r/NoStupidQuestions Sep 24 '22

I am interested in the real reason for Russia's war in Ukraine. I would appreciate an educated explanation, not what the media tell us. Many thanks.

228 Upvotes

121

u/Rigel_B8la Sep 24 '22 edited Sep 24 '22

Ask a journalist, and they'll tell you about the 2014 Maidan Revolution and subsequent nationalist revolts in Donbas.

Ask a political scientist, and they'll tell you about the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union and Moscow's loss of the Russian Empire.

Ask a historian, and they'll tell you, "Well, you have to go back 1000 years to the Kievan Rus..."

I tend to side with the historians here. Maybe not back to the Kievan Rus, but to several long term Russian objectives.

Objective 1: Protect the Motherland. Russia has virtually no natural borders. With the exception of some water and mountains to the south, there are no geographical barriers to invasion. They've been invaded by Genghis Khan's armies from the east (ruled by Genghis' successor states for centuries), invaded from the west by Swedes (~1700), French (~1800), a "Concert of Europe" (1853), and Germans (1940). Most of those invasions have been devastating to the Russian people and existential crises for the Russian state. When Ukraine, part of the Russian cultural sphere for centuries, talks of joining NATO, Moscow gets nervous.

Objective 2: Secure warm water ports for defense and trade. Russia is virtually landlocked for half the year. It's primary ports of Petersburg and Vladivostok¹ freeze with sea ice during the winter. Land infrastructure, like the Trans Siberian Railway and Nord Stream pipeline are long and can be difficult to maintain, but they become some of the only trade routes². It's one reason the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and have made on-again off-again deals with Iran. Black Sea ports, critical to Soviet trade, were handed to Ukraine in 1991. Moscow wants them back.

Objective 3: Unify "Russian" lands. Nationalism is a hell of a drug. Russians, especially elites from Moscow and Petersburg, keenly felt the loss of empire and the national pride it engendered. Putin was among those Petersburg elites that took the fall of the Soviet Union as a humiliation engineered by "the West." Putin was relatively content while there were subservient governments in areas once ruled the the Kievan Rus, the Russian cultural heartland. But losing a lapdog in Kyiv in 2014, and Kyiv's shift toward the EU and NATO, was too much to take, especially considering Objectives 1&2.

¹ Not necessarily true since 1984 ² I know there are other shorter rail and highway links to Europe, but they're still long and difficult to maintain in the winter. Russia desperately needs a warm water port.

14

u/eIImcxc Sep 24 '22

Most educated answer I saw in a while on Reddit.

3

u/I_wood_rather_be Sep 25 '22

While it is certainly well explained and he's got a point here, I still think that Putin just wants the Soviet Union back with the boarders from pre 1991.

→ More replies

2

u/alex20_202020 Sep 24 '22

How about Sochi and area around?

9

u/Rigel_B8la Sep 24 '22 edited Sep 24 '22

Not really a good harbor. They've created a small harbor with seawalls, but nothing like Sevastopol or Odessa.

Edit: I assumed you were asking about warm water port. If the question was something different, I'll need more detail.

4

u/alex20_202020 Sep 24 '22

I've pointed out Russia have access to warm waters near Sochi, not that existing ports are large. I'm not an expert of sea ports, do you hint it is close to impossible to have good ports in that area due to storms etc?

6

u/Rigel_B8la Sep 24 '22

Impossible? Certainly not. But they're not really the harborage that Russia needs for trade, and certainly not for the Black Sea Fleet. The natural harbors just aren't large enough for a significant mercantile or military fleet.

As an American, I tend to think of good harborage as Boston, Puget Sound or Miami. They're all protected from ocean waves, storms, and threatening navies by natural barriers. The only natural harbor along the Russian Black Sea coast is at Novorossiysk, which is tiny in comparison to Sevastopol Bay.

I know the Black Sea isn't the largest or roughest body of water, but even Lake Michigan (near me) ports prefer to build their harbors along the rivers and inland lakes rather than on the big lake itself (Chicago being the big partial exception).

→ More replies

722

u/632146P Sep 24 '22 Gold All-Seeing Upvote Excellent answer!

Putin has been trying to take over Ukraine for a while, unsuccessfully. Ukraine has some valuable natural resources and is positioned in a strategically useful location regarding neighbors and control over the black sea. If Russia had gotten it without a fight, it would have been a big step in russia's goal to be resistant to sanctions.

Putin had been trying to get the rest of Ukraine for a while (he already stole part of it in a previous conflict). Russia tried to hack their latest election (and even announced the results they tried to put into the election on the russian news confirming their guilt) but they got caught and the winning party was running on an anti corruption platform and trying to take away Putin's influence within the country.

Ukraine asked to join nato, which would give them allies if they got invaded. Putin would lose the option for invasion if that happened.

He tried to intimidate them into making an agreement to never join nato, but they held firm, so Putin invaded, hoping to quickly steamroll them and take the country by killing the leadership.

199

u/Heya_Andy Sep 24 '22

Yep, and I could see how if a few things had gone differently they could have taken the country quite quickly. If they'd got Kyiv and the government had fled, the army may have quickly crumbled, especially if they cut them off by cutting the country in half. And based on past performance they only expected debates and token gestures from Europe and the US. But the government stood firm, even after western offers to get them out of there ("send weapons, not helicopters out of here", or words to that effect), and western countries imposed harsh sanctions and sent loads of weapons once they realised it was a great way to weaken Russia without having to commit troops or go to war.

254

u/vorpal8 Sep 24 '22

Zelenskyy's famous quote in the early days of the war was, "I need ammunition, not a ride."

59

u/abutthole Sep 24 '22

Yep, now Russia's losing territory at a significant clip and about 8 times as many Russian soldiers have died in Ukraine as American soldiers did in the entire 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan.

33

u/Pranay1717 Sep 24 '22

Damn. So this is Russia's Vietnam I guess. Feel bad for the soldiers. There were some clips of them just crying on the phone because they were losing heavily and had no choice but to fight.

22

u/abutthole Sep 24 '22

More Russians have died so far than Americans died in Vietnam.

→ More replies

8

u/xdroop Sep 24 '22

Will it be worse than Afghanistan or Chetchnia?

16

u/Mapleson_Phillips Sep 24 '22

The Russian losses so far are higher than the two Chetchnia Wars together.

→ More replies

8

u/NotedIndoorsman Sep 24 '22

Don't get too heartbroken. They're leaving plenty of atrocities and war crimes in their wake.

3

u/Doggo625 Sep 24 '22

That’s just sad

53

u/donktastic Sep 24 '22

For anyone interested, the documentary Winter on Fire is a great history on Ukraine and Russian relations leading up to this war. The doc really explains well why Ukraine hates Russia and all the crap they have had to put up with since the fall of the Soviet Union. Also after watching this documentary it's hard to not respect the Ukrainians resolve even more than we do now. The fall of Crimea was a crazy time. Ukraine has shown before that they are tough sons o bitches to not be underestimated. Their resistance this war should not have been such a big surprise to Putin. Putin still thought he could break them easily and without western intervention he was probably right, but this turned into a perfect western opportunity to absolutely break Russia by funding Ukraine resolve. Huge miscalculation by Putin. When this is over, Ukraine will have really earned their freedom and will be rebuilt into a regional power. No one will mess with them again and they will sing songs and tell stories about this time for generations.

9

u/ovicash Sep 24 '22 edited Sep 25 '22

USSR collapsed because they couldn’t keep up with USA expenses as Cold War progressed.

This is what everyone tries to do now. Russians needs modern weapons but nobody hardly sells them, chips the same… they can’t survive with only importing from Iran and North Korea. They have infrastructure but lack important peaces from Asia.

China is not happy about the situation. They don’t condemn it, not to be in agreement with USA. China wants to be a superpower in a peace time not in a war, that costs money

Edited: USSR

→ More replies

7

u/froggit0 Sep 24 '22

This is the thing. Given the subversion, special operations and defections of Crimea 2014, I think, at best, a lot of us were expecting a good show… and a Ukrainian collapse in three days. I remember thinking at the time, if Kyiv can survive for seventy two hours, that’s room to negotiate. Come the the hour, cometh the man. And the armed forces. And the security services (headed by a mate of Zelenskyy since 2019, whose been sacked after a few weeks- not for corruption or treason, but for being unsuccessful). Ukraine can put 10000 men a month into the field trained to NATO infantry standards. RF? ‘Here’s your rifle and ammo. Here’s your ammo. When the man in front of you is killed, pick up his rifle!’

59

u/CollectionOfAtoms78 Sep 24 '22

To build upon your statement on the natural resources, Ukraine competes with Russia’s fossil fuel exports. By taking Ukraine, Russia adds to their supply while removing competition. Here is a video from RealLifeLore that explains this in much more detail.

24

u/formerly_gruntled Sep 24 '22

Not just the fossil fuels. Wheat. Both Russia and Ukraine are major exporters of wheat.

→ More replies

35

u/PapaCJ5 Sep 24 '22

All of this, plus Putin's sanity is questionable and he might want to make something big before he dies.

13

u/zxDanKwan Sep 24 '22

Well, looks like he’s making a big fuck up, so that’s one thing off his list…

→ More replies
→ More replies

23

u/ztimulating Sep 24 '22

Almost. Ukraine 100% agreed to never join NATO before the invasion but Putin ignored it and invaded anyway.

31

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '22

Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union in exchange for a promise that Russia would never invade. (heard this in the media)

7

u/Wardiazon Sep 24 '22

'Gave up' is a misrepresentation.

Ukraine was given very large incentives and was highly pressurised to give up their nuclear weapons and accede to the NPT (Nuclear non-proliferation treaty). This included massive funding offers, threats of invasion and threat of sanctions.

Not really a choice, more a strategic coercion.

23

u/Torrall Sep 24 '22

Im curious, why did you add heard this in the media? If you doubt it why didn't you just look it up yourself?

7

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '22

If I am lazy, it doesn't necessarily mean I am also trying to be a hypocrite. That's where I heard it, and I am stating as much. I'm not saying all media are wrong all the time, but my information sources are limited due to my laziness. I am allowed to be interested in Redditors' opinions. I know the headline is a little click-baity but that's to stimulate a response rather than knock all media down. Maybe not too prudent of me in the post-Trump world. You do have a point.

7

u/MudnuK Sep 24 '22

For what it's worth, it's not just laziness. Everyone has different interests they invest their time in, and different pools of knowledge they like to grow. Nobody's got time to learn everything - we all have to prioritise. And while the Ukraine war is very important, many of us only have so much time and energy to dedicate to researching it in detail. You're accepting your limits while still trying to reach beyond the most accessible, general media outlets by asking for access to the pools of knowledge of people who can invest that time and energy. Fair play to you.

3

u/BKacy Sep 24 '22

And the more you know the easier it is to take in more knowledge and keep it all straight in your mind. Keep educating yourself. Different types of knowledge will eventually come together and lead to exponential growth in knowledge. Then you’ll know so much it’s hard to remember it all and people will imagine you’re losing some of it—but I digress.

→ More replies

14

u/rocketbosszach Sep 24 '22

It’s also important to note that Putin being a former KGB member and Soviet nationalist likely wishes to return to a footprint thats more in line with pre-dissolution Russia. A sort of “reunification” of people and property that is, at least in some part, based in a sense of patriotism. Think “the south will rise again” type of mentality. He’s likely under the assumption that succeeding in this endeavor would secure a place in history as a Russian hero.

6

u/xdroop Sep 24 '22

You left out the part where post-Soviet Union Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons and agreed to not join NATO in exchange for a defence agreement with the west should Ukraine be invaded.

2

u/632146P Sep 25 '22

That's true, but I felt it didn't answer the question that was being asked.

It's good to bring up though.

10

u/Pitiful-Attention937 Sep 24 '22

its comparable to the Cuban crisis in a lot of ways. NATO has been winning the geopolitical war by expanding to the East towards Russia's borders and bringing NATO weaponry closer to Moscow so this war is an attempt to show that Russia can retaliate and not just beg for them not to approach. The real reason is 'relevance'

Every inch that NATO gets closer to Moscow is a defeat for them. Pretty big aspect in all of this

Russia is very very rich in natural resources, much richer than NATO countries combined, so it's not the primary thing

5

u/cccc0079 Sep 24 '22

Latvia and Estonia are next to Russia. NATO already rejected Ukraine's proposal in 2000s. I think the main point is Ukraine want to get out of Russia's sphere of influence and Putin don't want that.

→ More replies

3

u/DeathmetalArgon Sep 24 '22

This is the truth. There is also that Putin is of questionable mental state and has been on record as saying the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a great tragedy. I believe it is equal parts that the psycho is trying to recapture some past glory.

7

u/HelloBello30 Sep 24 '22

ah so what the media said, thank you

16

u/MiniHamster5 Sep 24 '22

"This is wrong because I dont agree with it"

→ More replies

19

u/StillTheRick Sep 24 '22

Sometimes, on rare occasions, the media gets it right. That being said, it depends on the media source. There are "news outlets" that are behind Russia in this endeavor.

It's all about the loot.

2

u/Equal-Detective357 Sep 24 '22

It also , apparently, has to do with nato being formed to be against the coalition, was it? Which broke up and Nato did not . Which again was essentially made to be against the Russians, and is expanding ever more , despite the fact that the reason they were formed no longer exists ...

Bunch of silliness, and of there really is no justification for an invasion, especially now a days with the weapons we have.

→ More replies

2

u/oromiseldaa Sep 24 '22

I might be misinformed, but it was my understanding that there already was a pre-existing agreement that Nato wouldn't expand eastward towards Russia. The talks about Ukraine joining Nato were seen by Russia as a breach of that agreement?

Not sure about any of that, just wondering if I've been told some BS or not.

13

u/wildewurst Sep 24 '22

Thats somewhat of a urban myth.

Nato leaders at that time did not have expansion on their mind, and said as much. But nothing of this was put on paper, apart from "No Nato troops in East Germany".

Also, at this time people had not even considered the end of the UdSSR coming - they did not even believe the Warsaw Pact would be disbanded.
With the Warsaw Pact still being intact - why would they have put anything on paper regarding Warsaw Pact states joining Nato?
I doubt the matter was even given any serious consideration from either side.

And Russia now complaining that Nato expands despite plans made with the UdSSR/Warsaw Pact (both of which don't exist anymore) is somewhat as if Germany would complain that we it did not get to keep the Sudetenland that was promised to Nazi Germany.

BUT! I can name a international Threaty that was signed by Modern-day Russia - and definitely also broken by Russia. The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed in 1994, under whose conditions Ukraine gave away its nuclear weapons stockpile.

"In February 2016, Sergey Lavrov claimed, "Russia never violated Budapest memorandum. It contained only one obligation, not to attack Ukraine with nukes."[30] However, Canadian journalist Michael Colborne pointed out that "there are actually six obligations in the Budapest Memorandum, and the first of them is "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine." Colborne also pointed out that a broadcast of Lavrov's claim on the Twitter account of Russia's embassy in the United Kingdom actually "provided a link to the text of the Budapest Memorandum itself with all six obligations, including the ones Russia has clearly violated – right there for everyone to see."

Here are the contents:

Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[16]

Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[12][17]

16

u/devils_advocate24 Sep 24 '22

The agreement was a personal promise back when the Berlin wall came down..meanwhile NATO has absorbed most of the former Warsaw pact and adding Ukraine would give them a nearly impossible to defend border. But it was never an in writing promise

46

u/abutthole Sep 24 '22

Yep, unlike the formal agreement where Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's borders and never invade in exchange for Ukraine getting rid of their nukes.

9

u/JuanTu34 Sep 24 '22

Underrated comment!

Why is this not more prominently discussed?

7

u/rocketbosszach Sep 24 '22

Because there’s nothing newsworthy about the Russians breaking a promise.

1

u/formerly_gruntled Sep 24 '22

Does anyone really thing NATO would attack Russia? It's a defensive alliance. Putin is afraid because Russia is weak compared o the West, but Russia is weak because of Putin. He has squandered Russia's wealth.

2

u/netaurio Sep 24 '22

What does defensive alliance mean? Which of it's members did NATO defend in Libya or Bosnia?

2

u/formerly_gruntled Sep 24 '22

You probably have a valid point. I really don't know the details of who got involved and under what authority (actual NATO command or just several NATO members), but they are special situations in my mind.

In Bosnia, there was ongoing genocide. Rwanda is what happens if you turn a blind eye to genocide. That said, neither side of the conflict were angels. There is lots of history. There certainly is some inconsistency with how Kosovo was handled. But I don't see it as an out and out war of aggression by NATO.

I am not sure there is any moral high ground in Libya. Khaddafi had been a sponsor and actor in terrorism, so there's that. There was a civil war and as I understand it NATO got involved after a UN resolution. So it was not just a NATO thing. But at the end of the day, it was, and still is, a civil war. It seems America, and NATO, lost interest after Khaddaffi was dead and it became clear that the various factions preferred to fight rather than negotiate.

But I don't think in either case you can say NATO was a bad actor with no redeeming qualities to their actions. Unless you want to go all tankie. Maybe in Libya they were a little naive.

→ More replies

0

u/SilverMedalss Sep 24 '22 edited Sep 24 '22

NATO (really U.S., France, and friends in reality) will attack any non-white country that doesn’t walk the line. They’re a bloodthirsty pack of wolves. Imagine if China formed an “alliance” with Mexico. U.S., France, and friends would bomb Mexico back to the Stone Age in minutes. For…”threatening democracy” lol. India cozies up to Venezuela and strikes a deal regarding oil for wheat or something? Well…that’s threatening the “free world” (U.S. and western Europe). Prepare the landing crafts!

In reality. Now that Asia’s economy is firmly larger than Europe’s. You have a problem in the eyes of western hegemony. It won’t result in war unless China’s economy surpasses the United States. Some project it to by 2030. If India’s also overtakes Germany. Then you have an issue.

Unfortunately for the “free world”, we’re like 15% of the total population or something. It’s impossible for Us to win the war of attrition that would inevitably follow. Which will probably be a good thing for a huge majority of people in the world. “Death to the colonizers!”…British museum sieged.

Interesting times ahead. We’ll find out how peaceful are governments truly are when western hegemony is threatened.

→ More replies

4

u/formerly_gruntled Sep 24 '22

Back when Russia was briefly a democracy, no former Eastern Bloc countries felt threatened by Russia. There was an informal agreement that NATO would not expand. What changed? well old Vlad started threatening his neighbors. So everyone wanted to be under the NATO umbrella. All the old East Bloc countries wanted in because they felt threatened, to was not a campaign by NATO to add member. But they also saw Russia as an emerging threat to peace, so they added these countries.

Everything comes back to Putin and how no one trusts him.

8

u/dangleicious13 Sep 24 '22

but it was my understanding that there already was a pre-existing agreement that Nato wouldn't expand eastward towards Russia.

Russia should have gotten that in writing.

0

u/nika-nika Sep 24 '22

When I hear "it's because of oil" it all sounds to me like "tell me you don't know anything without telling me".

Too many people oversimplify all conflicts in other countries because the resources explanation is very convenient: every country has at least some.

Also, at the start of the invasion, Ukraine offered to become a non-aligned country with no intentions of joining NATO, but Putin wanted the land so he didn't take the deal, all NATO talk before was complete nonsense. See the other explanations in this post, especially the ones about cultural identity and history, they are much closer to reality.

2

u/xltlmnonamlpon Sep 25 '22

I have a hard time not believing it's about oil, at least partially. There are so many factors that play out in Russia's favor in this case. That's not to mention previous conflicts with Georgia that also had the same benefits. Russia's energy exports have been a powerful piece in European chess since the Soviet dissolution.

So while every country may have resources, Russia's near monopoly on oil exports to western Europe and 40% of their federal budget revenue, have heavy implications on their internal and external influence. Ukraine has threatened that power, as did Georgia. In both cases, Russia got involved over other matters that stopped this progress.

This conflict doesn't have to be based on a single reason. In fact, it was likely based on so many positive factors for Russia that it appeared to be a slam dunk. However, I cannot just willfully blind myself to such a massive factor of Russia's economy or power of influence. It may not be the reason, but it was almost definitely a reason.

→ More replies
→ More replies

-41

u/CarpetOutrageous2823 Sep 24 '22

He asked for something other than the media narrative.

16

u/JaxOnThat Sep 24 '22

So, you’re clearly looking for something that confirms your own pre-conceived notions of what this conflict is really about. We can’t give you that without knowing what you want to hear first.

→ More replies

1

u/Drougen Sep 24 '22

Why wasn't Ukraine in Nato to begin with? After Russia stole some of their land shouldn't they have joined? Or before that? Who was against them joining or what was the issue?

6

u/EugeneDestroyer Sep 24 '22

Namely, Angela Merkel. But NATO didn't care about Ukraine I guess

→ More replies

4

u/AlonnaReese Sep 24 '22

Countries that are involved in an existing territorial dispute are barred from joining NATO. This is because NATO membership obligates all members to provide military aid in the event that the territorial integrity of one of them is violated. NATO doesn't want to get drawn into an existing military conflict just by admitting a new country.

Russia has a history of invading countries that express an interest in joining NATO and permanently occupying small chunks of their land to create a territorial dispute and ensure that they can't join NATO. Russia did that to Ukraine eight years ago which is why they aren't in NATO. Other countries that have been victims of this strategy are Georgia and Moldova.

→ More replies

2

u/632146P Sep 25 '22

You're not allowed to join nato with an on-going territory dispute, russia forced that to happen when they took crimea, Ukraine was actively working to get around that though.

→ More replies

118

u/Lord_Voldemar Sep 24 '22

Ukraine is, in the Russian cultural identity (both geopolitical and historical), a natural sphere of inlfuence. A "little Russia", a colony almost. Ukraine's departure from this sphere was the last drop in a cup of dissapointment and revanchism and imperialist ambitions of the Russia that is now "lost", both as the USSR and the Empire before it. When Russians have a nostalgia or want the USSR back, they arent crying over the sorry state of the proletariat or anything else socialism actually stood for. What they miss is when they were a true world power, a global top dog with a herd of vassals at their command.

This war in many ways is a fallen empire's "mid life crisis", trying to prove its still a great power while further feeding the toxic "the whole world is against us and we're under attack" narrative that Russia's society has been marinated in during Putin's reign.

31

u/Assholejack89 Sep 24 '22 edited Sep 24 '22

This is the correct answer once you read works that are representative of what their national media pushes.

They couldn't even care about the toll in human lives or economic resources, or even NATO, or neonazis (those are just convenient excuses the pro-Russia side and armchair statesmen who have bought into the official government line have been peddling without understanding Russia and the effects of the USSR's collapse on its population). This is about not being humiliated in the world stage by what they consider a vassal state, and reclaiming the old glory days.

2

u/Corrupted_G_nome Sep 24 '22

It is about resources. Specifically Oil and LNG in crimea and the black sea. If Ukraine controls and develops those newly found deposits Europe will abandon Russia as their primary petrol and LNG provider. Russia's economy is currently about 60% fossil fuels and they don't have the infrastructure (pipelines, ports and rail) to get all their production out to the Asian markets. They do have pipelines to Europe andone of them through Ukraine has been a source of controversy and accusations for years.

1

u/Assholejack89 Sep 24 '22 edited Sep 24 '22

If resources were the real reason the war crimes they have committed against Ukraine wouldn't be as severe or as commonplace. Resources have had little to do in the war, considering they advanced as far as central Ukraine and were planning to kill the government members, plus the fact they have wiped out entire villages. Their goals are more limited now simply because they've been pushed back so far and so they see total domination of Ukraine as an impossibility, but to suggest they started this as a war for resources doesn't pan out considering their actions.

You're also suggesting that a state is a perfectly rational actor that only cares about resources. They are not.

4

u/Corrupted_G_nome Sep 24 '22

Ahh so thats why they are holding mainly the south. Its not to control the sea for the maritime rights for drilling but is aactually to destroy villages as a madman would. Lol.

This is what wars are and what wars look like. Americans did the same shit in Afghanistan. That was also a confl8slct about oil. Every conflict by a major power in this century is about oil.

The administration is not all crazy deranged people, they have been running the nation for decades. Thats propaganda my dude.

2

u/psybertard Sep 24 '22

And here the “whataboutism” begins.

2

u/Assholejack89 Sep 24 '22 edited Sep 24 '22

I love how most people like to point fingers at the US whenever other countries commit atrocities.

"But you guys did X, Y, and Z in Afghanistan!", yes we did, I'll give them that, but to compare the crimes of a few units to how an entire military operated even within the same war parameters (Soviet-Afghan war) and behaved spectacularly worse and does nothing but corroborate upon a cursory reading that Russians haven't changed their ways of destruction and plain genocide is silly.

It almost feels like they have nothing better to say towards the argument so they start flinging shit at it and see if they can derail the conversation.

→ More replies

3

u/Assholejack89 Sep 24 '22 edited Sep 24 '22

No, it isn't. You're taking a severely realist approach to the subject which doesn't pan out considering how Russia views itself as -- a revanchist empire with its own sphere of influence. The fact they are holding in the South may very well be at this point to secure the resources of the region, but to suggest this was the original plan at first just doesn't bear out.

Also, Americans did nowhere near the same atrocities in Afghanistan as Russia did in Chechnya or Ukraine. We may have been assholes and have committed war crimes, but we never did the same damage to the Afghans as the Russians have done to Ukraine in such a short span of time. You never heard of the US military leaving hundreds of mass graves in their wake, castrating civilians and targeting civilians deliberately as a way the military operated in Afghanistan, or Afghans fighting or fleeing en masse for their lives against Americans.

I never said they were deranged just because they're not perfectly logical, but what their primary goals were at the beginning was loud and clear once Ukrainians started finding piles of dead bodies. They were not there to "secure resources" as their primary goal, even if part of their goals was to secure resources.

1

u/Corrupted_G_nome Sep 24 '22

Thats what war looks like my dude. Did you expect flowers and chocolats? What did you think would happen to the resistance?

3

u/Assholejack89 Sep 24 '22 edited Sep 24 '22

If war looked like that then tell me why didn't the US wipe out the entire people of Iraq and Afghanistan when we very well could have just walked into villages and shot, raped, and mutilated people who refused to cooperate with us regardless of whether or not they were combatants?

Unless what you're really arguing is that in a war civilians and soldiers alike are to be considered combatants for the purposes of war and occupation, which only proves my point that this wasn't about "resources" primarily, given the fact other countries have conducted military campaigns for resources but nowhere near this level of brutality and indiscrimination between civilians and soldiers on the battlefield.

You talk about how this is how war is supposed to look like, but at no point have you made any sense by comparing Afghanistan to Ukraine.

1

u/Corrupted_G_nome Sep 24 '22

But they did. The whole invasion was to 'fight terrorists' not to fight a standing army. The US faced huge criticisms for killing civilians and collateral damage. There were cases of rape, and more than a few.

You know what heppens when a secret mission gets spotted by a child from a small village? They have to shoot the child or they risk having the whole squad wiped out, and guess what? The village finding a dead child can cause the same so they wipe out entire villages.

I fail to see how a petrol war forced by Russia is any different than a petrol war launched by the US. Nato nations are not innocent by standers. The US now has weapons and systems to reduce civilian casualties after 20 years of fierce criticisms for their war crimes. Including killing members of the Afghani and Iranian resistance, aka civilians.

Claiming madness is just propaganda. These peopke have been in power a long time and know what they are doing. Its not good but war is never morally correct imo.

You might want to look into carpet bombing and firestorms, in the last war in Europe Starving India while wiping out entire villages was very much the norm. Our weapons and laws are more civilized in some ways but that doesn't sugar coat what war actually is. Its killing peopke for resources and power

2

u/Assholejack89 Sep 24 '22

You might want to look into carpet bombing and firestorms, in the last war in Europe Starving India while wiping out entire villages was very much the norm. Our weapons and laws are more civilized in some ways but that doesn't sugarcoat what war actually is. Its killing people for resources and power

"Killing people for resources and power", at least you finally got to the part I can half agree with you. Because if you reread what I said I explicitly said that "This is about not being humiliated in the world stage by what they consider a vassal state, and reclaiming the old glory days." which implies that they are doing this because of power, even if resources is a goal, it's power over Ukrainians that they want primarily. Otherwise they wouldn't be treating Ukraine's population the way they are doing.

→ More replies

1

u/Assholejack89 Sep 24 '22

You keep thinking I am claiming Russia is a bunch of madmen when I never said any such thing. You need to climb off that hill you have made regarding my words. When I say they are not perfectly rational I don't mean they are madmen, what I am saying is that part of their motives for waging war is at least emotional and/or pride-driven, and not cold, calculated cynicism. Just because an administration is not cool and calculated doesn't mean they are mental patients.

Like I said, the US were assholes and we did commit war crimes, but it wasn't a matter of the whole of the US military operating this way. There will always be collateral damage and killing civilians, and soldiers not abiding to the rules of war, but like I said, the way US troops operated was never to target civilians and soldiers indiscriminately.

The difference between this war and the wars the US waged during the 2000s is simply this: were the Afghans scared of us and took up arms as an entire nation to fend us off? If no, then no, we are not the same. You yourself admit that we have better systems to prevent and reduce civilian casualties after criticisms. Guess what? Russia also got the same criticisms regarding Chechnya. Tell me where their systems to avoid civilian casualties are after the first Chechen war which ended in 96, or the second which ended in 2009.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '22

Always ironic considering that the Kievan Rus started in…Kiev

2

u/paulydee76 Sep 24 '22

Is this Russia's Suez? Although a lot bloodier.

2

u/Lord_Voldemar Sep 24 '22

No. More like Russia's Ireland (although alot bloodier).

1

u/paulydee76 Sep 24 '22

Yes that might be a better analogy

62

u/DickySchmidt33 Sep 24 '22

What is "the media" telling us about it that isn't real?

18

u/NetherWarlock1 Sep 24 '22

OP is probably russian

29

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '22

I am not, and I am not a media-phobic conspiracy theorist. I am looking for a debate and as many points of view as possible to understand what's going on in Ukraine. If anything, I am ignorant and poorly informed. Maybe I am listening to the news too much and would like to hear other opinions.

9

u/Gavinator10000 Sep 24 '22

Definitely fair

9

u/ShoWel_redit Sep 24 '22

As a Russian, i can tell you, we see that there's no justifiable meaning to this war, it's just madman's sick dream to annex Ukraine and eliminate Ukrainians as a nation.

5

u/TheRealSugarbat Sep 24 '22

How popular would you say your opinion is there? I’ve heard there’s a large difference between older people and younger people with regard to this issue. Before mobilization, how many Russians would you say on average were for or against the invasion?

13

u/ShoWel_redit Sep 24 '22

No one i know is on board with the invasion. The closest person i know to feeling positive about it is my dad, who just ignores this going on. Some people avoid talking about it, others speak against it quietly in close circles

6

u/TheRealSugarbat Sep 24 '22

Thank you. Stay safe.

2

u/ShoWel_redit Sep 24 '22

Thank you! I need all the luck i can have rn

2

u/TheRealSugarbat Sep 24 '22

Are you being drafted?

2

u/ShoWel_redit Sep 24 '22

I can be any moment. Even before war, young people would get kidnapped of the streets and brought to serve, i imagine now that we're being drafted to the war that's doubly so. I can't leave my apartment without getting ready to never return here, not to mention that they can very well come for me here

2

u/TheRealSugarbat Sep 24 '22

I’m so, so sorry. Can you leave the country? Or is that impossible for you right now?

→ More replies
→ More replies

1

u/NetherWarlock1 Sep 24 '22

I know, but there is a lot more misinformation in russia

3

u/ShoWel_redit Sep 24 '22

People who watch TV in Russia don't use the internet, nor they speak English.

4

u/Corrupted_G_nome Sep 24 '22

That is a madman acting irrationally. Its a ctually a nation that is cornered and crumbling attempting to maintain dominance as fuel supplier to Europe while trying to keep more defensible borders. East Ukraine is huge and hard to defend in comparison to controling west Ukraine and the black sea.

6

u/NorionV Sep 24 '22

Yeah, I do not like hearing that Putin is just an idiot losing his shit for no reason.

He has reasons. We should really want to understand those reasons, because mad or not, the guy's obviously dangerous.

0

u/DickySchmidt33 Sep 24 '22

Yes, there is certainly much more depth to the story, but the implication in the OP is that the media is not telling us what is really happening.

As if the invasion is somehow justified and we're all being hoodwinked into believing that it isn't.

3

u/NorionV Sep 24 '22

As a society we've become rather distrustful of our media. Can't really be faulted - they suck a lot and very often.

What coverage I've seen has painted Putin as a lunatic who's going to nuke us all into oblivion. He doesn't have goals - he's just losing his grip on reality and super paranoid, invading Ukraine for no real reason than just to get approval ratings or something.

It's not a good picture to paint because even if we consider him 'crazy', he does have reasons and goals. Understanding them would make them easier to counter. I didn't see enough discussion on that point - just a lot of doomsaying.

1

u/Corrupted_G_nome Sep 24 '22

Real life lore and kings and generals are good youtube channels for this. I do not feel they are pro Russia but lay out why the conflict is happening.

→ More replies
→ More replies

26

u/Insomniadict Sep 24 '22

Several reasons:

Nationalism - many elements in Russia view the predominantly ethnically Russian Eastern parts of Ukraine as rightfully theirs, and many want a return to the perceived glory days of an imperial Russia.

Resources - Eastern Ukraine is rich in farms and industry, and also has ports along the Black Sea, which would be a boon to the flagging Russian economy.

Geopolitics - In the 30 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, most of the European countries that were aligned with Russia have since formed closer ties with the West, joining organizations like NATO and the EU. Ukraine has historically been a close Russian ally, but recently has begun to form closer ties with Western Europe. One of Russia’s goals is to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, which would take a large bordering country permanently out of Russian alignment.

9

u/Corrupted_G_nome Sep 24 '22

You may want to add some geo to your geopolitics. Ukraine, Poland, E. Germany and Belorussia all the way to moscow is flatland. Hard to defend territory. The old soviet onion went all the way to mountains and the black sea. Ukraine flipping from pro Russia to joining Nato leaves Russias borders vulnerable and hard to defend. Especially since Nato countries (ahem USA) have/had airbases in many border nations with Russia.

9

u/momannihilator Sep 24 '22

soviet onion

2

u/Corrupted_G_nome Sep 24 '22

Sphere of influence? Puppet states? Loyal regimes? Spmething like that

2

u/EugeneDestroyer Sep 24 '22

Ukraine was never Russian 'ally'. Russians have been invading Ukraine for the last 500 years.

1

u/Atilim87 Sep 24 '22

What the media tells you…. Only you kind of forgot “ego”.

42

u/balmierfish Sep 24 '22

Implying you can’t trust “the media” in general is lazy/ignorant. Learn to find credible sources. Where do you think people on here are getting information?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '22

I agree, it is a click-baity heading. Can you please list some of those sources?

7

u/balmierfish Sep 24 '22

I always start with the AP or Reuters. Something to look out for is if they are willing to update stories to correct any errors. True journalists only report verified facts, so they shouldn’t make many errors, but they are human after all. The key to maintaining their credibility is correcting those errors before someone else does.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '22

Thanks for your input.

→ More replies

4

u/DarthMondayMorning Sep 24 '22

There was quite a good video by RealLifeLore about it.

Before 2014, large oil and natural gas deposits were found in Ukraine. Ukraine itself wasn't able to afford to start extracting these resources themselves, so they allowed some western companies to do it, for a price. That would allow Ukraine to replace Russia in being the most important oil and gas supplier to Europe. EU could replace Russia. That Putin wasn't ready to allow, so he annexed Crimea, which led to said western companies withdrawing, because they didn't want to build expensive oil rigs on an unstable territorry. Guess where those deposits are. In Crimean territorrial waters and in Donbas.

Another reason, perhaps the more important one: The USSR was basically a crumble zone to protect Moscow if NATO attacked, and due to the geographics (mountains) of Central and Eastern Europe, the border is increasingly difficult to defend the more easward it is. Before the invasion Ukraine was not part of NATO or Russia's sphere of influence. When they wanted to join NATO, Putin started threatening, because NATO troops on Ukraine's territorry would mean Belarus is completely undefendable, and the frontline would be uncomfortably close to Moscow.

1

u/Bergensis Sep 24 '22

crumble zone

That sounds delicious.

9

u/ShoWel_redit Sep 24 '22

You all trying to find some deeper meaning to why Putin is doing this, but as a Russian, I assure you, he's just lost he's marbles and thinks that annexing Ukraine through military conquest will somehow make the whole world respect him. He lost all respect the moment he started this war and he brought it on himself.

21

u/patriotgator122889 Sep 24 '22

If you can't find the "real" reason from media reports why do you think random redditors will be more helpful? If a redditor has the same reason as a media source is it now invalid?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '22

I try not to assume anything about other Redditors and am looking for as many points of view as possible. I listen to the news a lot, and I feel I don't understand what's going on.

5

u/patriotgator122889 Sep 24 '22

Can you explain how that's helpful? Having more views doesn't necessarily make you better informed. In fact, not filtering relevant opinions can bury relevant views in a heap of crap.

I listen to the news a lot, and I feel I don't understand what's going on.

That's a different problem. It's sounds like you need clarification or explanation, not more opinions.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '22

Yes, that's what I asked for initially, but opinions matter too. Sometimes explanations can be found by sourcing opinions widely and assessing them. There is no truth anyway, just the ways people see the world. I enjoy reading the comments here, and I hope a healthy debate will contribute toward peace eventually. I am saying all this, knowing fully I am naive and ignorant.

1

u/patriotgator122889 Sep 24 '22

Lol well as long as you know :)

1

u/Corrupted_G_nome Sep 24 '22

There are some gokd youtube videos by Real Life Lore and Kings and Generals that discuss actual geopolitics and history. People seem a lot less crazy when you understand their motives.

3

u/alyfar Sep 24 '22

Resources is almost always the underlying reason to acquire new territory through the means of hard power aka war

3

u/Corrupted_G_nome Sep 24 '22

Real Life Lore and Kings and Generals go over it in some detail.

Aging population and degrading soviet equipment are part of it.

Russia's economy is hugely centered around Natural gas and Oil. New deposits found offshor of Crimea would make Ukraine the new ptletrol state of Europe. Ukraine and Russia have had many disputes due to Ukraine taxing russia on shipments through the pipeline that crosses Ukraine but used to be a Soviet era ally. There have been accusations of siphoning and such over the last many years. Russia is struggling to hold onto 2nd world nation status and does not have the infrastructure (yet) to ship all that oil and LNG to India and China. Their economy is comparable to that od Spain currently.

Nato nations and old soviet nations are kind of a buffer zone. There is an immense flatland between east Berlin and Moscow, very hard to defend. The old soviet bloc nations ended with mountains, the entire black sea and E Germany. Now that borded with nato is immense and hard to defend. Ukraine joining nato limits access to the black sea and create some 11k km of undefenseablw borded with a pro Nato nation. Making Russia very vulnerable.

So economics, geography and demographics. In a generation they won'tbe able to fight a war. They were hoping ti annex Ukraine quickly and have access to their agriculture, Fuel and manpower, possinly for further expansionism. Now they are stuck in a fight and can't backdown without some kind of win to save face.

3

u/517xyz Sep 24 '22

Natural resources, fertile land, and a warm water port.

3

u/Pandraswrath Sep 24 '22

I think that the vast majority of the answer you get here will be, ultimately, from the media. The only person who could truly tell you why Putin started this is Vladimir Putin. I doubt he’s going to pop in and provide an answer. What you’re left with is media and opinions. Your best option is to find a reputable news source and read. When I say reputable, I mean a news source where 90% of their programming/writing is not pundits, opionists, commentator, analyst…or any word besides journalist. If they do use any of those things, it needs to be clearly marked so you understand it’s an opinion and not necessarily factual.

→ More replies

12

u/7evenCircles Sep 24 '22

If you want to understand why someone is doing something, ask what stands to be gained. What does Russia stand to gain in Ukraine?

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '22

Can you elaborate, please?

15

u/PhilzeeTheElder Sep 24 '22

As a few people already said. Ukraine has the Black sea, grain fields and other resources. Putin wants the Glory days back, Ukraine is the most independent of all the old Russian breakaways. If his plan worked and he took Ukraine in 2 days, all the rest would have to fall in line too.

2

u/Niggomane Sep 25 '22

Not sure about that. Even if Ukraine fell fast I think countries like Poland would’ve gotten really nervous and started arming up. The only difference would’ve been that the new iron curtain would’ve taken a slightly different path.

8

u/BowDownToThor Sep 24 '22

Putin has openly stated that reunification of the USSR was his life goal many times in the past. Kyiv was the original capital of Russia before Moscow. Rich history gives reason to start there.

He's getting old. Times running up on his dreams.

Ukraine is also extremely resource rich. Not to mention they hold multiple major power plants that supply Russia.

The man was KGB through and through. Restoring the former glory of the USSR is his primary objective. He claimed they were neonazis because nobody hated the Nazis more than the Soviets, arguably. The idea that Ukraine is led by neonazis is a call back for nostalgic nationalism.

9

u/sewcrazy4cats Sep 24 '22

Putin has a fever dream of reuniting the ussr

2

u/BL4NK_D1CE Sep 24 '22

This is literally the most concise answer

→ More replies

6

u/Tortillafla Sep 24 '22

Nations rise and nations fall. Russia under the tsar was a sprawling powerful behemoth. When the communists overthrew the tsar they gave up a huge amount of land in order to gain peace. Prior, During, and after WWII the Soviet Union fought many grizzly conflicts to gain land making it the largest nation in the world. After the fall of communism many areas that were part of the Ussr wanted freedom. Ukraine is one area that got its freedom. They have their own language there own history, it makes sense for them to be their own country. Conversely they also have been part of Russia more often than not in history. They speak a language that is closely related to Russian, and they trace their ethnicity back to Kiev Rus just like the Russians and Belorussians.

Most of the Ukrainians feel that they are independent. Most Russians think they are not. Not all Ukrainians want independence. This is especially true in areas that are largely Russian speaking like Crimea, and Donbas. When Crimea was annexed in 2014 the people were fairly split on allegiance, and because Russia marched in troops in the middle of the night who had no insignia there really wasn’t a real war over the land. This made Putin believe that the rest of Ukraine would be fairly easy to capture. The Donbas had mixed allegiances and was somewhat easy to capture, but this lead to a war that lasted up through today.

During that time the Ukrainian people became hardened to Russian advancements. They began to feel that if they wanted to keep there independent they would have to fight for it. Also, notably the West led by America sent a lot of arms to Ukraine for the fight. If Russia launched a full scale invasion they would meet hundreds of thousand well armed Ukrainian troops. So far these well armed battle tested troops have been enough to hand Russia a string of surprising defeats.

The reason for the war is complicated. Russians feel that they once had glory. They put the first man in space. They were rich and technologically advanced. They once had a thriving empire, and they lost it. They want greatness again. Putin gave them that feeling back. He crushed the Chechen uprising in the early 2000s. He annexed part of Georgia in 2008. He took Crimea in 2014. He is now an old man, and I think he felt taking Ukraine would place himself in the annals of history as a great Russian leader like Catherine and Peter. He controls the media. He is good at crushing decent, and Russia has grown more wealthy during his reign. I think he viewed taking Ukraine as his opus. So far he has failed, but winter is coming and I don’t bet against the Russians in the cold.

3

u/alex20_202020 Sep 24 '22

When do you think Russians thought they were rich?

5

u/wildewurst Sep 24 '22

Never. But early 2000's till maybe 2014, average Russians had as much buying power and choice as never before. Young Russians are already waking up and realizing that their childhood was during a golden age, one that will not come again anytime soon.

Did Oligarchs have insane wealth? Yes! Was the wealth of Russia unfairly spread? Yes. But still - average people had more than ever before.

Putin can take some credit for that.
But as many have said: "Dear Putin, in the beginning u did a pretty good job. But seems like lately everything u are touching turns to shit. Time to step down? :-)"

→ More replies

16

u/dangleicious13 Sep 24 '22

Putin's a greedy little bastard.

10

u/ForScale Sep 24 '22

Very educated.

2

u/ThuliumNice Sep 24 '22

Ultimately, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is just imperialism, so u/dangleicious13 gave the most succinct answer possible.

2

u/Crash_Economy Sep 24 '22

Putin is monke

2

u/faustianbargainer Sep 24 '22

(1) Supply-chain, (2) NATO

First, there are pipelines coming online from Azerbaijan that allow it to supply natural gas to Europe.

A western block didn't want Nordstream II to come online and instead wanted to get natural gas from sources other than Russia.

Ukraine developing its own supplies would add more pressure on Russia.

Second, the NATO expansion is straightforward. But if you look at it economically this was a big win for defense companies. NATO is stronger than ever. Lots of weapons being deployed.

A weaker Russia benefits everyone except Russia.

2

u/DirtiestPlayerInGame Sep 24 '22

Social media is Media asking Reddit what's going on is the same thing as asking media what's going on. The only people that can know the reasons are there without any influence from the media are the people doing it. If you want first hand knowledge with no media influence then buy a ticket fly over there and find out

→ More replies

2

u/aoide12 Sep 24 '22

Putin has talked about his rationale quite openly.

There is a strong feeling amongst many Russians, Putin included, that ex russian territories (from the days of the Russian empire and USSR) are naturally russian and should be reunited into a single country. They believe the breaking up of the USSR was a historical mistake which did not reflect the nature of the people of the region. They see people like the Ukrainians as temporarily displaced Russians who should be bought back into the main country. This explains how they reconcile liking Ukrainians (check polling on russians views on Ukrainians) with invading and killing them. They don't see it as an attempt to destroy them but as a protective action needed to reunify the Russian people.

We tend to make decisions based on the economic and political consequences so we assume others will do the same but in most of the world things like national identity is a huge motivator.

2

u/Thrall-of-Grazzt Sep 25 '22

Russia has been warning the Americans for 30 years that NATO should come no closer, as was promised the nascent Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed.

NATO kept getting closer, and then the Amerikans openly admitted to 20+ bioweapon labs in Ukraine.

Think about that: The same people who created COVID and wrecked the world for 2 years were behind 20+ new labs in Ukraine. Putin had to react. Sadly, innocent people have died while the guilty over in the Failed States are completely unharmed.

2

u/owaisted Sep 25 '22

Get ready for downvotes buddy. They don't like this kind of rhetoric her. It's Putin mad Ukraine good.

Ukraine got baited and then left to rot by the US and NATO. When you have a comedian for a president, this is going to happen. Idiot may cause a third world war. This damned inflation is partly his cause.

2

u/Maverick7616 Sep 25 '22

Well I can’t tell you what you want to hear but I can say with certainty that Reddit is not the place you are going to find it.

10

u/PotatoImpossible Sep 24 '22

Not sure if this is what the media thought but the way I understand it is that Ukraine was on the verge of joining NATO and that is what sparked this whole thing.

Joining NATO meant that the country is required to dedicate a certain amount of their GDP to arming their Military so that you can contribute to any conflict that arises in the event of conflict. Same deal goes for every other country, in the even a NATO country gets invaded, you're supposed to get help from every other NATO member.

Kinda bad news if a neighboring country is allowed to ARM up and possibly point their weapons at you AND be backed up by NATO if you try and do anything about it.

That's the way I understood it anyway.

15

u/Hatshepsut420 Sep 24 '22

The first step of joining NATO is getting Membership Action Plan. Ukraine asked for it in 2008 and got denied because France and Germany vetoed it, citing "not angering Russia". Since then there was no progress in joining NATO from Ukraine.

Meanwhile Finland's application is in the process of being voted by member states, and Russia did absolutely nothing, didn't even move any troops to hundreds of kilometers of the Finnish border. Because Russia knows perfectly well that NATO is not invading them, even if NATO wanted.

→ More replies

15

u/Dilettante Social Science for the win Sep 24 '22

While Ukraine did indicate that it wanted to join NATO, it wasn't able to. NATO rules say that you can't join while you have an ongoing territorial dispute - and Ukraine had two: Crimea, which had been occupied by Russia since 2014, and the Russian separatist rebels in Donbas, also since 2014.

5

u/dcheesi Sep 24 '22

All of which was instigated by the Russians in the first place. So the question is: which came first, the NATO interest or the Russian encroachment?

5

u/Dilettante Social Science for the win Sep 24 '22

Both happened around the same time. Before 2014, Ukraine was effectively a pro-russian puppet with no interest in NATO. 2014 saw the pro-russian candidate ousted and a pro-Europe candidate replace him. It was at that time that the Russians seized Crimea.

6

u/PotatoImpossible Sep 24 '22

I stand corrected. I tried my best haha.

3

u/Dilettante Social Science for the win Sep 24 '22

That's okay! It is a common belief and one that Putin has talked about, so it's easy to get confused.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/TheSanscripter Sep 24 '22

Oil, fertile land, people and the destruction of a political enemy of Putin's , Zelensky.

3

u/h0rny3dging Sep 24 '22

Russia considers Eastern Ukraine part of its territory because there are many ethnic Russians living there and "Russia" has its origins with the "Kievan Rus" . It's kinda like Germany wanting to re-claim their german-speaking territories, China claiming Taiwan or India claiming Kashmir.

Why Putin pulled the trigger, I dont know and I didnt think it would happen after Georgia or Chechnya, but it's also not a sudden development, the Crimean crisis(same justification) has been going on for 8 years now.

Essentially it isnt about nationalism or any of that bullshit, it never is, its about money, ressources and trade routes and Ukraine has all of that and a lot of it. Putin wants money and NATO wants to keep control of the money

2

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '22

[deleted]

1

u/alex20_202020 Sep 24 '22

to "mostly" pull back;

what about ongoing referendums?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '22 edited Sep 24 '22

[deleted]

2

u/jujub44 Sep 24 '22

I was going to say… answer as old as time- small man, small penis

→ More replies

3

u/Teddy-Bear-55 Sep 24 '22

Gorbachev; as the Soviet Union crumbled, was promised by the US and NATO, that if he allowed the reunification of Germany, no NATO soldiers would move an inch further than the German border. As Clinton started the NATO move eastwards, Russia kept warning that this was not a good idea. It was said long before the US coup to put a fascist government in Kyiv in the 2014 parliamentary election, that it would be completely unacceptable for Russia to have a NATO member state on its border.

By the way; in 2000, as Putin took office in Russia, he asked the EU and NATO if Russia could join. He was told in no uncertain terms that this was never going to happen. So he learned his lesson and realised that confrontation was the only way.

Rainer Shea explains much better than I could what happened after the 2014 coup, here:

https://rainershea.substack.com/p/donbass-separatist-republics-provide

There'll be language in there which burns American eyes, but he's well researched and most Americans would do well to read his article.

Biden has basically come out and said that the US doesn't care how many Ukrainians die; Washington wants to bleed Russia dry, whatever the cost. So we're stuck with a grinding proxy-war of attrition between a fairly weak Russia on its own border, and a failing USofA, panicked that any other nation might start attempts to further their reach in the world or even maintain what they already have. Several knowledgeable writers have already said that the US century might be coming to an end, and it seems the US is doing precisely what they accuse Russia of doing: If we go down, we'll take everyone else down with us.

8

u/ThuliumNice Sep 24 '22 edited Sep 24 '22

This is just all wrong.

Biden has basically come out and said that the US doesn't care how many Ukrainians die; Washington wants to bleed Russia dry, whatever the cost.

I don't think he ever said this. I think this is what you think, and you are imagining he said words to this effect. Fundamentally, the best thing for the US and the world is simply for Russia to leave all Ukrainian territory alone.

By the way; in 2000, as Putin took office in Russia, he asked the EU and NATO if Russia could join.

Russia is one of the most duplicitous and corrupt nations on the earth. If Ukraine couldn't join the EU because of corruption issues, why should Russia be allowed to?

Note that their current actions with imprisoning everyone who calls the war in Ukraine a war would mean that if they applied today, they would also be rejected, and it is astonishing that people are complaining otherwise.

The problem isn't EU aggression, the problem is that Russia is not a good partner.

Gorbachev; as the Soviet Union crumbled, was promised by the US and NATO, that if he allowed the reunification of Germany, no NATO soldiers would move an inch further than the German border.

No treaty to this effect was ever made.

In addition, free countries have the right to make alliances with whomever they wish. Countries formerly part of the USSR that asked to join NATO did so because that was the only security guarantee that would be effective against Russian aggression.

Poland has never invaded Russia. But when you consider their treatment at the hands of the Russians, you can understand why they would want to be part of a defensive alliance that protects them from being invaded by the Russians.

Also, the US never did a coup in Ukraine. This is so wrong, and completely discounts the bravery of Ukrainians who threw out the Russian puppet government in their country.

2

u/Teddy-Bear-55 Sep 24 '22

You should go read about Obama and the 2014 election in Ukraine; it's sobering.

-2

u/averageredditor_1337 Sep 24 '22

Russia is one of the most duplicitous and corrupt nations on the earth. If Ukraine couldn't join the EU because of corruption issues, why should Russia be allowed to?

You're implying that the EU uses consistent logic. The EU pours billions and billions into Ukraine, but at the same time, kicks up a fuss with Poland and Hungary about corrpution... yeah...

1

u/bummerdeal Sep 24 '22

Most Americans would do well to read most of what Shea has written. Consistently well-researched analysis of global and domestic politics. Thanks for sharing.

→ More replies

2

u/HelloBello30 Sep 24 '22

I feel for you OP. You asked for a non-media explanation and all you get is the media regurgitated.

I don't think anyone knows the real reason. It is like a combination of the following:

-Putin wants a legacy. I suspect reuniting Ukraine/Russia/Belarus was on his bucket list.

-NATO is unapologetically stepping into Russia's sphere of influence... think about China meddling in Mexico. It's perceived as too close. There is evidence the US was involved in the 2013 Ukrainian Euromaidan protests/revolution.

-Could be a distraction from the growing anti-Putin sentiment in Russia due to all of the plausible corruption revelations (think Navalny's documentary).

-Due to NATO's ongoing expansion, there is no telling what NATO would do next... belarus? attempting to sow heavy revolutionary discord inside of Russia? Putin wanted to draw a red line.

-That part of Ukraine is resource-rich; especially in agricultural production.

-Controlling certain parts, ie Kherson, ensures ongoing water supply to Crimea (Ukraine was blocking it previously using a dam). This was a major issue.

-It is undeniably true that through the battle between the Ukrainian government and the Donbass separatists over the last 8 years, there have been thousands of civilians killed. These civilians are overwhelmingly pro-Russian and have been begging for assistance for a long time. Cease fires have been violated repeatedly.

-I don't personally buy the de-nazification thing. It is generally about unfair treatment of Russian people through restrictions on language, political parties, altering WW2 history and so forth. There is extremism in Ukraine but it appears to be fringe. Calling it Nazi-ism is a catch-all of all the issues I listed. IMO this is more-or-less a false justification and not a "real reason"... but none-the-less, i mention this because media doesn't really explain this argument.

-Was meant to be a flex. Lots of pointers indicated they thought Ukraine would capitulate within days which would make Russia look a lot more powerful. Thought they could repeat Crimea. A miscalculation, but it is a plausible answer to your question.

3

u/Dodgy-Boi Sep 24 '22

It’s a common thing: Dictator loses popularity and starts a war. Just like Uganda or Iraq or many other dictatorship regimes.

As easy as it is.

-7

u/waterapplehead Sep 24 '22

Putin doesn't wnt NATO in their backyard.

US wants NATO in Putin's backyard.

EU is divided and weak like always

5

u/dangleicious13 Sep 24 '22

Putin doesn't wnt NATO in their backyard.

So he tries to take over at least part of a country, putting him even closer to NATO.

→ More replies

1

u/Heroann_the_original Sep 24 '22

The EU is not really divided... Every person you ask is on the side of ukraine. We simply don't want to get pulled in a war. The EU was created to avoid wars after WW2.

We still sended ressources towards Ukraine and now have to pay the price for doing so because of trading restrictions from russia. For example here in germany, this winter heating your house will get expensive since we are reliant on russias gas.

→ More replies

-9

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '22

[deleted]

3

u/dat_oracle Sep 24 '22

That's just a really small part, i would even say it's meaningless to Putin. It's more about geopolitical influence and ressources. The west ist more successful and was able to draw a big part of Ukraine on it's side. Obviously that's harmful to Russia. Which is already a dying state. Countries trying to get away from oil and gas. The only thing Russia has to offer on economic levels

→ More replies

-2

u/mytimelineforever Sep 24 '22

Hillary Clintons email servers began the war long before Hunter Bidens laptop started the plague. The four horsemen as the educated republicans see them. So far we've only seen two of the four. Email servers , and laptop. The next horsemen could be a kindle, or will it be a MacBook? It might be something as simple as a smart washing machine. Point is when the time comes the republicans will let us know. As my local republican congressman says "keep your ear on the train tracks, shit where's my legs" -Brian M.

2

u/Hammiecheese134 Sep 24 '22

To be frank, the hunter Biden laptop thing needs to be investigated. Why is the left playing this off?

→ More replies

1

u/rmzy Sep 24 '22

According to some commie I heard the other day, Putin’s saving the world from democracy

1

u/InfernalOrgasm Sep 24 '22

They needed the geographical location to be able to withstand China's world war they're planning in two decades or less.

But honestly, I'm just a fuck on Reddit, my opinion is probably more worthless than a lot of the media's.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '22

that makes two of us

1

u/SilverMedalss Sep 24 '22 edited Sep 24 '22

Ukraine turned off crimeas water supply after many of them wanted to become apart of Russia. So russia invaded to turn it back on.

Warm water port too

2

u/Kyllurin Sep 24 '22

Can’t mighty Russia supply water to her own annexed territories?

Are there other resources that big mighty Russia is depending on other nations to supply, and can we expect Russians invading if they don’t want to supply these resources?

→ More replies
→ More replies

0

u/beerkenz Sep 24 '22

Follow the money bois... Back 2011 2013 a shitton of gas , some oil was found under crimea , luhansk and donesk regions by western oil companies, the ruskies cant afford to have competition in the region, and so they started stirring shit up.. the rest is history as they say..
Flagwaving , human rights , nazis , commies nato, and all the other smokescreen bullshit is just for the tv and simpletons to get thier erections , its always the fkn dollars... nothing more to it. :)

-1

u/SouthernGuyReborn Sep 24 '22

Ukraine broke an agreement (Minsk Agreement) with Russia. That was one of the big reasons. It didn't help that the US was running bio-weapon labs in Ukraine close to Russia's border. Russia was very patient and took more 'in your face' stuff than almost any other country would have before reacting. Just imagine what would happen if Mexico allowed China to set up bio-weapon labs on their border with the US. Mexco would be attacked about 3 minutes later.

1

u/Astralnaptime Sep 24 '22

You're aware there are American bio-labs inside Russia, that the Russians are totally ok with?

1

u/Breaking-Bad-Norway Sep 24 '22

The war started in 2014! Putin really is a bad person. This is not a western conspiracy to assert more control.

There are Russians in the world that want to control others against their will. However, there is grain farming in Donbas and oil and gas in the Black Sea the Russians want so they can exert more control over Europe.

1

u/JJdaCool Sep 24 '22

Control and resources. In this case it is for the control of the resources oil and natural gas. Many countries have done the war thing for those reasons, as well as typically providing additional propaganda to its own citizens to make them agree with it.

1

u/Classic-Standard-490 Sep 24 '22

One of the reason often neglected is that Ukraine has big part of former soviet weapon industry which Russian lack and needed for their planned army expansion. There are tank a aircraft complexes, motor manufacturers for boats, tanky and aircrafts, wharfs and shipyard for capital ships. This part of military industrial complex was never replaced in Russia and was source of lot of problem for their military/industry complex for years

1

u/ohboymykneeshurt Sep 24 '22

To make it short: Ukraine was a significant part of the Soviet Unions might. Ukraine has massive ressources. It has a very large weapons industry. During soviet times it represented 30-40 percent of Soviet arms manufacture. Until 2014 Ukraine was the worlds 4th largest weapons exporter. Ukraine is the key to the Black Sea. Ukraine has massive agricultural ressources. NATO was never an issue. NATO was never a threat to Russia. Only part NATO played is if Ukraine joined NATO then Russia could never invade Ukraine and steal all their goodies.

1

u/HimakiKumari Sep 24 '22

https://youtu.be/nK-yJD_fAtk

This is the best, factual explanation of the war. It's just 9 mins, and states all the reasons as to why it's happening.

1

u/Noinix Sep 24 '22

Ukraine is in a unique geological position in relation to Russia, along with having extraordinary soil for farming, good planting, growing and harvesting seasons, and has tremendous, easy to access, natural resources.

All these things make it a valuable country in it s own right and, for someone like Putin who believes that Russia’s borders should be closer to the most expanded border that the USSR ever had it is a tempting target.

1

u/BackAgain12345678 Sep 24 '22

Trump gave Putin a big head.

And probably a blow job.

1

u/NameForPhoneAccount Sep 24 '22

The other answers are pretty good but to add my two cents:

Putin saw the collapse of the USSR and didn't live it well. He has stated in 2005 that it was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”. He is basically trying to bring back the bipolar world of the second half of the 20th century as Russia lost all of its influence in the current multipolar world. He seems to have become extremly delusional or given awful advice.

This is the reason behind Ukraine but also the other conflicts around Transnistria, Georgia or Chechnya.

→ More replies

1

u/rfarries Sep 24 '22

Zelensky is a Russian plant enticing the West to dump tons of money into the Ukraine where the infrastructure has been crumbling for decades

1

u/Medical-Incident-243 Sep 24 '22

Manifest destiny

1

u/JohnOliverismysexgod Sep 24 '22

Russia wanted Ukraine's natural resources. So they invaded, thinking Ukraine would quiver before the might of the great Russian state. Ukraine said, oh, hell no, and fought back. Now putin doesn't want to lose face by withdrawing from Ukraine.

1

u/RainesViking4 Sep 24 '22

Nazis, Ukraine has kkk camps, Asov battalion research it. They’ve also been killing their own for years….

1

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '22 edited Sep 24 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Sep 24 '22

Sorry, your comment has been automatically removed because it appears to violate Rule 1: top-level responses must contain a genuine attempt at an answer - not just links. Our users come here for straightforward, simple answers or because of the nuance that engaging in conversation supplies. Links don't do that.

Feel free to post a new comment with this link, but please provide context or summaries when you do. Thanks!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/RainesViking4 Sep 24 '22

Azov Battalion