Having forces on all sides doesn't mean they'd actually invade from all those positions though. The troop placements force Ukraine to spread their defences extremely thinly, which would be useful to the Russians if they want to invade just the east.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Having forces on all sides doesn't mean they'd actually invade from all those positions though. The troop placements force Ukraine to spread their defences extremely thinly, which would be useful to the Russians if they want to invade just the east.
That bit already happened in 2014. The only reason it didn’t spread further is because it was rebuffed in places like Kharkiv and Odessa. He also tried to build a land bridge between Donbass and Crimea by taking Mariopol, which didn’t work as planned. This time he is seeking to build a land bridge between Belarus and Crimea, slowly taking southern cities along the way to where the entirety of southern Ukraine will be part of Russia, and with it complete domination of all formerly Ukrainian Black Sea ports.
I don't see it. Putin is pretty risk averse. What's the upside for him?
The upside would be the accomplishment of his overarching goal of expanding the Russian sphere of influence back to near Soviet levels. Invading and annexing Ukrainian land in 2014 was the first step. Completely annexing the rest of Ukraine would compliment what has already been on going through previous invasions and a decade long frozen conflict in Donbas. Thwarting the spread of democracy on Russia’s doorstep by expanding authoritarianism has been his MO from day one
Expanding territory has been in the Russian psyche for hundreds of years, rulers that are regarded as successful there are those that have gained lands. Putin might want to go down in history as one of those successful rulers, couldn't that be what's motivating him now?
Sure thats one of dozens of possibilities often cited
Like the rest of on here I don't think you have any greater insight into if its that... or if its a bigger plan or smaller objective he has
What?
Im not an expert but as I understand it, you have Russian Finnish and Swedish speaking schools still.
They probably need just enough Russian to buy vodka.
We have a couple of bilingual schools. We also have French, English and German schools. Who cares. There are less Russian speakers in Finland than in London. In Baltics there are over than 10 times more Russian speakers. In Finland they are meaningless minority, less than 2%.
Irish fishermen 1
Russia 0
Russia is moving medical units to the border right now, you would only do that if you plan to conduct a military operation. It's also not Ukraine's choice whether there is a war or not, Russia will take what it wants just like it did in 2014 and the Ukrainians will have to fight if they want to keep their society as is. Remember, Ukraine is already in a war since 2014 with Crimea and Donbass occupied so what do you mean they don't want a war, they're already in a war!
The biggest thing I wanted to say though is you are wrongly believing in this Biden vs. Zelensky drama. Actually it makes perfect sense what both leaders are doing. Biden has the human and satellite intelligence to know that Putin and his cronies are on the move. Zelensky also agrees with Biden (only a fool wouldn't) and is likely ensuring behind the scenes that the armed forces are prepared but there are two reasons he cannot act like war is imminent:
1. This will cause panic in the streets and folks will clog the highways trying to flee, preventing any force movements and leading to catastrophe that Russia can exploit. Such a scenario would also tank the Ukrainian economy, further crippling the government's efforts to respond to any Russian attack. In fact, a lot of strategists seem to agree that rather than an initial blitzkrieg attack, Russia would first instead try to generate disinformation that would lead to such a scenario to make it easier to invade and seem like restorers of order and peace.
2. Zelensky doesn't want to be seen as an aggressor for obvious reasons and deny the Russians any positives in terms of international opinion.
I've seen people thinking that Biden and the US are looking for a war. If you know anything about US politics this is utterly absurd, Biden just took troops out of Afghanistan to end a forever war knowing that he would get a lot of hate for doing so. Also, Biden (and Obama before) wants to stop thinking about Europe and deploy all strategic attention to the rise of China. This whole episode frustrates those plans and serves to distract from the strategic pivot to Asia.
The first goals run counter to the last. Invading and annexing Ukraine would both strengthen NATO and couple the US to EU security more solidly. It would also be economically and militarily insane. The most I see is connecting up Transnistria and blocking Ukranian sea access. There's so much against them though, it's unlikely. (brings me to reply below).
Not sure if this is the thread for military stuff or we'd need a new one, but anything past an initial thrust would be hard to maintain, even if they avoid the cities. (And they'd pretty much have to take Odessa and Mariupol. Grozny was a stroll in the park in comparison.) Ukraine has nasams, javelins, and obviously cyber capability themselves. It then possibly spins into tactical nukes being deployed and at that point Putin has completely lost the narrative. (It's also possibly too late, they need 2 weeks and you'd have imagined they needed to start 2 weeks ago for that for mechs. 20 miles a day from mid Feb is probably too tight.
And the quickest way to end a dynasty has been to lose a war for hundreds of years.
Dynasty? hundreds of years? You're not making sense.
You asked yourself what the possible upside was for Putin, well if Putin does invade (again) don't you think he would be expecting to win, just like he has in Crimea? Whether he actually would is another matter, you asked for a possible upside and I gave you one.
A dynasty doesn't need to be hundreds of years, but ok, let's put the language quabbles aside and concede it was the wrong word. I simply meant that for hundreds of years, Russian leaders have fallen by losing wars.
He does want to expand, but framing 'expansionism' as an upside of a war with Ukraine is pretty naive, to me anyway. There's not much evidence to suggest that Russia could *hold* all of Ukraine, or indeed any west of the Dnepr. Holding East of the Dnepr is.... possible, perhaps? Using it as a bargaining chip, certainly more likely though not exactly likely. Taking and holding Donbass? Sure.
That depends what he invades, but the short answer is no. Let's say he tried to invade the entirety of Ukraine, or even Donbass and connecting Transnistria to cut them off from the sea. The military requirement would be unprecedented. The southern supply line is shit, you'd need to coordinate air power over hundreds of miles, support issues for amphibs south. Oh and to go west of Dnepr you'd need like... magic to pull off the logistics. This is a great article on it: https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-look-at-russian-army-logistics/ (ps. ukraine is far bigger than the baltics)
If he wanted to just take Donbass, sure...
I think that's a risk calculus Putin would be ok with. Reclaim historically Soviet territory and create a new Iron Curtain with the west would be a big win for him, or so he thinks.
If he gets axed from swift and nobody bar China buys the gas, not sure about that calculus.
Maybe that's why Raoul said 'or so he thinks' ?
Yep and to add to that, I don't think Putin is as smart as he thinks he is. After all, he's doing all of this now only after his original 2014 gambit is essentially dead in the water. But if Putin thinks that it's worth the risk then he will proceed and only time will tell if it's the right decision
Klitschko on Fox News.
Absolute moron on Fox News: “ is this the same feeling as the moments before a boxing match?”
what the feck?
But that consequence is not so hard to see, in fact it was openly stated by Germany and other nations. So, what Putin is thinking is probably something very different. One option is that this is still a giant bluff, testing the resolve of nato, a psyop against Ukraine that might cause civil unrest which he counts on, and getting a lot of his troops on combat readiness, establish forward bases in the process. I still think that is more likely.
The other option is that he plans to invade, ride out the initial sanctions, then after some negotiations he returns a bit of territory back, but keeps the the rebel regions. As a result he gets back into swift , some other sanctions remain but as the current ones have proven, they are mostly useless.
I think realistically - he could push from the east up to the Dnepr and use it either as a bargaining chip or for annexation depending on how things go. He won't be cut off from swift etc for that and militarily it is far less risky. Use the troops in Belarus as a decoy and to assure Lukashenko that they have their back if NATO retaliates. The marshland north preclude a safe southern push at Kiev and lack of BTG's/amphibs south kinda preclude anything like riding into Odessa, though I wouldn't fully discard it. They did send an NBC north so could be planning to skirt Chernobyl. He also won't have to face NASAM2 in the east, and manpads barely scratch jets.
Tempted to start a thread on it for the military history buffs, but a lot of work.
I don't think he'll be removed from SWIFT for anything except a complete invasion and annexation, as it would mean cutting Europe off completely from Russian gas. They can deal with less but not a cut off.
This is why failed sports radio hosts should not be given a broader platform.
Either of your well described options seem quite feasible.
So let's see what happens.
But to me, the key thing is to try and understand what his end game is. The most obvious being to extend a buffer between those NATO states and mother Russia. So Ukraine, or part of it at least is part of a bigger plan.
He is not going to invade. He is going to force the Americans to react.
Economic sanctions on his inner circle? Legally what is his inner circle? If you sanction for someone for being Russian where is the legality of it? Who says Russia can't move its own troops in their own country? If they cut them off from swift they have said it's a declaration of war.
Is that what people want? A nuclear war? For what? For keeping Russian troops in their own country?
The majority of the world don't want a war. Don't want all these kind of trouble.
Economic sanctions on his inner circle? Legally what is his inner circle? If you sanction for someone for being Russian where is the legality of it? Who says Russia can't move its own troops in their own country? If they cut them off from swift they have said it's a declaration of war.
Is that what people want? A nuclear war? For what? For keeping Russian troops in their own country?
The majority of the world don't want a war. Don't want all these kind of trouble.
Okay Vlady
Nuclear war 
For context, Kilmeade is a former sports anchor and fight commentator. Still a dumb analogy though.
So in summary:
He's going to force the americans to react by doing nothing.
He's going to the court of the Valhalla to argue the legality of economic sanctions
They are going to be cut off from SWIFT without invading ukraine as you say, just a reaction to nothing.
In return for this action he's going to lob MIRVs around the round.
The world don't want this.
I'm struggling to understand your thinking here? It literally makes no sense. He wants the americans to react to NOT invading. which will lead to a nuclear war?
I want some of what you're smoking. It's the good stuff.
The scary thing is, somebody like Trump could easily make a buffoon like that an ambassador. Vitaliy looked stunned at the question though, like it was from a child.
That historical overview
Fecking hell, they couldn't even hire some undergrad to factcheck it?edit: it takes some work to make Klitschko look like the smartest guy in the room. They've managed to do it.
That historical overview
edit: it takes some work to make Klitschko look like the smartest guy in the room. They've managed to do it.
How is Klitschko? Don't know anything of him outside of boxing!
Ps. Probably the wrong place and a little late of reply, but I failed to clarify what I meant by "white russian male" earlier in the thread. I wanted to make sure I was being accurate [so rewrote my reply then forgot] but I suppose it's not that important as I don't know the current definitions/useage anyway. It's a lazy form of stratifying ethnic slavic russian mostly non highly educated males in western intelligence circles.
He's the Mayor of Kiev.
I know that haha. I meant, 'how is he' in regards to his intelligence/regard etc.
If one is Russian then he's probably not very smart. If one is Ukrainian then he probably knows what he's talking about.
Interesting take.
I'm British and don't think Boris is very smart. I assume you don't take Trump to be a very stable genius! I'm just asking how Ukrainians/Russians/Those who know him as a politician think about him. The same way you would ask how Schwarzenegger or Raegan were as governors of Cali.
He could be a meme in Ukraine for all I know. (hence the question!) Is he taken seriously, or a complete plonker.