Why Russia is Invading Ukraine

I found this to be a compelling take on Russia's motivations for invading Ukraine: [VIDEO] The narrator argues that it's largely about fossil fuels.

The conventional oil reserves are under water in the seas to the south. There is also shale oil in the east and west. None of this is really vulnerable to radioactive contamination. This video has maps of the reserves at 12:30. [VIDEO]

> the US at least attempted to invent a casus belli for Iraq Again: reward your friends, punish your enemies. Lie ("invent a casus belli") if you have to in order to punish your enemies. Everyone here trying to give some ideological reason why we did such and such in this case, but not in this other case, is entirely mistaken. Literally everything is spin to justify the core motivation: reward your friends, punish your enemies. Ukraine is no different. We can invade Iraq because they are our enemy. Russia CANNOT invade Ukraine because they are our friend. ---- Answering your follow up here (I'm rate-limited): > What was different about the 2014 invasion if it is strictly realpolitik friends and enemies? As I understand things, Crimea is literally the friend/enemy distinction in action (Russian perspective): Crimea, arguably (and certainly, effectively ) was/is a Russian territory, autonomous (but pro-Russian) and with an active Russian naval base, that came under the nominal control of the West after the 2014 regime change (enemy); thus Russia militarily took it back (friend), ensuring its continued independence and pro-Russian stance. Ukraine responded to Crimea's post-2014 autonomy/invasion/rescue/independence by cutting off their water supply, something Russia built for Crimea during the USSR. (I'm honestly surprised this step wasn't/isn't a Hague-level human rights violation. Maybe the Hague is also operating primarily under the friend/enemy distinction?) More detail here

> But these sanctions are so severe that they'll probably even prevent him from rebuilding his army following this due to sanctions blocking imports to fuel his war industry. So, since he is still fighting, what is he fighting _for_? Still trying to expand Russia? I don't know if this is 100% accurate, but it seemed to help my understanding: [VIDEO] tldw - oil, a better border where Belarus cannot be surrounded by NATO, and better access to shipping ports.

There is literally no conceivable way Ukraine was ever going to remain independent as long as Putin is in control of Russia. Everything you talked about has already been done--Ukraine gained independence and, after years of Ukraine-NATO relations, began actively seeking membership in the alliance and with the EU. For example, in 2002: > "Ukraine's total integration into NATO is dictated by the reality of European and world politics, particularly after the tragic events of Sept. 11 in the United States," Kuchma said in a statement. > "We are aware that joining NATO will be a long process and we will do everything possible," he added. [LINK] Followed by a formal attempt in 2008: > Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and Parliamentary Chairman Arseniy Yatsenyuk have signed the statement calling for consideration on Ukraine`s entry into the NATO membership action plan at the Bucharest summit" ... [LINK] Then we get the events of 2014 in Ukraine [LINK] where Yanukovych is kicked out because of his refusal to sign a trade agreement with the EU. There are more than 2 decades of history pointing to Ukraine's willingness to join Europe and NATO. And this is all backed by the people, both by the election of their leaders and by force. So literally all of this fully agrees with the entirety of your "solution." How have we ended up here? For one, Ukraine has natural gas and oil reserves--and if Ukraine can sell that to Europe, then Europe can rely on Ru

IMO, what the West has done is shown an incredible display of power, killing multiple birds with one stone: 1.) Attempt to prevent Russia from accessing new found gas/oil reserves. [3] 2.) Continue to press Russia into a corner as the West continues to expand its influence. [1] 3.) Show and tell China the consequences of economic sanctions and economic war, and our willingness and ability to do so. [speculation] For one, the Ukraine invasion is the US's fault. This has been covered in depth by John Mearsheimer in 2015 in his lecture "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?" after the Orange Revolution and Russia capturing of Crimea [1]. And there is also some rational speculation here regarding the discovery of natural resources. [3] What the US (which has major influence over Europe/NATO, so it's not clear how much of a choice Europe had here)[2] has essentially done is shown the world that we can manipulate and control the status quo (i.e. win a "war") without firing a shot or dropping a bomb. The new tools of war are economic control, and we're the heaviest guerilla in the room [4]. What's brilliant is the US's ability to make Putin appear much more evil than he really is. Yes, he is a dictator and isn't a good person, but he's been bringing back Russia from the dead and lifting its people out of poverty. Some of Putin's invasions occurred because we, the West/NATO, offered membership to those countries, when Russia made it clear that was a big no-no [1]. Forcing Russia to invade

Great video - thank you for posting. This video as well from Feb 26 2022 - Why Russia is Invading Ukraine(30mins explanation): [VIDEO]

This YouTube video titled "Why Russia is invading Ukraine"? [1] is an excellent overview of the history that lead to this moment. tl;dr oil and security [1] [VIDEO]

I couldn't find a HN rule against reposting flagged comments, so here it is (with my edit after being flagged). I want to reiterate my point of view is entirely neutral and fact based (from what I've read so far about the conflict). IMO, what the West has done is shown an incredible display of power, killing multiple birds with one stone: 1.) Attempt to prevent Russia from accessing new found gas/oil reserves. [3] 2.) Continue to press Russia into a corner as the West continues to expand its influence. [1] 3.) Show and tell China the consequences of economic sanctions and economic war, and our willingness and ability to do so. [speculation] For one, the Ukraine invasion is the US's fault. This has been covered in depth by John Mearsheimer in 2015 in his lecture "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?" after the Orange Revolution and Russia capturing of Crimea [1]. And there is also some rational speculation here regarding the discovery of natural resources. [3] What the US (which has major influence over Europe/NATO, so it's not clear how much of a choice Europe had here)[2] has essentially done is shown the world that we can manipulate and control the status quo (i.e. win a "war") without firing a shot or dropping a bomb. The new tools of war are economic control, and we're the heaviest guerilla in the room [4]. What's brilliant is the US's ability to make Putin appear much more evil than he really is. Yes, he is a dictator and isn't a good person, but he's been bringing back Russ

I never knew until recently how tied up Russia's oil strategy was to their military / political thinking. If others are interested, this video has a great overview: [VIDEO]

People take the guilt question far too personal. Consider it this way: if you stick your finger into a nest of hornets, whom is to blame if you get hurt? You can say the hornet (Russia) is always too blame. Or, you can acknowledge that hornets are dangerous and best not provoked. Willingly provoking them if there is the alternative of not doing that, can be considered irresponsible. As to why Ukraine turning western is considered a provocation, there's a lot of simplistic "fatalistic madman" narratives. I found this video to be very insightful: [VIDEO] It sums up a few very rational reasons that when combined, add up to a serious existential threat to Russia as a country, as a concept. Mind you, I'm no Russia apologist, I'm just trying to understand the hornet. So far the video holds up. Putin openly expressing to Macron that he will flip Ukraine entirely. Remarks like "There is no world without Russia in it", emphasizing that this campaign is existential, not a random aggression.

This is also playing right into NATO's hands in a way. But, after reading the authors I mentioned closely, I now realize that this is a war for control/negative-control over natural resources (grain, oil, gas, fertilizers, etc.). Also, this is about geostrategic security (anchoring at the Carpathian mountains and Bessarabia Gap). See: [LINK] And: [VIDEO]

I don't expect you to watch this full video but will leave it here for anyone who is curious about the broader context for this conflict. TL;DR: The war didn't start last week. It has been ongoing since 2014 and involves horrible acts from both sides. No, they don't average out and unfortunately we may never know what the 'truth' is here. I won't pretend to have all the answers, but I will say after watching the video, the situation appears to be much more complicated than it is being depicted on western media. Curiosity Stream: Why Russia is invading Ukraine [VIDEO]

>, because Russia controls Sevastopol since it annexed Crimea in 2014; it didn't need the current war to control it more. Crimea's fresh water supply came from a canal originating in Ukraine. After Russia's annexation, Ukraine retaliated by blocking the water flow with concrete so Crimea was running out of water. Deep link to explanation: [VIDEO] So it was no surprise that on the 2nd day of the invasion, Russian soldiers used explosives to blow up Ukraine's dam to to re-open the canal: [LINK] Crimea residents' (many pro-Russian) reaction a week later on March 3: [LINK] Also, Russia controlling Ukraine's land and coastline from Donbass through Mariupol and down to north Crimea means they have a more viable "land bridge" for supplies than the tiny man-made bridge that links southern Crimea with Russia. Ukraine becoming allied with NATO (or a defacto "NATO ally" via EU membership instead of a Russia puppet) means that tiny bridge over the Kerch strait becomes a vulnerable chokepoint that threatens Russia. Deep link to that explanation: [LINK] From Russia's point of view, there are many desirable military objectives for them to take over southeastern Ukraine. EDIT reply to: >, because a naive look at the map suggests that even without Crimea, Russia already has coastline onto the Black Sea between its borders with Ukraine and Georgia... there must be a strong reason in favour of invading another country rather than developing ports on the land they already have, Russia's existing

> Deep link to explanation: [VIDEO] This video is fascinating and explains a lot. Many thanks for this!!

As per the video [VIDEO] ), above and beyond the geopolitical reasons for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the main motive is economical: 1. Russia is in effect a petrostate; it lives and dies by its exports of natural gas and oil. 2. Immense fields of underwater natural gas and oil were discovered in 2012 in the Crimea maritime exclusive economic zone. 3. If Crimea stays with Ukraine, it lets Ukraine become a new petrostate and challenge Russia (take over its European customers), which to Russia is an existential threat. Hence the annexation of Crimea in 2014: not only for Sevastopol and access to the Mediterranean, but to exploit the oil fields (and/or prevent Ukraine from exploiting them). 4. But the supply of 80% of the fresh water to Crimea comes from a canal [0] that connects it to the Dnieper river in Ukraine; after the annexation, Ukraine shut the canal down, effectively thirsting Crimea to death. 5. If Russia wants to stay in Crimea (which it believes is necessary for its own survival), it needs to reopen that canal, and therefore control at least the southern part of Ukraine and possibly its whole Mediterranean coastline. (It's not just about the canal, but the canal is a very big part of it.) [0]: [LINK]

There is a pretty decent amount of information out there as to why Russia wants Crimea (and Ukraine) [VIDEO] There is a lot of propaganda out there, but a hard and fast truth is that no country, not Russia nor the US nor China nor India nor anyone actually cares at all about normal citizens. People can care about other people, but countries do not and cannot. Its why Putin's claims of protecting Russians are BS. (US Claims of protecting Ukrainians too, its in the US/Europe interest to do so, its not to protect Tibetans or Afghans for example, so it does not)

He’s right about 9/11 and the “World-domination advocates” exploiting the event to expand the scope of the US response from self-defense (neutralizing Al Quaeda) to hegemony-expansion (invading Iraq, and subsequent regime-change efforts). It’s unpleasant at best to see them again crawling out of the woodwork, after causing so much damage to the US, Iraq, and the world, not to mention fomenting both Putin and the CCP's current aggressive expansionary posture. They defined the "New World Order" for the next half-century at least, as less about order and more about power. And now US appeals to a "rules-based international order" is falling on deaf ears because of the neocons. And the media propaganda machine ramping up war justification, where have I seen this before. On the other hand, Ukraine is, unlike Iraq, already a democracy, being invaded by an autocracy. Russia’s real objective is most likely to control Ukraine’s newly discovered natural gas reserves and maintain Russia’s energy leverage over the democratic EU [1]. Allowing an autocracy to do both of those things is equally distasteful. Kinzinger isn’t entirely wrong in his assessment that allowing Russian nuclear saber rattling to deter the West may encourage every other 2-bit autocracy to pursue nukes, but unfortunately that cat’s already out of the bag. When Gadhafi gave up his nuke program and later was regime-changed and assassinated anyway, and when Trump unilaterally backed out of the Iran nuclear deal, that showe

RealLifeLore has an excellent analysis of the reasons for Russia's invasion [1], including the military motivations. I highly recommend watching it. In particular the reasoning around gas and oil reserves in the Black Sea have not been given the due attention in the media IMO. He doesn't talk about Finland, but I would imagine the fact that it would broaden the front for a land-based invasion is what motivates Russia's opposition. That and generally having gotten away with being a bully and getting what you want for so long. [1] [VIDEO]

RealLifeLore published a very well documented, and propaganda-free, video about why Russia is invading Ukraine [VIDEO]