I'm not at all clear on what Putin gains with expansion. Russia has way more land than they need. Their population has been flat since the 80s. Their military is already depleted and skeletal. Anyone who's played Diplomacy understands that if you spread too thin as you expand into your neighbors, they will keep taking back your gains like we see here. Complete occupation is clearly out of the question at this point, they're going to keep fighting over a stolen sliver here and there. No ego has been satisfied here, nor will it be.
According to Peter Zeihan, it's not so much that Russia needs more _land_ but that its current land is difficult to defend militarily given the facts of its geography. I'm not necessarily defending Zeihan's view, but simply claiming that there is some analysis which suggests there's a strategic benefit for Russia here. (or perhaps there would have been back when they thought the war would be easy) And let's also not forget the importance of Crimea with regard to Black Sea shipping. It's also the case the the "Kievan Rus" has quite a bit of historical and cultural importance to some in Russia.
Now to be clear I'm completely opposed to the war in Ukraine, and I'm quite happy to see Russia getting pushed back. My hope would be that Ukraine takes back all of its remaining territory. But, I think there are at least some justifications that could have made sense for someone who thought the war would be easy, and who did not care about the human cost either side would bear.
Zeihan is a strange guy who seems to take a lot of his information from online discourse, which is a poor substitute for first-hand knowledge. The ground truth is very blunt: Russia has not bothered to install even a chain-link fence along its European border. Some sections have a sand strip to detect crossings, others not even that, most of it looks like this: https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~hughwallis/misc/FIRU/DSCN237... Mushroomers and other foragers often get lost and end up walking into Russia (and vice versa) without even realizing it. This is such a regular occurrence that it receives only warning or a small fine, and a few sentences in local newspapers.
A counterexample comes from post-2022 Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland: every single one of them is digging anti-tank trenches along the border with Russia, installing everything from surveillance systems to reinforced bunkers and pillboxes, preparing minefields to be laid and bridges to be blown up. Things have gone so far that some of them are discussing dismantling railway lines connecting with Russia to prevent them from being used by invading forces.
No such preparations can be seen on the Russian side of the border, because in the post-Cold War world, everyone recognizes that an attack from Europe is a delusional fantasy. There's no will and no means for that.
Why is he even a thing? A guy wrote a couple of books with some failed predictions? Only thing I can think of is that he mostly tells people what they want to hear, with some minor bit of contrarianism to have the semblance of telling truth to power. Add in self-promotion, and I guess that is the recipe for success (or at least being internet quotable)?
I think it's simpler than that and isn't talked much. Ukraine has been on a direct path to join European Union. Russians and Ukrainians have had significant ties - parts of families living in one country, parts in another, marriages, shared language, given that all Ukrainians know Russian and a lot of them have even spoken Russian at home at least until the war broke out.
Putin couldn't let Ukrainians join the EU, start getting all the EU fund money and actually started living like Europeans. Russian population would see that at a large scale and start asking questions. He couldn't get back the influence over the country diplomatically so he resorted to terror.
Edit: I also wanted to add that this was the reason Putin and other Russian propagandists have been calling Ukrainians the brotherly nation (to show them how they care about them), the nazis (to show that their government is harmful) and that Ukraine doesn't even exist as a country (to show that they should all be the same people under the same borders).
Not trying to defend Russia in the least, but isn't their fear more about Ukrainian accession into NATO rather than the possibility of joining the EU?
EU membership isn't the golden ticket it used to be. Russia basically had an inside man in there for years with the Orban administration in Hungary. Member nations like Greece, Malta and Bulgaria also seem to have experienced more brain drain to the higher income countries in the bloc than they have in economic and industrial development.
My guess is as good as anyone's. But I think NATO was used as an excuse for war because it's a military (although defense) alliance. It would be impossible to justify war for country joining the EU.
As for the golden ticket metaphor, I agree, but when the country is so economically and institutionally behind than the rest of the EU, this would still benefit them a lot. All Eastern countries experienced big emigration but a lot of the citizens previously having emigrated are now returning.
Ukraine war has never been about more land or resources for Russia. It was all about NATO expansion by overthrowing governments in post soviet countries and installing hostile regimes there. For Russia an independent Ukraine was fine as long as it doesn't join a hostile military block, and that's exactly what was planned to do since the coup in Kiev in 2014. So we have war.
The “NATO expansion” so often mentioned by Russian apologists, are free nations correctly observing they are more safe against their past oppressor by joining NATO. Russia is a bully, and smaller nations are strong together.
For Russian leadership, an independent Ukraine was fine as long as Ukrainian leadership was controlled by Kremlin.
As soon as Ukraine started moving towards the west, Russia invaded.
Agriculture, industry, even more oil and gas, a pretty big economy and population, a better climate than most of Russia. And a place at the center of Europe instead of the periphery.
Without Ukraine, and probably soon without Transnistria, and maybe even Belarus, Russia can be quarantined and contained. Eventually the Russians will decide they want to be more European than they want to be North Korea.
most of the russian land is frozen tundra, and even if global warming improves that slightly it'll still be mostly to largely useless.
crimea, meanwhile, is a highly desirable warm water port that has been the subject of many conflicts throughout the ages.
ukraine is a breadbasket and produces 40%-50% of the food of all of russia but with 3.5% of the land. a considerable number of soviet era heavy industry was there, such as the azon steel plant, and it is the gateway to europe, the black sea, and anatolia.
Personal survival. He needed a war to justify the dismantling of the remaining democratic institutions. That the war lasts plays in his personal interests also.
What Putin gained was not having a culturally-adjacent country next door with a functioning democracy. That was a threat, not to Russia, but to Putin. He couldn't accept that, because Russians might get ideas about how their culture didn't require a strongman at the top in order to function.
Democracies aren't automatically immune to voting in illiberal leaders. Russia and the west have both been heavy handed in their efforts to swing Ukrainian elections in their favour.
On the other hand, it is extremely Russian to not surrender no matter how badly it is going and regardless of the cost in human life. Leningrad, Stalingrad, even burning Moscow to keep it from Napoleon. For nationalist purposes, it doesn't matter if the objective is worthless or unachievable.
Like so many other situations, we have to wait for him to die.
Why assume it's rational? The Ukraine belonged to the USSR, Russia sees itself as the legitimate successor to the Soviet Union. So the Ukraine and the Baltic states belong to it, as far as Putin sees it.
Panslavism has died in 19th century when other slavic states figured out that it is just different name for Russian empire. Then panslavism was revived after 1945 as Eastern Block. It has been an economical disaster.
It made a big difference when it first appeared on the battlefield. Russia has adapted since then, so it's no longer a game changer. But systems like these helped Ukraine hold on, and they continue to do so today.
Yet another way in which the US has bungled an overseas conflict. The best time to have strongly supported Ukraine was in the past couple of years leading up to this outcome. Now, if Trump somehow can stop gazing lovingly into Putin's eyes, it will be seen as getting on the bandwagon.
He admires autocrats and aspires to be one, in addition to aligning the US with Russian interests. You think he will get on the Ukraine/NATO bandwagon?
This was one of the rare cases it would have been easier and more in character if the US had just done the right thing. But no.
First Biden's timidity and dithering over arms, which looks ridiculous today and led to so much needless difficulty and suffering for Ukraine. And then Trump, quite clearly favouring Putin and (obscenely) shaking down Ukraine at its most vulnerable point with the 'mineral deal'.
It's hard to imagine any earlier US administration not backing Ukraine to the hilt - pouring in advanced arms, strangling Russia with much harder sanctions, maybe even patrolling the skies of western Ukraine. The chance to take down the worst sort of nationalist tyrant, and one of the world's nastiest troublemakers? And one of the USA's longest standing enemy countries to boot? What President before these last two wouldn't have jumped at it?
>What President before these last two wouldn't have jumped at it?
This ignores/forgets the fact that Biden had the Ukraine crisis directly after Covid ending so he basically couldn't actually go all in on the conflict.
>It's hard to imagine any earlier US administration not backing Ukraine to the hilt
Earlier administrations were operating in a much better economic environment and had a much higher international standing. Don't forget that outside of Europe US standing was dropping already before Trump 2.
But the original question was whether the US should be supporting Ukraine. You keep wanting to make this about the US going head-to-head against Russia or China, but that's not actually the subject under discussion here.
If Russia had treated The Ukraine the way the US and its vassals treated Yugoslavia and Iraq - knocking power and water utilities in week one, we would be having a very different discussion indeed.
This isn't about the US against Russia/China. This is about the US and its vassals against the civilised world.
How does my post in any way "cheer" the end of non-proliferation? It is a simple statement of fact that there have been geopolitical changes that demand nuclear armaments for any sovereign nation that wants to remain so. There was a detente that is gone, and it is very much every nation for itself.
There are a dozen+ nuclear capable -- almost overnight -- nations, for whom the inputs have dramatically and irreversibly changed. These nations will, with utter certainty, go from non-nuclear one day to nuclear-armed the next.
Everything could lead to nukes with Russia. There is no "this far and no closer or I will use nukes". They will or won't use them at their own discretion.
Ukraine has long decided that they will not be deterred by the threat of nuclear bombs. They seem to be determined to win back the territory that they have lost or at least put themselves into a better bargaining position.
Ukraine will not be deterred, but their weapons suppliers are. They've limited how much and what kind of aid they give to Ukraine, seemingly out of some kind of calculus about what will push Russia over the edge.
It's wildly unclear whether that calculus is too risky, too cautious, or completely unmoored from reality. About all that we do know is that Russia hasn't nuked anybody... yet.
most of their weapon suppliers are not deterred, they're busy replenishing their own stockpiles, long since neglected due to post-cold war "peace dividends"
I am increasingly skeptical as to whether the nukes would actually work if tried, given some of the failures of the start of the Russian campaign, and I suspect they also have that concern. If you're brandishing a gun to threaten people and it goes "click" rather than "bang", suddenly your situation collapses.
Which means there's an intermediate step: carrying out an above ground nuclear test. This obviously violates the Test Ban Treaty, but is a lower step than just blowing away Kyiv.
Uranium and plutonium bombs can tolerate a lot of neglect if conservatively engineered. Even a dud H bomb would make quite a mess and kill a lot of people if exploded over a city.
It is not an existential threat. Ukraine simply does not have the manpower to overtake a country that is many multiples larger and more populous than them.
And territorial expansion and conquest of neighboring countries is Russia's MO, not Ukraine's.
The EU does have air defences and QRA. Eastern Europe is more at risk from this. And then the question people keep failing to ask: "now what"? Russia is then fully at war with Europe and an open field for air strikes.
It is a ballistic missile which has precision to barely hit a city. Which is fine if you will put 1MT nuke on top of it. However there are no conventional warheads for that missile, so it can't even do any damage and thus it is completely useless.
Russia's definition or the western concept of land grab.
Putin laid it out very clearly in his speeches. They are not interested in a land grab, they want to denazify The Ukraine and liberate the Russian speaking regions.
Denazification means more banderaites and by extension no more NATO.
Target has been conquering Kyiv and installing pro-russian vassal government like in Belarus. He tried to, as we have seen first 3 months, but spectacularly failed.
Everything after first 3 months is grinding war to save face without a clearly defined target.
