[vidarh]

I see the war in Ukraine as more of a war for people that has gone badly wrong. Russia (the same applies to Ukraine) has birth rates far below replacement, and faces total demographic collapse if they can't reverse it.

Russia also won't need more farmland. Russia has far more land. Especially as climate change if anything is likely to open up regions further north where farming has not been practical - in that respect, Russia is better placed that most other countries (including Ukraine) to see off the worst effects of climate change -, but also because their crashing population will reduce their agricultural demand.

Doesn't mean Putin doesn't also want the land and resources, but if taking over Ukraine were to shore up Russia's population and buy them decades to solve the demographic problem, I think that would be far more economically valuable to him.

See e.g. also the large-scale abduction of children from the occupied areas, that while a classic way to try to destroy an enemy is also a move that "makes sense" (though of course reprehensible) to someone who is worried about the very perpetuation of his people.

Of course, then he failed to get the quick win, and the potential win is literally bleeding away on the battlefield, to the point where there's every reason to question whether Russia will survive the after-effects of this as a country 20-30 years down the line.

[FirmwareBurner]

Your comment of Russia invading Ukraine in order to get people to replenish demographics makes zero sense, when Ukraine was also having the same demographic issue, let alone the fact you can't easily assimilate people you just conquered since they'll hate you and revolt, and the fact that Ukrainians are free to flee west if Russia were to manage to take the whole country.

No matter how you slice it, what you said just makes no sense.

[vidarh]

Ukraine has the same declining population, yes, but it would still mean a 40m+ injection of people. It'd also mean the ability to selectively drain Ukraine of parts of the population, which we've already seen one example of:

Large-scale abduction of children.

With respect to assimiliation, you 1) assume rational people, 2) assume they accept that they will be unable to subjugate Ukraine the same way they're keeping control over a country where every single region have independence movements.

Again: They've already engaged in large-scale abduction of children - you're not dealing with a rational adversary.

As for people fleeing west, there is still substantial population in the occupied territories, as direct evidence that they'd still keep a substantial population.

I think your arguments makes just as little sense as you claim mine does.

[FirmwareBurner]

> but it would still mean a 40m+ injection of people.

HOW?! Ukrainians aren't bolted to that land you know. They can just leave for safety to the EU if Russia were to take over the whole country.

People aren't interchangeable cogs of equal usefulness. What would Russia do with millions of Ukrainian retirees as the youth flee?

>Large-scale abduction of children.

Can you share any sources of this "large scale abduction"? Are you saying the Ukrainian parents just left tens of thousands of kids behind for the Russians to abduct as they made their way through a few KM of countryside in the eastern part of Ukraine? Sorry, I'm not buying this without proper sources.

Not saying a few kids haven't been abducted in the war, I'm saying it's not enough for this to be the main reason Russia invaded as you originally claimed since if that were the reason, then it's a very bad return on investment to justify the exorbitant costs in money and bodies of a full scale war just to gain a few abducted kids added to your population.

[vidarh]

> HOW?! Ukrainians aren't bolted to that land you know. They can just leave for safety to the EU if Russia were to take over the whole country.

Can they? How many more do you think the EU would take?

And where is the evidence from the occupied parts of Ukraine that the entire population would be able and/or willing to just leave?

But this is also besides the point. What is relevant to Russia's motivations would be what they believed was realistic when they invaded, and as we saw they totally miscalculated, so assuming they were enaged in rationally thinking this through is also flawed.

> Can you share any sources of this "large scale abduction"? Are you saying the Ukrainian parents just left tens of thousands of kids behind for the Russians to abduct as they made their way through a few KM of countryside in the eastern part of Ukraine? Sorry, I'm not buying this without proper sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-...

The article is well cited, including with statements from the UN and arrest warrants from the ICC.

This was literally one Google search away, and has been in the news repeatedly over long periods.

Nobody has suggested Ukrainian parents left them behind - you seem to believe Eastern Ukraine has been emptied of Ukrainians. It has not.

Contrary to your beliefs, there are still millions of people in the Russian controlled areas.

> Not saying a few kids haven't been abducted in the war, I'm saying it's not enough for this to be the main reason Russia invaded as you originally claimed

Total strawman. My argument has not been that the abductions are the main reason for the invasion, but that the war is likely to be motivated by the demographic crisis.

The abduction of 20k+ kids ("a few"...) was an example of how Russia has engaged in classic methods used in the past to seek to assimilate an occupied population, specifically given as one example of the ability to selectively drain Ukraine of people in ways that'd offset Russias own problems, without necessarily be willing to take on any responsibility for e.g. old people.

> then it's a very bad return on investment to justify the exorbitant costs in money and bodies of a full scale war just to gain a few abducted kids added to your population.

It was clear the original belief in Russia was that they could just drive to Kyiv, in which case the ROI might have turned out quite well for them. It is certainly the case it has a very bad ROI now, yes - I've pointed out several times in discussions like these that I think they miscalculated so catastrophically that I doubt Russia will survive as a country.

But it's entirely nonsensical to base any discussion about their original motivation on the outlook far into a conflict that already days into the conflict had gone far worse for Russia than Russia - and most Western observers - initially assumed it would. If Russia thought it'd go this bad, it's likely they'd never had invaded in the first place. There's a large degree of sunk cost fallacy and fear of looking weak in the ongoing warfare.