The Russian Invasion of the Ukraine.

[Michel H]

As others have pointed out to you, 60% of Belgians speak Dutch (the rest speak French with a very small German contingent), how about you just accept that you should be split between the Netherlands and France?

The Belgian population doesn't want (as far as I know, and I am Belgian) to be split between the Netherlands and France.

Belgium has a certain personnality (modesty, good social protection...), that it wants to keep.

 

[Michel H]

So let me make sure I get this insanity straight.

Putin walks into a store with a gun and demands everything in the safe.

Your solution is "Well if we just give Putin everything in the safe, he'll leave the store. That would go a long way in helping the story."

But what happens if Putin only demands the money and the gold which is in the safe, and which belongs to him, that he was never able to recover before, because the store owner is good friend with the U.S., which gave him the advice to give nothing to Putin ?

 

[theprestige]

So let me make sure I get this insanity straight.

Putin walks into a store with a gun and demands everything in the safe.

Your solution is "Well if we just give Putin everything in the safe, he'll leave the store. That would go a long way in helping the store."

Comparing what Putin is doing in Ukraine to robbing a store is very convincing to me, mainly because I'm already very convinced of my conclusions about what Putin is doing in Ukraine. I'm not sure this comparison will move the needle much for Michel.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But what happens if Putin only demands the money and the gold which is in the safe, and which belongs to him, that he was never able to recover before, because the store owner is good friend with the U.S., which gave him the advice to give nothing to Putin ?

Okay I'm sorry I wasn't clear. In the real world, not insane inside your head wrongness.

 

[trustbutverify]

RT seems to have closed its comments section on all articles. While I appreciate that might not seem the most earth-shattering of developments, the trolling comments was a huge part of what RT's web presence was about: rife with anti-Semitism, participants trying to outdo each other with adherence to the Kremlin line, and so on. Now all that is left is the bland, transparent articles above.

It's all a lot of fun, till the rabbit's got the gun.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Is there any good analysis out there that might explain what exactly Putin hopes to gain from this total invasion?

I can't find any scenario in which this isn't a disaster for what was thought to be Putin's goals. Even a successful occupation of Ukraine is going to quickly turn into a bloody (and well armed thanks to Western allies) insurgency that will be a huge burden on the Russian military.

Any doubts about NATO are going to quashed for the foreseeable future, and more countries in the region are going to be seriously considering joining the alliance.

Intense economic sanctions are going to result in depression of the Russian economy for the foreseeable future.

The only explanation I've seen that makes any kind of sense is that this is Putin's "ripping off the bandaid" approach to estrangement with the Western world. Even then it doesn't seem particularly rational or motivated by self-interest. Building up a economic sphere of influence that is totally alienated from the US/West is a long term project that might eventually result in a reasonably prosperous Russia less beholden to the power of the US dollar, but it's going to pretty bleak until then for the average Russian.

 

[erwinl]

The Belgian population doesn't want (as far as I know, and I am Belgian) to be split between the Netherlands and France.

Belgium has a certain personnality (modesty, good social protection...), that it wants to keep.

But if we would take over the Northern part of Belgium, evict a lot of the people there, supplant them with our soldiers and other people, until we have a majority and then hold a referendum to join the Netherlands, it would be alright?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Is there any good analysis out there that might explain what exactly Putin hopes to gain from this total invasion?

I can't find any scenario in which this isn't a disaster for what was thought to be Putin's goals. Even a successful occupation of Ukraine is going to quickly turn into a bloody (and well armed thanks to Western allies) insurgency that will be a huge burden on the Russian military.

Any doubts about NATO are going to quashed for the foreseeable future, and more countries in the region are going to be seriously considering joining the alliance.

Intense economic sanctions are going to result in depression of the Russian economy for the foreseeable future.

The only explanation I've seen that makes any kind of sense is that this is Putin's "ripping off the bandaid" approach to estrangement with the Western world. Even then it doesn't seem particularly rational or motivated by self-interest.

War isn't rational. Every major conflict since the industrial revolution has been started by the side that lost.

Again it's like asking why a Batman villain doesn't just sell his "Killer Army of Robotic Penguins" tech on the free market, make a fortune, and retire and live like a king instead of using it to try and steal from Fort Knox or whatever.

 

[Olmstead]

So let me make sure I get this insanity straight.

Putin walks into a store with a gun and demands everything in the safe.

Your solution is "Well if we just give Putin everything in the safe, he'll leave the store. That would go a long way in helping the store."

Bad analogy. I think any store should have the policy of giving armed robbers what they want, as nothing in the safe is worth more than the safety of the employees.

The invasion of Ukraine is more like a criminal protection racket. The mafia doesn't just go away after they take the safe.

 

[trustbutverify]

So let me make sure I get this insanity straight.

Putin walks into a store with a gun and demands everything in the safe.

Your solution is "Well if we just give Putin everything in the safe, he'll leave the store. That would go a long way in helping the store."

For now.

 

[angrysoba]

Is there any good analysis out there that might explain what exactly Putin hopes to gain from this total invasion? I can't find any scenario in which this isn't a disaster for what was thought to be Putin's goals. Even a successful occupation of Ukraine is going to quickly turn into a bloody (and well armed thanks to Western allies) insurgency that will be a huge burden on the Russian military.

Any doubts about NATO are going to quashed for the foreseeable future, and more countries in the region are going to be seriously considering joining the alliance.

Intense economic sanctions are going to result in depression of the Russian economy for the foreseeable future.

The only explanation I've seen that makes any kind of sense is that this is Putin's "ripping off the bandaid" approach to estrangement with the Western world. Even then it doesn't seem particularly rational or motivated by self-interest.

I don't know exactly. However, it has been suggested that Putin's playbook is Aleksandr Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics.

I believe the Timothy Snyder brought this up when the Maidan protests happened back in 2014. Childlike Empress was very annoyed at the suggestion which is further confirmation that it may be true.

Ultimately one of the goals that Dugin spells out is:

Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

War isn't rational. Every major conflict since the industrial revolution has been started by the side that lost.

Again it's like asking why a Batman villain doesn't just sell his "Killer Army of Robotic Penguins" tech on the free market, make a fortune, and retire and live like a king instead of using it to try and steal from Fort Knox or whatever.

I think it's more nuanced than that. Even the historical examples of leaders making self-sabotaging decisions to start wars at least thought they were acting in their own self-interest.

 

[jimbob]

Look what happened to Nicolae Ceaușescu.

And the 20th Century was an historical oddity in that many such dictators were, for the most part protected by far more powerful allies due to the Cold War. Yes there were similar things beforehand, but the resources were vastly different.

 

[Michel H]

I'm reporting Michel's off topic posts, and I'd encourage people to stop responding to him to prevent him from dragging this thread onto his personal delusional hobby-horse about WWII.

You are the one who started talking about WWII:

They aren't reasonable by any measure. You're suggesting appeasement of a psychotic dictator. That worked so well in 1939.

I just replied to you, and to other members of this forum, including a moderator (Wudang).

 

[theprestige]

Bad analogy. I think any store should have the policy of giving armed robbers what they want, as nothing in the safe is worth more than the safety of the employees.

The invasion of Ukraine is more like a criminal protection racket. The mafia doesn't just go away after they take the safe.

Yeah, it's not good policy to demand that employees put their lives on the line for their employer. On the other hand, I don't see any reason why an owner-operator shouldn't stand their ground in their place of business, if that's their preference.

 

[The Don]

Is there any good analysis out there that might explain what exactly Putin hopes to gain from this total invasion? .

Here's a half hour video on the reasons why Putin may have invaded - I've posted in another thread.



The reasons this person thinks are:

• Defensibility across the central European plain
• Ukraine's possible emergence as a petro-state
• Supply of water to Crimea
• Demographic issues relating to Russia's shrinking/ageing population

That said, it only considers the going in position, not the current position with large loss of life and so on. IMO Putin is pressing on because retreat simply is not an option and will do whatever has to be done in order to declare victory even if every Ukrainian has to die in the process.

 

[Michel H]

But if we would take over the Northern part of Belgium, evict a lot of the people there, supplant them with our soldiers and other people, until we have a majority and then hold a referendum to join the Netherlands, it would be alright?

I don't see how this could be all right, but this is not at all what happened in Crimea (as far as I know).

 

[jimbob]

War isn't rational. Every major conflict since the industrial revolution has been started by the side that lost.

Again it's like asking why a Batman villain doesn't just sell his "Killer Army of Robotic Penguins" tech on the free market, make a fortune, and retire and live like a king instead of using it to try and steal from Fort Knox or whatever.

I think it's more nuanced than that. Even the historical examples of leaders making self-sabotaging decisions to start wars at least thought they were acting in their own self-interest.

The highlighted - lovely image, thanks.

It depends on what you consider to be a major conflict, and who you considered started it.

Do you count the Crimean War for example?

There were lots of colonial wars of conquest that were definitely won by the aggressor. And Putin has had various wars of reconquest that ended in fairly quick victories for him.

 

[Ziggurat]

For now.

Once you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Just give the bad guy what he wants because it's not worth what we'll lose if we try and stop him" is being on the bad guy's side.

It's also literally what every single bad guy wants to hear, it's essentially giving them exactly what they want.

The reason you don't negotiate with terrorists is because it turns terrorism into a valid method of getting what you want.