|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On April 02 2022 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2022 05:36 Silvanel wrote:
I might be wrong.
I would love to be wrong.
But I am afraid You overestimate the impact of sanctions on Russia. While certainly significant, they won't stop their ability to wage war on Ukraine.
Soviet Union spent up to 17% of its GDP on military, they had 5,5mln military personnel. Now, I know Russia has half the population of SU. Yet, I am afraid that we are heading towards Russia becoming a smaller version of SU. With people being miserable and poor. A country run with propaganda, police and military. Everyone thought that SU will collapse to German advance in WWII. Yet, they persevered. This might be similar. One of the few saving graces that Ukraine has, is that Russia is a kleptocracy.
Once again, I would love to be wrong.
I think your drawing the parallel wrong here. Yes Germanies invasion of the Soviet Union failed. But its Russia invading here. Not Ukraine. Russia isn't waging this war on its home soil where it just needs to feed bodies into an invader until they run out of steam. Ukraine needs to hold, and they are. Ukraine is the one being supplied by the West to help them hold on, like the Soviet Union was. Russia is the one running out of resources to feed their war machine, like Germany was. If you want to draw a parallel to WW2, Ukraine is the Soviet Union and Russia is Germany. Not the other way around.
Also, it's way easier to mobilise population when you're the defending side.
Soviet Union: "Protect the motherland!"
...
Ukraine: "Glory to Ukraine!"
Of course, Soviet Union and modern Ukraine have nothing in common but you get the idea.
By the way, very interesting video here about WW II. It makes all conventional armies (even right now Ukraine vs Russia) so small but I guess this has to do with nuclear capabilities nowadays.
+ Show Spoiler +
In my opinion and in response to above video, it's why Russia is so afraid and wants to have buffer states even nowadays. Kremlin seems paranoid that NATO would "finish the job", but I don't think regular Russians believe in that. At least, based on YouTube videos I watch where Russians are interviewed about NATO (e.g. 1420 channel there). Of course, not just buffer states but also puppet states. It's why Kremlin is so mad at NATO because they can't repeat 1944 
|
Putin/Russia was never afraid of "possible NATO aggression". It's a defensive pact, meaning the aggression of one NATO member doesn't need to concern other NATO members, so the idea of NATO aggression against Russia goes out the window. Putin also deliberated Russia joining the NATO, but his ego didn't allow him to do that because there'd be a wait time and he thought himself too important for that. Because dictators don't wait for others, they call the shots. So the idea of Putin being paranoid of NATO aggression is also purely speculative and not grounded in reality. He seems to be paranoid, yes. But then he's paranoid of his own people, not of the NATO.
|
On April 02 2022 05:36 Silvanel wrote:
I might be wrong.
I would love to be wrong.
But I am afraid You overestimate the impact of sanctions on Russia. While certainly significant, they won't stop their ability to wage war on Ukraine.
The sanctions are quite significant because Russia is unable to replenish its military power because of it - they can't make systems for their vehicles and missiles without components that they've been cut off from.
Another thing is that their problems are only going to get worse over time. Right now they can get by but I believe that within a month when more and more people will lose their jobs and common products will become scarce they might be facing large scale civil unrests. As it stands right now it seems that Russia is fucked regardless of the outcome of this war as it might take years if not decades for their economy to recover (if it'll be able to recover before the whole country collapses and splits into several independent states).
Especially that they're now facing war on two fronts as Japan has told them to GTFO from the islands they've been contesting since WW2 or they'll force them to leave.
|
On April 02 2022 17:27 Magic Powers wrote:
Putin/Russia was never afraid of "possible NATO aggression". It's a defensive pact, meaning the aggression of one NATO member doesn't need to concern other NATO members, so the idea of NATO aggression against Russia goes out the window. Putin also deliberated Russia joining the NATO, but his ego didn't allow him to do that because there'd be a wait time and he thought himself too important for that. Because dictators don't wait for others, they call the shots. So the idea of Putin being paranoid of NATO aggression is also purely speculative and not grounded in reality. He seems to be paranoid, yes. But then he's paranoid of his own people, not of the NATO.
So why did he invade Ukraine if not for NATO?
|
Hungary176 Posts
On April 02 2022 17:32 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2022 17:27 Magic Powers wrote:
Putin/Russia was never afraid of "possible NATO aggression". It's a defensive pact, meaning the aggression of one NATO member doesn't need to concern other NATO members, so the idea of NATO aggression against Russia goes out the window. Putin also deliberated Russia joining the NATO, but his ego didn't allow him to do that because there'd be a wait time and he thought himself too important for that. Because dictators don't wait for others, they call the shots. So the idea of Putin being paranoid of NATO aggression is also purely speculative and not grounded in reality. He seems to be paranoid, yes. But then he's paranoid of his own people, not of the NATO. So why did he invade Ukraine if not for NATO?
Obviously I cant read putins mind, but this seems the most grounded in reality reasoning:
youtu.be
TLDW: There were enough gas reserves discovered under mainly Donetsk, Crimea / its economic zone in the water that if exploited, it would have stopped russia from being a monopoly on gas supplies in europe.
This is an existential threat to Putin's klpeltokracy which sources half of all its income from said monopoly. This was in and before '14, investing in said exploitation already began in Crimea by ukraine and western investors, so he took Crimea to stop it.
Only problem: the ukrainians didnt give up, constantly tried to make Crimea as costly to russia as possible, and worse, became galvanized against russian influence, which opened the path for western support (including military modernisation) to ukraine's efforts.
|
On April 02 2022 17:32 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2022 17:27 Magic Powers wrote:
Putin/Russia was never afraid of "possible NATO aggression". It's a defensive pact, meaning the aggression of one NATO member doesn't need to concern other NATO members, so the idea of NATO aggression against Russia goes out the window. Putin also deliberated Russia joining the NATO, but his ego didn't allow him to do that because there'd be a wait time and he thought himself too important for that. Because dictators don't wait for others, they call the shots. So the idea of Putin being paranoid of NATO aggression is also purely speculative and not grounded in reality. He seems to be paranoid, yes. But then he's paranoid of his own people, not of the NATO. So why did he invade Ukraine if not for NATO?
Who knows? Maybe, a mind reader can answer this question. Most likely:
Cementing his personal legacy as the ruler who:
- restored the formed glory of the Russian empire
- reunited the Russian people
- ascended Russia to its rightful place on the world stage
It probably is not for a economic reasons, since no matter how much he took from Ukraine, Russia is not breaking even on this war in Putin's life-time and maybe not even ever.
It certainly is not for personal financial gain, since he has access to enough wealth to last him a million life-times.
And it surely as hell is not because he is afraid that NATO or anyone else will invade the country with the largest nuclear arsenal.
edit:
On April 02 2022 18:04 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2022 17:32 SC-Shield wrote:On April 02 2022 17:27 Magic Powers wrote:
Putin/Russia was never afraid of "possible NATO aggression". It's a defensive pact, meaning the aggression of one NATO member doesn't need to concern other NATO members, so the idea of NATO aggression against Russia goes out the window. Putin also deliberated Russia joining the NATO, but his ego didn't allow him to do that because there'd be a wait time and he thought himself too important for that. Because dictators don't wait for others, they call the shots. So the idea of Putin being paranoid of NATO aggression is also purely speculative and not grounded in reality. He seems to be paranoid, yes. But then he's paranoid of his own people, not of the NATO. So why did he invade Ukraine if not for NATO? Obviously I cant read putins mind, but this seems the most grounded in reality reasoning: youtu.be TLDW: There were enough gas reserves discovered under mainly Donetsk, Crimea / its economic zone in the water that if exploited, it would have stopped russia from being a monopoly on gas supplies in europe. This is an existential threat to Putin's klpeltokracy which sources half of all its income from said monopoly. This was in and before '14, investing in said exploitation already began in Crimea by ukraine and western investors, so he took Crimea to stop it. Only problem: the ukrainians didnt give up, constantly tried to make Crimea as costly to russia as possible, and worse, became galvanized against russian influence, which opened the path for western support (including military modernisation) to ukraine's efforts.
This answers the question why Putin took Crimea in 2014, but not why he invaded Ukraine in 2022.
I'd even argue that the reason for what is happening now cannot possibly be any considerations about Russian gas monopoly in Europe. With North Stream 2 completed, Russia was on the verge of securing their position as the main gas supplier to Europe for the foreseeable future. Inbetween this and the stated EU goal of decarbonisation within a few decades, it seemed unlikely that any other country would be willing to invest into the ability to supply Europe with notable amounts of gas and expect to turn a profit before Europe's gas needs shrink considerably.
If anything, I'd say that Putin dared to attack Ukraine because he believed to have already secured a gas monopoly in Europe (+ large dependencies on oil and coal), and not because he was afraid of losing a gas monopoly.
|
|
|
On April 02 2022 18:06 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2022 17:32 SC-Shield wrote:On April 02 2022 17:27 Magic Powers wrote:
Putin/Russia was never afraid of "possible NATO aggression". It's a defensive pact, meaning the aggression of one NATO member doesn't need to concern other NATO members, so the idea of NATO aggression against Russia goes out the window. Putin also deliberated Russia joining the NATO, but his ego didn't allow him to do that because there'd be a wait time and he thought himself too important for that. Because dictators don't wait for others, they call the shots. So the idea of Putin being paranoid of NATO aggression is also purely speculative and not grounded in reality. He seems to be paranoid, yes. But then he's paranoid of his own people, not of the NATO. So why did he invade Ukraine if not for NATO? Who knows? Maybe, a mind reader can answer this question. Most likely: Cementing his personal legacy as the ruler who: - restored the formed glory of the Russian empire - reunited the Russian people - ascended Russia to its rightful place on the world stage It probably is not for a economic reasons, since no matter how much he took from Ukraine, Russia is not breaking even on this war in Putin's life-time and maybe not even ever. It certainly is not for personal financial gain, since he has access to enough wealth to last him a million life-times. And it surely as hell is not because he is afraid that NATO or anyone else will invade the country with the largest nuclear arsenal.
I agree with your bullet points but I still think Kremlin is somewhat paranoid of a possible attack or aggression. Remember, NATO has Article 5 which means it ties Kremlin officials' hands militarily. As someone before said, dictators aren't fond of not being in control (e.g. the point about Russia joining NATO but didn't want to be on queue). It makes such dictators look weak in my opinion. So, what I mean by that is if Ukraine was in NATO and had western weapons, Russia wouldn't be able to do jackshit about it which isn't something people like Putin would like very much. Worse, if his fears come to fruition that NATO is about invading Russia it would make him one of the worst recent leaders in decades in Russia because he didn't foresee it. Even Stalin wasn't dumb enough and knew Hitler would eventually invade. After all, it's all about legacy as you said. You may have noticed that Putin criticises Lenin from time to time, so I guess he doesn't want to be critisised in the future. E.g - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/25/vladmir-putin-accuses-lenin-of-placing-a-time-bomb-under-russia
You also forget that Putin attempts to build his self-image around being "in control", "firm". E.g. if the west sanctions Russia, he attempts to mirror such sanctions. I think I've watched enough interviews of him to judge this part of his character.
Now I don't mean this paranoia is remotely correct, it's not of course. I'm just trying to see things from a different angle. Kremlin is still paranoid even "with the largest nuclear arsenal". For instance, I read today that that they're going to increase defense of Russia's western borders: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/kremlin-spokesman-says-russia-will-strengthen-western-border-deter-attack-2022-04-01/
|
don't mistake public words for beliefs.
Russia says they will strengthen the border to deter attacks because they want their population to believe that an attack is actually possible, Its a lot easier to cultivate and maintain an "Us vs Them" attitude if the 'Them' is actually a threat. It doesn't really work otherwise. So Putin has to create the idea that NATO is dangerous to Russia, that they could invade and are unjustly punished Russia to hold the population together and stop them from turning on the government because said government is the sole reason Russia is under sanctions and the common Russian is going to suffer for it.
The Kremlin knows NATO isn't going to invade, they are selling a narrative.
|
On April 02 2022 18:56 Gorsameth wrote:
don't mistake public words for beliefs.
Russia says they will strengthen the border to deter attacks because they want their population to believe that an attack is actually possible, Its a lot easier to cultivate and maintain an "Us vs Them" attitude if the 'Them' is actually a threat. It doesn't really work otherwise. So Putin has to create the idea that NATO is dangerous to Russia, that they could invade and are unjustly punished Russia to hold the population together and stop them from turning on the government because said government is the sole reason Russia is under sanctions and the common Russian is going to suffer for it.
The Kremlin knows NATO isn't going to invade, they are selling a narrative.
Ok, let's assume Kremlin is rational and they don't believe in invasion. So why pick NATO exactly? In my opinion, even if NATO doesn't pose an offensive risk to Russia, it's at the very least "us vs them", I'll borrow your comparison here, ideologically.
Pasting a small part of NATO's agenda:
NATO enlargement has helped increase stability and prosperity in Europe. It is aimed at promoting stability
and cooperation, and at building a Europe united in peace, democracy and common values.
...
Free choice
NATO respects the right of every country to choose its own security arrangements. Each sovereign country
has the right to choose for itself whether it joins any treaty or alliance
These are all ideological things that I think Kremlin doesn't believe in:
- democracy - Putin has been in power since 1999, opposition is stiffled constantly. Belarus (Russia's ally) is the same.
- common values - Putin's regime doesn't believe in some of those common values, e.g. justice, freedom, fight against corruption, etc. Gender identification is another point they frequently mention.
- free choice - as mentioned above
So, if not military, I'm sure at least ideologically they genuinely see NATO as a threat to their regime. I'm surprised why they've not taken a hit at EU yet, but it's probably difficult to justify that against a non-military alliance, so an economic alliance although there are trolls from time to time that advocate for EU exit but let's leave this aside for now.
|
On April 02 2022 19:10 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2022 18:56 Gorsameth wrote:
don't mistake public words for beliefs.
Russia says they will strengthen the border to deter attacks because they want their population to believe that an attack is actually possible, Its a lot easier to cultivate and maintain an "Us vs Them" attitude if the 'Them' is actually a threat. It doesn't really work otherwise. So Putin has to create the idea that NATO is dangerous to Russia, that they could invade and are unjustly punished Russia to hold the population together and stop them from turning on the government because said government is the sole reason Russia is under sanctions and the common Russian is going to suffer for it.
The Kremlin knows NATO isn't going to invade, they are selling a narrative. Ok, let's assume Kremlin is rational and they don't believe in invasion. So why pick NATO exactly? In my opinion, even if NATO doesn't pose an offensive risk to Russia, it's at the very least "us vs them", I'll borrow your comparison here, ideologically. Pasting a small part of NATO's agenda: Show nested quote +
NATO enlargement has helped increase stability and prosperity in Europe. It is aimed at promoting stability
and cooperation, and at building a Europe united in peace, democracy and common values.
...
Free choice
NATO respects the right of every country to choose its own security arrangements. Each sovereign country
has the right to choose for itself whether it joins any treaty or alliance
These are all ideological things that I think Kremlin doesn't believe in: - democracy - Putin has been in power since 1999, opposition is stiffled constantly. Belarus (Russia's ally) is the same. - common values - Putin's regime doesn't believe in some of those common values, e.g. justice, freedom, fight against corruption, etc. Gender identification is another point they frequently mention. - free choice - as mentioned above So, if not military, I'm sure at least ideologically they genuinely see NATO as a threat to their regime. I'm surprised why they've not taken a hit at EU yet, but it's probably difficult to justify that against a non-military alliance, so an economic alliance although there are trolls from time to time that advocate for EU exit but let's leave this aside for now. Yes the West is an ideological threat to Russia, as any democratic country is an ideological threat to a dictatorship.
But you can't wage an "Us vs Them" campaign based on "they will give you freedom an prosperity, they are evil and we must unite against them". So Russia has to make it a supposed military threat.
There isn't much Russia can do against the EU tho. Militarily almost the entirety of the EU is also part of NATO and economically Russia is much more dependent on the EU then the EU on Russia. Its only really gas but Russia can't actually afford to cut of the EU without having colossal budget gap. We also see it in the reaction to the sanctions. The EU sanctioned Russia a bunch but Russia hasn't really retaliated in sanctions, because they have nothing to sanction that the EU cares about.
Instead as you say Russia has invested a bunch into populist opposition parties to cause friction within the EU itself. From Brexit to France's Front National, Germany's AfD, Netherlands FvD and no doubt a bunch of others.
But Russia clearly underestimated these undermining efforts and the invasion of Ukraine seems to have evaporated whatever gains in fracturing the West it might have made.
|
Stalin was fearful of a German invasion into Russia because Germany had already invaded Poland, among other countries, and later allied with Romania. His fears were therefore grounded in a history of recently observed aggression, and in 1941 he was in fact proven right with Operation Barbarossa.
Hitler for his own reasons became afraid of Stalin fully reclaiming Poland at some point, as it was already partially claimed by both Germany and Russia, which was not to Hitler's liking. Notice the difference, as that is a fear of losing foreign occupied territory rendering Hitler's dreams of conquest unlikely, not fears of Germany being attacked by Russia; comparable to Putin's fears of Ukraine becoming a NATO member rendering his dreams of conquest impossible, not fears of NATO (or member states of NATO) attacking Russia.
Putin likes Ukraine vulnerable, i.e. not as a part of NATO. Why is that? As the economic and geopolitical value of Ukraine kept increasing and the likelihood of them joining NATO also kept increasing, Putin's window of opportunity to claim the country (as he did when he turned Chechnya into rubble for similar reasons) was quickly shrinking, which is what I suspect caused him to invade now rather than later.
Putin therefore has no observed aggression from any country to point to as justification for his invasion of Ukraine (or of Chechnya for that matter). His fears are that of a conquerer potentially being stopped in his tracks. If anyone should have cause for concern about possible aggression, it's literally everyone other than Russia. Because the aggression has been coming from Russia for the longest time.
|
That depends if you consider joining NATO and placing troops as aggression or only actual violence.
Things like the US blocking that pipeline could be seen as aggression.
|
On April 02 2022 20:22 Slydie wrote:
That depends if you consider joining NATO and placing troops as aggression or only actual violence.
Things like the US blocking that pipeline could be seen as aggression.
Two things. Firstly the US is not the NATO, so it would then be considered US aggression, not NATO aggression. Putin is lying about the NATO because if he only accused the US he'd have absolutely no leg to stand on. Secondly sanctions on a company are not military action towards Russia or within Ukraine. They're economic, and the invasion of Ukraine would do absolutely nothing to stop those sanctions, it much rather proved that the sanctions were imposed exactly for the right reasons, as Putin immediately revealed his cards and invaded the one country which the US sanctions were designed to signal towards.
All of this is clearly just twisting reality for propaganda purposes. Putin is lying left, right and center. He needs people to believe that there's an enemy in order to justify his war of aggression, so he makes one up.
|
So the US is confirming that Ukraine did launch an attack against an Oil depot in Russia, but also a Ammunition dump in the same area a few days earlier.
Kryviy Rih, Ukraine — Russia accused Ukrainian forces of staging a daring air raid against an oil depot inside Russian territory Friday morning. The regional governor said two Ukrainian helicopters attacked the fuel facility in Belgorod, about 20 miles inside Russia, and video showed storage tanks in flames.
A U.S. official confirmed to CBS News senior national security correspondent David Martin that Ukrainian helicopters did carry out the strike, and anther one a couple days earlier against an ammunition depot in the same area. The official told Martin there was concern in Washington about how Russia might react to the strikes.
Ukrainian officials did not claim responsibility for the attack themselves, but as CBS News senior foreign correspondent Holly Williams reports, it was a significant move by Ukraine's forces.
Source
|
Vis a vis reasons for invasion, there's also the whole Aleksander Dugin philosophy/geopolitical element, whose ultranationalist views Putin seems increasingly infatuated with. And Dugin has been advocating for fullsale annexation of Ukraine and eradication of the Ukrainian national identity for those same ultranationalist reasons for quite some time; I believe Dugin views it as an essential part of generating the climactic east vs west conflict that will lift us out of a dark age. Or something like that, anyway.
|
So looks like Finland will decide whether or not to join NATO by Spring.
Sanna Marin on Saturday told Social Democratic Party delegates gathered in Helsinki that it was time for Finland to seriously reconsider its stance on military allegiance.
Russia's military aggression in Ukraine has forced Finland to reexamine its security policy, according to Marin, who said, "Russia is not the neighbour we thought it was."
Any decision to seek Nato membership would have to be made "thoroughly but quickly," essentially this spring, the PM said in her speech to party top brass.
She said Finland would face consequences both if it chose to seek accession to the alliance or opted to stay out of it.
The premier said she would reveal her personal stance on Nato as discussions on membership unfold in the coming weeks.
"If the president or I voiced strong opinions on the issue, it would be the end of the debate...I believe it's very important that all of Finland's most central institutions are involved in the ongoing debate," she said.
Marin also stressed that she was unaware of any current Nato members opposing a potential bid by Finland.
SDP delegates gathered in Helsinki on Saturday to formulate the party's position on whether Finland should seek Nato membership.
Finns' interest in joining the military alliance has risen dramatically since Russia's military attack on Ukraine.
Source
|
On April 02 2022 17:27 Magic Powers wrote:
Putin/Russia was never afraid of "possible NATO aggression". It's a defensive pact, meaning the aggression of one NATO member doesn't need to concern other NATO members, so the idea of NATO aggression against Russia goes out the window.
TBF both western and eastern ideology during the cold war was to expect the other side to be the attacker.
It was part of propaganda...ehm "political education" in both systems. I found a study about the comparison between both germanies in that regard.
Both had armies, largely consisting of conscripts. Going through service was part of life for most young men.
While in west germany political drill took 2h/Week, in eastern germany it took more like 2h each day.
Both prepared being attacked by the other guy, while political education more or less failed in both armies.
|
On April 02 2022 19:32 Magic Powers wrote:
Stalin was fearful of a German invasion into Russia because Germany had already invaded Poland, among other countries, and later allied with Romania. His fears were therefore grounded in a history of recently observed aggression, and in 1941 he was in fact proven right with Operation Barbarossa.
Hitler for his own reasons became afraid of Stalin fully reclaiming Poland at some point, as it was already partially claimed by both Germany and Russia, which was not to Hitler's liking. Notice the difference, as that is a fear of losing foreign occupied territory rendering Hitler's dreams of conquest unlikely, not fears of Germany being attacked by Russia; comparable to Putin's fears of Ukraine becoming a NATO member rendering his dreams of conquest impossible, not fears of NATO (or member states of NATO) attacking Russia.
Putin likes Ukraine vulnerable, i.e. not as a part of NATO. Why is that? As the economic and geopolitical value of Ukraine kept increasing and the likelihood of them joining NATO also kept increasing, Putin's window of opportunity to claim the country (as he did when he turned Chechnya into rubble for similar reasons) was quickly shrinking, which is what I suspect caused him to invade now rather than later.
Putin therefore has no observed aggression from any country to point to as justification for his invasion of Ukraine (or of Chechnya for that matter). His fears are that of a conquerer potentially being stopped in his tracks. If anyone should have cause for concern about possible aggression, it's literally everyone other than Russia. Because the aggression has been coming from Russia for the longest time. it's wrong that Stalin was afraid of a German invasion. They were also happy that the German army was busy invading in the East after Poland was annexed, as they could grab other countries in the meanwhile.
It came as a total suprise to the SU leadership, notwithstanding all the evidence they must've heard about.
Look it up in Shirer's the rise and fall of the third Reich. It's thoroughly sourced in there.
|
On April 03 2022 04:37 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2022 19:32 Magic Powers wrote:
Stalin was fearful of a German invasion into Russia because Germany had already invaded Poland, among other countries, and later allied with Romania. His fears were therefore grounded in a history of recently observed aggression, and in 1941 he was in fact proven right with Operation Barbarossa.
Hitler for his own reasons became afraid of Stalin fully reclaiming Poland at some point, as it was already partially claimed by both Germany and Russia, which was not to Hitler's liking. Notice the difference, as that is a fear of losing foreign occupied territory rendering Hitler's dreams of conquest unlikely, not fears of Germany being attacked by Russia; comparable to Putin's fears of Ukraine becoming a NATO member rendering his dreams of conquest impossible, not fears of NATO (or member states of NATO) attacking Russia.
Putin likes Ukraine vulnerable, i.e. not as a part of NATO. Why is that? As the economic and geopolitical value of Ukraine kept increasing and the likelihood of them joining NATO also kept increasing, Putin's window of opportunity to claim the country (as he did when he turned Chechnya into rubble for similar reasons) was quickly shrinking, which is what I suspect caused him to invade now rather than later.
Putin therefore has no observed aggression from any country to point to as justification for his invasion of Ukraine (or of Chechnya for that matter). His fears are that of a conquerer potentially being stopped in his tracks. If anyone should have cause for concern about possible aggression, it's literally everyone other than Russia. Because the aggression has been coming from Russia for the longest time. it's wrong that Stalin was afraid of a German invasion. They were also happy that the German army was busy invading in the East after Poland was annexed, as they could grab other countries in the meanwhile. It came as a total suprise to the SU leadership, notwithstanding all the evidence they must've heard about. Look it up in Shirer's the rise and fall of the third Reich. It's thoroughly sourced in there.
It's a common misconception that Stalin wasn't afraid of/expecting a German invasion. He predicted the attack to take place and was about to start preparations, but he believed he had time for another year. He was off about the timing of the invasion, which came as a surprise to him because he thought that Hitler would, at that time, be unwilling to wage war on two fronts due to lessons learned from the first world war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
