I don't put a lot of stock in the Russian Imperialism ambitions as being a serious factor in this invasion. I just don't think it adds up. I mean even if Putin was saying this, that doesn't mean a lot. The US, for example, says they're spreading democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, fro example.
I believe it's far more likely that Russia actually wanted (wants?) a buffer between it and NATO. They've been warning of this since 2008 (when Bush opened the door to Ukraine joining NATO).
Why do I find this more believable? Because it's exactly what imperial powers do. It's exactly what the United States has done. The US almost started World War Three over a Soviet presence in Cuba. The US for 200 years (ie the Monroe Doctrine) has considered the Americas the sole province of the US and any foreign military to be a threat.
China does this too. Mongolia is a buffer to Russia. North Korea is a buffer to South Korea (and the significant US military presence there).
For Imperialist ambitions to make sense, Russia would have to either occupy Ukraine on a long term basis or install a puppet regime (eg like Belarus). Both are doomed from the start. The Ukraine is too large to occupy and would be too expensive. The USSR couldn't even maintain a puppet government in Afghanistan (and nor could the US obviously).
You are buying too much into the Russian propaganda. First, it is not NATO which expanded "into" the Baltic States and Eastern Europe. These countries voluntarily applied and their diplomats lobbied very hard to get accepted into NATO, precisely because of Russia's aggressive and militaristic policies. Why do you think that these sovereign European nations actually want to be a "buffer"? Why do you think somebody should have a right to constrain their sovereignty?
Ukraine was not even close to joining NATO, despite all declarations (moreover, Russia firmly prevented it by orchestrating the War in Donbas). With Finland joining NATO, Russia will now have 1340 km border with NATO. What Putin is going to do about that? It was never about NATO. Look at the origins of the Russian-Ukrainian War (it wasn't just 2013, the cracks started as early as 2004). Moscow always had a distorted view of the Ukrainian history and its sovereignty as an independent nation (despite signing treaties and agreements recognizing it).
> For Imperialist ambitions to make sense, Russia would have to either occupy Ukraine on a long term basis or install a puppet regime (eg like Belarus). Both are doomed from the start. The Ukraine is too large to occupy and would be too expensive. The USSR couldn't even maintain a puppet government in Afghanistan (and nor could the US obviously).
This is precisely what they tried to do with this invasion, thinking that if the Ukrainian government gets decapitated, the majority of the Ukrainian population would not resist and cooperate. Kremlin massively miscalculated because they started believing their own propaganda and their intelligence would feed the dictator with the information he wanted to hear rather than reality.
Arguing NATO didn't expand into the Baltic states is semantics, at best. Sure the countries have to apply to join but the current NATO members have to acquiesce. Even with this relationship the US can (and has) communicated policy prior to expansion. The act of expnasion itself is evidene of US policy since the US could veto it fif it was something it didn't want.
My suspicion is you're viewing the US as a benign hegemony. The problem with this thinking is it makes it harder to see things from the other side, namely that another foreign power might reasonably perceive "benign" actions as hotile.
This is especially true of NATO, which was founded on the idea of screwing the USSR (quite literally). Well the USSR doesn't exist anymore yet NATO persists. Russia has to view that as aggressive especially with continued expansion. The standard response here is that NATO is a defensive alliance, which is complete BS (eg Libya, Kosovo, basing nuclear weapons capable of hitting Moscow in Turkey).
> Why do you think that these sovereign European nations actually want to be a "buffer"?
Because there are advantages to being neutral. You can't get roped into a war you didn't consent to. The great powers that border you tend to be happier with your neutrality than picking sides. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland are all countries in Europe who have policies of neutrality. A neutral state between great powers is by definition a buffer state.
And like I said, the US does exactly the same thing. Do you think the US would idly sit by if Mexico and Canada decided to join a military alliance with China and allow China to build forward operating bases along the US border? There's absolutely no shot.
So why if the US would never allow Chinese military bases on its border should the US be surprised that Russia would have the exact same objection?
> Why do you think somebody should have a right to constrain their sovereignty?
Because joining NATO requires mutual consent. No country has a right to join if NATO declines and NATO does have a right to decline. Germany in particular has indicated they had no intention of allowing Ukraine to join NATO for pretty much exactly the reasons we're seeing now.
> With Finland joining NATO, Russia will now have 1340 km border with NATO. What Putin is going to do about that?
That's my point: this has been a massive miscalculation by Putin. But not all borders are created equal. Geography matters. A border with Ukraine is of more strategic threat than a border with Finland just because most of Ukraine is flat.
> This is precisely what they tried to do with this invasion
My sense is they trid to decapitate Ukraine's leadership and pave the way for a pro-Russian regime. This was a massive miscalculation. TListen to anyone who knows anything about the military and you'll find estimates that Russia would probably need over 400,000 soldiers to occupy Ukraine. They don't have that. They couldn't afford it if they did.
> Arguing NATO didn't expand into the Baltic states is semantics, at best. Sure the countries have to apply to join but the current NATO members have to acquiesce. Even with this relationship the US can (and has) communicated policy prior to expansion. The act of expnasion itself is evidene of US policy since the US could veto it fif it was something it didn't want.
You talk about technicalities, but you ignore the key point here: these countries saw NATO membership being vital for their national security.
> My suspicion is you're viewing the US as a benign hegemony. The problem with this thinking is it makes it harder to see things from the other side, namely that another foreign power might reasonably perceive "benign" actions as hotile.
Perhaps it isn't, but it is benign for those countries who want to join (or joined) NATO. So, what is wrong with that?
> This is especially true of NATO, which was founded on the idea of screwing the USSR (quite literally). Well the USSR doesn't exist anymore yet NATO persists. Russia has to view that as aggressive especially with continued expansion.
If Russia would not be a dictatorship which threatens its neighbours, if it wouldn't demonstrate aggressive and coercive behaviour, then perhaps there would be no need for NATO. However, Russia did everything it possibly can to ruin its relationship with most neighbours and gave them every reason to join the military alliance. Now they blame NATO for it?
> Because there are advantages to being neutral. You can't get roped into a war you didn't consent to.
This is just absolutely not true. Baltic States were neutral before the World War II. They were invaded and occupied by Soviet Russia (and briefly by Nazi Germany). Neutrality does not guarantee sovereignty. Moreover, smaller countries which are close to large countries might simply not have numbers to resist a large aggressive neighbour. In such case, military alliances are their only option.
> Because joining NATO requires mutual consent.
Huh? I am talking about a third country. Why should a third country, especially a potential aggressor, have a right to veto the membership? It is a matter of NATO and the applicant country.
> That's my point: this has been a massive miscalculation by Putin. But not all borders are created equal. Geography matters. A border with Ukraine is of more strategic threat than a border with Finland just because most of Ukraine is flat.
Saint Petersburg will be about 100 km from the NATO border. Yet Ukraine is nearly 500 km away from Moscow. It just doesn't add up.
> My sense is they trid to decapitate Ukraine's leadership and pave the way for a pro-Russian regime. This was a massive miscalculation.
We are in agreement on this. Militarily they just didn't even have the right numbers (let alone other spectacular failures), yet Russians still opened wide fronts and went after the capital Kyiv.
The USSR “occupied” Ukraine for most of the 20th century, aided and abetted by the Holodomor, so there’s no obvious reason they couldn’t again.
Russian state TV is awash with pundits who are asserting the Russian empire should be re-created in Ukraine and the Baltics, and that Ukrainians are subhuman. There’s plenty of reason to believe Putin wants his empire.
Sure but in the Cold War period, as one data point, the Red Army had between 4 and 5 million soldiers [1].
A lot of people don't realize how much smaller the 21st century great power militaries are in pure manpower terms than the Cold War era, even for the US [2].
Additionally history is a huge factor here. Ukraine came under Soviet control as a consequence of the Russian Empire and this type of imperialism that had been rampant in human history up to this point largely died with World War Two and the onset of the nuclear age. European powers lost their remaining colonies (mostly) in the years following WWII.
The US has quite famously lost every war they've been in since 1945.
Ukraine as part of the USSR was really a vestige of a bygone era combined with a totalitarian government and a way stronger military than, say, exists now in Russia.
I believe it's far more likely that Russia actually wanted (wants?) a buffer between it and NATO. They've been warning of this since 2008 (when Bush opened the door to Ukraine joining NATO).
Why do I find this more believable? Because it's exactly what imperial powers do. It's exactly what the United States has done. The US almost started World War Three over a Soviet presence in Cuba. The US for 200 years (ie the Monroe Doctrine) has considered the Americas the sole province of the US and any foreign military to be a threat.
China does this too. Mongolia is a buffer to Russia. North Korea is a buffer to South Korea (and the significant US military presence there).
For Imperialist ambitions to make sense, Russia would have to either occupy Ukraine on a long term basis or install a puppet regime (eg like Belarus). Both are doomed from the start. The Ukraine is too large to occupy and would be too expensive. The USSR couldn't even maintain a puppet government in Afghanistan (and nor could the US obviously).