Russia's strategy:Take as much as they can until they are stopped......

docaggie said:

---

An anonymous FSB (the new KGB) document leaked last week discussed how they gave an unrealistically glowing assessment of something - Ukraine invasion - they thought was only a theoretical discussion. This could've been a made up document, but several days later the head of the FSB and several other high ranking officers were arrested, as were any analysts who could have spoken to journalists.

So, Putin believed he could sweep into Ukraine, take the DNR and LNR regions for Russia while installing a friendly government and removing many of the defenses. It's been reported that Putin believes that it is his calling from God to reform the USSR, that expansion of the Russian empire will be his lasting legacy. He's established hundreds of churches in Russia, especially around Moscow (hence the reason the Russian Orthodox bishop of Moscow has spoken out in favor of the invasion (leading to other churches outside Russia who are Russian Orthodox to break off from Moscow).

But now, without the swift accomplishments of their objectives, Russia is struggling with how to extricate themselves from a mess that they've made. They can't turn tail and run, they'll lose face. They can eventually win in Ukraine, but they won't have the power to occupy it, as it's far too big and would take way a large percentage of their forces to do so, leaving other fronts vulnerable. They need some sort of win parameter.

You can see them pushing for what they ultimately wanted, a vassal state, in their latest "compromise" where one of the conditions is that Ukraine would get to keep a small defense force but agree to remain neutral on the world stage. Russia needs the resources of Ukraine to flow. But they also dread seeing them join a NATO alliance, allowing for things they definitely don't want (but will and have tried in the past) such as the placement of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, or a NATO / US base in Ukraine.

Russia doesn't like NATO on their borders, hence why we heard things before the invasion about returning to previous NATO borders from 20 years ago (which would require booting several Baltic state members out).

Their only way out while saving face is to either get the promises they want (no NATO, chief amongst them) or they'll have to finish the war by conquering Ukraine. And to do that, they'll have to do what we've started seeing already - indiscriminate bombing and attacks.

---

I think the statement above needs a why they don't like NATO on the border.

I don't believe for a second russia has ever considered NATO as a threat to russian existence. Is there any historical data showing NATO attacking other countries or even threatening to attack russia? This has all been rhetoric to try and justify reconstituting the USSR which is also stated in the same boldened statement above in reference to the baltics.

NATO is an OBSTACLE to russia taking back their satellite countries especially when the USA leads with strength as they have been relying on us too much. The historical data does prove this and since he doesn't have to worry about elections he is in it for the long game. As others have said Ukraine is strategic for O&G, Agriculture, & warm water shipping. It also puts them closer to Moldova, Poland, etc!

Article 5 was invoked after 9/11

and in part that's because the city of Paris...its history, its beauty, its architecture, etc..,

is / was more important to the French people than their freedom. Could not be destroyed.

could make the same argument for the Czechs and Prague.

it's a different culture

My best guess right now:

Putin believed the East would flip immediately and potentially even join the fight on his side. He also thought that the rest of the Ukraine was a lot more ambivalent and would give up after the successful initial push. At that time, he would take control of the country, keep big parts of it including the Russian-speaking areas and routes to Crimea and the Black Sea, and hold a rigged election to place a puppet government in control of a smaller buffer state.

In other words, he believed his own propaganda about Ukraine, and probably overestimated the capabilities of the Russian military and logistic support as well.

When the whole country fought back and his military turned out to be chock-full of bumbling idiots, he didn't get the easy wins and quick strike into the heart of the country that would allow him to dictate terms to a largely intact but thoroughly defeated foe. Now he's feeding troops and assets piecemeal into a grinder in a vain attempt to recapture momentum while he negotiates with a government that knows the world is on their side, and new embarrassments leak daily about political infighting, poor communications security, and eroding morale on the home front.

Russia can win the war and beat Ukraine, but there's no way this was their plan. Whatever exactly he was after, it seems unlikely that he'll get to keep it.

Also the person you replied to glossed over all of the French Resistance

Russia also didn't expect the vigorous economic response of the rest of the world to their actions. They expected more of a muted response like they got when they launched actions in Crimea.

Initially? Walk in and eliminate what little resistance the Ukrainians would put up against the mighty Russian bear.

Now? Beat the Ukrainian population down to bleed the Ukrainians and motivate a peace agreement to help Russia withdraw and save face.


At this point, the Russians know it is only a matter of time before they are forced to pull out completely and concede defeat. They're simply losing too many vehicles and soldiers, and economic sanctions are beginning to take a toll and become noticeable to the average Russian. Conservative American estimates have them at 7000 KIA and open source intel has documented over 1400 vehicles destroyed or captured. That's a relatively small number compared to their overall forces, but that loss rate is unsustainable.

It is in Russia's best interest for this to end quickly. The longer it drags on, the more they bleed. That brings them closer to a tipping point in this conflict where they're forced out, but it also damages their strategic ability to project power as it will take a long time and hundreds of billions of rubles to replace these men and equipment.

Russia can't end this conflict quickly by winning on the battlefield. Their logistics are broken, their offensives have stalled, and the Ukrainians are too well armed and dug in. Russia knows that if they ever the major cities, they will be cut to pieces and face even higher losses than they already have.

Thus, their only play is to resort to terrorism and attacking the civilian population to try to force the Ukrainian leadership into a more favorable compromise to stop the killing. The Russian bear went after a dog, but now the dog has the bear by the neck and won't let go.

We cant sit here and throw our hands up and just say, "it's not our fault! America did nothing!"

To which historians will say, "yeah, that's the problem". This admin has been a day late and dollar short throughout this whole conflict and i dont see that changing any time soon.

Quote:

---

NATO countries exist to gang up on Russia.

---

This is a line I see popping up all the time and it's not accurate. That is Russia's interpretation of NATO.

In reality, NATO is a defensive alliance that was created for the sole purpose of preventing the kinds of mass warfare seen in WW1 and WW2 from ever happening again. Not to "gang up on Russia". The Soviets saw it as strategic threat to their own potential expansion and they spun that off as NATO being a provocative and existential threat to the Soviet people and their innocent and faithful government. That narrative has carried over into modern day Russia and it's still wrong.

Fumbleruski said:

---

Quote:

---

NATO countries exist to gang up on Russia.

---

This is a line I see popping up all the time and it's not accurate. That is Russia's interpretation of NATO.

In reality, NATO is a defensive alliance that was created for the sole purpose of preventing the kinds of mass warfare seen in WW1 and WW2 from ever happening again. Not to "gang up on Russia". The Soviets saw it as strategic threat to their own potential expansion and they spun that off as NATO being a provocative and existential threat to the Soviet people and their innocent and faithful government. That narrative has carried over into modern day Russia and it's still wrong.

---

In 1949. the first Secretary-General of NATO said its purpose was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down".

Source, bottom of page 13

mts6175 said:

---

Trying to drag us into a war with hopes of a result to shift the balance of power to Russia and China

---

This. We are the only country that stands more powerful than they. If they can provoke us in to taking any step that THEY can in response say was an act of war they would unleash enough of their nuclear arsenal to make us a memory. Putin doesn't care what it would mean to his country. He's playing King of the Mountain.

docaggie said:

---

Russia also didn't expect the vigorous economic response of the rest of the world to their actions. They expected more of a muted response like they got when they launched actions in Crimea.

---

To be fair, I don't think anyone expected the economic response we have seen. Governments have been bloodied into action by their people. Just another populist surprise.