Jul 11, 2023·edited Jul 11, 2023Liked by Patrick Powers
Yes, the original plan was indeed for Ukraine to get swiftly conquered by Russia, but then turn into a quagmire, basically to replicate Afghanistan, which the US still believes was what caused the downfall of the Soviet state. With a massive drain to Russia internal stability and resources from fighting an internal guerrilla warfare, terrorist attacks, costs to run the country, corruption and so on it would have been decades of trouble. All of this has been very openly detailed by various Western Think Tanks and other elites since the 90.
Jun 1, 2023·edited Jul 12, 2023Liked by Patrick Powers
What the US wants and is doing…. is turning Ukraine into a giant failed state like Libya. From which they and the warlords they prop up will continually set out terrorist attacks on Russia. These terrorists may even be used to whip up fear in Europe by threatening EUROPEAN states not falling in line with the U.S. That’s what the US have done in the Middle East Central America and Saharan Africa.
Then they will leave the mess in Europe’s lap to keep paying for.
However Europe has no leaders worthy of the name, who can see this and revisit enabling it, their own downfall. They only have lackeys there, no leaders, no statesmen.
Russia has already incorporated the parts it will take. It may have to conquer the whole thing, but it won't govern more than that. (Odessa is the bargaining chip although Putin hinted last summer that it would end up Russian--as it should).
With Ukraine's military destroyed, the rest of Ukraine will be left to Blackrock and turned into an agribusiness DMZ.
After Russia expending so much blood and treasure and making this an existential battle virus NATO and the west,, economic rationality can not dictate terms. Russia will have to embrace Ukraine and its people and make massive investments and subsidies.
On other issues, while I do not know the history, am not sure your assumption about Ukraine contributing to the collapse of Soviet Union is accurate. Seems the other way around: the end of Soviet subsidies and investment led to eastern Ukraine decline.
It was those subsidies to the SSRs and satellites that contributed to the decline of Russian fortunes. Amazingly Russia still pipes natural gas to Ukraine while Ukraine allegedly cheats on payments. So Rus is still subsidizing the place.
I'd say they hold onto the strongly pro-Russian parts where they have the support of the populace, making a resistance/terrorist movement there impractical. The richest part is further north near the Dnieper. They haven't made a move for that.
Crimea is a vital naval base so there was no chance they would ever give that up.
These regions were included in Ukraine in the first place so that the Russian majority could dominate the nation. https://science1arts2and3politics.substack.com/p/why-in-1954-crimea-became-part-of Naturally this was resented by the ethnic Ukrainians. So... why didn't they say good riddance to the Russian areas, establishing ethnic Ukrainian rule? Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe, so my theory is the Ukrainians need the tax revenues from the hated Russians. So far they have lost about 25% of the national tax base as well as the leasing fees for the naval base at Sevastopol. My second theory is that it's irrational territorial instinct combined with unrealistic estimation of their abilities.
I dunno. It's a big expense for Russia, I don't see how it could be economically profitable. Note how reluctant Russia was to assume the expense of mobilization. I'd say it is mostly about national security and secondarily about protecting ethnic Russians.
Agreed on both points but the ship has sailed, so the saying goes, so they have to make the four provinces they've annexed worthwhile. Similarly, they have to calm Georgia's beef, especially now that they're starting a military port in the breakaway region. It will cost but they have to do it. And, after all, they found enough money to wage war for 2 years whilst keeping their economy intact, so possible.
Yes, the original plan was indeed for Ukraine to get swiftly conquered by Russia, but then turn into a quagmire, basically to replicate Afghanistan, which the US still believes was what caused the downfall of the Soviet state. With a massive drain to Russia internal stability and resources from fighting an internal guerrilla warfare, terrorist attacks, costs to run the country, corruption and so on it would have been decades of trouble. All of this has been very openly detailed by various Western Think Tanks and other elites since the 90.
What the US wants and is doing…. is turning Ukraine into a giant failed state like Libya. From which they and the warlords they prop up will continually set out terrorist attacks on Russia. These terrorists may even be used to whip up fear in Europe by threatening EUROPEAN states not falling in line with the U.S. That’s what the US have done in the Middle East Central America and Saharan Africa.
Then they will leave the mess in Europe’s lap to keep paying for.
However Europe has no leaders worthy of the name, who can see this and revisit enabling it, their own downfall. They only have lackeys there, no leaders, no statesmen.
Russia has already incorporated the parts it will take. It may have to conquer the whole thing, but it won't govern more than that. (Odessa is the bargaining chip although Putin hinted last summer that it would end up Russian--as it should).
With Ukraine's military destroyed, the rest of Ukraine will be left to Blackrock and turned into an agribusiness DMZ.
After Russia expending so much blood and treasure and making this an existential battle virus NATO and the west,, economic rationality can not dictate terms. Russia will have to embrace Ukraine and its people and make massive investments and subsidies.
On other issues, while I do not know the history, am not sure your assumption about Ukraine contributing to the collapse of Soviet Union is accurate. Seems the other way around: the end of Soviet subsidies and investment led to eastern Ukraine decline.
It was those subsidies to the SSRs and satellites that contributed to the decline of Russian fortunes. Amazingly Russia still pipes natural gas to Ukraine while Ukraine allegedly cheats on payments. So Rus is still subsidizing the place.
Russia only needs to hold onto the valuable part that pays for itself.
I'd say they hold onto the strongly pro-Russian parts where they have the support of the populace, making a resistance/terrorist movement there impractical. The richest part is further north near the Dnieper. They haven't made a move for that.
Crimea is a vital naval base so there was no chance they would ever give that up.
These regions were included in Ukraine in the first place so that the Russian majority could dominate the nation. https://science1arts2and3politics.substack.com/p/why-in-1954-crimea-became-part-of Naturally this was resented by the ethnic Ukrainians. So... why didn't they say good riddance to the Russian areas, establishing ethnic Ukrainian rule? Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe, so my theory is the Ukrainians need the tax revenues from the hated Russians. So far they have lost about 25% of the national tax base as well as the leasing fees for the naval base at Sevastopol. My second theory is that it's irrational territorial instinct combined with unrealistic estimation of their abilities.
I like your tax angle.
"It's all about money." -- Marnie Powers
For both sides.
I dunno. It's a big expense for Russia, I don't see how it could be economically profitable. Note how reluctant Russia was to assume the expense of mobilization. I'd say it is mostly about national security and secondarily about protecting ethnic Russians.
https://science1arts2and3politics.substack.com/p/why-ukraine-is-vital-to-russias-security
Agreed on both points but the ship has sailed, so the saying goes, so they have to make the four provinces they've annexed worthwhile. Similarly, they have to calm Georgia's beef, especially now that they're starting a military port in the breakaway region. It will cost but they have to do it. And, after all, they found enough money to wage war for 2 years whilst keeping their economy intact, so possible.