Understanding Russia & Putin

[Ryan_047]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

What he gained is Ukraine not joining NATO.

Yet. 

Even if he wins militarily and manages to install and maintain a puppet regime, and somehow stop his entire economy from collapsing (which some analysts think can be done by integrating economically with China and moving away from Europe, but that will take some years), the hatred of Ukrainians will come back one day and bite him (or the next dictator in line) in the ass very, very hard. 

Putin has secured that Ukraine will predominantly have an anti Russian sentiment for a long time to come and one day that will translate into a neighbor that will surely join an alliance that opposes Russia, the second Russia is showing weakness.

And arguably, he managed to keep Ukraine out of EU and NATO by creating artificial states in the east. You can't join any of those organizations if you have border disputes, so your argument doesn't really make any sense. No matter how West leaning the leadership in Ukraine could have been, they wouldn't have given up on Crimea and Donbass just to join EU and NATO. 

[How to be wise]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's pretty clear to me

Not clear to anyone else.

[vladorion]

54 minutes ago, Ryan_047 said:

Yet. 

Even if he wins militarily and manages to install and maintain a puppet regime, and somehow stop his entire economy from collapsing (which some analysts think can be done by integrating economically with China and moving away from Europe, but that will take some years), the hatred of Ukrainians will come back one day and bite him (or the next dictator in line) in the ass very, very hard. 

Putin has secured that Ukraine will predominantly have an anti Russian sentiment for a long time to come and one day that will translate into a neighbor that will surely join an alliance that opposes Russia, the second Russia is showing weakness.

And arguably, he managed to keep Ukraine out of EU and NATO by creating artificial states in the east. You can't join any of those organizations if you have border disputes, so your argument doesn't really make any sense. No matter how West leaning the leadership in Ukraine could have been, they wouldn't have given up on Crimea and Donbass just to join EU and NATO. 

Ukraine already had anti Russian sentiment for quite a while before this invasion.

[PurpleTree]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's pretty clear to me Ukraine would have eventually joined NATO and the US would use Ukraine as the frontline against Russia and build missile silos there.

It's obvious this is what America leadership wants. They wanted to make Ukraine the battleground against any future conflict with Russia. So here we are. Their wish came true.

they probably would have joined at some point.

but there were many people in europe who were nato critical. if putin kept doing what he was doing for years. things like destabilise e.u./europe, nato, support groups in eastern ukraine.  support right wingers in europe etc. would have been much smarter imo.

now as i said he only brought nato closer together and got countries to invest more money in it for decades to come

he made the best advertisement for nato that nato could ever hope/wish for with this invasion

Edited March 12, 2022 by PurpleTree

[Husseinisdoingfine]

[Husseinisdoingfine]

[Preety_India]

Ukraine Won't Join NATO, President Zelenskyy said yesterday. 

 

[BlueOak]

Russia thinks its fighting a wider war, because their country is individualist, they look at the world as individual countries standing strong alone. Their population is collectivist however.

NATO thinks its helping another country but not in a war, because their countries are collectivist, dependent on each other with intricate alliances and treaties. Their population is individualist however.

For example, Russians prefer state TV to give them a message because their populations are collectivist as a society.
NATO prefers many channels of information as their populations are individualist as a society.

This is where the misunderstanding comes from. NATO believes that further cooperation and treaties with everyone is beneficial. Russia believes it should stand alone apart from this cooperative influence. Both approaches to life causes distrust in each other throughout their societies.

The only way(s) to solve this puzzle is to look again at what Ukraine wants and needs. Alternatively a way to encourage peace, is to condense what I just said into a message that we can give to others in the form of a solution. Please yellow thinkers have a shot, give me a message I can drop in the right places that is easily understood or do so yourself when it comes to you.

Thanks

@Leo Gura Tagging you for a big brain answer.

Edited March 12, 2022 by BlueOak

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

Why do you think NATO would have built missile silos in Ukraine? What makes you think that American leadership wanted to make Ukraine a battleground? What nations that joined NATO after the fall of the soviet union have missile silos, with what you presumably refer to having nuclear strike capabilities?

Americans and NATO have been deploying defensive missile silos close to Russian boarders for a long time. And as Putin says, those "defensive" silos can be retrofitted into offensive nuke launch sites within days. This retrofit seems trivial. So while NATO says it's purely for defense, nothing would stop them from turning them into offensive weapons if they wanted to. And Putin does not want to rely on their word for assurance.

Quote

Also, if American leadership wanted Ukraine to be a future battleground, I would assume they would be against them joining NATO, as it would not allow for the same kind of warfare. If Ukraine had joined NATO, any attack on Ukraine would be considered a declaration of war on all of NATO and require a full offensive response, which I do not think is in the interest of any NATO country, let alone the US. The fact that Ukraine is not in NATO currently plays in the hands of the US.

Yes, it would trigger a war, but this serves the US and NATO doubly: 1) it locks Putin into never moving his military outside Russia because they boxed him in by having all of Europe join NATO, 2) in the rare case that a war would start, Ukraine would take the brunt of the damage and Russia would be left with their pants down. This is a win-win for the US, and a lose-lose for Russia.

Russia losing Ukraine to the West is like having your balls dangling and exposed in a street fight.

The West's position has been: "Yes, your balls are dangling and exposed, but don't worry, we will never kick them. You can trust us. We are the good guys."

Obviously Putin scoffs at such a deal.

Quote

A Ukraine that is not part of NATO is the perfect buffer zone. An invasion of the Ukraine will not lead to a full war, but cripple Russia and put an end to dying empire. Basically, what we have seen here was the perfect scenario. No direct involvement in the war, while defeating and humiliating your enemy.

The Ukrainians might disagree with you there.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

Russia thinks its fighting a wider war, because their country is individualist

I don't think Russia's or Putin's attitude is to be individualist. Quite the opposite, they want more allies, but of course they want allies that are favorable to their agenda. Allies like China.

[Lyubov]

The more I’m seeing this war unfold the more I’m seeing what a logistical disaster and clown show this is on the Russian side. I do wonder what would or could have occurred (hypothetically) if a younger Putin was ruling Russia. I don’t think he would have invaded. I get the sense Putin is getting old and there is just something incredibly dangerous about a man reaching the age of “I’ve had enough, I don’t give a fuck anymore.” This is just very much unlike Putin. He had a reputation for being a sort of cautious and strategic mastermind. This is very much a legacy play now for him I think as well where he’s sort of painted himself into a corner. I wonder if he remotely envisioned what’s going on as a possibility before invading or he found himself with his pants down on accident. 

[Arcangelo]

2 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

he made the best advertisement for nato that nato could ever hope/wish for with this invasion

So

True.

[Matt23]

 

What I got from the first Video

• The response against Russia has been too large and is coming from what John calls "the network". This is a decentralized system made up of the global village and communications technologies.  Basically, nobody controls it and it has the potential to cause too much of a response against Russia, effectively isolating it just like North Korea.  This could be extremely dangerous since Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world (600 nukes compared to China's 200/300 and U.S.'s 5), and when a bear is threatened, it gets dangerous.  But the issue is we can't turn of the response since it isn't in control from one entity or government, but is created via different bussiness, organizations, and people all connected through the internet, media, facebook, youtube, etc.. 

What I got from the second Video

• Samo thinks that the sanctions against Russia will drive it more towards China, which has the economic ability to disconnect from the western economic system.  Effectively creating another system altogether.  This may also rally other nations who aren't in the western world to that side of things.  
• Putin isn't as crazy as people think. 
• Russia will gain much of Ukraine.  
• Europe will suffer lots from this war in the future.  The U.S. may actually benefit from it a little.  
• This could be a big miscalculation on Russia's behalf, or brilliant. Brilliant especially if it leads to the west's downfall.  But also remember that it took a few hundred years for Rome's civilization to fall.  So these things don't happen overnight. 

[Lyubov]

https://www.americanpurpose.com/articles/preparing-for-defeat/

Francis Fukuyama’s take on all of this. Those that know him know he is a very nuanced and interesting thinker on this. He is predicting a Russian defeat. 

Edited March 13, 2022 by Lyubov

[Joel3102]

Why are people still removing Russian agency from this situation and act is if this is the fault of NATO expansion. Given his pre invasion speech, it’s pretty damn obvious he was going to invade eventually no matter what, he didn’t want Ukraine in NATO because that would make it untenable to invade.

Even Kyle Kulisnki reckons only 10% chance they wouldn’t have invaded if NATO didn’t expand.

[Gennadiy1981]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Americans and NATO have been deploying defensive missile silos close to Russian boarders for a long time. And as Putin says, those "defensive" silos can be retrofitted into offensive nuke launch sites within days. This retrofit seems trivial. So while NATO says it's purely for defense, nothing would stop them from turning them into offensive weapons if they wanted to. And Putin does not want to rely on their word for assurance.

Hi Leo, I read your comments and I see your point. I don’t want to go into conspiracy theory but the whole thing does not add up so well and I wonder if you also feel that something more is happening. Let’s be honest, Russia is the second powerful nation in the world and I am sure it could have captured entire small Ukraine in a day or two, prolonging the war only makes it worse and also, I have never seen the media speak about conflict so much, all the time, have it liberal or conservative talk, it’s being projected on Americans all day long and notice while US screams to stop they don’t really help Ukraine by supplying military weapons. In my opinion something stinks, what do you think?

[hello1234]

4 minutes ago, Gennadiy1981 said:

Russia is the second powerful nation in the world

How to spot a Russia supporter 101

[Gennadiy1981]

13 minutes ago, hello1234 said:

How to spot a Russia supporter 101

I am not, totally not, I never liked Russia and it was never my favorite country at all. You are way off the radar. But you have to give credit where credit is due, they do have serious military weapons and back in Cold War era they were on same level as US. Of course now US is the super country but you cannot undermine Russia.

[Hardkill]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't think Russia's or Putin's attitude is to be individualist. Quite the opposite, they want more allies, but of course they want allies that are favorable to their agenda. Allies like China.

Well, it doesn't look like China is happy at all about this war. That could put Russia's relationship with China on thin ice or possibly end their relations altogether.

Besides, according to Paul Krugman, who is one of the top economists in the world, wrote an article in the NYT saying that China would not be able to save Russia, economically: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/07/opinion/china-russia-sanctions-economy.html

He also said in another two articles he wrote that even if Russia does end up absorb Ukraine into its empire, Russia will ultimately have a much worse economy than it was before the invasion:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/opinion/ukraine-russia-war-economy.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/04/opinion/russia-ukraine-sanctions-economy.html

 

 

Edited March 13, 2022 by Hardkill

[hello1234]

1 hour ago, Gennadiy1981 said:

I am not, totally not, I never liked Russia and it was never my favorite country at all. You are way off the radar. But you have to give credit where credit is due, they do have serious military weapons and back in Cold War era they were on same level as US. Of course now US is the super country but you cannot undermine Russia.

I wouldn’t measure “power” solely by military strength.. plus what russia says about its strength and what is their actual strength are two different things