What Is Russia's Endgame?

[zazen]

When nuclear powers are involved, these noble principles about sovereignty and agency become secondary to the primary imperative which is: don’t blow up the planet.

It’s better to be 80% sovereign and alive, than 100% sovereign and dead.

International laws written in ink don’t somehow erase survival and power dynamics that can end up being settled in blood.

Laws and rights are our noble attempt to buffer against might and the laws of the jungle - but they don’t erase or deny that the jungle exists. Likewise, marriage contracts don’t eliminate sexual desire for others.

Paper doesn’t negate the primal instincts it seeks to contain. We nurture (through principle) nature (power dynamics) to the best of our ability.

Russia didn’t invade Ukraine because they suddenly forgot international law exists. They did it because they calculated that NATO expansion posed a greater existential threat than laws telling them their in wrong for breaking those laws.

Jungle logic overrides legal logic when survival is at stake - so best avoid putting it at stake. You don’t bring about security by making another power insecure in crossing their red lines - but by acknowledging them.

What should the US do if Russia or China were to build military infrastructure in Mexico? Or UK if Russia or China were to do the same in Scotland? The Cuban missile crisis happened did it not?

Edited August 19 by zazen

[PurpleTree]

4 minutes ago, zazen said:

Russia didn’t invade Ukraine because they suddenly forgot international law exists. They did it because they calculated that NATO expansion posed a greater existential threat than laws telling them their in wrong for breaking those laws.

Not because of the fear of an attack of Nato probably. But because if Russians see how successful Ukraine becomes as part of the West, free democratic, freedom of speech, travel, institutions, they’ll rebel, and hurt Gollum (Putin)

[Ajay0]

6 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

Not because of the fear of an attack of Nato probably. But because if Russians see how successful Ukraine becomes as part of the West, free democratic, freedom of speech, travel, institutions, they’ll rebel, and hurt Gollum (Putin)

Only the wealthy upper classes in the west are perceived as winners, the rest are losers as per social perception. Many of the homeless in the west belonged to the middle or lower classes but rising inflation, higher costs of living and inability to pay mortgages or rent meant they soon became chucked to the streets.

Many westerners come to India and other countries for medical tourism and cheaper medical options as their expensive healthcare at home would bankrupt them out of their life savings. This has resulted in a multi-billion dollar tourism benefits for India.

https://www.vax-before-travel.com/2025/05/28/indias-medical-tourism-industry-could-reach-13-billion

Also Russia is sensitive to its borders considering how the Nazis violated their diplomatic agreements and invaded them .

Putin has also stated that wmd targetting Moscow and other important cities can be placed in Ukraine . No country on earth is comfortable with a military alliance at its very borders. 

If you have any doubts, ask the Americans who forced russian wmd out of cuba with threats of nuclear war in the Cuban crisis in 1962.

[BlueOak]

Russia's economy is cooked. As was the prediction. Despite all the aid, a crutch only goes so far.

So its endgame now is to try and appear diplomatic and make desperate pushes to take territory they claim is theirs (before they had it), which get an entire battalion cut off. I thought it was a group but it was a battalion. In the name of a political gambit.

They have to now pressure Ukraine diplomatically. Because they can't keep up the facade that everything is fine when you take a million casualties and throw so many billions into a war. People arguing that are so biased that you can't speak to them most of the time.

Edited August 20 by BlueOak

[zazen]

@BlueOak Russia has paid a cost - but not acting also has a cost that could end up terminal in the end. It’s possible to pay a price today to avoid a heavier one later.

Why would they risk possible global backlash for invading, economic damage and sanctions, a million dead, and internal political instability over a country they control 100% by proxy as you commented in another thread tagged below.

Russia invaded precisely because it was losing control over Ukraine, not because it had control. Ukraine's pivot toward NATO membership, its rejection of Russian security demands, its military buildup with Western weapons - are all signs of Russia losing influence, not exercising it.

 

On 16/08/2025 at 8:22 AM, BlueOak said:

To conclude

Russia spent a million casualties on retaking 20% of a country they've controlled 100% via proxy, with ruined settlements and barely any population living there. They've tanked their economy. They've gained stronger BRICS allies, some minerals, some important ports. They've lost much of their youth to death, disability or leaving the country to set up lives elsewhere. Their demographics are worse than ever, much of their economy is chinese and they are more a proxy of China due to reliance on Trade, Chinese investment in Russia and the sheer power of China relative to Russia when not balanced out by European influence or allies.

 

The same issues you say plague Russia, plagues the West and more so Europe. Economic fragility, aging demographics etc. Countries that fight wars they see as existential don’t mind for a few hits in GDP.

The UK right now has a multi billion pound black hole it’s trying to fill with possible tax hikes and further austerity in the autumn budget. Our capital has tents in the most prestigious areas and meat in Tesco grocery store literally security boxed due to theft.

They’ve just put a “mind the grab” strip on the pavement of Oxford street due to theft high phone theft that happens. NHS.. don’t get me started.

 

[BlueOak]

On 20/08/2025 at 7:57 PM, zazen said:

@BlueOak Russia has paid a cost - but not acting also has a cost that could end up terminal in the end. It’s possible to pay a price today to avoid a heavier one later.

Why would they risk possible global backlash for invading, economic damage and sanctions, a million dead, and internal political instability over a country they control 100% by proxy as you commented in another thread tagged below.

Russia invaded precisely because it was losing control over Ukraine, not because it had control. Ukraine's pivot toward NATO membership, its rejection of Russian security demands, its military buildup with Western weapons - are all signs of Russia losing influence, not exercising it.

 

The same issues you say plague Russia, plagues the West and more so Europe. Economic fragility, aging demographics etc. Countries that fight wars they see as existential don’t mind for a few hits in GDP.

The UK right now has a multi billion pound black hole it’s trying to fill with possible tax hikes and further austerity in the autumn budget. Our capital has tents in the most prestigious areas and meat in Tesco grocery store literally security boxed due to theft.

They’ve just put a “mind the grab” strip on the pavement of Oxford street due to theft high phone theft that happens. NHS.. don’t get me started.

 

Russia's cost for softening some of its ideology would have been the bridge between east and west, the oil and mineral resources, and trading empire to fuel a world, which it was doing quite nicely. It could have been a pivotal center of the globe, like Turkey is becoming. They have all the land and all the natural resources; it could have been an investment rush with a great quality of life upgrade. It could have if not defined, at least shaped the future of East-West relations.

Instead, they wanted a buffer zone more than to accept some liberalism, because change was too difficult. The EU and the USA have adjusted to a more authoritarian stance for about 20 years, but Russia didn't move an inch to align over the last decades, Whereas China did a lot of work. Russia chose to keep pushing fear outward and listening to its own fears rather than choose another course. Even if they wanted the fear and violence approach, there were far better options than invading en masse, with much less fallout. They had all the leverage they needed at the very start of this, and it was barely even used. Now they have very little. Trade leverage, military pressure, assassinations, arms deals, and energy leverage (a big one at the start of this before war). - But better than all that would be to actually align with their neighbors more, as the EU have done with BRICS and if Russia accepted the reality that they are not as strong as they once were.

You compare Western social issues with Russian ones. The difference with me Zazen (or England and Russia), is when I zoom out to a global or even national perspective, I can tell you England has acted stupidly, as can the UK press. Whereas you defend the inane positions Russia takes, and Russia covers it up.

Brexxit was a disaster. Covid responses were too slow. Nationalist isolationism is a disaster in England. BRICS vs NATO is a disaster. Unlimited migration is a disaster.  - All UK problems.

Russia's war was a disaster. Its imperialist ambition to restore the USSR are delusional. Its fear of liberal democracy is also a way for a few oligarchs to retain power. Nobody on this earth is going to tell me this was a good, preferred, or useful outcome for Russia itself compared to where it was before this, or the choices it had. Putin is not Russia, despite what he would want you to believe, he's an old man running out of years, and then everyone's left to pick up what's left. The same way Russia is now running out of fuel (like its youth), and that's also if its current economic strains weren't enough, because its refineries are under constant attack.

Though your 'tent city' in one park is how i'd describe a lot of the villages and towns in the east of Russia. Run down, no infrastructure, most of the men used up, everything's overpriced, and many of the men are now dead. As for demographics, Europe gained a lot of refugees from Ukraine and some from Russia, so it actually gained some demographics at the expense of its adversary. The UK's demographics thanks to migration are better than many places actually and i'd personally accept a thousand tent cities to keep it that way until AI evolves enough.

Your entire framing of this is some necessary or beneficial strategic move, when to me its the behaviour of a desperate country making dumb choices to keep aging dictators in power at the expense of their youth. Kinda of like Brexxit, only much more violent, and with wannabe Tsars not wannabe economic experts, but both stuck in ages gone by not the real world. Russia is an aging relic that cannot change, and yes, the UK has that element in it, but thankfully, they are not in power yet.

Point me at the gain here for Russia Zazen 
How are they better off now than they were 10 years ago?

Edited August 22 by BlueOak

[zazen]

8 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Point me at the gain here for Russia Zazen 
How are they better off now than they were 10 years ago?

Like I said to Purpletree in the other thread - Imperial logic is primarily for gain whilst security logic is primarily for preservation. The calculus here wasn’t gain but preservation in a zero sum security environment created by the Wests refusal to develop a security architecture that acknowledged red lines and didn't expand NATO towards Russia - up to the last vital country which for them is Ukraine specifically.

You say Russia could have bridged East and West - but that assumes the West ever intended to let Russia be a co-equal. Putin did try alignment in the early 2000s like talk of joining NATO. Turkey works as a bridge because it isn't as threatening, whilst Russia’s scale is threatening. Its too big to be ignored yet too big to be allowed fully into the club - unless it sub-ordinates its sovereignty. Russia is big enough to be it's own orbit and not be totally compliant.

Didn't Russia try diplomatically reaching out to the West regarding developing a security architecture? Many Western heads themselves warned of NATO expansion, Putin himself made it clear especially in his 2007 Munich speech. Before the invasion even began Russia proposed draft treaty that was ignored. The initial push to Kiev was to force a concession and bring them to the table - but because Kiev resisted upon the backing of the West - Russia went to the next option: if they don’t take your concerns seriously you make them not much of a concern through a war of attrition.

Bidens term was radio silent on diplomacy, same with Europe despite the war being on their conflict and them feeling the brunt of the consequence in high energy prices. The Istanbul talks were the closest to a deal that was torped'ed by UK's Boris and the US. A deal they'd probably accept in a heartbeat compared to any today (which I doubt they'll even get to). The EU leaders are praising Trump for opening diplomatic channels to Putin as if they couldn't just do so had they had the spine and not been mired in group think like some ''Putin is Hitler'' cult. Ironically Putin isn't even as hardline as Medveded or others. 

8 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Instead, they wanted a buffer zone more than to accept some liberalism, because change was too difficult. The EU and the USA have adjusted to a more authoritarian stance for about 20 years, but Russia didn't move an inch to align over the last decades, Whereas China did a lot of work.

The issue is liberal universalism can't accept different poles and buffer zones. How has China become more politically aligned to the West? They've economically aligned and developed just like Russia had. Russia has been supplying almost half of EU's energy, it was integrated economically just like China - they traded what they had ( Russia energy, China manufactured goods ).

I agree that China has done a way better job than Russia in using that wealth to develop itself - Russia's own corruption has fueled oligarchic profits at the expense of the nation for sure. But that's different to the geopolitics of whats occurring. Whether it's a democracy, communist, socialist or whatever - a rival power is encircling another power, approaching a country with a historically vulnerable corridor - any powerful country will react to this. Just like America is a liberal democracy yet it forced a neutralization of the Cuban missile crisis. The internal shortcomings or political systems of a country is a separate issue to the geopolitics between states and powers.

Every country and culture has its own way of doing things - the issue with the West is they morally finger wag a country for not being a copy cat of themselves - despite dealing with countries completely opposite to them (Saudi for example). This is why BRICS is appealing - there's no BRICSm like liberalism that is being shoved down countries throats - just pragmatic partnering on all kinds of projects that retains a level of sovereignty that being part of the Western club doesn't allow for.

Edited August 22 by zazen

[zazen]

Speaking of the Turkey-Istanbul deal and comparing it to today’s supposed deal in the making.

The reason this situation is referred to as a security dilemma is because a security guarantee requires a strong enough guarantor. But then that means two strong rivals who today have nukes could come head to head which is very high risk. It’s essentially tripwire Armageddon.

Having the guarantees be exclusively under a Western alliance is functionally NATO-lite. Your chained to whoever underwrites your security - so it being a bloc of Western powers means it can still be used as a pawn in a larger geopolitical game.

If the guarantees are multi-lateral or multi-polar - they dilute unilateral dominance and bloc logic. That way it also avoids Ukraine becoming anyone’s vassal and everyone has a stake in peace.

Post-WWII Austria followed that model. Austria was guaranteed by the US, USSR, Britain, and France. No one could absorb it without triggering the others, and it’s been neutral and stable till today.

A older but good Substack article from Glenn Dieseen going over this and the end game as the title of the thread says.

Post-WWII Austria proves this model works. Austria was guaranteed by the U.S., USSR, Britain, and France. No one could absorb it without triggering the others, and it’s been neutral and stable

A older but good Substack article from Glenn Diesen going over the Istanbul deal and the endgame of all this.

https://glenndiesen.substack.com/p/sabotage-of-the-istanbul-peace-agreement

Sabotage of the Istanbul Peace Agreement 

The Making of a Proxy War & the Unavoidable Istanbul+ Endgame

“In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine to impose a settlement after some NATO countries had undermined the Minsk-2 peace agreement for 7 years. On the first day after the invasion, Zelensky confirmed that Moscow contacted him to discuss negotiations based on restoring Ukraine’s neutrality.[1] On the third day after the invasion, Russia and Ukraine agreed to start negotiations on a peace based on Russian military withdrawal in return for Ukrainian neutrality.[2] Zelensky responded favourably to this condition, and he even called for a “collective security agreement” to include Russia to mitigate the security competition that had sparked the war.[3]

The negotiations that followed are referred to as the Istanbul negotiations, in which Russia and Ukraine were close to an agreement before the US and the UK sabotaged it.

Washington Rejects Negotiations Without Preconditions

In Washington, there were great incentives to use the large proxy army it had built in Ukraine to weaken Russia as a strategic rival, rather than accepting a neutral Ukraine. On the first day after the Russian invasion, when Zelensky responded favourably to start negotiations without preconditions, the US spokesperson rejected peace talks without preconditions as Russia would first have to withdraw all its forces from Ukraine:

“Now we see Moscow suggesting that diplomacy take place at the barrel of a gun or as Moscow’s rockets, mortars, artillery target the Ukrainian people. This is not real diplomacy… If President Putin is serious about diplomacy, he knows what he can do. He should immediately stop the bombing campaign against civilians, order the withdrawal of his forces from Ukraine, and indicate very clearly, unambiguously to the world, that Moscow is prepared to de-escalate”.[4]

This was a demand for capitulation as the Russian military presence in Ukraine was Russia’s bargaining chip to achieve the objective of restoring Ukraine’s neutrality. Less than a month later, the same US spokesperson was asked if Washington would support Zelensky’s negotiations with Moscow, in which he replied negatively as the conflict was part of a larger struggle:

“This is a war that is in many ways bigger than Russia, it’s bigger than Ukraine…. The key point is that there are principles that are at stake here that have universal applicability everywhere, whether in Europe, whether in the Indo-Pacific, anywhere in between”.[5]

The US and UK Demand a Long War: Fighting Russia with Ukrainians

In late March 2022, Zelensky revealed in an interview with the Economist that “There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives”.[6]

The Israeli and Turkish mediators confirmed that Ukraine and Russia were both eager to make a compromise to end the war before the US and the UK intervened to prevent peace from breaking out.

Zelensky had contacted former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett to mediate the peace negotiations with Moscow. Bennett noted that Putin was willing to make “huge concessions” if Ukraine would restore its neutrality to end NATO expansion. Zelensky accepted this condition and “both sides very much wanted a ceasefire”. However, Bennett argued that the US and UK then intervened and “blocked” the peace agreement as they favoured a long war. With a powerful Ukrainian military at its disposal, the West rejected the Istanbul peace agreement and there was a “decision by the West to keep striking Putin” instead of pursuing peace.[7]

The Turkish negotiators reached the same conclusion: Russia and Ukraine agreed to resolve the conflict by restoring Ukraine’s neutrality, but NATO decided to fight Russia with Ukrainians as a proxy. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu argued some NATO states wanted to extend the war to bleed Russia:

“After the talks in Istanbul, we did not think that the war would take this long.… But following the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, I had the impression that there are those within the NATO member states that want the war to continue—let the war continue and Russia gets weaker. They don’t care much about the situation in Ukraine”.[8]

Numan Kurtulmus, the deputy chairman of Erdogan’s political party, confirmed that Zelensky was ready to sign the peace agreement before the US intervened:

“This war is not between Russia and Ukraine, it is a war between Russia and the West. By supporting Ukraine, the United States and some countries in Europe are beginning a process of prolonging this war. What we want is an end to this war. Someone is trying not to end the war. The U.S. sees the prolongation of the war as its interest”.[9]

Ukrainian Ambassador Oleksandr Chalyi, who participated in peace talks with Russia, confirms Putin “tried everything” to reach a peace agreement and they were able “to find a very real compromise”.[10] Davyd Arakhamia, a Ukrainian parliamentary representative and head of Zelensky’s political party, argued Russia’s key demand was Ukrainian neutrality: “They were ready to end the war if we, like Finland once did, would accept neutrality and pledge not to join NATO. In fact, that was the main point. All the rest are cosmetic and political ‘additions’”.[11] Oleksiy Arestovych, the former advisor of Zelensky, also confirmed that Russia was mainly preoccupied with restoring Ukraine’s neutrality.

The main obstacle to peace was thus overcome as Zelensky offered neutrality in the negotiations.[12] The tentative peace agreement was confirmed by Fiona Hill, a former official at the US National Security Council, and Angela Stent, a former National Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia. Hill and Stent penned an article in Foreign Affairsin which they outlined the main terms of the agreement:

“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries”.[13]

Boris Johnson Goes to Kiev

What happened to the Istanbul peace agreement? On 9 April 2022, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson went to Kiev in a rush to sabotage the agreement and cited the killings in Bucha as the excuse. Ukrainian media reported that Johnson came to Kiev with two messages:

“The first is that Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they [the UK and US] are not”.[14]

In June 2022, Johnson told the G7 and NATO that the solution to the war was “strategic endurance” and “now is not the time to settle and encourage the Ukrainians to settle for a bad peace”.[15] Johnson also published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal arguing against any negotiations: “The war in Ukraine can end only with Vladimir Putin’s defeat”.[16] Before Boris Johnson’s trip to Kiev, Niall Ferguson had interviewed several American and British leaders, who confirmed that a decision had been made for “the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin” as “the only end game now is the end of Putin regime”.[17]

Retired German General Harald Kujat, the former head of the German Bundeswehr and former chairman of the NATO Military Committee, confirmed that Johnson had sabotaged the peace negotiations. Kujat argued: “Ukraine had pledged to renounce NATO membership and not to allow any foreign troops or military installations to be stationed’, while “Russia had apparently agreed to withdraw its forces to the level of February 23”. However, “British Prime Minister Boris Johnson intervened in Kiev on the 9th of April and prevented a signing. His reasoning was that the West was not ready for an end to the war”.[18] According to Kujat, the West demanded a Russian capitulation: “Now the complete withdrawal is repeatedly demanded as a prerequisite for negotiations”.[19] General Kujat explained that this position was due to the US war plans against Russia:

“Perhaps one day the question will be asked who did not want to prevent this war… Their declared goal is to weaken Russia politically, economically and militarily to such a degree that they can then turn to their geopolitical rival, the only one capable of endangering their supremacy as a world power: China… No, this war is not about our freedom… Russia wants to prevent its geopolitical rival USA from gaining a strategic superiority that threatens Russia’s security”.[20]

What was Ukraine told by the US and the UK? Why did Zelensky make a deal given that he was aware some Western states wanted to use Ukraine to exhaust Russia in a long war - even if it would destroy Ukraine? Zelensky likely received an offer he could not refuse: If Zelensky would pursue peace with Russia, then he would not receive any support from the West and he would predictably face an uprising by the far-right / fascist groups that the US had armed and trained. In contrast, if Zelensky would choose war, then NATO would send all the weapons needed to defeat Russia, NATO would impose crippling sanctions on Russia, and NATO would pressure the international community to isolate Russia. Zelensky could thus achieve what both Napoleon and Hitler had failed to achieve – to defeat Russia.

The advisor to Zelensky, Oleksiy Arestovych, explained in 2019 that a major war with Russia was the price for joining NATO. Arestovych predicted that the threat of Ukraine’s accession to NATO would “provoke Russia to launch a large-scale military operation against Ukraine”, and Ukraine could join NATO after defeating Russia. Victory over Russia was assumed to be a certainty as Ukraine would merely be the spearhead of a wider NATO proxy war: “In this conflict, we will be very actively supported by the West—with weapons, equipment, assistance, new sanctions against Russia and the quite possible introduction of a NATO contingent, a no-fly zone etc. We won’t lose, and that’s good”.[21]

NATO turned on the propaganda machine to convince its public that a war against Russia was the only path to peace: The Russian invasion was “unprovoked”; Moscow’s objective was to conquer all of Ukraine to restore the Soviet Union; Russia’s withdrawal from Kiev was not a sign of good-will to be reciprocated but a sign of weakness; it was impossible to negotiate with Putin; and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg subsequently asserted that “weapons are the way to peace”. The Western public, indoctrinated with anti-Russian propaganda over decades, believed that NATO was merely a passive third-party seeking to protect Ukraine from the most recent reincarnation of Hitler. Zelensky was assigned the role as new Churchill – bravely fighting to the last Ukrainian rather than accepting a bad peace.

The Inevitable Istanbul+ Agreement to End the War

The war did not go as expected. Russia built a powerful army and defeated the NATO-built Ukrainian army; sanctions were overcome by reorienting the economy to the East; and instead of being isolated – Russia took a leading role in constructing a multipolar world order.

How can the war be brought to an end? The suggestions of a land-for-NATO membership agreement ignores that Russia’s leading objective is not territory but ending NATO expansion as it is deemed to be an existential threat. NATO expansion is the source of the conflict and territorial dispute is the consequence, thus Ukrainian territorial concessions in return for NATO membership is a non-starter.

The foundation for any peace agreement must be the Istanbul+ formula: An agreement to restore Ukraine’s neutrality, plus territorial concessions as a consequence of almost 3 years of war. Threatening to expand NATO after the end of the war will merely incentivise Russia to annex the strategic territory from Kharkov to Odessa, and to ensure that only a dysfunctional Ukrainian rump state will remain that is not capable of being used against Russia.

This is a cruel fate for the Ukrainian nation and the millions of Ukrainians who have suffered so greatly. It was also a predictable outcome, as Zelensky cautioned in March 2022: “There are those in the West who don't mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives”.[22]

From that time:

Edited August 22 by zazen