Does the west actually believe that Russia has money or resources to expand? It can barely fight in Ukraine. It's a broke country with a superiority complex and any thought of expansion is just nonsensical.
The historical portion of this article is misleading and relies on Western people’s lack knowledge of the region. It makes you think that Sweden then was Sweden today, a neutral peaceful country. In reality, Sweden had spent the previous century invading and destroying Central and Eastern Europe. It was so destructive that some historians estimate the damage in Poland exceeded that of World War 2.
> From the outset, Sweden had gone into the negotiations with very high ambitions and hopes of fulfilling the old dream of making all Russian trade pass through Swedish territory. As a consequence of that ambition, the Swedes originally demanded far-reaching territorial gains into western Russia, including the important northern port of Arkhangelsk.[3]
> However, King James I of England sent a delegation to mediate, and the United Provinces did the same, mostly to ensure that Arkhangelsk did not fall into Swedish hands, which would have made the extensive trade between Western Europe and Russia far more difficult.
It's actually not about territory expansion. You're missing the point: land grab is a means to an end. Look at the Russia on the map: does it really lack space to build, needs more land? It's one of the lowest population densities in the world.
The true goal was to distract the attention of regular Russians from his failures inside the country, from the looting by him and other KGB cronies, make sure he stays in power, gets elected again. Or alternatively, no one would challenge the local status quo, all the oligarchs keep their wealth, continue sucking on mother's Russia titty while 99% of population is poor as fck. Why the hell each Russian soldier would then try to loot a washing machine, a TV set or a toilet and bring that back some 1000+ kilometres into the depth of Russia?! Because they are already piss poor, and then don't know it. And in their wildest dreams none of them would ever believe that it's Putin and his cronies that have put them in this missery. Putin is a fcking thief, a dictator whom TV-zombied avera Russian adores.
War is always a risk. No matter how over optimistic he was it's too big of a risk for a small poll bounce. This is about revanchist nationalistism/securing legacy/rebuilding the empire
Hitler already recognized that Ukraine is a) strategically very important due to its location, ie Black sea, gateweay to balkan and rest of Europe and b) has super fertile 'cernozem' (black earth would be direct translation). Plus quite a bit of industry, mostly post-soviet (well that one may be destroyed now).
Already soviets did this with warsaw-pact countries (poland, czechoslovakia, hungary) - shield against western europe, a battlefield where WWII was supposed to be fought. Invaded these countries that are not even close to russia and kept their iron hand above (and large military bases).
Seems like saber rattling. With Sweden and Finland on the path to join NATO, where would Russia even expand? And with their military bogged down in Ukraine, how would they even expand?
> With Sweden and Finland on the path to join NATO, where would Russia even expand?
It clearly intends to connect at least enclaves in Moldova to the swath of southern Ukraine it seeks to take (having likely abandoned any near term prospect of displacing the Ukrainian regime generally), probably also at least parts of Georgia.
It may also seek to bring other CSTO members into the Russia/Belarus “Union State” and make that Union State into a tighter confederation. (And possibly not just by diplomacy; invasion of insufficiently cooperative clients is something that the USSR—hardly uniquely among major powers—did quite a lot of, and a Russian leader who openly sees the USSR as a prior incarnation of Russia whose empire was squandered and improperly dismantled might well turn to the same tactics to restore it.)
Beyond that, unless it can somehow neutralize NATO or is willing to go directly to war with it, Russia seems pretty constrained.
Expand to Georgia, Moldova? I'd be nervous if I lived in a bordering country.
Exhausting Russia in Ukraine is perhaps the best rationale to maintain and increase arms shipments and training.
Of course how utterly tragic and infuriating to be Ukrainian and have your country destroyed and used as the battleground to keep Putin at bay (for the rest of the world).
Poland. Majority of Russians respond that way when asked where to go next. It like a fetish of the today's Russian Nazism.
Strategically speaking, Moldova and Baltic states, which Russia wants very much too, automatically become an easy prey in such a scenario. Russia really hates and very afraid of Intermarrium or anything resembling it. And Putin promised Lukashenko Baltic ports. Basically Russia is trying to make 4th partition of Poland and it starts to look like West Europe, though fortunately not US, start to give a bit of consideration to it.
Most probably Poland will get baited into the fight outside article 5 when Russia starts butchering deep inside Central and West Ukraine.
Pre-WW1: USA was happily supporting allies in the their fight against Mr. Evil. But Mr. Evil sunk an American ship. WW1 started and soon after Mr. Evil died.
Pre-WW2: USA was happily supporting allies in the their fight against Mr. Evil. But Mr. Evil sunk an American ship. WW2 started and soon after Mr. Evil died.
Pre-WW3: It's where we are now. Can you skip the sinking of the ship detail and just go kill Mr. Evil so that life can continue normally? Please.
This was only military deaths, at the time no major bombing of US cities occurred, the closest was the ships destroyed in Pearl Harbor. There are no guarantees that Russia wouldn't start bombing US cities in an all out war, in fact it is quite likely. There is also no telling what China would do. If China were to become involved and join the Russian side after a lengthy battle between the US and Russia, it would essentially play the role that the US did in world war 1 and 2.
There are heavy costs for engaging in a war with an advanced military.
The article is a bit too chaotic for my taste. The speech is clearly a) for domestic consumption and b) I'd really like a reliable English transcript of the whole speech.
(Preferably without pictures: In the days of printed newspapers one could read at least some articles without seeing Putin's picture 100 times per day. It really gets annoying.)
A lot of effort goes into attempts to post-hoc rationalize the war in Ukraine. This war is entirely against Russian national interests, can be stopped by Putin at any minute and can not be rationalized.
The simple truth is that Putin succumbed to a temptation few dictators can resist, the temptation of a short-and-glorious-war.
So, any more Putin Verstehers that want to argue that NATO provoked this? Or that Ukraine should cede their territory to avoid further bloodshed? All it will do is reward the dictator who will - rightly - interpret that as weakness.
The Mafia, now with nukes, soon at a border near you.
I bet Poland and the Baltics are thinking about a nuclear program.
Imagine this nightmare scenario that we just dodged: Trump in US, Corbyn in UK and Le Pen in France. And just like that, the nuclear shield against Russia is gone.
Nuclear shield is a pretty nonsensical media term. There is no shielding from nuclear weapons, there is only nuclear deterrence. And I don't think pro-Russian leaderships in those countries would dumbly remove nuclear deterrent to Russia. It would stay, maybe shift around a little.
I can imagine Putin's FSB was working hard on helping this as much as they could (and they could quite a bit), seeing it as holy grail of western political (and thus military) weakness that can be massively taken advantage of.
Its interesting to look back and see clear pattern - all nationalist politicians all being overly friendly with Russia. I can see exactly same pattern also in ie Czech republic and Slovakia where I come from. How ridiculous that is - you are supposed to have your country's interest above other interests, yet actually cheaply sell it off to long term enemy, who is not even hiding much that he is your enemy.
IMHO - they did a good psy-ops span over almost 20 years, dividing, sowing paranoia against everything that made west strong (EU, US, illuminati, soros, gates, covid vaccinations etc.). But not good enough to succeed even though parts of populations are lost probably forever into this primitive them-against-us paranoia hell.
And who knows how many more. Or do not blame those who fight back.
II point: Russian Fed. have the vastest natural resources of the planet in their land. Alone it's fable it's industrial system is not much developed since Soviet era and internal corruption do the rest, BUT with a strong partner, let's say EU (the best tech/industry skills in the world) OR China (the most intensive industrial-State in the world) it's next to be unstoppable.
In the recent past Russia have made various proposals, at least two to the EU to enter the EAEU (EurAsian union) in a fair partnership, one to the USA: enter NATO. All was declined.
What Russia Fed. can do than? Well, the potential partners are on three of it's border: EU, the best. China the most stable. India, the least reliable. Few minors of course, but nothing of similar strength. They try the west first. A fail. They try the est: a suffert success. That's is.
To ensure their own safety and development they need to rebuild the territorial and human extent of Soviet Union, at least to compensate China, they have tried with various degree of success in central Asia, but China is a competitor there. They have collected interesting partnerships in Iran and Africa, but both are not that strong, then they can go to their west. Surely easter-european countries are not that pleased BUT the post-Soviet (not)free-market corruption and destruction is not less strong so some will be against, some will be for.
That's a SIMPLE clear game.
The least simple is understanding neoliberals intentions. Their enemy is China and knowing they lost EU they decide (it's clear from actual economical flagellum) to destroy the EU thanks to local corrupted élites. It's not clear how they can think to been able to counter China WITH Russia allied to it. With EAEU extended to the EU China have an unsafe border with a historic enemy, but like that...
As Finn I am not that worried. Ukraine style attack to Finland would be suicide. Finland has much better airforces and artillery than Ukraine and then there is terrain which is just horrible to attack.
> If anything bad happens to Finland because of their delayed admission to NATO
The Finland-Sweden-UK mutual defense pact should be a firewall against that, even before considering the fuzzier interim individual commitments from other NATO members.
[+] [-] xutopia|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sakopov|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] celsoazevedo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceilingcorner|3 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(history)
Peter the Great indeed did “take back” the land from Sweden, which Sweden had conquered from Russia about a century beforehand.
Nyenschantz was built in 1611 to establish Swedish rule in Ingria, which had been annexed from the Tsardom of Russia during the Time of Troubles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyenschantz
[+] [-] scythe|3 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Stolbovo
> From the outset, Sweden had gone into the negotiations with very high ambitions and hopes of fulfilling the old dream of making all Russian trade pass through Swedish territory. As a consequence of that ambition, the Swedes originally demanded far-reaching territorial gains into western Russia, including the important northern port of Arkhangelsk.[3]
> However, King James I of England sent a delegation to mediate, and the United Provinces did the same, mostly to ensure that Arkhangelsk did not fall into Swedish hands, which would have made the extensive trade between Western Europe and Russia far more difficult.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|3 years ago|reply
Alongside Russia [1]. Also, all this happened in the 17th century. When Russia was still finishing its conquest of Siberia [2].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Polish_War_(1654–1667)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_conquest_of_Siberia#17...
[+] [-] synu|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fodmap|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mndgs|3 years ago|reply
The true goal was to distract the attention of regular Russians from his failures inside the country, from the looting by him and other KGB cronies, make sure he stays in power, gets elected again. Or alternatively, no one would challenge the local status quo, all the oligarchs keep their wealth, continue sucking on mother's Russia titty while 99% of population is poor as fck. Why the hell each Russian soldier would then try to loot a washing machine, a TV set or a toilet and bring that back some 1000+ kilometres into the depth of Russia?! Because they are already piss poor, and then don't know it. And in their wildest dreams none of them would ever believe that it's Putin and his cronies that have put them in this missery. Putin is a fcking thief, a dictator whom TV-zombied avera Russian adores.
[+] [-] hedora|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rat87|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saiya-jin|3 years ago|reply
Already soviets did this with warsaw-pact countries (poland, czechoslovakia, hungary) - shield against western europe, a battlefield where WWII was supposed to be fought. Invaded these countries that are not even close to russia and kept their iron hand above (and large military bases).
[+] [-] PartiallyTyped|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TeeMassive|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] comrh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|3 years ago|reply
It clearly intends to connect at least enclaves in Moldova to the swath of southern Ukraine it seeks to take (having likely abandoned any near term prospect of displacing the Ukrainian regime generally), probably also at least parts of Georgia.
It may also seek to bring other CSTO members into the Russia/Belarus “Union State” and make that Union State into a tighter confederation. (And possibly not just by diplomacy; invasion of insufficiently cooperative clients is something that the USSR—hardly uniquely among major powers—did quite a lot of, and a Russian leader who openly sees the USSR as a prior incarnation of Russia whose empire was squandered and improperly dismantled might well turn to the same tactics to restore it.)
Beyond that, unless it can somehow neutralize NATO or is willing to go directly to war with it, Russia seems pretty constrained.
[+] [-] bradford|3 years ago|reply
(Regarding how, I have no useful input. )
[+] [-] geph2021|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trhway|3 years ago|reply
Strategically speaking, Moldova and Baltic states, which Russia wants very much too, automatically become an easy prey in such a scenario. Russia really hates and very afraid of Intermarrium or anything resembling it. And Putin promised Lukashenko Baltic ports. Basically Russia is trying to make 4th partition of Poland and it starts to look like West Europe, though fortunately not US, start to give a bit of consideration to it.
Most probably Poland will get baited into the fight outside article 5 when Russia starts butchering deep inside Central and West Ukraine.
[+] [-] travisathougies|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sydbarrett74|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rad_gruchalski|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mherdeg|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sto_hristo|3 years ago|reply
Pre-WW2: USA was happily supporting allies in the their fight against Mr. Evil. But Mr. Evil sunk an American ship. WW2 started and soon after Mr. Evil died.
Pre-WW3: It's where we are now. Can you skip the sinking of the ship detail and just go kill Mr. Evil so that life can continue normally? Please.
[+] [-] ishjoh|3 years ago|reply
World War I - 116,516
World War II - 405,399
This was only military deaths, at the time no major bombing of US cities occurred, the closest was the ships destroyed in Pearl Harbor. There are no guarantees that Russia wouldn't start bombing US cities in an all out war, in fact it is quite likely. There is also no telling what China would do. If China were to become involved and join the Russian side after a lengthy battle between the US and Russia, it would essentially play the role that the US did in world war 1 and 2.
There are heavy costs for engaging in a war with an advanced military.
[+] [-] belltaco|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Koshkin|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] klway|3 years ago|reply
(Preferably without pictures: In the days of printed newspapers one could read at least some articles without seeing Putin's picture 100 times per day. It really gets annoying.)
[+] [-] sorokod|3 years ago|reply
The simple truth is that Putin succumbed to a temptation few dictators can resist, the temptation of a short-and-glorious-war.
[+] [-] jacquesm|3 years ago|reply
The Mafia, now with nukes, soon at a border near you.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 323|3 years ago|reply
Imagine this nightmare scenario that we just dodged: Trump in US, Corbyn in UK and Le Pen in France. And just like that, the nuclear shield against Russia is gone.
[+] [-] effie|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saiya-jin|3 years ago|reply
Its interesting to look back and see clear pattern - all nationalist politicians all being overly friendly with Russia. I can see exactly same pattern also in ie Czech republic and Slovakia where I come from. How ridiculous that is - you are supposed to have your country's interest above other interests, yet actually cheaply sell it off to long term enemy, who is not even hiding much that he is your enemy.
IMHO - they did a good psy-ops span over almost 20 years, dividing, sowing paranoia against everything that made west strong (EU, US, illuminati, soros, gates, covid vaccinations etc.). But not good enough to succeed even though parts of populations are lost probably forever into this primitive them-against-us paranoia hell.
[+] [-] ukie|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kkfx|3 years ago|reply
https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/7/233896.pdf
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/R...
If we just go to the recent past:
- "Operation Unthinkable" (1945-6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
- Operation Dropshot (1957) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dropshot
- https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/AERODYNAMIC%20%20%20VOL...
And who knows how many more. Or do not blame those who fight back.
II point: Russian Fed. have the vastest natural resources of the planet in their land. Alone it's fable it's industrial system is not much developed since Soviet era and internal corruption do the rest, BUT with a strong partner, let's say EU (the best tech/industry skills in the world) OR China (the most intensive industrial-State in the world) it's next to be unstoppable.
In the recent past Russia have made various proposals, at least two to the EU to enter the EAEU (EurAsian union) in a fair partnership, one to the USA: enter NATO. All was declined.
What Russia Fed. can do than? Well, the potential partners are on three of it's border: EU, the best. China the most stable. India, the least reliable. Few minors of course, but nothing of similar strength. They try the west first. A fail. They try the est: a suffert success. That's is.
To ensure their own safety and development they need to rebuild the territorial and human extent of Soviet Union, at least to compensate China, they have tried with various degree of success in central Asia, but China is a competitor there. They have collected interesting partnerships in Iran and Africa, but both are not that strong, then they can go to their west. Surely easter-european countries are not that pleased BUT the post-Soviet (not)free-market corruption and destruction is not less strong so some will be against, some will be for.
That's a SIMPLE clear game.
The least simple is understanding neoliberals intentions. Their enemy is China and knowing they lost EU they decide (it's clear from actual economical flagellum) to destroy the EU thanks to local corrupted élites. It's not clear how they can think to been able to counter China WITH Russia allied to it. With EAEU extended to the EU China have an unsafe border with a historic enemy, but like that...
[+] [-] robonerd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antupis|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lordofgibbons|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Spare_account|3 years ago|reply
An attack on a single EU nation is to invite war with all EU nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po...
[+] [-] dragonwriter|3 years ago|reply
The Finland-Sweden-UK mutual defense pact should be a firewall against that, even before considering the fuzzier interim individual commitments from other NATO members.