Like most things the true reason is far more complicated than what those simplified narratives often say. Unfortunately they make good headlines.
Nobody who can to speak publicly knows for sure whether or not Putin alone chose to start the war and exactly what the reasons where. But if you look more broadly than just 24th February 2022 the reasons go beyond just Putin. Even without Putin, Russia (the country not the people) had reasons (horrible as they are) to escalate tensions with Ukraine prior to 2022, it had reasons to start the war, and even today it has reasons to keep the war going. In the West, and in Russia, Putin is the personification of the choices Russia makes. But Russia itself would have reasons even without him.
Those reasons are many, and I wouldn’t do them justice to talk about the various theories. But one in particular that I feel isn’t talked about enough is the Sevastopol Naval base. Crimea, and it’s naval base was the centre of Soviet and now Russian control over the Black Sea. Prior to 2014 Russia was leasing the base from Ukraine, so it has essentially been under control of Moscow continuously since the Soviet era. The 2014 revolution in Ukraine posed a threat to that continuing. Russia’s rather extreme solution to that was to anex Crimea. If you look at from Russia’s perspective they were put in quite a tough situation and they tried to make the best they could from the hand they were delt. Most people would probably disagree with the use of “best” in that sentence, but from Russia’s perspective it was the right choice.
Since 2014, Crimea has been problematic to Russia for various reasons, in particular due to needing an outside source of fresh water, and needing the very expensive new Kerch bridge to connect it to Russia. One of the apparent benefits of the full scale invasion in 2023 was to supply Crimea with water from the Nova Khakovka dam via a canal, and connect Crimea to Russia via land from the North. The reality of the war so far hasn’t actually been a net win for either of those things. And recently Russia has been forced to move a lot of their fleet out of the Sevastopol Naval base due to Ukrainian attacks. But presumably Russia is looking long term and continues to hope for a good outcome eventually.
Looking to the future, both sides think they can outlast the other’s will to continue and hope to eventually force the other side to back down. Russia’s end game now seems to be some form of negotiation or ceasefire where they are able to retain as much of what they have grabbed onto as possible. Ukraine’s endgame that they have stated publicly is to remove Russia entirely from their land. But there is also the hope of being truly free from Russian influence for the first time in centuries. Ukraine hopes to come out of this war with a strong military to deter any further Russian aggression indefinitely. And possibly also NATO membership.
Russia hopes that eventually the political will for Ukraine to continue fighting for that aim, and the West’s will to support it will dry up. They also hope that if they keep the conflict going indefinitely at a small scale, or if they hang onto some territory, then Ukraine will never be able to join NATO.
Ukraine knows that if things continue as they have for the last year they will eventually win. The open question is how long is eventually, and will it be too long.
Unfortunately this means enormous loss of life on both sides for the foreseeable future. Likely 1-2 more years minimum and hundreds of thousands more dead.
Since 2014, Crimea has been problematic to Russia for various reasons, in particular due to needing an outside source of fresh water
The only issue that during the escalation Russia has blown up the dam that provides said drinking water to crimea. I think you already kinda implied this already in your comment.
Yeah, that seems to have been an own goal by the Russians, given that they would probably still have that fresh water today if the dam wasn’t destroyed. We may never truly know why they chose to do that, but it lines up with the indiscriminate destruction as acts of terror they have used throughout the war, just at a larger scale.
The importance of the canal has diminished since the start of the war, and eventually they would have lost control of the dam entirely, so that would have been a factor.
It seems like you’ve given yourself one of two options. You are either a) commenting in bad faith, or b) commenting as a useful idiot. If what you said is actually a non-sequitur, then you are a useful idiot. If you actually meant what you said, than its intentional and you are acting in bad faith: otherwise, why comment?
If you are ignorant, go take a 10 year read of history off the wikipedia and it should become clear to you “why this war is happening?”, which is what your question was. Otherwise, I’m now under the assumption, based on the structure and pacing of your ‘questions’ , that you are commenting in bad faith.
The guy was one of the first to comment on my comment, I didn’t think there would be other people here and I thought I could talk to him about what was on my mind since he took interest in answering me.
You’re free to believe whatever you want, go live a happy life, away from me if you can.
You need to think through very clearly what you said and in what context then, because it’s clear now that you do not understand what function you serve. After that you should spend your time reading about the modern history of Russia.
I feel like I’m trapped inside a propaganda machine where the answers to all questions are “Putin is evil and the dumbest person on earth”
Like most things the true reason is far more complicated than what those simplified narratives often say. Unfortunately they make good headlines.
Nobody who can to speak publicly knows for sure whether or not Putin alone chose to start the war and exactly what the reasons where. But if you look more broadly than just 24th February 2022 the reasons go beyond just Putin. Even without Putin, Russia (the country not the people) had reasons (horrible as they are) to escalate tensions with Ukraine prior to 2022, it had reasons to start the war, and even today it has reasons to keep the war going. In the West, and in Russia, Putin is the personification of the choices Russia makes. But Russia itself would have reasons even without him.
Those reasons are many, and I wouldn’t do them justice to talk about the various theories. But one in particular that I feel isn’t talked about enough is the Sevastopol Naval base. Crimea, and it’s naval base was the centre of Soviet and now Russian control over the Black Sea. Prior to 2014 Russia was leasing the base from Ukraine, so it has essentially been under control of Moscow continuously since the Soviet era. The 2014 revolution in Ukraine posed a threat to that continuing. Russia’s rather extreme solution to that was to anex Crimea. If you look at from Russia’s perspective they were put in quite a tough situation and they tried to make the best they could from the hand they were delt. Most people would probably disagree with the use of “best” in that sentence, but from Russia’s perspective it was the right choice.
Since 2014, Crimea has been problematic to Russia for various reasons, in particular due to needing an outside source of fresh water, and needing the very expensive new Kerch bridge to connect it to Russia. One of the apparent benefits of the full scale invasion in 2023 was to supply Crimea with water from the Nova Khakovka dam via a canal, and connect Crimea to Russia via land from the North. The reality of the war so far hasn’t actually been a net win for either of those things. And recently Russia has been forced to move a lot of their fleet out of the Sevastopol Naval base due to Ukrainian attacks. But presumably Russia is looking long term and continues to hope for a good outcome eventually.
Looking to the future, both sides think they can outlast the other’s will to continue and hope to eventually force the other side to back down. Russia’s end game now seems to be some form of negotiation or ceasefire where they are able to retain as much of what they have grabbed onto as possible. Ukraine’s endgame that they have stated publicly is to remove Russia entirely from their land. But there is also the hope of being truly free from Russian influence for the first time in centuries. Ukraine hopes to come out of this war with a strong military to deter any further Russian aggression indefinitely. And possibly also NATO membership.
Russia hopes that eventually the political will for Ukraine to continue fighting for that aim, and the West’s will to support it will dry up. They also hope that if they keep the conflict going indefinitely at a small scale, or if they hang onto some territory, then Ukraine will never be able to join NATO.
Ukraine knows that if things continue as they have for the last year they will eventually win. The open question is how long is eventually, and will it be too long.
Unfortunately this means enormous loss of life on both sides for the foreseeable future. Likely 1-2 more years minimum and hundreds of thousands more dead.
This is a beautiful text, very informative, did you write it? Thank you for taking the time to answer me, I appreciate it.
The only issue that during the escalation Russia has blown up the dam that provides said drinking water to crimea. I think you already kinda implied this already in your comment.
“I can’t have it, so neither can you!”
On a geopolitical scale tho
Yeah, that seems to have been an own goal by the Russians, given that they would probably still have that fresh water today if the dam wasn’t destroyed. We may never truly know why they chose to do that, but it lines up with the indiscriminate destruction as acts of terror they have used throughout the war, just at a larger scale.
The importance of the canal has diminished since the start of the war, and eventually they would have lost control of the dam entirely, so that would have been a factor.
Can you show me in the above post where either of those statements were made?
I wasn’t accusing him of saying that.
It seems like you’ve given yourself one of two options. You are either a) commenting in bad faith, or b) commenting as a useful idiot. If what you said is actually a non-sequitur, then you are a useful idiot. If you actually meant what you said, than its intentional and you are acting in bad faith: otherwise, why comment?
If you are ignorant, go take a 10 year read of history off the wikipedia and it should become clear to you “why this war is happening?”, which is what your question was. Otherwise, I’m now under the assumption, based on the structure and pacing of your ‘questions’ , that you are commenting in bad faith.
Dude, I’m just trying to have a conversation about the topic. I tried to engage with him because he answered my comment.
That isn’t ‘trying to have a conversation’. That is projecting a straw man
for no apparent reasonwith the sole purpose of shutting down any dialogue.I guess it’s gonna be your word against mine.
No, you aren’t.
You are either ignorant or a liar. If you claim ignorance, there is a cure for that. There is no cure for acting in bad faith.
The guy was one of the first to comment on my comment, I didn’t think there would be other people here and I thought I could talk to him about what was on my mind since he took interest in answering me.
You’re free to believe whatever you want, go live a happy life, away from me if you can.
You need to think through very clearly what you said and in what context then, because it’s clear now that you do not understand what function you serve. After that you should spend your time reading about the modern history of Russia.
Removed by mod