Re: Impact of the Russia-Ukraine war Folks, sharing some thoughts as a semi-casual follower of politics. They might not agree with many, but please bear in mind that it is only one set of potential perspectives in mind. This is more from a Russian side. Might write one from a US/West perspective if/when I feel more clear about it. The 'Evil Putin' Narrative
Zelensky giving arms to civilians appears to be to this effect.
What real chance does a civilian holding weapons for the first time have a chance against a well trained army? Bear in mind that people up to 60 years of age are forced into army duty. A 55 year old unfit guy with a Kalashnikov for the first time! A civilian in plain clothes being shot by an in-uniform well equipped Russian soldier would make for pictures and videos circulating on (West owned and controlled) social media - a big influencer.
This in turn works towards building a mood of compassion in the general population of the West. Also feeds into the sentiment of 'we could be in that situation', further building resentment in the general population against Putin.
Further, it could well be possible that the strikes to residential buildings/areas were due to weapons (mortar like?) being kept and used from those areas.
Using civilians and civilian areas to attack could well be a strategy: Heads, the civilian kills; tails, the civilian helps building a narrative. Why 'Evil Russia'?
Russia and the rest of Europe are natural allies in a sense. Supplier Russia and buyer Europe have much to gain from each other. Also would mean much less burden of arms. Would add to both's economies and make them stronger. Guess which influential power this might hurt - you only get one chance.
A strong Russia, allied with a affluent Europe, and potentially also China in the mix. Whose nightmare would it be?
So, all would be done to counter that, and going by the looks of it, it is being done. Why 'Evil Putin'?
Signs are there that attempts to build a wedge between Putin and the Russian populace (not that issues anyway aren't there).
Ukraine has a significant population of Russian decent/ethnicity; more so in Eastern Ukraine. It is a bit difficult to justify invading and killing civilians there, and still look good to one's people. Pictures and media coverage as the type mentioned above makes it more difficult.
An average empathetic moral person with limited awareness of the harshness (or even cruelty) of international politics could well feel uneasy with it. One could be shamed by such. Could feel 'guilty'. When such happens, many would feel an urge to distance one's self from the actions. Western and Social Media often feeds info as 'Putin's actions', and not 'Russia's actions'.
To whatever extent it may be, lacking the support of people weakens Putin. Also makes ground fertile for future 'colour revolutions'. Russia's War Ineffective?
Much of the Western media (and consequently most of Indian media) is talking like Russia is doing poorly, and not as expected.
I find this very interesting. Against what benchmarks could this be set? Does anyone even clearly know what Russia's objectives from this war might be? It appears to me that high benchmarks are set on purpose to make Russia look bad. Seems much like using media as a tool in war than anything else.
The benchmarks seem to be that Russia should obliterate Ukraine in a few days and be done with it, razing things to the ground.
Well, even to me, it seemed that they just might be trying to awe the opponent to kill their morale and minimize resistance. If that was attempted, it didn't go too well, it seems. But that might have only been something that was tried as an outside chance plan A, as if it worked it would save a lot of cost and lives.
Further ... Does Russia want to raize Ukraine to the Ground?
Probably not. If that was the objective, they might have done much already, with them being in control of the relevant air-space.
Contrary to what an 'Evil Putin' image might suggest, it appears they are trying to limit damage. More damage, obvious damage, and brutal violence towards civilians would only increase future insurgency. Dealing with insurgency too has it's costs. Pragmatic thinking says one should avoid those if possible - it might eventually not be possible. Ukraine isn't a country thousands of kms away like Iraq is for the US. It being with a common border, the problems would be felt at home too.
This point furthered in the section below. Endgame? What favourable endgame of this conflict can Russia reasonably want?
I really don't think they would want to annex Ukraine and make it a part of Russia. The costs and nuisance would be too much. As porous border from such a disturbed region would really be highly questionable.
Besides insurgency, doing so will also have international costs. It would make it more difficult for Germany or the US to buy energy from Russia, both of which ironically continue despite all the noise of sanctions.
As often said, they would want to put a government of their choice in-charge. And also give it the required support by economic means (soft loans), military means (some part remaining in Ukraine) and others. For this purpose, it would also make poor sense to leave a razed to the ground Ukraine. Hence, probably, the army is avoiding marching into cities crating mayhem which they are well capable of. The resistance is being worn down by the first lot of (likely second rung) soldiers. The slow game is likely to lead to less destruction by "Evil Putin".
Minimizing destruction of what you want to reap benefit from later makes eminent sense.
What is being shown as Russia doing poorly is quite likely this slow-game at work, and would be paced according to a broader strategy. a 65km convoy is on it's way. Endgame: What happens to the important regions?
Further, it is also possible that since such major moves and costs have already been incurred by Russia (direct, sanctions, image, etc) they would want to control the important parts of Ukraine - the areas around Crimea and Black Sea. Also the ones adjoining Russia.
Black Sea, as already said earlier on the thread, is really important for Russia as it has very limited all-important access to warm water all-year-round-usable ports. Important for both trade and Navy. It appears this war is as much about the Black Sea as about other factors. Heavy US Navy presence via NATO in the region would be a disaster for Russia.
Russia might break Ukraine into parts. The troublesome pro-Nazi West on one side with largely Ukrainian speaking people. The part one the East adjoining Russia and the Black Sea into another one with a very high proportion of Russian speaking people. This however runs the risk of losing control over the West over time, but creates a relatively easy to manage buffer zone on the East. I suspect if the breakup is done, it would be more complex due to this reason. Possibly even more parts.
Russia might simply annex some vital parts - the parts along the Black Sea and some others, and divide the rest if needed. Invasion Beyond Ukraine?
Though there seems to be panic in some quarters, this seems unlikely at the face of it. Unlikely but not impossible.
Finland isn't NATO. So fair game? Well, the advantages of attacking Finland are unlikely to be enough to justify.
Moldova could possibly be a target. Probably not worth it, as it doesn't have a Black Sea coast and is a bit of a buffer between "Russian" Ukraine and NATO-Romania.
NATO? Entering a NATO country would involve a very high cost, which again is not likely to be worth it for Russia. However, one should bear in mind that it does suit the all powerful arms lobby in the US for such to happen. The US also has huge influence over things, both directly and indirectly via soft means.
If NATO, then what? If Russia were to enter a NATO region, it appears that the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania would make the most sense for them to go after. Why? A small annexation with easy access to warm waters again. Kaliningrad, a small Russian region on the coast between Lithuania and Poland, isn't directly connected to mainland Russia. Having the Baltic countries under it's belt would add to the security and trade of Russia. Besides the sea, it also makes NATO land further away from the city of Moscow, as compared to the Latvian border which is under 600kms. Beyond Invasion Nord Stream 2
What also is on the line is the Nord Stream 2 project. I do not know enough and would love to be educated further by kind folks here. My rough impression:
Germany was about to get cheaper gas from Russia using this. It bypasses Ukraine and is a direct connection between Russia and Germany via the Baltic Sea. It doubles the capacity via that route (Nord Stream 1 already exists). The current situation and the hate being built in the common folk in Europe against Putin/Russia makes it very difficult to get this functional. Would be a 'brave' decision in a democracy. The project, which was on the verge of being operational also cut out Ukraine's transit fees. Ukraine also loses it's potential of bargaining for increased transit fees (which would affect competitors energy prices) with a functional Nord Stream 2. Political families
Apparently, there are major political families which have major business interests in Ukraine. I don't know enough. Worth exploring. The money trail often reveals interesting aspects.
PS: I don't claim the above to be the final word on anything and would happy to learn more from more knowledgeable folks on the forum.
PPS: Have tried to avoid/minimize things which are important, but have already been said numerous times on the thread. |