sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Mearsheimer:
https://www.cirsd.org/en/horizons/horizons-summer-2022-issue-no.21/the-causes-and-consequences-of-the-ukraine-war
Quote:
Unsurprisingly, the Russians pursued a limited aims strategy, which focused on either capturing or threatening Kyiv and conquering a large swath of territory in eastern and southern Ukraine.
He claims that Russia didn't intend to take all of Ukraine (I find this a bit dubious, given that he also says they tried to capture Kyiv), but he definitely says they intended to conquer territory.
Mearsheimer does not state that the goal was to annex these territories.
In fact the Istanbul Peace Treaty which was drawn 2 months into the war stipulated that Russia would withdraw from the Donbas in exchange for these provinces to gain autonomy within a looser federal structure similar to the UK or Canada. So at that point it was clear that Russia did not intend to annex these territories, they were held as a bargaining chip towards Donbas autonomy and Ukraine going neutral and reducing its military (those were the other terms of the Istanbul treaty).
Mearsheimer quote from your link:
Quote:
To make the case that Putin was bent on conquering all of Ukraine and incorporating it into Russia, it is necessary to provide evidence that first, he thought it was a desirable goal, that second, he thought it was a feasible goal, and third, he intended to pursue that goal. There is no evidence in the public record that Putin was contemplating, much less intending to put an end to Ukraine as an independent state and make it part of a greater Russia when he sent his troops into Ukraine on February 24th.
I mean, it says right there in a passage from the man himself that Russia intended to conquer territory in Ukraine. I suppose what they were going to do with it after that can be up for debate, but they still were trying to conquer territory. Even in the most generous interpretation this reads like a hostage-taking operation by Russia: give us what we want and we'll let the Donbas go! Great.
In early 2022, Ukraine had massed over 60,000 NATO-trained troops in their fortified Donbas positions and were ready to overrun ("conquer") and wipe out the rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk. This would have been followed by a deep purge of Donbas rebels and their wide base of supporters among the population.
This is what forced Russia's hand, at least in terms of their timing, there is no way they could have let that happen.
Not sure Ukraine can "conquer" territory it already held, but interesting framing from you. Ukraine's government was trying to put down a violent uprising within their own borders, therefore Russia just had to invade and take the territory. Okay.
Kind of seems like you believe that part of Ukraine already belonged to Russia anyway. Where have I heard that before?
The minute the Canadian government decrees that French is no longer recognized as an official language, or if in Brussels Flemish is no longer recognized, or in Madrid Basque is marginalized - Quebec Flanders and the Basque Country are no longer part of Canada, Belgium or Spain, instant rebellion.
This concept of cultural sovereignty and federalism is harder to grasp from an American perspective, but easy to understand for someone from Europe. Ukraine is the largest country in Europe, it is composed of several cultural/ethnic/linguistic minorities, the largest of which is the Russian minority which makes up the great majority of eastern and southern Ukraine.
Bottom line, Kiev forfeited its sovereignty over "that part of Ukraine", the Donbas, and Crimea the moment they tried to undermine their language, traditions, faith and cultural heritage. That is the reason the Donbas rebellion was able to withstand a 7 year civil war against the larger Kiev army.
