Quote (ownyaah @ 8 Nov 2022 19:59)
I've posted several times why i think it happened, I'm not gonna go too in-depth but it basically boils down to:
1. Security, Russia is a funnel from west -> east. Ukraine is extremely important choke. Major invasions on Russia have opened from that path.
2. New world order, Europe/US was far more accommodating of Russia prior to china's explosive rise, because there was no serious threat to American hegemony. Look up reactions to Georgia 2008, they openly talk about not provoking Russia and preferring good relations with Russia instead of NATO expansion of Georgia. Now there is a serious threat to American hegemony in the name of china, and Americans have decided that they can't pull Russia away from china and that Russia will inevitably align with China. Henry Kissinger talked about this openly recently, but his view is that Russia can be pulled from China and that they have to do it now or it will be irreversible.(he criticized US-leadership for not trying harder to peel Russia).
3. East/South Ukraine is like 70% of ukraine's GDP. Besides the massive production facilities/capacity there is a fuckton of raw untapped materials. There is a large economical incentive. Remember most conflicts have been caused due to economical reasons (Iraq, American coup of Iranian democracy list is endless)
4. When talking about legitimacy, besides being historical land (1922 Lenin Novorossiya, 1954 Crimea), Russia knows that the areas of Kharkov, Donbass, zap, Kherson, Mykolaiv, Odessa although they may not be Pro-Russian 100%, they aren't 100% pro-Ukrainian either. These areas if taken by Russians are "friendly"-enough. This has been proven in zap, kherson, dontesk (there has basically been 0 insurgency).
5. Crimea. Russia needs to hold a land bridge to ensure Crimean security situation.. Furthermore they need to to hold east part of Kherson, so dams can't be to dry out Crimea (the first thing Russians did was blow up the dams).
7. Russia can't watch Donetsk be slaughtered forever. They can't allow the Russian language to be banned in Ukraine and the marginalization of Russians because this is a country on their doorstep, and a country they want in their sphere of influence. This line of thinking is found everywhere, "my backyard", think about the Monroe doctrine.
There are far more reasons, these are just a couple. So saying it is because "hurr durr putin" is stupid is my point.
1. Why would a country with the largest or second-largest stockpile of nukes in the world be scared of land-based invasions?
2. This theory of the case doesn't add up. Most of Europe tried to maintain neutral political and positive economic relations with Russia until the bitter end. Even back in February, when Russian tanks were already getting into position for their invasion, German chancellor Scholz still refused to end Nord Stream II. Even after the invasion begun, most non-eastern Europeans only cut ties with Russia very begrudgingly, more out of a sense of moral duty than because they were convinced it was in their best self-interest to do it. So the West actually tried to hold on to the status quo for as long as possible, until Russia's actions left them no other choice. This is not some secret 4d-chess move to destroy one of China's allies, this is Russia doing something horrible that called for a reaction.
3. The heavy industry in the Donbass is very old and not particularly competitive. It looks like the Ruhr region in Germany did... back in the 1960s. The gas and oil reserves which might be located there don't hold a strategic value to Russia since they already own more of those than they can sell. In fact, Russia's war and their antics with the throttled and then stopped gas supplies has soured the best customer they had. If Russia had started this war because they wanted to preserve their dominant position on Europe's energy market, it has been a colossal failure.
4. I agree about Russia having some sort of legitimate claim on Crimea. This does not, however, justify waltzing in and stealing it from Ukraine. The fact that we haven't heard of insurgency in these places doesn't prove anything since the Russian administration would suppress any news of it, and since these places are basically under martial law where any insurgency will be violently nipped in the bud. (It does not prove that there have been insurgencies either, just for the record.)
5. That's a legitimate point.
7. The story about the permanent "slaughter of innocent civilians in Donetsk" is straight up Russian propaganda. To the best of my knowledge, policies aiming at a derussification were passed after Russian paramilitaries occupied and seceded Donetsk and Luhansk back in 2014, not the other way round.
This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 8 2022 05:35pm