I don't know if everything in this article is factually correct. But at least it "does compute" in a way the mainstream explanations do not.
I don't know what scares me more. That I get to read this interpretation of events only on some obscure blog. Or that, even on Hacker News, such interpretations immediately get flagged as apparently not fit for discussion.
The person who flagged it probably thinks any attempt to even entertain the possibility of a compromise with Putin was akin to helping him destroy our democratic values and free speech.
with the US and Western media loudly proclaiming (since November) that Russia is planning an imminent invasion of the Ukraine, though Russia has repeatedly denied that fact and it's not exactly clear what Russia is waiting for, or what advantage it could expect to derive from lying about its intentions at this point…
It is perfectly expected that Russia would never acknowledge that they were planning military action, as that would obviously be tactically stupid. So it's a bit odd for someone to wonder why they would not be telling the truth... On the other hand it is also expected that the US may not be telling the truth, either. So in the end it is for everyone to make their own mind about what might be happening.
At the moment the question has moved to what Russia's actual aim might be with their current offensive. Full invasion and occupation? Taking more of the Donbas and/or other areas? Regime change? Etc...
Fully occupying Ukraine seems like a tall order that would probably see instability and a level of violence going on for years and years, but who knows.
I'm always scared of such articles/narratives. Because they are internally consistent and seemingly explain the complex reality, they easily seduce rational readers giving them specious feeling of understaning.
In my opinion, this article has been written by an intelligent pragmatist that clearly has not lived in the Russia vicinity. I'm not arguing ad personam — I'm just stating that the article shows no understanding for the the Russian mentality. It's a common error to treat Russia as a Western country, while it... is not and never has been. Rationalizing the Russian behavior in accordance to their official statements is naive and historically made many countries suffer terrible fate.
> Since that time, NATO has been steadily expanded and pushing closer and closer to Russia's borders, notwithstanding the said assurances, which the West is quick to point out were not in any way binding.
Is it NATO "expanding" or post-soviet countries begging on their knees to be accepted into it for protection?
If Baltic states, Poland would not have been accepted into NATO - I think there would be soviet union 2.0, either by straight annexation like with Ukraine or parts of Georgia and Moldova or with economic/political control, like with Belarus and Ukraine before Maidan.
Many post-soviet countries after freeing themselves from soviet shackles went running straight to bang onto EU and NATO doors. Some have been lucky to be accepted, some were not.
Since forever Germany, US and alike do not "get" russia. Time and time again the west works with russia with optimism and attempt to establish relations like it would be any other liberal democracy.
US being assholes does not forgive russia to be an asshole, with old-school bombing of civilian properties. russia has a choice to be a proper global economical player, but chooses not to - time and time again.
Two out of the three most likely scenarios according to the author were NATO / Ukraine aggression towards Donbass, seems like this one is closest to what came true:
> Secondly, US & NATO allies continue to heavily arm the Ukraine, and Russia concludes it is inevitable that the Ukraine will eventually try to seize the Donbass with (covert) NATO backing. Putin fears the longer he waits, the harder it will be to secure the Donbass and the bloodier the eventual conflict will be, and feels that in the long term it is better to annex the Donbass now (or secure its independence) than wait. This is the scenario I have been most concerned about from an investment perspective over the past several weeks, as it would entail inevitably brutal sanctions. It would likely result in very little bloodshed though as it is unlikely at this point that the Ukraine will want to go to war over the Donbass; they will inevitably lose. In addition, there will be no local opposition - indeed the locals will likely overwhelmingly support Russia taking this action.
We'll see if Russia limits its attacks to only tactical bombing of airports and other installations, which could still be explained in that they'd otherwise be used to "retaliate" against Donbass, or whether they'll move ground troops into Western Ukraine as well, that will decide whether we will indeed see "very little bloodshed" or a horrifying civil war.
And if Russia splits up Ukraine into an Eastern Russian puppet state and a Western Ukrainian part, Putin will really have a zealous Russian hating NATO member right at his doorstep.
> [Some people] likened his activities and putative designs on Ukraine to Hitler trying to seize the Sudetenland
And I believe time will prove those people right. No matter how hard the author is trying to show understanding for Russia's actions, Putin is an authoritarian leader with oligarchical backing, who can't fix his economy, partly because oligarchy means corruption and lack of economic creativity. A declining economy is every despot's worst nightmare, because he'll very rapidly lose whatever popular support he has. There's no way Putin and the oligarchs were just going to wait for their inevitable demise.
What doesn’t make sense is a resistance to Russia in Ukraine. Ukrainians supporting a hopeless defense against Russia absolutely will die for no reason but their own. They need to flee if Russia will not give them an option to surrender.
Nationalistic sentiment (fatherland, my people, my country, patriotism...) has been carefully nurtured since the rise of the nation states in the late 19th century Europe. So people are conditioned to die in the name of pride.
It's the reason we are seeing any conflict in Europe since WW2: if we decided that people can easily self-proclaim independence with a majority vote (under certain democratic principles) without regard for imaginary borders of countries post-WW2, any pretext for recent conflicts in Europe would be gone.
Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Donbas would have been split into multiple tiny independent countries, but just maybe, we'd avoid any need for war.
Conditions have to be reasonable and fair for all sides (eg. investment from other parts of the country should be repaid as if they were a loan; if they are pulling significant natural resources, remaining parts should be "compensated"; bigger parts should guarantee freedom of movement for people and goods so no crazy visas and tariffs...).
I, for one, don't see anything natural in insisting on imaginary lines on the map, or in ignoring millenia of history where states have joined and separated repeatedly in different arrangements. UN should step up the game and turn into United People, and we can move towards a more reasonable peaceful future.
Maybe they'll manage to hold on long enough that Europeans/Americans will decide it's a cause worth fighting for.
Or, less high-minded, maybe the Estonians/Latvians/Lithuanians will finally be able to convince the rest of the NATO of the blindingly obvious fact that the next invasion is coming for the Baltic states (NATO) to reconnect Kaliningrad and the Baltic Sea to Russia, and the response to this invasion determines when and if that happpens.
Maybe Ukraine will convince Pacific allies of the blindingly obvious fact that China is intently watching this to see if NATO (and so, it would follow, Pacific alliances) is the house of cards that many suspect it to be.
It's all out in the open now. Russia has attacked NATO (bombed a Turkish vessel) and invaded NATO (jointly-held Snake Island); the equivocating will be seen for exactly what it is. Whether the US should be getting involved in foreign wars is a question long in the past, when we made our alliances. Now, Taiwan, Eastern Europe, and probably the world's faith in US credit (dollars) are in the balance. It's not looking good.
“ When you properly understand the situation, it becomes clear that Putin's actions are not mystical or unpredictable at all - they make perfect sense, and frankly, in many situations they are even justifiable.”
This was pre-invasion to be fair so it'll be telling whether the author will change his mind or be able to perform enough mental gymnastics to find more justifications
It is so bizarre to me how he consistently and entirely disregards the idea of Ukraine's sovereignty and right to self-determine. Imperialism as inherently justified seems to be a foregone conclusion. If they want to join NATO, or do anything else, Russia does not have the right (not desire) to invade to prevent it, which seems to be his entire thesis. His correlation to a pro Russo-China Canada seems absurd to me because he assumes the US would invade Canada in a similar way but with wide support from The West. I do not agree.
I didn't get the impression that the author believes that Russia had "a right" to invade Ukraine. You're conflating attempts of understanding a behavior with attempts of justifying it. These are two very different things.
I don't know if everything in this article is factually correct. But at least it "does compute" in a way the mainstream explanations do not.
I don't know what scares me more. That I get to read this interpretation of events only on some obscure blog. Or that, even on Hacker News, such interpretations immediately get flagged as apparently not fit for discussion.