The rationale for invasion.

[George K]

I'm sorry, I meant "limited incursion."

From what I've seen, Putin's explanations include the following items:

1. A large Russian population in Eastern Ukraine which wants to be under the governance of Russia.
2. The potential threat of NATO weaponry in Ukraine, posing a potential threat to Russia.

Anything else?

[Renauda]

@George-K

He does not recognise Ukraine as sovereign country. He believes that Ukraine is an artificial country, in his words, a construct of Leninism. He also believes that Russians and Ukrainians are a single nation.

[LuFins Dad]

@George-K said in The rationale for invasion.:

I'm sorry, I meant "limited incursion."

From what I've seen, Putin's explanations include the following items:

1. A large Russian population in Eastern Ukraine which wants to be under the governance of Russia.
2. The potential threat of NATO weaponry in Ukraine, posing a potential threat to Russia.

Anything else?

1. Does the Russian population outnumber the Ukrainian population? And if yes, has it always done so?

2. If Russia subsumes Ukraine, then there will again be a NATO military presence on the Russian border. Is Poland and Romania next? If not, then it seems a poor rationale for war.

[George K]

@Renauda said in The rationale for invasion.:

@George-K

He does not recognise Ukraine as sovereign country. He believes that Ukraine is an artificial country, in his words, a construct of Leninism. He also believes that Russians and Ukrainians are a single nation.

Go back far enough in history, and the Lithuanians and Poles could say that about Ukraine.

[Renauda]

@George-K

Pour yourself a coffee or hold off until your late day cheap scotch, but take an hour or so and listen to this presentation from last Friday. It puts Ukraine in context and addresses all your questions:

Link to video

[kluurs]

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances refers to three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994 to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[1]

The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.

As a result, between 1994 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Until then, Ukraine had the world's third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile,[2][3] of which Ukraine had physical, but not operational, control. Russia alone controlled the codes needed to operate the nuclear weapons[4][5] via Russian-controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system.[4][5] Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.[6]

[George K]

@Renauda said in The rationale for invasion.:

@George-K

Pour yourself a coffee or hold off until your late day cheap scotch, but take an hour or so and listen to this presentation from last Friday. It puts Ukraine in context and addresses all your questions:

About an hour into it. Absolutely fascinating.

F'ing Lithuanians.

[Copper]

@George-K said in The rationale for invasion.:

1. A large Russian population in Eastern Ukraine which wants to be under the governance of Russia.

Let's not forget the large Central American population in Florida which wants to be under the governance of El Salvador.

[Ivorythumper]

@Copper said in The rationale for invasion.:

@George-K said in The rationale for invasion.:

1. A large Russian population in Eastern Ukraine which wants to be under the governance of Russia.

Let's not forget the large Central American population in Florida which wants to be under the governance of El Salvador.

The nation of Aztlán.

[Klaus]

@George-K said in The rationale for invasion.:

@Renauda said in The rationale for invasion.:

@George-K

Pour yourself a coffee or hold off until your late day cheap scotch, but take an hour or so and listen to this presentation from last Friday. It puts Ukraine in context and addresses all your questions:

About an hour into it. Absolutely fascinating.

Main poins? Summary?

[George K]

@Klaus said in The rationale for invasion.:

@George-K said in The rationale for invasion.:

@Renauda said in The rationale for invasion.:

Main poins? Summary?

He starts off by denying the premise of Putin's essay on the "Historical connection between Russia and Ukraine," basically saying that no such thing exists.

He then goes through the history of Ukraine, going back 1000 years including it being part of (ahem) Lithuania in the 15th century.

Bottom line, there's no real historical connection between the Vikings Russia and the Ukranians. They might share some culture, and some language, but those are not sufficient reasons for Ukraine to be historically "Russian," any more than it is for the United States to be considered part of England Canada.

[Klaus]

@George-K Thanks!

Any new insights on Putin's motivation and his endgame?

[George K]