Russia is bullying Ukraine, but can it really hold?

[paxmao]

Russia has been the prevalent nation during the USSR in their area of influence. After the USSR became a number of republics, Russia has tried to keep hold of the relations and, above all, the strategic stance of the most strategic new territories surrounding them. It has clearly failed to hold Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, achieved a success, if you can call a totalitarian regime a success in Belarus and now has no intention to allow any flirting of Ukraine with the West.

There is one principle to war in economic terms: Wars are costly and they need to make profit or deliver great strategic benefits. Russia may not be able to pay the price nor extract the economic benefit or a prolonged occupation of large parts of Ukraine and may not be able to pay the cost of installing a government hated by the locals.

[1715507433]

1715507433

[1715507433]

1715507433

[1715507433]

1715507433

[Fortify]

Russia has been the prevalent nation during the USSR in their area of influence. After the USSR became a number of republics, Russia has tried to keep hold of the relations and, above all, the strategic stance of the most strategic new territories surrounding them. It has clearly failed to hold Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, achieved a success, if you can call a totalitarian regime a success in Belarus and now has no intention to allow any flirting of Ukraine with the West.

There is one principle to war in economic terms: Wars are costly and they need to make profit or deliver great strategic benefits. Russia may not be able to pay the price nor extract the economic benefit or a prolonged occupation of large parts of Ukraine and may not be able to pay the cost of installing a government hated by the locals.

If Russia had a desirable governmental and economic structure then this would not even be an issue. The very fact that they can only keep association with countries by force or by supporting a local dictator makes it quite clear the sort of cronyism and corrupt system of government Putin is leading. Russia as the largest country in the world, with some extremely intelligent people, has the potential to be so much more - but it is forever stunted by the erosion (or effective destruction) of any independent institutions or continuity. It has been kept this way, where power is centralized, to benefit a very few people who were in the right positions to grab power. A war in Ukraine will in no way make Russia a more appealing partner and just cements to bullying nature. However we are at the whims of an aging authoritarian leader who manipulates empty patriotism and is trying to recreate some sort of nostalgic past in order to distract from the fact that he has done little to progress Russia in the last 20 years he held power.

Here's a graph of Putin's approval ratings:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-approval-rating-russia/

Note around 2014 the spike - that was related to the invasion and annexation of Crimea. Many people would die in a war, all because he feels unpopular.

[Findingnemo]

China is the best example for modern day invasion, they invade most of the countries economically and make them to pay for their country forever by giving lucrative offers in the beginning, but later they will take control of everything with the puppet rulers so any country wants to dominate should follow them. Its immorally wrong but that's the strategy.

[hyudien]

Russia has been the prevalent nation during the USSR in their area of influence. After the USSR became a number of republics, Russia has tried to keep hold of the relations and, above all, the strategic stance of the most strategic new territories surrounding them. It has clearly failed to hold Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, achieved a success, if you can call a totalitarian regime a success in Belarus and now has no intention to allow any flirting of Ukraine with the West.

There is one principle to war in economic terms: Wars are costly and they need to make profit or deliver great strategic benefits. Russia may not be able to pay the price nor extract the economic benefit or a prolonged occupation of large parts of Ukraine and may not be able to pay the cost of installing a government hated by the locals.

For the thread on Russian and Ukrainian Geopolitics, I've made it here.

It's not just politics between the great powers, more severe economic and social stability could weigh on countries close to Russia and Ukraine. The US also seems to have come to mediate, but underneath it all, they're just looking for a face to get what they want. China's position is also to criticize the US for meddling in the increasingly heated affairs of Russia and Ukraine at the border. The Crimean peninsula has been a struggle for a long time. This conflict certainly has an impact on the economic stability of both parties. Even some time ago Putin was challenged by Volodymyr Zelensky to meet at the border. So far these tensions have not resulted in an agreement. In my opinion, if both sides insist on continuing to fight, it will automatically be very bad for the exchange rate, index volatility, and interest rate volatility as well as the development of tourism for both countries.

[fiulpro]

Apparently UK established that they were trying to have Kievan Rus agenda right in the capital. Making people their pawns which might end up badly. I do not have any idea why they are doing this in the middle of the pandemic when the whole world is suffering as well. I think NATO , uk, us won't allow Ukraine to give anything to Russia and if they tried to use their military power they would have to fight great nations as well and not just Ukraine. Ukraine alone is definitely weak but using allies they can tackle Russia very well. I think they are just threatening because their economy is collapsing as well they cannot afford war at the moment.

[Sirait]

Russia has been the prevalent nation during the USSR in their area of influence. After the USSR became a number of republics, Russia has tried to keep hold of the relations and, above all, the strategic stance of the most strategic new territories surrounding them. It has clearly failed to hold Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, achieved a success, if you can call a totalitarian regime a success in Belarus and now has no intention to allow any flirting of Ukraine with the West.

There is one principle to war in economic terms: Wars are costly and they need to make profit or deliver great strategic benefits. Russia may not be able to pay the price nor extract the economic benefit or a prolonged occupation of large parts of Ukraine and may not be able to pay the cost of installing a government hated by the locals.

why I feel like there is drama in the heat going on between Russia and Ukraine, a scuffle between ukraine and russia is definitely not going to happen, many things will definitely have a bad impact on both countries if that happens, they will forever be like this, just bluffing.

[paxmao]

China is the best example for modern day invasion, they invade most of the countries economically and make them to pay for their country forever by giving lucrative offers in the beginning, but later they will take control of everything with the puppet rulers so any country wants to dominate should follow them. Its immorally wrong but that's the strategy.

I once posted under the title "if you sell is no longer yours", that also happens when you buy. Commercial invasion is not something desirable and is immoral if it happens corrupting politicians and giving credits that would never be able to pay for countries that have lousy politics. However war is something else and instating a dictatorial government is also undesirable  and, while economic prevalence can be prevented with laws and discipline, the killing in war cannot.

[Vaskiy]

China is the best example for modern day invasion, they invade most of the countries economically and make them to pay for their country forever by giving lucrative offers in the beginning, but later they will take control of everything with the puppet rulers so any country wants to dominate should follow them. Its immorally wrong but that's the strategy.

The recent one under the trap is Sri Lanka. The pandemic and the government policies have caused such an economic crisis. Due to the pandemic the forex reserve have dropped to $1.58bn from $7.5bn in 2019. Currently more than $5bn loan due to China. Altogether Sri Lanka seems to have a debt around $7bn. China keeps investing in the name of infrastructure development and soon everything will be under China's control.

[kaya11]

Ukraine won't be easy to beat, it's back is covered by great nations, USA, London and other super power countries inside NATO. If ever there will be war, Russia will need allies, may N. Korea or China as these two have issues with the west. Now the wisest move to do is solve the issues and ease tensions without any bloodshed, war is not the answer and yet we as human are also fighting another war that the enemies are naked in the eyes.

[Sithara007]

Ukraine won't be easy to beat, it's back is covered by great nations, USA, London and other super power countries inside NATO. If ever there will be war, Russia will need allies, may N. Korea or China as these two have issues with the west. Now the wisest move to do is solve the issues and ease tensions without any bloodshed, war is not the answer and yet we as human are also fighting another war that the enemies are naked in the eyes.

First of all, "London" is not a "great nation". It is a city within the United Kingdom. And if you really believe that the United States and the United Kingdom will come to the aid of Ukraine, then I pity you. Russia and China are the countries who are willing to spend some money on their allies. The Western nations on the other hand, never do that and they will not offer any military support either. Ukraine will be on it's own, if Russia invades. The US/UK may impose embargoes on Russia and Putin, but that's going to be it.

[DrBeer]

Russia has been the prevalent nation during the USSR in their area of influence. After the USSR became a number of republics, Russia has tried to keep hold of the relations and, above all, the strategic stance of the most strategic new territories surrounding them. It has clearly failed to hold Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, achieved a success, if you can call a totalitarian regime a success in Belarus and now has no intention to allow any flirting of Ukraine with the West.

There is one principle to war in economic terms: Wars are costly and they need to make profit or deliver great strategic benefits. Russia may not be able to pay the price nor extract the economic benefit or a prolonged occupation of large parts of Ukraine and may not be able to pay the cost of installing a government hated by the locals.

Let's start with the fact that the risk of Ukraine joining NATO is a CONSEQUENCE of what Russia itself started.
The essence of the latest conflict, or rather the Kremlin's aggression against Ukraine, is different. In 2014, Ukraine showed that POWER is not a pillar around which everyone should crawl on their knees, worship, be afraid, and most importantly, as they say in Russia, "power is given by God, humble yourself and accept." The Ukrainians have shown that power is the PEOPLE, and the people, even with tyrants in power, can replace this power, or force it to leave! the Kremlin authorities do not accept this! There can be no such example close to Russia, especially from the "fraternal people"! Such an example is a mortal danger to the existence of the power of kleptomaniac bandits from the Kremlin! Plus, losing the Ukrainian market, Russia is losing a lot, from the sales market to the supplier of technologies and equipment that Russia cannot produce! After the change of power in Ukraine, Russia decided to "calm down Ukraine" by unleashing aggression, promising to seize all of Ukraine and establish its power there, making Ukraine some kind of invented "new Russia ... But something went wrong, and Ukraine was able to" punch in the face " invaders, liberate partly occupied territories. And the worst thing for Russia is that the President of Ukraine, Poroshenko, CREATED an international anti-Kremlin coalition, in fact forced the West to take sanctions against Russia. After that, the destruction of free Ukraine became a paranoid idea for Putin.
But again, thanks to the help of our Western partners - they managed to create a stock of fatal-protective weapons in Ukraine, and developed new sanctions, which ultimately put the Kremlin in an extremely uncomfortable state - losses and losses will clearly exceed the very dubious chance of defeating Ukraine! But the Kremlin has never waged and will never wage a confrontation against a strong adversary. if you look at the history of new Russia, over the past 30 years - Russia has attacked only guaranteed weaker opponents, where you can show your sadistic inclinations "from the heart" - bomb and destroy peaceful cities, with civilians, destroy, kill, steal ... Otherwise, Russia is a coward to conduct an open confrontation. True, Russia always has one trump card - terrorism. They use this tool both against their own people (remember how in the Russian Federation, the FSB blew up several houses with residents in the early 00s), or against others (for example, poisoning people with highly toxic or chemical warfare agents).

[sunsilk]

China is the best example for modern day invasion, they invade most of the countries economically and make them to pay for their country forever by giving lucrative offers in the beginning, but later they will take control of everything with the puppet rulers so any country wants to dominate should follow them. Its immorally wrong but that's the strategy.

I agree. That's the debt trap.

It's a simple economic strategy, making friends with other countries, giving them as many loans as they can until they can no longer pay due to the interest rate that won't stop anytime soon.

And if the "friend" of theirs can no longer pay, they're going to pick some area of that country to invade a little by little and they'll inject their people on it, invade through their products until they make it almost as centralize as the main land.

[DrBeer]

Ukraine won't be easy to beat, it's back is covered by great nations, USA, London and other super power countries inside NATO. If ever there will be war, Russia will need allies, may N. Korea or China as these two have issues with the west. Now the wisest move to do is solve the issues and ease tensions without any bloodshed, war is not the answer and yet we as human are also fighting another war that the enemies are naked in the eyes.

First of all, "London" is not a "great nation". It is a city within the United Kingdom. And if you really believe that the United States and the United Kingdom will come to the aid of Ukraine, then I pity you. Russia and China are the countries who are willing to spend some money on their allies. The Western nations on the other hand, never do that and they will not offer any military support either. Ukraine will be on it's own, if Russia invades. The US/UK may impose embargoes on Russia and Putin, but that's going to be it.

Is Russia ready to spend a lot of money on ITS PARTNERS? You are probably confusing the essence - you confuse investments and assistance with attempts to bribe and support bastard regimes. Please name at least 1 country where, after coming to power (with the help of the USSR / RF), life became better, richer, more stable? Which of the countries - friends of the USSR / RF have at least some weight in world history / economy / life? Russia is a terrorist country, and it finances either neo-Nazis or terrorists, or simply corrupt parties or associations, ready for money, like a prostitute, to fulfill any fantasies of the payer. If you do not agree - at least 1 example proving the opposite!
Threat Immediately I warn you - "fairy tales" will not work. I personally saw, personally communicated and I know what was happening, and personally visited such countries as Cuba, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (when it was one country), Poland, East Germany, Vietnam. These are the countries where the USSR / Russia left their "help imprint" ...

[Mometaskers]

Russia seem to be trying to improve its geographic position. It needed that warm water port in Crimea and when it became apparent that Ukraine is trying to ally with the western Europe it decided to seize the strategic location for itself. I think it follows the next action if Ukraine is "lost" to EU is to also annex it.

Whether Russia can afford that we are not exactly sure but I think they can't, at least not the whole of Ukraine. Russia was able to capture Crimea with what I would say not much fighting and little outside interference so if ever they attack Ukraine again, they'll probably just capture some parts of it, lay low, and then repeat again.

[Ozero]

The Putin regime seized the Crimean peninsula virtually without a single shot and significant resistance due to the great preparatory work of Russia, as a result of which there were practically no combat-ready military units in Ukraine, and people who were in key positions in the government, army and navy of Ukraine or who directly followed the instructions of the Russian special services, either were loyal to the Putin regime and then sold out for offered positions in Russia or simply for money. In addition, Ukraine did not expect such meanness from the neighboring "brotherly" people.
Today the situation has changed a lot. Ukraine has a combat-ready army with decent combat experience over the past eight years, and there is something to fight for. With the Russian military killing some 15,000 mostly civilians in Ukraine, Russia has become Ukraine's worst enemy. Therefore, the invasion of even a larger army than the current more than a hundred thousand troops on its borders will not be able to capture Ukraine, and even if it succeeds, then Russia will bear the main military losses after occupying even part of the territory of Ukraine and will not be able to control these territories after capture. In any case, Putin's Russia is breaking its teeth about Ukraine, and it seems that they have begun to understand this as well. Therefore, I think that there will be no large-scale invasion of Ukraine.

[DrBeer]

Russia seem to be trying to improve its geographic position. It needed that warm water port in Crimea and when it became apparent that Ukraine is trying to ally with the western Europe it decided to seize the strategic location for itself. I think it follows the next action if Ukraine is "lost" to EU is to also annex it.

Whether Russia can afford that we are not exactly sure but I think they can't, at least not the whole of Ukraine. Russia was able to capture Crimea with what I would say not much fighting and little outside interference so if ever they attack Ukraine again, they'll probably just capture some parts of it, lay low, and then repeat again.

Question - what, in your opinion, part of the territory of Russia is inhabited and used?
This is why I ask the question - new lands, theoretically, Japan or Bangladesh may be needed - where there is a huge number of people and a minimum area. In Russia, less than 25% of the territory is inhabited and used. No, not because somewhere there is permafrost. And because the Russian government does not care about people, money is invested only in 3 cities (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Grozny), and the rest - on populist-terrorist projects, to raise the rating of the Kremlin's under-fuhrer
Would you happen to recall the official, declared by the Kremlin, reasons for the invasion of Ukraine in 2014? Let me remind you - "protection of the Russian-speaking population"! Those. in Ukraine, where people lived so well, they decided to "save". No, not to raise the level of Russian speakers in Russia, no. And lower the standard of living of the occupied territories to the level of Russia!

[Fortify]

The Putin regime seized the Crimean peninsula virtually without a single shot and significant resistance due to the great preparatory work of Russia, as a result of which there were practically no combat-ready military units in Ukraine, and people who were in key positions in the government, army and navy of Ukraine or who directly followed the instructions of the Russian special services, either were loyal to the Putin regime and then sold out for offered positions in Russia or simply for money. In addition, Ukraine did not expect such meanness from the neighboring "brotherly" people.
Today the situation has changed a lot. Ukraine has a combat-ready army with decent combat experience over the past eight years, and there is something to fight for. With the Russian military killing some 15,000 mostly civilians in Ukraine, Russia has become Ukraine's worst enemy. Therefore, the invasion of even a larger army than the current more than a hundred thousand troops on its borders will not be able to capture Ukraine, and even if it succeeds, then Russia will bear the main military losses after occupying even part of the territory of Ukraine and will not be able to control these territories after capture. In any case, Putin's Russia is breaking its teeth about Ukraine, and it seems that they have begun to understand this as well. Therefore, I think that there will be no large-scale invasion of Ukraine.

That's a strange way of saying Russia took advantage of a country in disarray, who had just overthrown an authoritarian leader. The country was in the midst of purging anyone loyal to the previous utterly corrupt and incompetent government who sucked up to Putin out of convenience rather than for the good of their people. The theft of Crimea was all about stealing the only deepwater port Russia has from people they called their friends. However nobody should underestimate the amount of people that Putin will be willing to send to die because this old man has little else left in his last few years on this planet and he's probably starting to go senile with grand delusions of recreating the USSR right now.

[hatshepsut93]

There is one principle to war in economic terms: Wars are costly and they need to make profit or deliver great strategic benefits. Russia may not be able to pay the price nor extract the economic benefit or a prolonged occupation of large parts of Ukraine and may not be able to pay the cost of installing a government hated by the locals.

In recent history, Russia prefered to wage swift small-scale wars that aren't too costly, achieve some geopolitical goals and boost Putin's public support. It's incredibly unlikely that Russia would try to conquer all of Ukraine or even a big part of it, either it would be just impossible to insanely costly. But they could make a small invasion, masquarade it as "uprising of local population unhappy with central government", and the West won't sanction them too hard, because there's a lot of forces in the West who would like to keep doing business with Russia.

[paxmao]

Ukraine won't be easy to beat, it's back is covered by great nations, USA, London and other super power countries inside NATO. If ever there will be war, Russia will need allies, may N. Korea or China as these two have issues with the west. Now the wisest move to do is solve the issues and ease tensions without any bloodshed, war is not the answer and yet we as human are also fighting another war that the enemies are naked in the eyes.

First of all, "London" is not a "great nation". It is a city within the United Kingdom. And if you really believe that the United States and the United Kingdom will come to the aid of Ukraine, then I pity you. Russia and China are the countries who are willing to spend some money on their allies. The Western nations on the other hand, never do that and they will not offer any military support either. Ukraine will be on it's own, if Russia invades. The US/UK may impose embargoes on Russia and Putin, but that's going to be it.

Is Russia ready to spend a lot of money on ITS PARTNERS? You are probably confusing the essence - you confuse investments and assistance with attempts to bribe and support bastard regimes. Please name at least 1 country where, after coming to power (with the help of the USSR / RF), life became better, richer, more stable? Which of the countries - friends of the USSR / RF have at least some weight in world history / economy / life? Russia is a terrorist country, and it finances either neo-Nazis or terrorists, or simply corrupt parties or associations, ready for money, like a prostitute, to fulfill any fantasies of the payer. If you do not agree - at least 1 example proving the opposite!
Threat Immediately I warn you - "fairy tales" will not work. I personally saw, personally communicated and I know what was happening, and personally visited such countries as Cuba, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (when it was one country), Poland, East Germany, Vietnam. These are the countries where the USSR / Russia left their "help imprint" ...

I think Russia would like to do as it used to be, you know, the satellites around full controlled, etc.. It has already lost Poland, Bulgaria and many other... It seems that letting Ukraine go would just be too much.
But, this is about realpolitics, not about morals or people. USA has been the kingmaker in most of Latin America, it has even been a documented formal attitude. Monroe doctrine served the US well.

Although the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 was essentially passive (it asked that Europeans not increase their influence or recolonize any part of the Western Hemisphere), by the 20th century a more confident United States was willing to take on the role of regional policeman. In the early 1900s Roosevelt grew concerned that a crisis between Venezuela and its creditors could spark an invasion of that nation by European powers. The Roosevelt Corollary of December 1904 stated that the United States would intervene as a last resort to ensure that other nations in the Western Hemisphere fulfilled their obligations to international creditors, and did not violate the rights of the United States or invite “foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American nations.” As the corollary worked out in practice, the United States increasingly used military force to restore internal stability to nations in the region. Roosevelt declared that the United States might “exercise international police power in ‘flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence.’

[cabron]

Kingmaker indeed. And they use the media to announce false things. This Russia invading Ukraine is also a made-up invasion because it doesn't happen on the ground in fact the Ukraine president talked about it in the press that there is no Russian invasion. But this could be a plot to change the president of Ukraine to favor NATO expansion which Putin doesn't want to happen.

Putin emphasizes it clear that there is an agreement about NATO not expanding anymore to the east and pursuing Ukraine to join NATO is a violation. Call it a strategic move by Putin but this is also the proper way for them to protect their sovereignty. How will the US feel if Kremlin expands in CUBA or Mexico, they will also rally their tanks in their borders. That's GEOPOLITICS, countries will protect thier sovereignty.

If the US also deploys troops in Ukraine, Russia will gather more of its troops on its borders to protect thier sovereignty. And NOT JUST Russia but the rest of the countries nearby from Belarus, Poland, Romania, and even Bulgaria will also gather thier troops on their borders because they know, it's going to affect them. Who knows what else are the mission of the US or other countries because each of them still has geopolitics to take care of. Especially Belarus who always suspects the US. And one missile hitting anyone's border will cause chaos, there will be no time to say sorry they made a mistake by shooting someone else tank/plane.