- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
I do agree that in retrospect, the war doesn’t make much sense for Russia. As the article speculates, Putin must have thought that Ukraine was weak enough to be conquered in a matter of weeks, and that the west wouldn’t intervene, since it also didn’t intervene in the case of Crimea and Donbas.
You must log in or register to comment.
Russia is weaking and depleting the West’ “arsenal of democracy” without even having to fight against the West and risk a nuclear holocaust. The West cannot even replenish this military output because of their own neoliberal austerity measures and will not be able to do so in the foreseable future because they lack the industrial base, moreover this causes government spending to be allocated into the arms industry rather than other sector where the working class could benefit from (healthcare, education, etc) which just creates a bigger burden for the people, causes less spending, more inflation and more austerity measures. This is Russia’s best move, intentional or not, simply by Russia’s population, a war of attrtttion with a much smaller country in its neighbourings will always be the best Russian tactic, and I doubt this was carried put without at least the go ahead of China.
Yes, war is expensive, everyone knows that. But is it really worth it for Russia if they are impacted by it too? Surely they had to know that, going in. Though as the article states, they supposedly misjudged the costs and the duration of the whole operation, not expecting it to turn into a full on war. And now, I dunno, maybe continuing to fight is their bet at preserving… something, but everyone can see that the working class suffers on both sides because of it.
If Russia is seeing any kind of impact, it is a positive one. Their arms industry has strengthen, the West’s sanctions have forced their national bourgeoisie to impose policies that strengthen its economy and also it has isolated the West and increased inflation in Western countries. Prolonging the war is what’s better for Russia, they can play the long game, whereas the West can’t because they cannot produce weapons, ammunition, and so on because they would run dry.
I disagree with this. The west is clearly capable of continuous arms production, thanks to its large and stable imperialist supply chain. It is Russia’s economical potential which seems smaller in comparison.
Paper tiger, read about the West arms production currently and you’ll see every sober military analyst tells you they are in rags.
This is complete and utter nonsense. In retrospect it has become even more clear that the right decision was made. The only mistake was not doing it sooner, and as a result it will now take longer. But there was no way that Russia could tolerate a rabidly russophobic, criminal and terrorist Nazi regime pumped full of NATO weapons on its border. Not only that but if they did not intervene when they did then the two Donbass republics would have suffered the same fate as Nagorno-Karabakh is now. Or do you like seeing the ethnic cleansing going on there? Do you enjoy the fact that tens of thousands of Armenians have been displaced and have fled their ancestral lands due to being unable to hold back the Azeri army anymore while Armenian government betrayed them and refused to defend them? Already hundreds have died, and not just soldiers but many civilians who were too old and frail and did not survive the journey. Now imagine all of what we are seeing in Karabakh but on ten times the scale as the Donbass republics are home to more than two million people.
The only thing you could argue is that it was a mistake for Putin to go as soft and with as few troops in as he did in the beginning when he was still hoping to achieve the desired result via negotiations. It was never about “conquering Ukraine” but about bringing them back to the negotiating table. Due to western involvement that has proved impossible, though they came close in Turkey, and now Russia is left no other choice but to see this through to the end with military means. Ironically this may indeed result in Ukraine’s complete destruction as a state if they decide to fight to the end and not capitulate. This was not Russia’s intention and they have done everything possible, including trying over and over again to negotiate ever since 2014 on terms very favorable to Ukraine. The intransigence of the West in giving up on their plans to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russian stronghold has brought us to where we are today.
Furthermore, the West has all but admitted that they purposely provoked the conflict in hopes of achieving regime change in Russia. It was they who miscalculated. They underestimated Russia on the military front (as Russia is now out producing virtually the entire collective West in terms of war materiel which puts them in an excellent position to win a war of attrition) and even more importantly they severely underestimated Russia on the economic front, with the sanctions failing to achieve the desired collapse and instead massively backfiring on the West itself while incentivizing Russia to develop its domestic self-reliance as well as its ties to Asia.
But really i didn’t need to write three whole paragraphs explaining why this article is unadulterated bullshit, all you had to do to know that is look at who wrote it: the ISW is a notorious neocon propaganda think tank associated with some of the worst fascists, historical revisionists, russophobes, diehard imperialist warmongers and regime change enthusiasts like Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan. Anything a source like this puts out will virtually always be the complete opposite of reality. Please for the love of whatever deity you may or may not believe in, LEARN TO BE MORE DISCERNING OF YOUR SOURCES!
I have a couple of questions.
How much weaponry was there in Ukraine prior to the war, NATO-supplied or from elsewhere, that could directly threaten Russia?
Next, going to war over the protection of Russian-speaking diasporas is a nice ideal, but it does not immediately translate to practical terms. I am willing to accept the idea that Russia risked losing everything by trying to protect Donbas Russians from Ukraine, but so far, the only signs of any Ukraine aggression in the region that I recall is the banning of Russian language and the shelling of separatists, who themselves shelled the Ukrainians. I also find the effectiveness of the takeovers questionable. Are Russians truly better stewards than the Ukrainians, all documented events considered? I truly do not know enough about this to make the right judgement call. Also not to mention the inversion of the idea - what about the Ukrainians in the Russia-occupied territories? Are they doing well too?
I am somewhat doubtful of the other things you have said, but I am unsure how to properly address them, so I suppose I will do some more research into the situation instead.
