Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by yucky 1524 days ago
It makes perfect sense not to trust everything Putin says. That doesn't answer the questions though - where did our media get the idea that Russia ever intended on annexing all of Ukraine? They tell us this was a goal, but what is the source of that claim? Russia never made that claim. Only some in the media have, shouldn't we expect sources for claims like that?
1 comments

I think the primary source was the presence of the army that invaded Ukraine, and attempted to seize the capital.
..and the central city of Kyiv was the furthest east Russia ever went, which leads us back to the question of where people got the idea that Russia ever intended to annex all of Ukraine.
…you think the most likely explanation is that the Russians attacked Kyiv because that was the furthest west they wanted? They’d just leave the rest alone?
No, the most obvious answer is that they went there to destroy high value targets to weaken Ukraine militarily, making it far easier to do what they want to do in the Donbass/Crimean land bridge area. Now rather than having to deal with the Ukrainian air force, tank units, air defense etc. those obstacles are mostly gone.
That's not really a great read on the situation, at least according to military historians: https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1508947030273671177

In another thread, he describes it as:

> So to put it bluntly, if the 'clever plan' was to lose 10,000 KIA to set conditions to walk away with the Donbas, that's a stupid plan. That's winning the negotiation on a $15k car by cleverly offering an opening bid of $55k and throwing in your old car as a sweetener.

The Donbas isn't really the main target for Russia, since that is already essentially ruled by separatist pro-Russian forces for years. The prize is the area west of there and to the south, connecting Crimea by land and freeing up the water resources that have been blocked.

Admittedly I'm not a historian like the Twitter guy with the bad analogies, but I suspect the furthest west that Russia seeks to control is Kherson (not Odessa), then following the water going back NE of there to Zaporizhzhia & then all the way up towards Kharkiv in some fashion. This gives Russia a ton of natural[1] and industrial resources, plus significantly weakens Ukraine, without having to try and occupy the more populated and less Russian areas west of there towards Kyiv and further. Putin will likely try to sell this as necessary to provide a buffer zone for the heavily Russian Donbas region from Ukrainian shelling.

That being said, I'm just some turd on the internet so I'm probably wrong and nobody knows for sure what Putin's long term plan is.

[1] https://w7.pngwing.com/pngs/864/537/png-transparent-ukraine-...

Well according to the Russian media the west and Lviv particularly was the hotbed of Nazism (back a month ago some distinction was made that that was the particularly bad part of Ukraine, but now it's all teeming with Nazis), so denazification would have to involve the west too. I think it's pretty clear the goal was to replace the government at least, and if they could get another Lukashenko that in itself is almost "annexing"
Well the Azov Battalion was and is in Mariupol (not Lyiv), and they are the vanguard of the Nazi element in Ukraine. As to your point about Putin wanting a more pro-Russian government in Ukraine, of that I have no doubt.
> the Azov Battalion was and is in Mariupol

"the Azov Battalion" hasn't existed since 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion#Current_status

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-russia-war-azov-battali...

"Azov's military and political wings formally separated in 2016, when the far-right National Corps party was founded. The Azov battalion had by then been integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard. An effective fighting force that's very much involved in the current conflict, the battalion has a history of neo-Nazi leanings, which have not been entirely extinguished by its integration into the Ukrainian military."