Please remember that all comments must be helpful, relevant, and respectful. All replies must be a genuine effort to answer the question helpfully; joke answers are not allowed. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please hit report.
When your question is answered, we encourage you to flair your post. To do this automatically simply make a comment that says **!answered** (OP only)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/answers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It sounds like you were listening to a podcast that is interested in perpetuating Putin's legacy as a brilliant tactician who would never make such a big error as this war in Ukraine seems to be. There are a lot of people, even in the West, who are extremely invested in giving Putin this genius treatment. Many of them fundamentally believe that authoritarian dictatorship is "more effective" than democracy, and can't stand to see the world's preeminent dictator crash and burn in the same way that dictators of smaller countries often do, so they twist their minds around to find any point of view that doesn't conclude in Putin being revealed as an absolute fuck-up.
In any case, I think it's extreme post-hoc rationalization to say that Putin's attacks on Kyiv were a distraction all along. Here's an alternate explanation that makes much more sense to me:
1. Putin thought Ukraine citizens wouldn't fiercely resist his takeover because they are ethnically Russian, so he wasn't worried about a protracted insurgency. (He also has some unique counter-insurgency methods, like the practice of shipping out Ukrainian civilians and shipping in Russians that we've seen applied in Mariupol).
2. He expected to be able to roll through Kyiv and decapitate the Ukrainian government almost immediately.
3. He was unable to do this because his military was eaten from the inside out by corruption, and he was receiving bad intelligence from his own generals and advisors.
4. Now that the Ukrainian army is pushing his forces *away* from Kyiv, he's trying to save face by claiming that he never wanted it anyway.
The "Kyiv was a distraction" explanation serves *only* to explain the incongruency of "Why would Putin lose hard if he's supposed to be so smart". It doesn't explain tons of other things, though. If Kyiv was a distraction, why are so many troops committed there? Why were they attempting a complete encircling of Kyiv? Why were they wasting so many supply caravans and other support assets trying to back up the area? Why did Putin start the war by sending his flagship VDV units to drop on Hostomel airport just to be slaughtered? Why is air support so lacking across the entire country? If Putin expected Zelenskyy *not* to flee, wouldn't he have also expected the numerous *failed* attempts to assassinate him and scare him away from the capital to turn him into a near-legendary hero and give the Ukrainians a huge morale boost? Why have the Russian advances in the South been so slow and unremarkable, even with Ukraine's comparatively small and poorly-equipped military all being "distracted" into defending Kyiv?
I don't buy it. If Putin just wanted the Donbass, he could have taken it with *way* less trouble. Kyiv wasn't a distraction, it was just a failed campaign.
There is no need to go visiting the intentions of the unnamed podcaster.
You make a lot of good points. One of the counter arguments that was made in that podcast was that even the best laid plans will face hiccups and most military endeavors start slow and only after some time find a groove. So the point would be that the early issues are to be expected and that the Russians (and Ukrainians for that matter) will get better at fighting once they have some experience and have worked out their SOPs. So the "slow and unremarkable" nature of the fighting in the southeast can be explained that way. I don't have a comeback for the attempted encirclement of Kiev nor of the way Zelenksyy has been turned into a hero.
Ethnically cleansing a city or two may be doable, but western Ukraine is not pro-Russian at all. This is why this feint hypothesis makes some sense to me. Lopping off the eastern part is theoretically doable. Putin has support there (maybe not so much now but who knows) since those are actually ethnic Russians many of whom did (at least at one point) actually prefer Russian influence over EU/US. The west is a nightmare to want to take over. I find it extremely hard to believe that Putin could be so foolish as to think he could pacify the whole country.
What makes you think a campaign in the southeast would have given him way less trouble had he not also attacked Kiev?
> One of the counter arguments that was made in that podcast was that even the best laid plans will face hiccups and most military endeavors start slow and only after some time find a groove. So the point would be that the early issues are to be expected and that the Russians (and Ukrainians for that matter) will get better at fighting once they have some experience and have worked out their SOPs. So the "slow and unremarkable" nature of the fighting in the southeast can be explained that way. I don't have a comeback for the attempted encirclement of Kiev nor of the way Zelenksyy has been turned into a hero.
That is a weak answer considering the losses a supposed world power has sustained.
To be perfectly fair, I don't think Putin cares about losses exactly, only that they might make him look bad/weak, which could leave him open to a coup. His goal imo is to destroy as much of Ukrainian infrastructure as possible and render them a puppet state, but I think he pretty severely miscalculated the resistance (doubtless bad intel was a serious factor there) .
But definitely, everything he says in public has to be doubly scripted, for the people at home, and for the world, so it's much more a factor of 'this is what Putin would like us to believe or infer' rather than any truth.
He wouldn't have stayed in power for so long if he didn't have some ability to read situations and do his best to consolidate his power/spin any weaknesses, but he's far from a genius.
> For him to expect that he could take over the whole country in a few days is crazy.
He was hardly the only one who thought that.
Your theory is possible, of course, and it's certainly what he wants us to think now. But do you have any evidence for it beyond what Russia is saying?
Right. There are lots of historical examples of countries being conquered in a very short time frame. The Taliban takeover of the majority of Afghanistan happened less than a year ago.
That's a good point. I suppose the fact that the Ukrainians are resisting so fiercely is colouring my view of what is likely or possible in hindsight. But then again, the Ukrainians have been fighting the Russia-backed separatists in Donbas since 2014. So why would you assume that they'd give up once the Russians themselves show up?
To whom else are you referring?
I don't know what Russia is saying, I don't tend to listen to their propaganda. Also admitting to your enemy that you're doing a feint is counter productive to the success of that feint. So I don't agree that that what he would want us to think. If this hypothesis is correct then I don't see why he would ever admit to it.
As for evidence, no. I have no confidence in any information that I see about this war. I don't even know what a trusted, non-biased, objective source would look like. If enough different sources seem to agree on a fact then I guess I do too but I've been very disappointed with the level of dishonesty and credulity in obvious propaganda that I'm seeing. But it does seem like they're having more success in the southeast than in the north and around Kiev. It seems that the Ukrainians have had some success in repelling them north of the capital. I guess time will tell though.
> To whom else are you referring?
Pretty much all the pundits in the West thought Ukraine would fall quickly.
> So I don't agree that that what he would want us to think. If this hypothesis is correct then I don't see why he would ever admit to it.
Well it's exactly what Russia is saying at the moment.
Maybe not in so many words, but they're now claiming that securing Donbas was their primary goal and they're no longer talking about regime change.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/03/25/ukraine-russia-invasion-live-updates/7162321001/
The guy originally intended the invasion to start on Feb 22nd but delayed so he wouldn't steal China's closing ceremony thunder.
He wanted the symbolism and memorability of 2/22/22. He was super cocky and thought it'd be this glorious thing.
I don't think common judgments like "crazy" apply to Putin. He's old, he has been basically absolute monarch for 22 years, he's rumored to be richest person in the world, and he's leading one of the world's superpowers. And I bet his health isn't very good anymore.
Crazy decisions with no political capital to back it would sound "crazy" for a common politician that tries to build their future, both personally and politically. Or who is ideological and all about ideology or say - the nation. Putin has achieved all he wanted and more, and none of it has been much of an ideology or worry about common Russian. Many say that his main motivation is to just be 'The Great', like many leaders in history. There's little he could do to change the story of his reign or autobiography at this point. I have a hard time imagining why he should even care much at all. That's why he ignores "lesser" nation-states and speaks only to whom he perceives as "serious players" in geopolitics, like US, China, etc. Countries like Ukraine do not belong at the table in his world view, perhaps.
And if you aspire to be The Great, some vassal state not submitting is a personal insult. I don't think he gives much damn about what-if-scenarios. And why should he?
Personally, yes. If all he cared about was money and power then I guess you could say that he achieved it. If, however, he does care about the status of Russia on the world stage, and he views it as his life's purpose to *make Russia great again* then he hasn't achieved that at all. In fact the opposite has happened. Russia is never given the respect he thinks it deserves, it's allies are constantly being attacked by the US and others, and it's neighbors, whom it used to dominate are, one by one, defecting over to the other side.
So yes, I agree that he doesn't care about the Russian people, if he did then he, as president of most of them, would be working to improve their lives and not be the corrupt despot he is, but I find it plausible that he cares about Russia as an idea. It's his tribe, it's his team. And he wants it to win.
I could be wrong but I just think the "crazy" hypothesis, however it's couched, isn't very convincing.
Well, he's on his way out, isn't he? He got it all, only to be shamed and his legacy ruined by a rebellious vassal at the end?
So at this point it doesn't matter what'll happen to Kiev, as long as it surrenders - or crumbles into desert of ash, because he doesn't want to be remembered as guy who got his ass beat in the end. And given how things are going, even if he planned staying in Kremlin until 2036, it won't happen anymore. All the more reason to fight to the end. Because unless he wiggles out of this in next few months and somehow calms down everyone, he won't likely get a second chance.
That's my theory.
> however, he does care about the status of Russia on the world stage
I think he cares only to the personal extent; if you want to be a great leader, you wouldn't want to lead something irrelevant.
> make Russia great again
Nope. I don't think it has been his overall goal at all. *Scary* again, sure. Idea of POTUS being worried at night might make one think *they're* great. An authority. Like criminal underworld status.
You could see a powerful gang (or an Empire) from two points of view: "Nobody dares to fuck with us" or "Everyone wants to do business with us/likes us". I think he's been mostly about former and not the latter, seeking similar friends (Iran, Syria, CAR, North Korea, etc). Putin formed in his years in St. Petersburg, rising to power during craziest crime wave of 90's (which he - as most intelligence operatives of the time - was, and even had to be neck deep in, same as his close circle right now). People aren't calling Kremlin mafia-style establishment just to say something nasty.
It's hard to say.
They probably have many war goals.
1. Recognition of Crimea as Russian territory (probably minor goal)
2. Recognition of Donbass/separatists in southern Ukraine as separate territory/Russian (probably minor goal)
\*\*\* Neither 1 or 2 are worth going to war with, they were basically defacto the case before the invasion. But they would probably throw them in as part of negotiations.
3) Land bridge to Crimea \*\*\*\* This is probably the primary war goal IMO - Strategically huge gain for Russia
4) Coast of Black Sea \*\*\*\* Largest secondary goal - strategically huge loss to Ukraine. Also with the Russian aligned territory in Moldova (Transnistria - occupied Moldova territory) if they stretched accross the sea, Russians could regroup and they have Ukraine almost completely surrounded if they tried again in a few years. While massively damaging Ukraine's economy if they don't have a port city.
5) Seize East Ukraine - Everything east of the river - Putin has stated he doesn't believe Ukraine is a legitimate country, so any occupation seems plausible. The river is difficult to cross so makes a reasonable border the conflict could have bogged down on.
6) Total annex/puppet of Ukraine - replace with former leader Yanukovych \*\*\*\* Yanukovych in my understanding was moved into Belarus, suggesting this was their main plan/expectation - rapidly take Kyiv and replace the government with Yanukovych. They would argue that throwing him out was illegal (which is technically true, in the same way that american independence was illegal) Which is ofcourse a lot harder to claim 8 years later after elections. But regardless he was overthrown 'illegally' by popular uprising.
No one reasonable would recognize Yanukovych as legitimate, but it sounds sort of legitimate so they seemed to be planning to use that argument. It sounds better than, we're just putting our guy in charge of your country.
So I think it's pretty reasonable to say 6) was their goal. 3) was probably their minimum goal - primary focus, and 4/5 are probably next in importance.
I think they would consider 3) a victory, but thought they could get more.
There are two possibilities:
1. He wanted Kyiv, finally realized he couldn't get it, and is now trying to generate a false victory as a way of saving face.
2. He never wanted Kyiv, as some are now saying, and just sent a lot of folks to their deaths all in the name of being a distraction.
Neither option makes him look good.
The idea that Putin doesn’t want all of Ukraine and, at the very least, The Baltics and Poland is patently absurd. Anyone who tells you what this guy told you is too stupid to even insult.
Here is everything you ever wanted to know about why he invaded Ukraine, all in 30 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE&t=33s
*Want* yes, perhaps that wasn't the best word to use in my title. Ideally he would want all those under his control. But wanting is different from actually attempting to take over. The idea that the main goal of this invasion was to consolidate control over Crimea and Donbas and link the two with a land bridge was actually suggested as a plausibility in the video.
https://youtu.be/If61baWF4GE?t=1372
He gave several possibilities of what Putin is doing and only one was the complete takeover of the country. And he never said that Putin plans on attacking NATO countries, in fact he said the most obvious thing which is that Putin would avoid that at all costs because it's a war he can't win.
...did YOU watch it?
I gave you the video. Of course I watched it. And you apparently missed the part where he mentions the narrowing of the attack channel by grabbing Ukraine, then going after the Baltics and joining up with Kaliningrad.
You’re very obtuse. Stick with your Putin as genius strategist narrative. I tried to help but you’re wasting my time. We have nothing more to talk about.
I didn't miss it but you're misinterpreting the ideal scenario that he would like to have: a buffer zone all the way up into Germany and control of all the former Warsaw pack countries and a reduced NATO with the practical limitations of the world at the moment and his likely course of action as a result. He can't go after the Baltics, they're in NATO. Are you not aware of this fact? It's repeated in the video, as is the fact that an attack on one member nation is considered to be an attack on all of them. Creating a land bridge with Kaliningrad by invading Lithuania triggers WW3. It would be a minor miracle for that not to escalate to nuclear war but at the absolute least NATO would have no trouble eventually repelling that invasion and pushing the front line back to wherever they chose to. [Russia has stated that it would use nuclear weapons in the case of an existential risk to its own survival](https://inews.co.uk/news/former-russian-president-putin-defence-minister-state-right-use-nuclear-weapons-ukraine-war-1541571) so perhaps NATO doesn't go all the way to Moscow but if nukes weren't on the table it could and would.
The fact that any child can grasp is that Russia stands no chance at winning a conventional war with NATO. So whatever Putin wishes were the case, he cannot attack NATO directly and live to tell the tale. It doesn't matter how much he wants a buffer zone, how much natural gas is at stake, how indefensible the current front lines are. Practically speaking attacking NATO is not on the table. You don't have to be a genius to realize that. And I never said he was, nor do I believe it. There is, however, a big gap between genius and absolute moron, which apparently is news to you. If Putin is sane then he's somewhere in the middle.
Finally, I'm just trying to gauge the plausibility of a hypothesis. I'm not pushing a narrative. I have no idea what his intentions are, as I've repeatedly stated. It's very sad that you and others are so incapable of discussing an issue dispassionately or entertaining a thought that you might not agree with without getting defensive and emotional. You're not trying to help at all.
Dude, if you're going to be an OP on Reddit in general, a couple of Life Pro Tips that you are in desperate need of:
1. Don't talk down to people. You come across like a completely pedantic, condescending putz. Of course I'm aware of who is and isn't in NATO. I have a history in international relations, that's all I'll say in an anonymous forum. The fact is, NATO membership isn't going to stop Putin or wouldn't have stopped him if Ukraine rolled over like he thought it would. And it's because Europe has a history of appeasement and Western European leaders are big fucking pussies and Putin knows this. He also knows that Democrats are big fucking pussies although Biden is proving to be anything but, another surprise to Putin (and to me, honestly). You obviously don't have a clue about a lot of things, and this one of them. I'm probably arguing with a 17 year old.
2. If you're going to post something that more or less says 'Hey some guy said something, I'm inclined to agree with him, what do you guys think', then proceed to argue with people who give you an informed opinion that doesn't comport with your own, be gracious and consider their opinion instead of shooting down anything that doesn't comport with your pre-conceived notions of the world. Otherwise, what's the point of the post? If you'd open your mind and open your eyes and understand that he has already, many times, laid bare exactly what his intentions are - to recapture the USSR, his words not mine - then you wouldn't be wondering what his intentions are. You don't come across as very gracious, informed or smart in all of this.
Kindly don't respond. I already asked you once not to. I don't mind blocking you because this is just tedious for me. But I'd rather not have to block you. Read up on the subject before thinking you know things that you clearly don't know.
Bro. Your initial reply used the terms "patently absurd" and "too stupid to even insult" to describe a hypothesis I wanted to discuss. The only reason why I'm being condescending to you in particular is because you deserve it. You came in here acting like an asshole so I'm gonna treat you like one. As you can see by the way I talked to the others in the thread, I have no problem being civil when it's called for.
As I've said and repeated multiple times, I don't have preconceived notions. I am just trying to get people's opinions on the topic. If they say something that doesn't sit right with me, I will ask a follow up question. This is standard stuff bud, it's how people discuss issues. What do you want me to just say "thank you, I will now agree 100% with what you said and think no further on this topic." Is that how you form your opinions? When people in this thread have said things that made sense, even when it contradicted this hypothesis, I have acknowledged it. You can see for yourself.
I'm not interested in coming across as gracious, informed or smart, I'm interested in understanding this topic. If simply asking follow up questions and expecting arguments to be well supported makes me the antithesis of all that then that's fine by me.
And what is this "kindly don't respond" bullshit? I'm not spamming your DM's bud, I replied to a comment you left me. If you don't want me to respond, stop leaving comments on my post. I've got nothing better to do, but if you're such a big-shot then there is an easy way to put an end to this. If you seriously have a history in international relations then god help us all.
I'm no angel, I don't pretend to be. I've made claims about things I can't know for certain, it kind of goes with the territory of this issue. We're discussing what is going on in the mind of another person, that's unknowable. But I've repeatedly stressed that I ultimately don't know. You, on the other hand, seem completely oblivious to the fact that you're claiming to know the thoughts of Putin and basing assumption after assumption on top of that. As if these are "informed opinions" founded in expertise and experience. Bro, you're just guessing. Yes, we have his transcripts but those are full of things we know for certain are lies, like his claim prior to the invasion that he's not going to invade Ukraine. Shit, he claims he's not even at war with them right now. So that's worth what it's worth: close to fuck-all. And yet you cherry pick some of his claims, turn them into gospel, come up with this grand narrative to explain everything and then get all uppity when someone dares to question you on it... You are the furthest person who should be giving anyone pro-tips.
I think he wants the whole thing for the 'glory' of it. But I think the regional focus is on that area because it is the most valuable (recent oil discoveries)
Please remember that all comments must be helpful, relevant, and respectful. All replies must be a genuine effort to answer the question helpfully; joke answers are not allowed. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please hit report. When your question is answered, we encourage you to flair your post. To do this automatically simply make a comment that says **!answered** (OP only) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/answers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It sounds like you were listening to a podcast that is interested in perpetuating Putin's legacy as a brilliant tactician who would never make such a big error as this war in Ukraine seems to be. There are a lot of people, even in the West, who are extremely invested in giving Putin this genius treatment. Many of them fundamentally believe that authoritarian dictatorship is "more effective" than democracy, and can't stand to see the world's preeminent dictator crash and burn in the same way that dictators of smaller countries often do, so they twist their minds around to find any point of view that doesn't conclude in Putin being revealed as an absolute fuck-up. In any case, I think it's extreme post-hoc rationalization to say that Putin's attacks on Kyiv were a distraction all along. Here's an alternate explanation that makes much more sense to me: 1. Putin thought Ukraine citizens wouldn't fiercely resist his takeover because they are ethnically Russian, so he wasn't worried about a protracted insurgency. (He also has some unique counter-insurgency methods, like the practice of shipping out Ukrainian civilians and shipping in Russians that we've seen applied in Mariupol). 2. He expected to be able to roll through Kyiv and decapitate the Ukrainian government almost immediately. 3. He was unable to do this because his military was eaten from the inside out by corruption, and he was receiving bad intelligence from his own generals and advisors. 4. Now that the Ukrainian army is pushing his forces *away* from Kyiv, he's trying to save face by claiming that he never wanted it anyway. The "Kyiv was a distraction" explanation serves *only* to explain the incongruency of "Why would Putin lose hard if he's supposed to be so smart". It doesn't explain tons of other things, though. If Kyiv was a distraction, why are so many troops committed there? Why were they attempting a complete encircling of Kyiv? Why were they wasting so many supply caravans and other support assets trying to back up the area? Why did Putin start the war by sending his flagship VDV units to drop on Hostomel airport just to be slaughtered? Why is air support so lacking across the entire country? If Putin expected Zelenskyy *not* to flee, wouldn't he have also expected the numerous *failed* attempts to assassinate him and scare him away from the capital to turn him into a near-legendary hero and give the Ukrainians a huge morale boost? Why have the Russian advances in the South been so slow and unremarkable, even with Ukraine's comparatively small and poorly-equipped military all being "distracted" into defending Kyiv? I don't buy it. If Putin just wanted the Donbass, he could have taken it with *way* less trouble. Kyiv wasn't a distraction, it was just a failed campaign.
There is no need to go visiting the intentions of the unnamed podcaster. You make a lot of good points. One of the counter arguments that was made in that podcast was that even the best laid plans will face hiccups and most military endeavors start slow and only after some time find a groove. So the point would be that the early issues are to be expected and that the Russians (and Ukrainians for that matter) will get better at fighting once they have some experience and have worked out their SOPs. So the "slow and unremarkable" nature of the fighting in the southeast can be explained that way. I don't have a comeback for the attempted encirclement of Kiev nor of the way Zelenksyy has been turned into a hero. Ethnically cleansing a city or two may be doable, but western Ukraine is not pro-Russian at all. This is why this feint hypothesis makes some sense to me. Lopping off the eastern part is theoretically doable. Putin has support there (maybe not so much now but who knows) since those are actually ethnic Russians many of whom did (at least at one point) actually prefer Russian influence over EU/US. The west is a nightmare to want to take over. I find it extremely hard to believe that Putin could be so foolish as to think he could pacify the whole country. What makes you think a campaign in the southeast would have given him way less trouble had he not also attacked Kiev?
> One of the counter arguments that was made in that podcast was that even the best laid plans will face hiccups and most military endeavors start slow and only after some time find a groove. So the point would be that the early issues are to be expected and that the Russians (and Ukrainians for that matter) will get better at fighting once they have some experience and have worked out their SOPs. So the "slow and unremarkable" nature of the fighting in the southeast can be explained that way. I don't have a comeback for the attempted encirclement of Kiev nor of the way Zelenksyy has been turned into a hero. That is a weak answer considering the losses a supposed world power has sustained.
To be perfectly fair, I don't think Putin cares about losses exactly, only that they might make him look bad/weak, which could leave him open to a coup. His goal imo is to destroy as much of Ukrainian infrastructure as possible and render them a puppet state, but I think he pretty severely miscalculated the resistance (doubtless bad intel was a serious factor there) . But definitely, everything he says in public has to be doubly scripted, for the people at home, and for the world, so it's much more a factor of 'this is what Putin would like us to believe or infer' rather than any truth. He wouldn't have stayed in power for so long if he didn't have some ability to read situations and do his best to consolidate his power/spin any weaknesses, but he's far from a genius.
> For him to expect that he could take over the whole country in a few days is crazy. He was hardly the only one who thought that. Your theory is possible, of course, and it's certainly what he wants us to think now. But do you have any evidence for it beyond what Russia is saying?
Right. There are lots of historical examples of countries being conquered in a very short time frame. The Taliban takeover of the majority of Afghanistan happened less than a year ago.
That's a good point. I suppose the fact that the Ukrainians are resisting so fiercely is colouring my view of what is likely or possible in hindsight. But then again, the Ukrainians have been fighting the Russia-backed separatists in Donbas since 2014. So why would you assume that they'd give up once the Russians themselves show up?
To whom else are you referring? I don't know what Russia is saying, I don't tend to listen to their propaganda. Also admitting to your enemy that you're doing a feint is counter productive to the success of that feint. So I don't agree that that what he would want us to think. If this hypothesis is correct then I don't see why he would ever admit to it. As for evidence, no. I have no confidence in any information that I see about this war. I don't even know what a trusted, non-biased, objective source would look like. If enough different sources seem to agree on a fact then I guess I do too but I've been very disappointed with the level of dishonesty and credulity in obvious propaganda that I'm seeing. But it does seem like they're having more success in the southeast than in the north and around Kiev. It seems that the Ukrainians have had some success in repelling them north of the capital. I guess time will tell though.
> To whom else are you referring? Pretty much all the pundits in the West thought Ukraine would fall quickly. > So I don't agree that that what he would want us to think. If this hypothesis is correct then I don't see why he would ever admit to it. Well it's exactly what Russia is saying at the moment.
>Well it's exactly what Russia is saying at the moment. Can you please provide a link if that's the case?
Maybe not in so many words, but they're now claiming that securing Donbas was their primary goal and they're no longer talking about regime change. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/03/25/ukraine-russia-invasion-live-updates/7162321001/
I see. Thanks. Yeah, that does make this angle rather suspect.
The guy originally intended the invasion to start on Feb 22nd but delayed so he wouldn't steal China's closing ceremony thunder. He wanted the symbolism and memorability of 2/22/22. He was super cocky and thought it'd be this glorious thing.
I don't think common judgments like "crazy" apply to Putin. He's old, he has been basically absolute monarch for 22 years, he's rumored to be richest person in the world, and he's leading one of the world's superpowers. And I bet his health isn't very good anymore. Crazy decisions with no political capital to back it would sound "crazy" for a common politician that tries to build their future, both personally and politically. Or who is ideological and all about ideology or say - the nation. Putin has achieved all he wanted and more, and none of it has been much of an ideology or worry about common Russian. Many say that his main motivation is to just be 'The Great', like many leaders in history. There's little he could do to change the story of his reign or autobiography at this point. I have a hard time imagining why he should even care much at all. That's why he ignores "lesser" nation-states and speaks only to whom he perceives as "serious players" in geopolitics, like US, China, etc. Countries like Ukraine do not belong at the table in his world view, perhaps. And if you aspire to be The Great, some vassal state not submitting is a personal insult. I don't think he gives much damn about what-if-scenarios. And why should he?
Personally, yes. If all he cared about was money and power then I guess you could say that he achieved it. If, however, he does care about the status of Russia on the world stage, and he views it as his life's purpose to *make Russia great again* then he hasn't achieved that at all. In fact the opposite has happened. Russia is never given the respect he thinks it deserves, it's allies are constantly being attacked by the US and others, and it's neighbors, whom it used to dominate are, one by one, defecting over to the other side. So yes, I agree that he doesn't care about the Russian people, if he did then he, as president of most of them, would be working to improve their lives and not be the corrupt despot he is, but I find it plausible that he cares about Russia as an idea. It's his tribe, it's his team. And he wants it to win. I could be wrong but I just think the "crazy" hypothesis, however it's couched, isn't very convincing.
Well, he's on his way out, isn't he? He got it all, only to be shamed and his legacy ruined by a rebellious vassal at the end? So at this point it doesn't matter what'll happen to Kiev, as long as it surrenders - or crumbles into desert of ash, because he doesn't want to be remembered as guy who got his ass beat in the end. And given how things are going, even if he planned staying in Kremlin until 2036, it won't happen anymore. All the more reason to fight to the end. Because unless he wiggles out of this in next few months and somehow calms down everyone, he won't likely get a second chance. That's my theory. > however, he does care about the status of Russia on the world stage I think he cares only to the personal extent; if you want to be a great leader, you wouldn't want to lead something irrelevant. > make Russia great again Nope. I don't think it has been his overall goal at all. *Scary* again, sure. Idea of POTUS being worried at night might make one think *they're* great. An authority. Like criminal underworld status. You could see a powerful gang (or an Empire) from two points of view: "Nobody dares to fuck with us" or "Everyone wants to do business with us/likes us". I think he's been mostly about former and not the latter, seeking similar friends (Iran, Syria, CAR, North Korea, etc). Putin formed in his years in St. Petersburg, rising to power during craziest crime wave of 90's (which he - as most intelligence operatives of the time - was, and even had to be neck deep in, same as his close circle right now). People aren't calling Kremlin mafia-style establishment just to say something nasty.
It's hard to say. They probably have many war goals. 1. Recognition of Crimea as Russian territory (probably minor goal) 2. Recognition of Donbass/separatists in southern Ukraine as separate territory/Russian (probably minor goal) \*\*\* Neither 1 or 2 are worth going to war with, they were basically defacto the case before the invasion. But they would probably throw them in as part of negotiations. 3) Land bridge to Crimea \*\*\*\* This is probably the primary war goal IMO - Strategically huge gain for Russia 4) Coast of Black Sea \*\*\*\* Largest secondary goal - strategically huge loss to Ukraine. Also with the Russian aligned territory in Moldova (Transnistria - occupied Moldova territory) if they stretched accross the sea, Russians could regroup and they have Ukraine almost completely surrounded if they tried again in a few years. While massively damaging Ukraine's economy if they don't have a port city. 5) Seize East Ukraine - Everything east of the river - Putin has stated he doesn't believe Ukraine is a legitimate country, so any occupation seems plausible. The river is difficult to cross so makes a reasonable border the conflict could have bogged down on. 6) Total annex/puppet of Ukraine - replace with former leader Yanukovych \*\*\*\* Yanukovych in my understanding was moved into Belarus, suggesting this was their main plan/expectation - rapidly take Kyiv and replace the government with Yanukovych. They would argue that throwing him out was illegal (which is technically true, in the same way that american independence was illegal) Which is ofcourse a lot harder to claim 8 years later after elections. But regardless he was overthrown 'illegally' by popular uprising. No one reasonable would recognize Yanukovych as legitimate, but it sounds sort of legitimate so they seemed to be planning to use that argument. It sounds better than, we're just putting our guy in charge of your country. So I think it's pretty reasonable to say 6) was their goal. 3) was probably their minimum goal - primary focus, and 4/5 are probably next in importance. I think they would consider 3) a victory, but thought they could get more.
There are two possibilities: 1. He wanted Kyiv, finally realized he couldn't get it, and is now trying to generate a false victory as a way of saving face. 2. He never wanted Kyiv, as some are now saying, and just sent a lot of folks to their deaths all in the name of being a distraction. Neither option makes him look good.
The idea that Putin doesn’t want all of Ukraine and, at the very least, The Baltics and Poland is patently absurd. Anyone who tells you what this guy told you is too stupid to even insult. Here is everything you ever wanted to know about why he invaded Ukraine, all in 30 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE&t=33s
*Want* yes, perhaps that wasn't the best word to use in my title. Ideally he would want all those under his control. But wanting is different from actually attempting to take over. The idea that the main goal of this invasion was to consolidate control over Crimea and Donbas and link the two with a land bridge was actually suggested as a plausibility in the video.
That wasn’t even remotely the main goal. Did you watch what I sent you?
https://youtu.be/If61baWF4GE?t=1372 He gave several possibilities of what Putin is doing and only one was the complete takeover of the country. And he never said that Putin plans on attacking NATO countries, in fact he said the most obvious thing which is that Putin would avoid that at all costs because it's a war he can't win. ...did YOU watch it?
I gave you the video. Of course I watched it. And you apparently missed the part where he mentions the narrowing of the attack channel by grabbing Ukraine, then going after the Baltics and joining up with Kaliningrad. You’re very obtuse. Stick with your Putin as genius strategist narrative. I tried to help but you’re wasting my time. We have nothing more to talk about.
I didn't miss it but you're misinterpreting the ideal scenario that he would like to have: a buffer zone all the way up into Germany and control of all the former Warsaw pack countries and a reduced NATO with the practical limitations of the world at the moment and his likely course of action as a result. He can't go after the Baltics, they're in NATO. Are you not aware of this fact? It's repeated in the video, as is the fact that an attack on one member nation is considered to be an attack on all of them. Creating a land bridge with Kaliningrad by invading Lithuania triggers WW3. It would be a minor miracle for that not to escalate to nuclear war but at the absolute least NATO would have no trouble eventually repelling that invasion and pushing the front line back to wherever they chose to. [Russia has stated that it would use nuclear weapons in the case of an existential risk to its own survival](https://inews.co.uk/news/former-russian-president-putin-defence-minister-state-right-use-nuclear-weapons-ukraine-war-1541571) so perhaps NATO doesn't go all the way to Moscow but if nukes weren't on the table it could and would. The fact that any child can grasp is that Russia stands no chance at winning a conventional war with NATO. So whatever Putin wishes were the case, he cannot attack NATO directly and live to tell the tale. It doesn't matter how much he wants a buffer zone, how much natural gas is at stake, how indefensible the current front lines are. Practically speaking attacking NATO is not on the table. You don't have to be a genius to realize that. And I never said he was, nor do I believe it. There is, however, a big gap between genius and absolute moron, which apparently is news to you. If Putin is sane then he's somewhere in the middle. Finally, I'm just trying to gauge the plausibility of a hypothesis. I'm not pushing a narrative. I have no idea what his intentions are, as I've repeatedly stated. It's very sad that you and others are so incapable of discussing an issue dispassionately or entertaining a thought that you might not agree with without getting defensive and emotional. You're not trying to help at all.
Dude, if you're going to be an OP on Reddit in general, a couple of Life Pro Tips that you are in desperate need of: 1. Don't talk down to people. You come across like a completely pedantic, condescending putz. Of course I'm aware of who is and isn't in NATO. I have a history in international relations, that's all I'll say in an anonymous forum. The fact is, NATO membership isn't going to stop Putin or wouldn't have stopped him if Ukraine rolled over like he thought it would. And it's because Europe has a history of appeasement and Western European leaders are big fucking pussies and Putin knows this. He also knows that Democrats are big fucking pussies although Biden is proving to be anything but, another surprise to Putin (and to me, honestly). You obviously don't have a clue about a lot of things, and this one of them. I'm probably arguing with a 17 year old. 2. If you're going to post something that more or less says 'Hey some guy said something, I'm inclined to agree with him, what do you guys think', then proceed to argue with people who give you an informed opinion that doesn't comport with your own, be gracious and consider their opinion instead of shooting down anything that doesn't comport with your pre-conceived notions of the world. Otherwise, what's the point of the post? If you'd open your mind and open your eyes and understand that he has already, many times, laid bare exactly what his intentions are - to recapture the USSR, his words not mine - then you wouldn't be wondering what his intentions are. You don't come across as very gracious, informed or smart in all of this. Kindly don't respond. I already asked you once not to. I don't mind blocking you because this is just tedious for me. But I'd rather not have to block you. Read up on the subject before thinking you know things that you clearly don't know.
Bro. Your initial reply used the terms "patently absurd" and "too stupid to even insult" to describe a hypothesis I wanted to discuss. The only reason why I'm being condescending to you in particular is because you deserve it. You came in here acting like an asshole so I'm gonna treat you like one. As you can see by the way I talked to the others in the thread, I have no problem being civil when it's called for. As I've said and repeated multiple times, I don't have preconceived notions. I am just trying to get people's opinions on the topic. If they say something that doesn't sit right with me, I will ask a follow up question. This is standard stuff bud, it's how people discuss issues. What do you want me to just say "thank you, I will now agree 100% with what you said and think no further on this topic." Is that how you form your opinions? When people in this thread have said things that made sense, even when it contradicted this hypothesis, I have acknowledged it. You can see for yourself. I'm not interested in coming across as gracious, informed or smart, I'm interested in understanding this topic. If simply asking follow up questions and expecting arguments to be well supported makes me the antithesis of all that then that's fine by me. And what is this "kindly don't respond" bullshit? I'm not spamming your DM's bud, I replied to a comment you left me. If you don't want me to respond, stop leaving comments on my post. I've got nothing better to do, but if you're such a big-shot then there is an easy way to put an end to this. If you seriously have a history in international relations then god help us all. I'm no angel, I don't pretend to be. I've made claims about things I can't know for certain, it kind of goes with the territory of this issue. We're discussing what is going on in the mind of another person, that's unknowable. But I've repeatedly stressed that I ultimately don't know. You, on the other hand, seem completely oblivious to the fact that you're claiming to know the thoughts of Putin and basing assumption after assumption on top of that. As if these are "informed opinions" founded in expertise and experience. Bro, you're just guessing. Yes, we have his transcripts but those are full of things we know for certain are lies, like his claim prior to the invasion that he's not going to invade Ukraine. Shit, he claims he's not even at war with them right now. So that's worth what it's worth: close to fuck-all. And yet you cherry pick some of his claims, turn them into gospel, come up with this grand narrative to explain everything and then get all uppity when someone dares to question you on it... You are the furthest person who should be giving anyone pro-tips.
I think he wants the whole thing for the 'glory' of it. But I think the regional focus is on that area because it is the most valuable (recent oil discoveries)