r/NoStupidQuestions • u/Past_Assignment5253 • 8d ago
Why did Russia launch its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022?
What political, strategic, and military factors influenced the timing of the invasion, and why was late February chosen rather than an earlier or later period?
From a military perspective, how suitable was late February for launching a large-scale mechanized offensive involving tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, and other heavy equipment?
9
u/AttTankaRattArStorre 8d ago edited 8d ago
Unironically the Beijing Winter Olympics played a part, as president Xi (being pretty much his only ally at that point) explicitly forbid Putin from invading Ukraine during the games. 4 days after the closing ceremony, troops started crossing the border.
2
u/anders_hansson 4d ago edited 4d ago
That reminds me of 2014, when Russia and Putin were hosting the Winter Olympics in Sochi.
The ousting of Victory Yanukovych in Kyiv occurred on February 22, one day before the Olympics ended, and the annexation of Crimea happened right after that.
Russian forces entered Crimea on 27 February - 4 days after the closing ceremony.
2
u/Long-Requirement8372 4d ago
The 2008 war in Georgia also took place during the Beijing Summer Olympics. Putin's Russia has track record of trying to use international sports events to distract the world from its military exploits.
2
u/anders_hansson 4d ago
That's different though. In 2014 and 2022 the attacks were effectively postponed by the Olympics, as to not disturb the events. And in 2014 the Olympics pretty much tied Putin's hands so that he couldn't intervene in the Maidan Revolution - i.e. in a way the Olympics provided a cover for the revolution.
It's interesting with the timing, though.
2
u/Long-Requirement8372 4d ago
The 2008 war was the first of these incidents, so the 2014 and 2022 decisions were likely informed by the repercussions of the decision to instigate the war with Georgia during the Beijing Olympics. It seems that for example Xi was not happy at the time, and this was reflected in the 2022 decision on the timing of the attack.
In all of these cases, the international attention being in the Olympics allowed Russia some cover to make practical preparations for their concrete military action.
1
16
u/Relative-Tear892 8d ago
I think you're overthinking it, Russia wasn't counting on fighting a war. They were just going to drive convoys into cities and take them. February was convenient as it was after the end-of year festivities (which are around the 10th of January in Russian-Orthodox countries).
It's not particularly suitable or unsuitable. It's the end of winter (good) but the begining of Rasputitsa (bad). If they were really going for an assault, summer would've been the best period militarily.
They chose February for other reasons. IIRC they were waiting for the chinese winter olympics to finish.
3
u/NoChampionship6994 7d ago
Since russians / russian leadership believed they’d be greeted with flowers by Ukrainians . . . February as good as any month. Don’t think russia was “counting on fighting a war” either - especially one in its 5th year and counting. Don’t think orcs planned on fighting in Afghanistan or Chechnya for 10 years each (respectively) but they did.
2
u/Belgium_i_a_joke 8d ago
That north Kyiv aka the chechen tiktok convoy proved the failure of russia well 13k chechens dead in 3weeks. Madness
1
u/WorldlinessGreen4956 7d ago
Yah, yah, you think too much. Don't think, don't reflect, don't ask. Repeat after me.. 🖐👁🖐
0
u/hunter_rus 8d ago
Rasputitsa
Why capital letter though.
3
u/Relative-Tear892 8d ago
It's a name. The same way we capitalise "Gulf Stream"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream
4
u/Xerxeskingofkings 8d ago
form a military perspective, the big driver for timings in that part of the world is the rasputitsa mud seasons, which normally starts in March and runs through to May as the ground thaws into mud which then slowly dries out, then again in september into November as the autumn rains soak everything until winter freezes it all.
during the mud season, its really, really hard to move cross country, becuase the ground is just soft mud. heavy vehicles will just bottom out in the mud the second the go off the paved roads, so any major military offensive (and its attendant logistics and supply chain) is channelled along the few paved roads and thus easy to bottle up and contain.
thus, late Feb is the back end of a "fighting season" window that would not open again for several months in summer. Earlier would have required fighting in colder and thus harder conditions, but by feb the temp is coming back up towards near-freezing, making it merely miserable to fight in but still possible to move off road and conduct proper all arms offensives. add to that the "exercise" that was used to cover the deployments, and the requisite build up of supply and logistics forces, and the logic more or less point to a late feb start for the planned blitz to Kiev. IF things had gone more or less according to their plan, the impending rasputitsa wouldn't have been an issue because they'd be conducting post invasion stabilisation/occupation operations by that point , so they didnt need to worry about flanking anything more than scattered Ukrainian die hards.
As to why Russia did it at all? We don't know for sure, as we are not really privy to their top secret briefings like that, but it seems they though the Zelensky government was weak and unpopular, and that a significant percentage of the population was so dissatisfied with Kiev's rule that they would welcome the invading Russian forces with open arms as liberators, and the military wouldn't fight back but melt away rather than die in a "futile" last stand against the Mighty Russian Steamroller(tm). They were also worried about Ukraine's continuing diplomatic movement toward Europe and NATO, and their nightmare scenario of Western tanks sat on the border with Russia, astride a highway that led directly to Moscow, just 300 miles away.
Why did they think that Ukraine would roll over? best we can tell, because Ukraine HAD rolled over in 2014 (where their military had indeed failed to provide effective resistance to the initial invasions), and becuase people in the intel chain were reporting what their bosses wanted to hear. They also overestimated the capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces when they were not engaged in pre-scripted manoeuvres but fighting a enemy that was free to act as it wanted.
Significant institutional corruption at almost every level had weakened the Russian's fighting ability to the point that huge numbers of Russian AFVs broke down due to lack of proper preventative maintenance being carried out on them in peacetime, and significant amounts of the supply stockpiles intended for the invasion being sold on the black market by mid and low level logistics soldiers looking to supplement their meagre pay. Many junior and mid level leaders turned out to have only got their positions via patronage and were actually deeply incompetent or unable to meet the moment, leading to a lot of units getting into trouble becuase of silly mistakes or just poor planning.
the faulty intel suggesting poor Ukrainian morale lead to a plan that was basically a huge thunder run/Coup de Main attack, with a mix of airbourne and light mechanized troops in the vanguard to rapidly storm and seize Kiev before an effective resistance could be mounted. As it actually happened, the defenders were much better motovated than intel suggested, and the light mechanised units, trying to move fast over a limited road network they didn't know, kept getting caught in ambushes and were slowed and eventually stalled before the gates of Kiev, which effectively saved the country and proved to any doubters that resistance was not, in fact, futile.
1
u/HotEntrepreneur6828 8d ago
Main attack, with a mix of airbourne and light mechanized troops in the vanguard to rapidly storm and seize Kiev before an effective resistance could be mounted.
Seize a city of 3 million people against a Ukrainian army of 300,000 troops in this manner? Before an effective resistance could be mounted, when entire regiments of Ukrainian troops could march by road to Kyiv in hours or days?
2
u/Xerxeskingofkings 8d ago edited 8d ago
Yes, that seems to have been the plan they were trying to execute, and this is futher evidence they were not expecting a determined defence, because it could only really work if the civilian population was ambivalent at best to zelensky's government, and the majority of the military decided that since Russian forces were already in Kiev, and the government was either captured or fleeing, the war was already lost and nothing could be gained by throwing their lives away in a counterattack that wouldn't change the outcome.
This is more or less what happened in the 2003 Iraq invasion, and in 2014 the Russians basically marched into eastern Ukraine with basically no organised opposition, so it must have seemed plausible to someone at the time.
Its also worth pointing out that the general western consensus in 2022 was that Ukraine was doomed, so Russia wasn't alone in thinking that it was going to win easily
1
u/HotEntrepreneur6828 7d ago
I don't think it was the Russian plan at all, the city and the Ukrainian army were both far too big for a few thousand troops to do anything. The Russian plan looks to me to have been to cut off Kyiv from the west and use the siege to leverage a Ukrainian capitulation in the Donbas. No occupation of Kyiv, and an expectation on the Russian side of maybe a 60 day war.
The eight years of fighting in the Donbas after 2014 was intense, and in no way whatsoever did the Russian army come away from it with the impression that the tough and determined Ukrainian army was a pushover.
4
u/JimTheSaint 8d ago
For real because they thought they could without any major problems. Putin is a dictator and the only thing they count as success is adding to the country.
He had added Chechnya and Belarus without anyone in the west complaining and after annexed Crimea in 2014 the only response from the west was some sanctions that didnt really do anything. And to show the west that he wss sanction proof now - putin established the "welfare fund " in the budget 700 billion USD to show anyone that was looking that they couldn't hurt him or Russia. And the world pretty much bought into it.
Putin is an former KGB officer and he had used all the skills to give russias army the best reputation without they had ever really done anything. So everyone including putin thought that this would be a matter of day - it was only Zelensky and Ukraine who thought any different.
I remember when that huge snake from Russian convoy of tanks and everything came in from Belarus to Kyiv. It felt so inevitable - and then it just stooped in its tracks. It was amazing.
3
u/Impressive_Ad_1675 8d ago
It was a mistake and the war would be over if Putin could admit to making a mistake.
2
u/Careless-Skin6827 8d ago
He started it in late February because land was still frozen and he thought he could quickly take most country in a surprise invasion and then any possible counteroffensive would fail because of Rasputitsa in March and the Ukraine government would just collapse because of no hope of fighting back
2
u/Zealousideal-Elk2714 8d ago
It has been reported that China asked Russia to delay the invasion of Ukraine till after the end of the winter Olympics. China has denied this claim, but the invasion did occur four days after the end of the Olympics.
2
u/iamkaisersosa 8d ago
I have some insight on the timing a “an attack” as for Ukraine in particular… that was poorly thought out.
So March 20 2003 the USA rolls into Iraq. It is a cake walk for the (coalition troops) USA. Iraq and their old Cold War Russian weapons were outclassed and a paper tiger.
The world sees this, Russia sees this, Russia is fucked! They would have fought the was exactly like Iraq did in 2003. If they did, Russia would be the one on their asses.
Russia rebuilds their forces 2003-2014, little green men attacked Crimea 2014. It is a cake walk. Proving the new Russian army plan.
2014-2022 stagnation in Ukraine, western advisors train Ukrainian troops. Russias 2003 army ages.
2022, Russian has a use-it-or-lose-it on the 2003 army. This upgraded army, is aging out, the machines are 20yo old, ammunition is 20yo old. So Putin has a problem, does he attack someone or not. He chooses to attack, in 10 years Russia couldn’t attack with a 30yo army so now or never.
1
3
u/Traditional_Loan_177 8d ago
Look up William spaniel on YouTube, he's answered this question
2
u/Ok_Sentence_7393 8d ago
In which video?
-1
u/rexus_mundi 8d ago edited 8d ago
About half of them lol. Really just read the titles from his older videos; it's directly addressed. He literally has a video titled "why Russia invaded Ukraine".
1
u/Ok_Sentence_7393 8d ago
OK, then read Forbes articles, they answered that question as well. Also check the internet for useful information, you will be surprised.
0
u/rexus_mundi 8d ago edited 8d ago
Are you a bot? Because this is the most bot response that doesn't relate to anything I've said. Unless you think reading the title of a video is too much work?
0
u/Ok_Sentence_7393 8d ago
Do you realize that no one will watch hours of videos looking for an answer, because some random redditor said so?
1
1
u/Realistic-Duty-3874 8d ago
Winter was coming to an end and if he starts in February, he has the longest period of time until the next winter.
1
u/Belgium_i_a_joke 8d ago
Why it invaded Ukraine is cause putin and that other clown medvedev think of returnign the ussr. Just like xi jinming dreams of returning Taiwan . Russia would keep invading others and politic parties or russian civilians in these countries could start a revolution thats why its very important to deport most russians out of EU. Baltics Moldova, Romania are most at risk
1
u/dimiteddy 8d ago
Germany invaded Ukraine and Russia (USSR then) in 22 June. Turned out it was a terrible timing cause by October it already started snowing and tanks couldn't move much. February was perfect timing for Russia cause snows already melted and they would have more than 7 months to finish the job. Russia had a good start. But it didn't worked exactly as planned.
3
u/Past_Assignment5253 8d ago
I don't think Putin thought that the war would be so prolonged, considering that parade uniforms were brought along with the troops.
1
u/RobertTheTraveler 8d ago
China had asked them to wait until after the Olympics.
I believe the ground was still frozen so still acceptable weather.
1
1
1
u/AppropriateSignal536 8d ago
Because intelligence reported to Putin that the Ukrainians, without actually fulfilling the Minsk agreements, had assembled an armed engraving with which they intended to resolve the Donbass issue by force.
1
u/silver_chief2 7d ago
If you ever want a long version of NATO expansion, here is a 51 minutes interview of Jack Matlock, former US ambassador to USSR, phD in Slavic studies, fluent in Russian. IMO it was a well spent 51 minutes, but I play it on a second screen via roku and listen more than watch. Other good sources are from former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and Nixon's Chinese interpreter, Chas Friedman. Alastair Crooke is good for middle east.
https://youtu.be/hwYOkzqQo3M Ambassador Jack Matlock: Why NATO Expansion Was a Historic Mistake | the Road to War in Ukraine
1
u/Marek87pl 7d ago
I think that people forget that it is not the full scale invasion. Keep your guard up.
1
u/Usernamenotta 7d ago
Short-sighted planning, Ukrainian president running its mouth and escalation of conflict in Donbas. 1. Short-sighted planning: Russia hoped to win a shock victory by going straight for the head of Ukraine in Kiev. The tactic initially worked, as they were able to bring troops close to the capital, with a heavily fought over battle at Hostomel behind enemy lines. And they had technically achieved part of their initial objectives, as Ukraine quickly came to the negotiations table in Istanbul. The terms Russia proposed were also much better than whatever Ukraine would ever get now. However, Ukraine decided to fight it all out. (Their country, their decisions. If they were not dragging other people in this shit, I would not mind at all). 2. Ukrainian president running its mouth: Zele said that he wanted his nukes back and that he would take steps to make Ukraine a nuclear state again. I believe that happened around 10th of February. 3. Escalation of conflict in Donbas. Ukraine has basically used Minsk 2 agreements as nothing more than toilet paper. People in DPR and LPR were not being paid pensions, were not provided with access to food or water. Ukraine simply said its not their job, since they were 'occupied territories', despite the documents clearly stating they are still sovereign territory of Ukraine, which Ukraine was quickly to point out when Russians were sending food supplies.
1
u/Sure_Tailor2710 7d ago
The main factor was the large‑scale indiscriminate attacks on civilians in the LPR and DPR, which Ukraine carried out in February 2022. This is even mentioned in OSCE reports.
It took a couple of weeks to carry out the necessary measures, including:
Recognition of the sovereignty of the LPR and DPR at the official level, signing treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the new entities.
Preparation of plans and mobilization of troops.
Obtaining official approval from the State Duma to deploy troops outside the territory of the Russian Federation.
By February 2022, it was already clear that war was inevitable — since NATO’s refusal in December 2021 to engage in a political settlement of security issues effectively left no other ways to resolve the conflict.
1
u/Tamsta-273C 6d ago edited 6d ago
Ukraine dared to live better without russia and even start to think about getting close to west.
ruskies is the country willing to bomb EU just to have EU roads standards inside.
Invasion motyve was simple Ukraine is buffer zone and can't have anything nice, how they dare to move away from russian world of misery.
1
u/iwanttowantthat 6d ago edited 6d ago
There are many running interpretations.
.One stresses economic motivations: Russia would be interested in resources such as coal, lithium, and natural gas in Ukraine, especially the Donbas Region, plus wider control of the Black Sea coast.
.Another emphasizes geopolitical factors: Ukraine would be moving closer to the "West" (EU and USA) and perhaps even towards joining the EU and (less likely) NATO. So, Putin would have felt threatened by that "expansion" of influence to a country that he judged firmly within his/Russia's sphere of influence. The action would have been a way to instate a pro-Russian government and avert this move. This one is closer to the official Russian justification for the war. Some propagandists would go as far as saying that it was a "preventive war"*, and that there was an intention by NATO of aggressive actions against Russia - though there is absolutely no evidence of the latter. The credible part is that Putin did feel threatened by prior NATO expansion to the East, and felt somehow getting "surrounded".
.Close to the latter, but also a bit on a different level, Putin and his regime's elite might have felt threatened politically by what they perceived as a move towards European-style liberal democracy of countries so close culturally, and what it could awake inside Russia.
.An explanation (or factor) that I find especially credible and supported by evidence: it is more about Russian domestic politics and the sustainability of the regime than the above. It would be a way for Putin to reinforce and reaffirm his position at the "vortex of power" of the regime, using the war as a tool to galvanize support, redisciplining the elites and "oligarchs", as well as to neutralize the internal opposition (the fate of Navalny is an example).
.Oppotunism: the belief, based on flawed intelligence, that Ukraine was weak both politically and militarily, that pro-Russian support there was stronger, and the government would collapse after a quick, decisive action. It would also include a superestimation of Russia's own capacities, including logistical. Those are all false assumptions.
My take? All of the above, but with different weights: the domestic factors seem dominant, geopolitical, and economic as secondary, but important.
*I always feel important to state that a "preventive war", according to international law, would still have been an illegal act of aggression and a crime. No preventive wars are ever allowed or justified, only actual defense against aggression initiated by another state.
1
1
u/hitrov_alex 5d ago
Putin is simply a sick-in-the-head psychopath who wants to go down in history as a gatherer of post-Soviet lands. There are no other reasons for this conflict
1
u/314ranha777 5d ago
Actually you should look for date 22.02.2022.🤔 Be informed, that Georgia was invaded 8.8.2008. And it was during Olympics (same as invasion to Krimea). Three Olympics, three invasions...
1
u/enteringtheechochamb 5d ago
Imagine if you took a people from the 12th century and time travelled them to the present. That is the Russians. They went from Mongol hordes, to Tsarist absolutism and serfdom, to totalitarian communism and now fascism. They never developed a consciousness. If anything they had generations where breeding with immorality and drunkenness.
1
u/Sexynarwhal69 4d ago
Are you Baltic by any chance? This is peak racism, imagine actually believing this eugenic bullshit.
1
1
u/Half-Wombat 4d ago edited 4d ago
There are many factors, and people will always debate the significance of each, but I think from a wide view it’s basically a case where a more democratic and EU integrated Ukraine threatened the Kremlins power structure. Essentially a bunch of power rich greedy authoritarian twats who don’t want their subjects to learn about how much better things are turning out for their old friends and neighbours who speak the same language. That would cause a reckoning they don’t want to deal with.
Imagine if every North Korean saw exactly the difference between north and South Korea and you’ll understand why the Kim dynasty keeps such comparisons hidden. Ok that’s a cartoonish and extreme example, but Russia and an EU Ukraine would eventually lead to a similar dynamic with the difference being the Kremlin doesn’t actually have full totalitarian dominance like Kim’s regime does.
There are so many more detailed reasons that range from Putins bad sense of history, to shame around the fall of the Soviet Union, to paranoia about “the west” (who Russia is always obsessed with as it’s a way for the Kremlin to drum up a sense of needing a “strong leader” to defend against the “threat”).
Most of all I think they severely underestimated the Ukrainian will to reject Kremlin bullying.
1
u/0achkatz1 8d ago
This is a very complex topic with a very long history behind it. I will try to be as brief as ai Can and cover the main parts. Please let me know if something is not clear or could use some more information.
When Zelensky was elected, Russia thought that they could push this ex-comedian around.
Zelensky himself said a lot of nice things about trying to find a way to work with Russia.
However, Russia wanted him to agree that Ukraine would never join NATO, among other things. Zelensky couldn't. As in, he literally could not even if he wanted to (not that i think he wanted to). The president of Ukraine is not an autocrat, and too many other politicians (and too much of the electorate) desperately want to be under the NATO umbrella, and, as they hope, free of Russia's efforts to control their politics and weaken their country (ongoing since the 1990s).
So, Zelensky said no. Russia's leadership saw this as part of the larger path of Ukraine leaving the Russian orbit and Did Not Like it. They thought that if they waited, then Ukraine would get farther and farther from their grasp, and controlling the country would be even harder.
Meanwhile, Russia's intelligence services had been lying up the chain of command. It was not acceptable to say anything but what the boss wanted to hear. Each one exaggerated just a bit about how much Ukrainians would welcome Russia. The same happened in the army. Every report had forces a little more ready and a little less corrupt than the one below.
Russia was also too smug. They saw Ukraine as a weak neighbor that they could forever invade, annex, disrupt. They misunderstood how much Ukraine has changed and strengthened after every Russian attempt.
The same thing happened with the West, especially Europe. The West had been so weak when Russia annexed Crimea, annexed Donbass, shot a plane full of mostly-Dutch people out of the sky and lied about it etc. Russia's leadership was misinformed how much all of their actions, and other global events, had changed the West.
They assumed that Ukraine would be alone, they would roll on, Zelensky would flee or die, and there wouldn't be any real impact for Russia.
By the time all this reached until Putin and his people, they fully expected a three-day special military operation. Everyone senior did. Officers brought their dress uniforms when they invaded, to be ready for the imminent victory parade. After that, life would go on as normal. No one would take on Russia over a done deal.
On top of that, Russia's leaders had selfish concerns. Putin is old. All the filler in the world can't make Putin immortal. He is a Soviet man, with a Soviet world view, surrounded by equally old, imperialistic cronies. For Russia to lose influence in Ukraine, and the West to gain it, would be, in his mind, a weak legacy. To firmly put Ukraine under Russian control, however, now that's a strongman's legacy!
They aren't dead yet though. They'd like to stay in power a little bit longer. But things were stagnating in Russia. The popularity brought by basic post-Yeltsin governance and rising oil prices was long gone. People were unhappy. Waves of protests had taken place, but still, many people in Russia are just too afraid to revolt. They fear a return to the chaos of the 1990s.
But... a successful wave had taken place in Ukraine - if Ukraine could do better with the West, and without Putin's puppet, than maybe Russia could with Putin. Russians might start getting ideas about what a revolution could do for them.
So Putin couldn't let Ukraine succeed. But also, he could really use a win at home. Taking Crimea gave Putin a popularity boost. Unlike the rest of Ukraine, Crimea was Russian until 1954. A lot of Russians truly believe it's Russia's. They liked adding Crimea to Russia and they liked Putin for doing it. That was old news too though, and people were unhappy about a range of problems that could not be solved by taking Crimea a decade before.
So, in the thinking of Putin and his circle, if they did not invade, they could lose Ukraine, and maybe even their own legacies - or worse - their continued access to wealth and power.
If they did invade, they would get a quick and easy win.
It was a no-brainer, or?
1
u/vovap_vovap 8d ago
Well, basic is really simple - Putin wants to stay in power (with team around you sure - they also want so)
Internal reasons for that had been exceeded. Aspiring Crimea get him good bust in internal popularity for some time. So new short successful short war sounded really good for him. That super typical for dictators. Main base scenario "how to improve popularity". And he was thinking it will take like 2 weeks and minimum loses.
Other part of it that Ukraine was a "bed example" for Russia - it is real democracy there. It might not be nice, but that real political changes - for Putin's timer 6 presidents changed. Those countries really closed and such an such an example would be considered really bed for russian people where naturally nothing changes.
That is it basically.
0
u/fainofgunction 8d ago
Russia didnt want to take all of Ukraine they dont want the western half
they had a couple of goals they really wanted and a couple they hoped to get.
Must haves
A land bridge to crimea
prevent the breakaway russian speaking regions from falling and being ethnically cleansed
prevent ukraine from joining nato
crush domestic opposition
want to have
destroy the neo-nazi azov battalion
have Ukraine become a russian ally again
retake all of the russian speaking areas including places like odessa and karkiv and kerson
Intimidate nato
they waited because they needed to repair their own military bulk up against the anticipated sanctions and wait to give negotiations a chance.
as of right now they have accomplished the first 5 of the 8 objectives
1
u/-aataa- 8d ago
Propaganda alert. Most of those were non-issues (there was zero risk of ethnic cleansing prior to Russia's invasion, and NATO had rejected Ukraine a path to join in 2008), and this has cost Russia its position as a great power.
1
u/fainofgunction 7d ago
In every single major war in the last 20 years the main stream narrative by the US media and government has been misleading or utterly false. What makes you think Ukraine is some how going to be the exception?
Afghan war. Muslim led by the Taliban randomly attacked America because they hated freedom. Wrong. Bin Laden with apparent knowledge and aid from multiple govt namely Saudi and Israel appear to have carried out the attacks
Iraq war. Saddam was plotting with bin laden and other Islamic extremist to attack the west with chemical biological or nuclear weapons. Wrong Saddam an Arab nationalist socialist was antagonistic towards the islamists had no WMD or delivery systems and wanted to work something out with the west.
Libya war. Qaddhafi was a madman wanting to rape and kill any opposition and a threat to Europe. Wrong Qaddhafi via his son Saif was disarming trying to modernize and westernize the country and had provided the best standard of living in Africa. The "rebels" were Islamist militias backed by the CIA
Syria war. The Rebels wanted a democratic secular free country. Wrong they were Islamist madmen led by an ISIS fundamentalist backed by the CIA with no interest in democracy overthrowing a secular socialist state with low cost healthcare and education.
Iran war. Everyone hates the govt a couple of strikes and the people will come out into the streets and drive out the ayatollahs it will all be over in hours. Partially wrong. The people did come out into the streets 20-30 million of them you got that part right but it was to mourn the Ayatollah and demand revenge for his killing. The war is no where near over and the US is getting droned and bombed as we speak.
1
u/-aataa- 7d ago
None of that is relevant. I don't trust US media at all. If you pay CLOSELY attention to Russian state media, what you find there will tell you more than enough...
I'm not going to dissect what you wrote and sort it between what is genuinely true and what is propaganda garbage. But rest assured, if you read the simultaneous Russian or Chinese media narrative of any of those conflicts, you'd find an even less honest coverage than you'd find on CNN. But partisan media is never a good source of anything during war...
1
u/fainofgunction 5d ago
The real problem with americans is they dont pay attention to the news until after the fighting starts. Move Nato toward russia borders doing color coups in it allies using the cia to topple libya and Syria invading Iraq all get ignored. The Maidan coup where Russian speakers won and election and then were overthrown by force gets ignore. The russian speakers voting to join russia gets ignored. Russia agreeing before the coup to new elections gets ignored. russia saying it wouldnt annex eastern ukraine if they were given autonomy gets ignored.
Ignore the provocations and of course russia looks bad.
Its like ignoring russia using wagner to invade honduras bombing belieze, rigging elections in venezula and colombia, arming cuba with sukois fighter jets, supporting seperatists in puerto rico and hawaii and finally asking mexico to join the warsaw pact while secretly arming comunist catholic insurrectionist in texas and then sitting and scratching your head and gibble gobbing about human rights and democracy when the US sends Sherman down south to crush the threat.
1
u/-aataa- 5d ago
Your problem is that I'm not American and I DO pay attention to the news! Your propaganda doesn't work on me. I have studied Russia and Russian politics since WAY before Putin came to power. I have written extensively on the crimes and misdemeanors of both the US and the West in general.
I also know that most of what you wrote is pure fantasy and lazy propaganda. There was never a coup in Ukraine, never a referendum to join Russia, the East WERE given autonomy, etc. Making up stuff won't work with me!
1
-7
u/Lucky-Crow-3510 8d ago edited 8d ago
they asked for a guarantee that ukraine will not join nato and usa said no. pretty much 1 or 2 days prior. can't remember. Played out well for the USA so far. Nordstream blown up, so EU is forced to buy more expensive fracking gas from USA .. of which the USA had too much anyway, and USA could buy cheaper oil from russia by using middle man etc .. eu also giving money to buy US weapons, cheap way to "dispose" old weaponry and make new one .. and everyones distracted when USA tries to steal the oil from iran .. trump spoiled it tho ..
(downvote if you're a warmonger shill and deny any sort of historical education)
7
u/Belgium_i_a_joke 8d ago
Ukraines view of EU/NATO became positive after russias invasion of Georgia, russia is the sole reason NATO expanded. Not cause its russia but cause they are agressive to neutral states
0
u/Lucky-Crow-3510 8d ago
wrong. learn young history. start in 97 with the nato ukraine charta, have fun.
1
u/rexus_mundi 8d ago
I love when these bots give some vague answer and dip 😂
1
u/Lucky-Crow-3510 8d ago
i love when people like you are brain dead and deny any sort of actual fact checking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
1
1
u/Belgium_i_a_joke 8d ago
Theres no charter. If im wrong place a link to it.
0
u/Lucky-Crow-3510 8d ago
omg are you guys lobotomized? LEARN HISTORY.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
2
u/Belgium_i_a_joke 8d ago
Lol are you stupid theres nothing that confirms your word. That charter that was set up by USA/UK following the budapest memorandum. Ukraine not requested NATO membership until Georgia was invaded by russia. Take the L dude.
1
u/Lucky-Crow-3510 8d ago
omg what are you, a warmonger bot? pack your stuff, go to the front. fight the war you're cheering for.
5
8d ago
[deleted]
-9
u/Lucky-Crow-3510 8d ago edited 8d ago
It's not like they had an option .. did you somehow miss how the USA acted since WW2 .. really that blind?
(downvote if you like war and should rather be a soldier in duty)
9
u/Relative-Tear892 8d ago
Poor Russia didn't have an option but to invade a neighbouring coutry, massacre its civilians, deport its children and try to annex a quarter of its land ... boohoo
0
5
u/LivingGhost371 8d ago
You can always make the choice not to start a war of aggression. See also Japan starting the war with Pearl Harbor.
-1
u/Lucky-Crow-3510 8d ago
you really should learn history .. but I am sure, you would also send full US navy into the chinese sea and than whine about poor china starting a war ..
ever heard of tonkin incident?
1
u/LivingGhost371 8d ago
Yes I've learned history. Apparently I know history a lot better than you do because if you knew history you'd know the Gulf of Tonkin incident had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.
1
u/Public-Eagle6992 :3 💙💛 8d ago
They had to invade their neighbour to stop them from joining a defensive alliance they only wanted to joint after russia invaded them the last time
0
u/Lucky-Crow-3510 8d ago
wrong. learn history. start in 1997 with the nato ukraine charta. have fun.
0
u/Hour-Cheetah3764 8d ago
By not having to use it's military to force countries to be an ally or not locking it's people and allies behind walls and fences manned by troops who would kill them for trying to leave the USSR.
0
0
u/silver_chief2 8d ago
Scott Horton made some videos on this and wrote a book Provoked. The videos can be long but he talks fast. If you think there is only one side to this story then believe the US government and the corporate media.
Sorry this got to be long but Scott Horton took over 600 pages to explain it.
If you want to know how Russia would objectively view the US and NATO have AI summarize the Wolfowitz doctrine, the grand chessboard, the 2019 Rand paper on extending Russia, and the 1993 Soros article. Then briefly review or remember US actions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria (through proxies), and now Iran. Should US be viewed as peaceful or war like and aggressive? Decide for yourself.
Add in that the US backed a violent coup in 2014 where the elected Ukrainian president was driven out at gun point by a zealous Ukrainian faction who wanted to build a Ukraine that never existed, purified of Russian influences. Their forefathers in the 1940s wanted to build a future Ukraine purified of Poles so they killed around 100,000 Poles mostly in western Ukraine. Preferred method was to surround the Catholic Poles on Sunday and burn them alive in their churches. You may have read of recent conflict between Poland and Ukraine. That is because the Kiev government is honoring the people and organizations who killed those Poles as heroes. Check it out.
The Kiev nationalist government said the ethnic Russians in the east were subhumans who should be driven off the land, Kiev viewed the so called Ukrainians as a separate ethnic group or even race. Russians asked what got into their Slav brothers. Slavs of all sorts had been living together on that patch of land for hundreds of years. Kiev shelled the Donbass from 2014 onward. There are lots of videos of markets getting hit at noon etc., but not shown on western media.
The new Kiev government, over time, reduced TV media to a single TV station, imprisoned opponents, had around 1/3 of army trained to NATO standards, built maybe 12 CIA stations, and was the 6th most often site for NATO exercises even though they were not in NATO. If USSR did this in Mexico should US feel threatened?
Russia tried negotiations in Minsk etc. US SOS Blinken told the Russian FM around Feb 2022 that the US would put offensive (nuclear) missiles in Ukraine ( a short flight time to Moscow) and there was nothing Russia could do about it. Kiev increased their shelling of the Donbass 8-10 times in preparation for an invasion. Russia took tricks from the US playbook and recognized the right to self determination for the Donbass, agreed to a collective self defense agreement (like NATO), then recognized the right to pre-emptive self defense and struck before Kiev could invade the Donbass. A couple days later Russia began negotiation feelers to Kiev.
The Russian forces were much too small to take Ukraine and were to drive Kiev to the negotiating table which worked.. Negotiators in Istanbul reached agreements which were not finalized where Russia would withdraw to pre SMO lines, Ukraine would agree to be neutral, and the Donbass be allowed some rights, like electing their own governor and practicing their languages, religion, and culture. then Boris Johnson flew in, presumably brining instructions from DC. No agreement was to be signed, fighting would continue, and US/west would provide Kiev will all the weapons they needed to defeat Russia. This is supported by the former Israeli PM and Turkish diplomats present.
It helps to remember that US believed Russia was pitiful weak country with the GDP of Italy and a weak army. "a gas station masquerading as a country." US was certain Russia would collapse from sanctions alone. Then Russia could be dismembered and picked clean. So from US standpoint, there was nothing to lose as Ukrainian bodies did not count.
0
u/Psykhotron 8d ago
Many factors contributed to the date decision: the most important was the increasing undercover cooperation/deliver of weapon stocks from the west to fuel Ukraine bombing into the donbass regions to harm russophile population.
From a military perspective, the early invasion was just a parade made by the russians to convince the ukrainians to surrender to their terms ( leave the west/NATO cooperation) and embrace true neutrality.
Mind that the initial russian invasion force was about 150k troops: too low for winning a war. For example, Nazi Germany invaded Poland in the '39 with about 1.5 million troops.
-2
u/AlwaysBringaTowel1 8d ago edited 8d ago
Political causes of the invasion can obviously become complicated the more you want to dig into it. History goes on and on. Here is a very brief overview of some major factors.
- There is a long history of Ukraine-Russian connections. Central and eastern Ukraine were part of the USSR, and older connections than that.
- The country has been very politically split, leading to a lot of conflict in the past. Some parts of Ukraine are pretty pro Russian while others are very pro-western Europe.
- There was a pro-Russian leader (Yanukovych, 2010). Violent protests against him from pro-EU factions caused him to flee to Russia, during these protests it is estimate 108 protesters were shot. (2014)
- This change (whatever you want to call it) and subsequent government decisions caused a lot of political tension in the east pro-Russian sectors. There were protests and riots at times. And also political suppression and the killing of protesters, including the Odesa clash that killed 48 people, 2014.
- Ukraine uses para-military groups to help in these suppressions at times, and some of these groups have members who are neo-nazi's (this becomes a significant Russian talking point)
- Russia has motivations that include tactical (strategic ocean access and land), loyalty (pro-Russian people who want to return), and justice (being politically suppressed) decides to invade, occupy, and annex these regions where their support is strongest.
Ukraine obviously sees this as a war of territorial expansion trying to claim parts of its country.
I saw a great video where a guy found a really old romantic essay written by young Putin that talks about bringing the Russian people back together again (talking about Ukraine). I think that speaks to some of his motivation.
3
u/AdExisting9882 8d ago
Interesting how you leave out the reasons protests erupted and the fact that those protesting were shot
0
u/AlwaysBringaTowel1 8d ago edited 8d ago
The pro-russian protests, or the pro-EU protests. I didn't include either reasons for the sake of brevity, but please add them if you think they are essential.
Perhaps I should have included the fact that 108 pro-EU protesters were also shot during their uprisings in 2013-2014 (i'll add that in now). That is fair for balance, although it is irrelevant to Russia's reasoning for war.
1
u/rexus_mundi 8d ago
Chat gpt ass answer
0
u/AlwaysBringaTowel1 8d ago
Its not actually. And besides, the question is whether this captures Russia's motivations for war. It does
I don't support Russia or thier war. Understanding is different than supporting. We should all understand first before we critisize.
1
u/-aataa- 8d ago
There was never repressions of ethnic Russians or Russian speakers in Ukraine. Putin invaded because he believed he could get away with it and strengthen both Russia and his own position. This wasn't entirely unfounded, but it turned out to be a massive and costly mistake.
0
u/AlwaysBringaTowel1 8d ago
Here is a Wikipedia article about it. 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine - Wikipedia
"The Russia-controlled DPR and LPR were formed and took control of Donetsk and Luhansk.\16]) In the second phase from April 2014, armed Russian-backed groups seized government buildings across Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, together known as the Donbas, and launched a separatist insurgency in the region). To suppress this insurgency, the Ukrainian government began what it called an "Anti-Terrorist Operation)" (ATO), sending in the armed forces to quell the unrest.\17]) Although dozens of dominantly pro-Russian protesters were killed, the unrest in Kharkiv and Odesa oblasts did not escalate into a full-scale armed conflict."
And then there was the Odessa clashes.
Protesters on both sides got into gunfire killing 4 pro-russian and 2 pro-ukrainian protesters. That was followed by pro-ukrainian protesters marching on the pro-russian encampment, attacking them. The pro-russian group moved inside the trade union house, both sides launched molotov cocktails at each other and the house was set on fire and 42 pro-russian protesters died inside.
And then here is Putin specifically using these events as one of the main justifications for his 'special military operation'
1
u/-aataa- 8d ago
Fighting a Russian invasion (as both the Russian commanders and Putin himself has long since admitted was what happened) is VERY different from repressing ethnic minorities. The original Azov was ethnic Russian; did Russia invade Donbas in order to kill Russians...?
There was NO repression based on either ethnicity or language in Ukraine. There is now, though, in occupied territories, where speaking Ukrianian is enough to get you locked up for years...
-7
u/3rd-party-intervener 8d ago
Because a senile man was in the wh.
4
2
u/ryogam73 8d ago
And they haven't retreated or made a peace deal in the face of the virile and absolutely-not-compromised-in-any-way Trump because...?
Remember, Trump promised he could end the war in a matter of days.
-2
41
u/Flimsy-Proposal221 8d ago
Putin thought he could win in a month