explosion like that if it is negligence?

[dal9]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/collecting-bodies-in-bucha

[Gamble1]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispa...odies-in-bucha

Can't imagine the reality of that.

I know none of this should come as a surprise considering the Russians have done this in the past but when it is all out there everyday it makes me wish we had a way to stop it without sparking a nuclear war.

[Sandman21]

The flagship of the Black Sea Fleet (which would have led the fleet that got told to go F itself at Snake Island) has now been sunk, per Russia:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/moskva-...issile-strike/

[Bball]

Since it's pretty clear Ukraine wasn't going to rollover for Putin, and the question I asked wondering why Putin didn't try to win over Ukraine with sugar rather than salt seems never to have been on table... It leaves open the question: Why? Is it really to expand Russia/Russian influence? ...Occupying a nation that doesn't want you there doesn't seem like you're exporting too much influence, as much as tying up resources.

Or is it self-preservation by creating an enemy and looking to rally countrymen to the cause? Did Putin worry his days were numbered and his ability to thwart domestic enemies were waning? Chinks in the armor? Obviously, you wouldn't want to do this if you didn't think you could win, or at least be able to get something you could call victory. So, it's still questionable...

[dal9]

Since it's pretty clear Ukraine wasn't going to rollover for Putin, and the question I asked wondering why Putin didn't try to win over Ukraine with sugar rather than salt seems never to have been on table... It leaves open the question: Why? Is it really to expand Russia/Russian influence? ...Occupying a nation that doesn't want you there doesn't seem like you're exporting too much influence, as much as tying up resources.

Or is it self-preservation by creating an enemy and looking to rally countrymen to the cause? Did Putin worry his days were numbered and his ability to thwart domestic enemies were waning? Chinks in the armor? Obviously, you wouldn't want to do this if you didn't think you could win, or at least be able to get something you could call victory. So, it's still questionable...

it's hard to explain...best guess i've seen is he didn't get realistic info from his intelligence people about how easy it would be (whether because they feared to give an honest assessment or they were incompetent)

[Bball]

it's hard to explain...best guess i've seen is he didn't get realistic info from his intelligence people about how easy it would be (whether because they feared to give an honest assessment or they were incompetent)

You'd have to wonder if he did a lot of the strategy planning himself (or with a yes man or two) and that is where the disconnect was on his advisors not wanting to tell him his plans wouldn't work. It doesn't seem like it would've been that hard to tell him the Ukrainians would make this mission difficult and there was a risk of extensive outside help for the Ukrainians.
I'd think that type of assessment could've been given to him without saying anything negative about Russian forces or equipment.

Of course maybe this is a training mission and losses and steps are simply seen as an education on what they need to improve for larger future military expansion goals.

[Gamble1]

You'd have to wonder if he did a lot of the strategy planning himself (or with a yes man or two) and that is where the disconnect was on his advisors not wanting to tell him his plans wouldn't work. It doesn't seem like it would've been that hard to tell him the Ukrainians would make this mission difficult and there was a risk of extensive outside help for the Ukrainians.
I'd think that type of assessment could've been given to him without saying anything negative about Russian forces or equipment.

Of course maybe this is a training mission and losses and steps are simply seen as an education on what they need to improve for larger future military expansion goals.

I think he betted on Zelensky running away when his life was threatened leaving a vacuum of leadership he hoped to fill with a proxy. Personally I have no doubt that Putin has been lied to in the fact that the military has not been upgraded or modernized to the point that he thought it was. I am not sure though how much Putin realized that Ukraine's military strategy/design is superior to theirs. Meaning how they structure their units and how they have trained their officers.

As for if this a training session for making improvements I think that is a bit much. They have killed off some of their best units and got 9 generals killed so if you can see that as a military purge as improvements then sure.. I would consider it a complete disaster and one that will keep them from getting soldiers to buy into the military service long term.

[Bball]

I think he betted on Zelensky running away when his life was threatened leaving a vacuum of leadership he hoped to fill with a proxy. Personally I have no doubt that Putin has been lied to in the fact that the military has not been upgraded or modernized to the point that he thought it was. I am not sure though how much Putin realized that Ukraine's military strategy/design is superior to theirs. Meaning how they structure their units and how they have trained their officers.

As for if this a training session for making improvements I think that is a bit much. They have killed off some of their best units and got 9 generals killed so if you can see that as a military purge as improvements then sure.. I would consider it a complete disaster and one that will keep them from getting soldiers to buy into the military service long term.

If Putin thinks his military needs to improve, modernize, and upgrade, I doubt he cares about any deaths along the way. Especially of leadership that he would consider failed leadership.

[Gamble1]

If Putin thinks his military needs to improve, modernize, and upgrade, I doubt he cares about any deaths along the way. Especially of leadership that he would consider failed leadership.

To me that doesn't make sense. The elite units are a big investment in time and money. We aren't talking about losing conscripts or easily replaceable ground soldiers. The guys they lost initially were guys like our Navy Seals or other special op forces. They also lost them not because those guys weren't elite or had not proven themselves in the past but simply because they were spread out too far and too thin.

I mean there is a long list of dictators making a gigantic errors in military operations and I think the answer is just that. Putin thought Ukraine was rip for the picking and he was wrong.

[Bball]

To me that doesn't make sense. The elite units are a big investment in time and money. We aren't talking about losing conscripts or easily replaceable ground soldiers. The guys they lost initially were guys like our Navy Seals or other special op forces. They also lost them not because those guys weren't elite or had not proven themselves in the past but simply because they were spread out too far and too thin.

I mean there is a long list of dictators making a gigantic errors in military operations and I think the answer is just that. Putin thought Ukraine was rip for the picking and he was wrong.

It makes as much sense as invading Ukraine in the first place.

[Gamble1]

It makes as much sense as invading Ukraine in the first place.

How so? Many people think he invaded Ukraine in 2015 to take over Crimea since Russia needed a port in the black sea that would be operational year around for its military. They got little resistance from that land grab from Ukraine or from the international community.

Basically Putin was hardly punished for that land grab so he did it again thinking the outcome would be the same.

[Bball]

How so? Many people think he invaded Ukraine in 2015 to take over Crimea since Russia needed a port in the black sea that would be operational year around for its military. They got little resistance from that land grab from Ukraine or from the international community.

Basically Putin was hardly punished for that land grab so he did it again thinking the outcome would be the same.

Yes, but getting that port makes more logistical sense. That has economic and military value, and arguably could be worth the costs in lives and money to Russia (assuming they didn't meet too much resistance). True, letting it happen more easily than it should've (or could've) might've given him a false sense of security and expansion desires, but taking over the whole of Ukraine shouldn't make him think it would be as easy. And even if it was, he could've tried expanding in smaller bites and testing the waters on expansion rather than painting himself into a corner of going all in on the country.
It's not like his military buildup on the border went unnoticed nor without world reaction. So, an off-ramp could've been built in before he was totally painted into a corner.

Let alone, I have a hard time thinking in 2021 that just taking over Ukraine was necessary on military levels versus just entangling them in business deals and financial supports that they could become addicted to. Of course, I guess entanglements like that work both ways...
Does Ukraine really have anything that Russia needs?
Are the countries on Russia's eastern borders actually a threat to them?
If the goal is just to keep Ukraine from joining NATO, there seems better avenues for that. And even the THREAT of the military might be all they needed, along with some diplomatic olive branches.

Trump spent 4 years doing his part in weakening NATO. Putin, who wanted it weakened, managed to re-strengthen it in only a few weeks. That would be the definition of "blowback".

I think the speculation is valid that Putin wanted Trump to have a 2nd term to weaken NATO even more. Even have the US leave NATO. Definitely, have the US not be a strong leading voice in asking NATO to support Ukraine.
It makes sense Putin waited until now to not split the GOP up into Trumpists and 'regular' GOP during the election to keep Trump's chances as high as possible without a foreign policy issue like 'what is the correct American response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine?'. We can know what Trump's response would've been... We can see and hear it in his words and his minions on Fox even now.
And worst case scenario, Putin would still have a divided America with Trump loyalists not wanting to rally around aid to Ukraine. Even if the current administration gives it anyway, it's still better to have a fractured USA political field rather than a cohesive and collective one.
And maybe he even misjudged that? Maybe his worst case scenario was a Trump loss but continued political distractions that he thought would weaken and paralyze the US response anyway, versus a best case scenario of a Trump second term and getting the US to leave NATO and guaranteeing how that would go. Figuring he could have his cake and eat it too, either way.

I dunno... just random speculation as I watch this all spiral out of control and not seeing many off ramps for Putin at this point that don't involve 'defeat'. And the world isn't sure how a nuclear power reacts to a 'defeat' in this way.

[Gamble1]

Yes, but getting that port makes more logistical sense. That has economic and military value, and arguably could be worth the costs in lives and money to Russia (assuming they didn't meet too much resistance). True, letting it happen more easily than it should've (or could've) might've given him a false sense of security and expansion desires, but taking over the whole of Ukraine shouldn't make him think it would be as easy. And even if it was, he could've tried expanding in smaller bites and testing the waters on expansion rather than painting himself into a corner of going all in on the country.
It's not like his military buildup on the border went unnoticed nor without world reaction. So, an off-ramp could've been built in before he was totally painted into a corner.

Let alone, I have a hard time thinking in 2021 that just taking over Ukraine was necessary on military levels versus just entangling them in business deals and financial supports that they could become addicted to. Of course, I guess entanglements like that work both ways...
Does Ukraine really have anything that Russia needs?
Are the countries on Russia's eastern borders actually a threat to them?
If the goal is just to keep Ukraine from joining NATO, there seems better avenues for that. And even the THREAT of the military might be all they needed, along with some diplomatic olive branches.

Trump spent 4 years doing his part in weakening NATO. Putin, who wanted it weakened, managed to re-strengthen it in only a few weeks. That would be the definition of "blowback".

I think the speculation is valid that Putin wanted Trump to have a 2nd term to weaken NATO even more. Even have the US leave NATO. Definitely, have the US not be a strong leading voice in asking NATO to support Ukraine.
It makes sense Putin waited until now to not split the GOP up into Trumpists and 'regular' GOP during the election to keep Trump's chances as high as possible without a foreign policy issue like 'what is the correct American response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine?'. We can know what Trump's response would've been... We can see and hear it in his words and his minions on Fox even now.
And worst case scenario, Putin would still have a divided America with Trump loyalists not wanting to rally around aid to Ukraine. Even if the current administration gives it anyway, it's still better to have a fractured USA political field rather than a cohesive and collective one.
And maybe he even misjudged that? Maybe his worst case scenario was a Trump loss but continued political distractions that he thought would weaken and paralyze the US response anyway, versus a best case scenario of a Trump second term and getting the US to leave NATO and guaranteeing how that would go. Figuring he could have his cake and eat it too, either way.

I dunno... just random speculation as I watch this all spiral out of control and not seeing many off ramps for Putin at this point that don't involve 'defeat'. And the world isn't sure how a nuclear power reacts to a 'defeat' in this way.

Crimea was taken from what I read for the port but it was cut off from a land corridor. Meaning it is hard to supply and it got caught off from its clean water supply. That is one reason they hit the south so hard. Basically Russia did take bits and pieces of Ukraine already in 2014 but they couldn't secure it with their proxy army in the East. The only way they could secure it was with invading with heavy weapons.

Its all random speculation though that I agree with you but to me they have tried dangling carrots but it didnt work with the last two Ukrainen presidents so now they went to plan B.

As for what does Ukraine has that Russia wants I think that boils down to how a former USSR KGB guy looks at it. All the infrastructure Ukraine has was Russia's at one point in time. In Putins mind Ukraine shouldn't exist as a democratic state. It was apart of Russia and it should remain a part of Russia. It is symbolic.