The War in Europe

… another one bites the dustUkraine's defence ministry says another Russian general, Lt Gen Yakov Rezantsev, was killed in a strike near the southern city of Kherson.Rezantsev was the commander of Russia's 49th combined army.
A western official said he was the seventh general to die in Ukraine, and the second lieutenant general - the highest rank officer reportedly killed.[…]On Friday, a western official reported that a Russian colonel had been deliberately run over and killed by his own men, as a result of the scale of losses taken by his brigade.The killing of the commander of the 37th motor rifle brigade "gives an insight into some of the morale challenges that Russian forces are having", the official said.Russian general Yakov Rezantsev killed in Ukraine - BBC News

Alexander Vindman is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army who served as director of European and Russian Affairs for the National Security Council during the Trump administration. He testified at Trump's first impeachment trial about Trump's phone call with Ukraine president Zelensky where Trump tried to hold U.S. aid hostage in return for manufacturing dirt about Hunter Biden. On March 8th he was interviewed by the Washington Post: Alexander Vindman discusses the invasion of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin and the dangers ahead. Here are excerpts with my comments.

quote:

---

Serving in Russia from 2012 to 2015 clarified my suspicions that we were headed towards confrontation with Russia at one point or another, that [President Vladimir] Putin was increasingly emboldened, acting with impunity on the perceptions that there would not be a consequence for his increasingly aggressive behavior. So I knew it was really just a matter of time. And then being part of the Trump administration that took that creeping, looming confrontation and lurched it forward significantly — both on the macro level, with regards to undermining our alliances, perceptions that there were divides for Putin to exploit, the insipid efforts to undermine and weaken the United States domestically. And then, of course, on the micro level, weakening the bonds between the U.S. and Ukraine. And then, post-Trump, the insurrection was a key milestone in that, you know: “The U.S. is weak. This is the time to strike.”

---

Vindman is describing Putin's approach, the same one I've been describing. Undermining alliances, creating divides, weakening adversaries from within, etc.

quote:

---

From Putin’s point of view. Putin saw the opportunity emerge. And that continued through 2021 as he was building up forces. Trump cheerleading for Putin. Tucker Carlson cheerleading for Putin. Mike Pompeo cheerleading for Putin. These are the folks that signaled that the costs of this operation, this war, would be limited. Just as President Biden was attempting to signal that the toll would be heavy, half of the political leaders were signaling the opposite, undermining the ability to deter.

---

Conservative efforts to weaken liberals are also weakening the U.S.'s position in the world.

quote:

---

So we need to shake off our reluctance, shake off our fears, recognize that there are no good options and start making tough, risk-informed decisions now...The things that we think are impossible now are going to be our best options in the future. So let’s take the courageous steps we need to do now.

---

Vindman isn't specific about fears, but he comes back to this later when he mentions the nuclear threat.

quote:

---

There’s the saying: Russia without Ukraine is a country. Russia with Ukraine is an empire. Does that speak to the stakes in this war and what Putin is willing to do to achieve them?

​

Absolutely. We need to realize that this doesn’t end with Ukraine. If [Putin’s] successful there, then Moldova and Georgia — two countries that have also paved a separate direction — are vulnerable. Belarus is basically captured at this point. And then that’s already rebuilding a large portion of the Soviet Union or the Russian empire that preceded it. And it doesn’t probably end there, either. Because NATO will have proven itself to be a paper tiger, potentially.

---

This is what I've been saying in a nutshell. Vindman believes Putin's order of conquest will be Ukraine, Moldova, then Georgia, and says what the west is not reminding itself of often enough: Belarus is already gone!. Note his mention that NATO risks proving itself a paper tiger.

quote:

---

We’re being warned off by Putin using all these rhetorical flourishes about war without recognizing that his difficulties on the battlefields in Ukraine reduce his appetite for a conventional confrontation with the West.

---

The key part here is, "We’re being warned off by Putin using all these rhetorical flourishes about war..." We're letting Putin tell us how to conduct ourselves. Vindman isn't specific, but a key question to ask is why no fighter jets or no-fly zones for Ukraine. The answer is clear and embarrassing. Without actually being explicit, Putin has convinced us that we dare not do this.Vindman next makes that point more definitive, this time mentioning the nuclear threat, and calling absurd the notion that sending fighter jets would cause WWIII:

quote:

---

So you don’t buy into Putin’s warnings that that would release catastrophic consequences?

​

He is very effective at preying on hopes and fears. For a long time, he preyed on our hopes that we could have a normal relationship, that the largest country in the world, by territory, was going to be a partner, whether with regards to climate change or terrorism. With very little progress. We put all our eggs on the promise, the hope, of a good relationship instead of committing to relationships that actually could bear fruit.

​

He’s also been very effective at preying on our fears. Extremely effective. This idea that somehow he’s a madman or somehow we’re lurching toward nuclear war — why would he pick a fight with a much, much more capable adversary if he’s already bogged down in Ukraine? And it is an absurd notion that sending over Cold War-era aircraft in NATO’s inventory to Ukraine to pilot is going to precipitate World War III.

---

Vindman strongly agrees with others here that Putin cannot take Ukraine in any practical way:

quote:

---

What’s your level of optimism around whether Ukraine leaves this war with its sovereignty and independence intact?

​

Near 100 percent. One way or another, this ends in some sort of negotiated solution. The question is, how much blood is spilled? Maybe I’ll go with 99 percent. Because there is a scenario in which Russia continues to pour resources into Ukraine over the course of months. It conscripts Russian soldiers. It takes equipment out of mothballs, depots, and continues to push it in and just grinds down the Ukrainian military and the Ukrainian will to resist. And then it just assembles that million-man force to occupy Ukraine. That’s a pie-in-the-sky number. It’s certainly much more than 150,000. It’s orders of magnitude bigger. But there’s a scenario in which it does that.

​

But the cost, we have to remember, is an isolated Russian economy that is not yet feeling the pain. And that means, basically, Russia has no income. And there are these socioeconomic protests, and there are these body bags coming back. And to sustain a campaign in light of all of that, to build up that kind of force to occupy Ukraine, is unlikely.

---

The possibility Vindman doesn't mention is where Putin deposes (murders or assassinates possibly?) Zelensky and puts in place a puppet government answerable and subservient to Russia.Vindman agrees with others here, including myself, that Putin has weakened his own hold on power by invading Ukraine:

quote:

---

You’ve talked about Putin’s miscalculations and how this situation could be the beginning of the end for him.

​

It’s clear to me this is the beginning of the end. The prospects before this war were that Putin would be able to stay in office until at least 2036. Two more terms as president. It is highly unlikely that he’s going to be able to stay in power that long [now] because this is shaping up to be a catastrophic mistake. He’s cut off the Russian economy from the rest of the world. We have not started seeing the effects of that. These are small-scale protests that are unfolding [now], political protests, against the war. Not the socioeconomic protests of people not being able to put food on their plates or the security services not being paid to do their henchman activity and suppress peaceful protests. Dealing with the 11,000 dead and the broken families on the Russian side, that hasn’t unfolded. So these are factors that are going to lead to the end.

---

Near the end of the interview he warns of the costs of doing too little too late:

quote:

---

But there’s a logic behind this idea of an ounce of prevention to prevent more catastrophic outcomes. We didn’t do enough to prevent the catastrophic outcome of a war between Russia and Ukraine. And we’re not doing enough to prevent a catastrophic outcome of a larger war that spills over.

---

--Percy

Nobody's arguing about history Percy.Putin made his move in the belief that the West was weak and wouldn't respond, that Ukraine wanted to return to Russia and that his army strutting in Moscow's Red Square would look just as glorious on a battlefield facing an opponent with modern weaponry and a will to fight.He was wrong on all counts, what plans he might have had to push further after Ukraine have evaporated. He's now in survival mode with absolutely no possibility of doing what you propose.

As a general rule, it's cheaper to trade than to fight a war. Isn't Putin likely to lose more oil/gas sales due to sanctions than he could possibly gain from Ukraine?You could argue that he's irrational but then why would you suggest rational reasons for what he does?

This is too cute by half. No one reading your suicide comment would think that's the point you're making. It's approaching the level of "it depends upon what the meaning of 'is' is." That's a hard no. Russia invading a NATO member wouldn't force NATO to attack Russia.A Russian invasion of a NATO member would invoke rule 5 that provides for collective defense, meaning that an attack against one member is considered an attack against all. Without doubt the rest of NATO would come to the defense of the invaded member, but whether Russia would be attacked would be a strategic and tactical decision based on whether it was necessary to the invaded member's defense and future security. I can't stand it anymore. It's WWIII, not WW111. They're supposed to be Roman numerals. What you've written is World War one hundred and eleven. If you're using some weird font like Athelas then take care to use letters for all Roman numerals, because to everyone else you're 1's are obviously 1's and not capital I's. Just like the immediately previous hypothetical, this hypothetical assumed Russia had turned its attention on Estonia instead of Ukraine, but instead of invading had undermined Estonian politics and caused a change in leadership that is friendly to Russia (a la Belarus) and Estonia withdraws from NATO and becomes a Russian puppet state. This is the second time in as many messages that you've got your quoting mixed up and responded to something from an old message that you already responded to.When you're replying, at the top right of the message you're responding to are two little buttons, one labeled "Normal", the other labeled "Peek Mode". Select "Peek Mode" and the message will change into the original markup. Now when you copy a section of that message the markup will survive and you won't get your quoting mixed up and end up responding to something from an old message. That I don't describe all the details of my position each time I introduce a scenario doesn't mean I've suddenly abandoned them. I've said a number of times now Putin prefers to undermine before he invades. In this particular scenario in Estonia he'd do the same thing he did in the Donbas region of Ukraine, encourage political agitation amongst the Russian minority to create the appearance of unrest, instability and political persecution. They will likely have representation in the Estonian parliament that calls for Russian help. They may even secede. Now Putin's created a foundation of support and a pretext that he's saving a persecuted minority.So what does NATO do now in this NATO country that seems to be politically divided and actually has some politicians in nationwide office calling for NATO to stay out? Any decisions made will be fraught with ambiguity. It's obvious you disagree, but I see too little detail and analysis to understand why. A lot of what you say is just bald absolute declarations. If I were asked to explain the thinking behind your position I couldn't do it - too little information. I know it's really annoying to those of us who still have in our heads names like Peking and Saigon and Burma, but it's apparently Kyiv now. I have to keep deleting the "the" I keep putting in front of Ukraine.Yes to the rest of what you say. Ukrainians have never forgotten the purges and famines when under Russian rule, and now that they're free of Russian rule they desperately do not want a return. You're back to talking in absolutes again. There's no denying the direction things seem to be going at this time, but history is literally overflowing with the biographies of people ruled politically dead who rose from the ashes.Just consider recent developments, that Putin is declaring their initial Ukraine operation a success and are moving on to their ultimate goal, securing the Donbas region. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that it's true and Putin isn't lying. Russian forces withdraw from the bulk of Ukraine to focus on the Donbas region. What will be the situation a month from now? Will all the sanctions still be in place? Will all the businesses that withdrew from or cutback in Russia stay the course? Will the west continue to refuse to buy Russian gas and oil? Or will resolve already have begun weakening?Is your answer that they'll hold firm? How about a year from now? Two years from now? Meanwhile Putin is still the same Putin with all the same goals. See the problem? If you mean as president of Russia, how do you propose to achieve this? I'm not even sure what dittoing that portion means. Which is? Your meaning is not apparent to me. The middle of what you quoted is your own words from Message 474. I put them in red.I'm not convinced you do hear me. You keep saying things that reflect no awareness of things I've said. The paragraph you responded to here was not written to offer any opinion about NATO. It was just correcting your information. You said troops have been sent, but they haven't. The intent is to send them, but they haven't been sent yet. It's still in the planning stages. Yes, this confirms what I said.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Improve clarity of one sentence.

You didn't quote anything I said, so I have no idea which part of history or what proposal you're talking about. You mean for now? Or forever? If the latter, I beg to differ.--Percy

[vashee zda-ró-vye] – Your health! (as you down a shot) Yet you said as much in other posts. You quoted others who echoed your list of future targets explicitly pointing out, proudly, that it including Poland.If you know it’s a fiction why do you keep repeating it? And in my mind, it is a very major point in this discussion and so I respond to the major point. Poland (though I know you disagree I will extend this further) along with all NATO states are safe from any Russian incursions. Now and for the foreseeable future. And I will strengthen that yet further and state that NATO, in its entirety and as individual states, are immune to Russian influence. His propaganda, his divisive rhetoric, his bluster, threats and lies are exposed known qualities and will be ignored. Putin really has lost all luster, influence and effect on anything NATO. As with all such things, there are possibilities then there are probabilities. You don’t have to read the tea leaves, just the editorials and speeches, to know which way to put your money. NATO will, not may, not possibly, but will, arm Ukraine. The Russian military is having it’s head handed to it. By both the Ukraine and by Putin.If the reports of social media and phone calls are correct the Russian ground commands are driven more by vodka than by diesel. Realistically, real world, there is no way the Russians will majikly get competent. The reasons are centuries old. What I’m saying, Percy, is that though Zelenskyy will lead and decide the treaty, he will pay most special attention to his NATO advisors analysis. He has all the negotiating power and tactics of every NATO egghead at his command. And you can see he is using it. He knows his government hasn’t the class of international negotiators that NATO provides.He wants to be in NATO. He will most probably follow NATO’s advice. Very true. If you have seen Putin’s writing, my understanding is he is real big on restoring the reach of the USSR but with the grandeur of the Great Russian Empire. Ukraine represents a big jewel from both past crowns. Do you deny that the invasion has failed? Most of the analysists I’ve read say the invasion has failed and has failed in a spectacularly abysmal and incompetent way. Do you doubt the occupation is seen as also failing? By what view do see something different? Would you do so differently? Whether you call it weakness, fear, existential dread or prudence, the point for any sane person is don’t light that fuckin match.I’ll surrender the point. We’re all scared shitless about the fucking bomb. So you would have pulled the trigger? You would have gambled the survival of the species against Putin’s tanks?Rephrase: You would have intervened in the Ukraine knowing a nuclear confrontation might result? Oh, Percy. War has changed again. This isn’t WW2 or Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. You don’t have to invade the capitol city and capture the radio station to decapitate a tyrant. Once you have defeated his army, which NATO could easily do with Russia, you lay siege. Let economics and politics do the rest. Things are quite different in my world. What I am seeing is a Russia that has just had its paw broken in a bear trap. Russia has no functional army of consequence left. I see a Russia that is economically and socially breaking from sanctions. His economy cannot rebuild his army in time for him to use it.His wallet isn’t fat enough to do the rebuild necessary before he is dead. Even Czars don’t live forever. The sad state Russian is in today coupled with the lagging sanctions that have yet to fully hit, and further sanctions yet to be implemented in the foreseeable future, I don’t think anyone can expect the Russian Empire to recover anytime soon. Unless Putin is killed. Then things can improve tremendously … maybe.What this means, Percy, is that Putin can't invade a NATO country. He hasn't the military capacity (more than number of bullets) to do so. And I don't think he can get it repaired. Your words. Not mine. The bullets worked just fine. But even with the best bullets there was no way to “win” Vietnam or “win” Afghanistan. The politics, the humanity, the reality of the human condition would not allow it to continue.You can’t tell me you cannot see the difference between military competence and political competence in any war, especially the ones we seem to get all hell-bent to get into.In modern war, Percy, the military only fights the war. The politics wins or loses it. Neither does a nuclear winter. You really want to bet the human species on this gamble? A drunk surf is only going to bleed so much. An incompetent command structure (I like that “powered more by vodka than by diesel” quip) can move all the pretty pieces around the board all they want.This IS the second most powerful army in the world. We HAVE seen their sheer superiority.Yes they can kill a lot of people and do a lot of damage, but as a military fighting force with mastery of the logistics, the science and the battlefield the Russian Imperial Army is incompetent and unqualified. And from historical systemic views emanating from an elite power structure the Russian officer corps will remain incompetent. And will remain so for the rest of Tzar Vladimir the Condemned’s reign. That’s right. Russian propaganda is not a significant issue now or for the foreseeable future. Putin got caught too many times with his ass hanging out his pants. He has effectively destroyed those avenues of influence. Percy, Percy. This is not unjustly minimizing an existing threat below its actual value. This is a dispassionate review of the facts as displayed in theater by the most incompetent army since Russia was in Afghanistan.Putin can use his army to rape the Ukraine. Rest assured it will do so in a vodka-fueled incompetent and very bloody way.You want to risk nuclear war to stop him?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

First you tell me what I think, now you tell me what everyone else thinks. I suggest it's safer to stick to what you think.
If causing WW3 (oops) isn't suicide, then, well, we need a new language. Aren't you the guy that hates absolutes? I'm trying to understand what you think any defence of Estonia would not entail attacking Russia. Or are you being hyper-literal again? Why are you playing around with imagining all this stuff - we're dealing with a real physical invasion of an independent democratic country using real weapons killing real people. The mind games are over it's a real war that the West is fighting by proxy - for the moment. ffs ... Putin is over. In the highly unlikely event that he somehow manages to survive politically, Russia will not survive the collapse of its economy. He'll have no resources to do anything but attempt to control his own population. As for NATO ever allowing him to walk into a NATO territory, that's Lala Land, he's exposed his hand. It's happening. It's the economy stupid.

No, I really didn't. The subthread that I started with Tangle is called "Pecking Away at Poland", and I've been saying the same things to both you and Tangle. I've never said anything about a frontal assault on Poland. In fact, I've complained about having to keep repeating my view that Putin prefers to first soften countries up with destabilization tactics. It was a list of targets for future expansionist tactics, not for invasion. I don't, and I have no idea why you think I do. Perhaps if you can find places where you think I've said this it would help me see where you're coming from. You are responding to something that was never said by me. Well, sure, now that Russia's invasion of Ukraine has convinced most people that Russia is a serious threat. But were the eastern NATO states safe before that? Of course not, because otherwise NATO wouldn't feel the need to make the plans they're making now to beef up their forces in the eastern NATO countries. NATO must not agree with you about how toothless the Russian military now is. For one obvious counterexample, you may have noticed my mentions in other messages of the 25% Russian minority in Estonia that is likely just as vulnerable to Russian influence as was the Russian minority in the Donbas region of Ukraine. And every country is filled with dummkopfs. Just look at the number of Trump followers who bought into his cozying up to Putin. No country is immune to outside influence. People have very short memories, and many people aren't even informed and so have nothing to forget in the first place. But they all get to vote. Hey, progress, you mentioned probability. Hopefully this means you'll no longer be characterizing the likely outcomes as if they were the only possible outcomes. Gee, you forgot your lesson in probability already. It's almost always a bad idea to state something in absolute terms.The west is committed to arming Ukraine for the duration, so of course this is true for the time being, so I assume you were trying to say something else. Maybe that we'll help Ukraine rebuild its military once this is over? Am I warm? I don't agree with your conclusion that a competent Russian military is an impossibility, for one thing you've again returned to stating things in absolute terms, but I do agree with your underlying point that Russian success in Ukraine seems unlikely at present. Absolutely. In fact, my guess (and it's only a guess) is that Zelenskyy is being told through backchannels to the west that if Ukraine does succeed in holding off the Russian menace that NATO membership will be fast tracked, because it is now obvious that NATO needs Ukraine as another buffer against Russia. A couple of added benefits for Ukraine would be that NATO membership would provide assistance in fighting off Russia's efforts to pry away the Donbas region, and maybe even help Ukraine regain the Crimea (that's a tougher one, because Crimea was only part of the Ukraine because Khrushchev gave it to them back in the 50's).Tempering my hope that NATO wants Ukraine as a member are the continued voices of appeasers who fear provoking Russia. Of course they only feel this way out of prudence. I agree that Zelenskyy *wants* to be in NATO, and that he'll give serious consideration to NATO advice, but only as long as the military outlook continues to be favorable. I agree that over the past few days the chances of Russian success have come to look increasingly poor, but I wouldn't say the invasion has failed yet. Russia hasn't yet ceased offensive operations. For example, just over the newswire are reports that Lviv (near Poland, by the way) has been "rocked by powerful explosions." Doesn't sound like Russians giving up and retreating to me. I know Putin has said he's accomplished his primary goals in Ukraine and is moving on to focus on the Donbas region, but until he actually does that I won't believe him. I know some analysts are expressing opinions along the lines you describe. Whether it's "most of the analysts" I don't know. Did you read Message 482 recounting the interview with Vindman? One of the things he said about Putin was this:

quote:

---

He’s also been very effective at preying on our fears. Extremely effective. This idea that somehow he’s a madman or somehow we’re lurching toward nuclear war — why would he pick a fight with a much, much more capable adversary if he’s already bogged down in Ukraine? And it is an absurd notion that sending over Cold War-era aircraft in NATO’s inventory to Ukraine to pilot is going to precipitate World War III.

---

I'm quoting Vindman not to say I'm right, but to say that I'm not a lone voice in the wilderness saying that we're being manipulated by Putin. There's no need to surrender the point. The nuclear threat is very real. But appeasement doesn't work. Is that really the way you meant to ask that question, that if it was *known* that Putin would use nuclear weapons if the US sent men and materiel to the Ukraine, would I still endorse taking that action? Boy, that's a tough one. How would we come to *know* Putin will use nuclear weapons? Too many unknown details, and too much at stake. I don't have an answer.But if you rephrase the question to be, "Would you have endorsed sending US men and materiel to the Ukraine given that Putin has the nuclear option?" then the answer is yes. Appeasement doesn't work. I still can't make sense of your position. What does "defeated his army" mean to you? Russia's active-duty military is about a million. The sanctions have had an impact, but Russia is by no means economically and socially crippled - I don't know why you think sanctions could have that kind of impact in only a month. Russian armament production isn't expected to be significantly affected by sanctions. This is a very strange thing to say. Russia can probably replace lost materiel nearly instantaneously. For example, IISS estimates that Russia has over 10,000 tanks in storage. Russia's military has around 280,000 soldiers. We shouldn't count on Putin's death any time soon. Your degree of optimism is not commensurate with the level of underperformance of the Russian military. Obviously Putin is in no position to invade a NATO country now while he's busy with Ukraine, so I don't know why you're saying this. I think you've forgotten my original argument and are instead arguing against some figment. Briefly summarizing my position, I originally argued that we must more aggressively assist Ukraine because if Russia succeeds in absorbing Ukraine or turning it into a puppet state then it will next turn its attention to Moldova, then the Baltics, and after that who knows, but possible candidates are Poland and Romania. I think you're greatly overestimating the amount of damage to Russia's military. Given that I said I was uncertain of your meaning and was taking a guess, that's a strange response. If I guessed wrong couldn't you just say so? You said Vietnam and Afghanistan were political defeats, not military defeats. I could buy that if you instead called them political failures. I wasn't arguing with you. I was attempting to guess your meaning. Calling it 'political competence" makes your point much more clear than "political defeats." Now you're back to calling them political defeats. That label makes no sense to me. Where do you draw the line? "Don't help Ukraine or I'll use nuclear weapons." "Remove your sanctions or I'll use nuclear weapons." "Give me Poland or I'll use nuclear weapons." At some point you have to take a stand and face the nuclear threat. It can't be avoided, only put off, but the sooner you act the better. Frequently calling the Russian military incompetent across all time doesn't make it true. They did overrun the eastern half of Germany at the end of WWII, and they had no trouble subduing Hungary in the 50's and Czechoslovakia in the 60's. Didn't see that coming. What happened to "the Russian military is crap" and all that stuff? So the bottom line is that they're the second most powerful army in the world that can kill a lot of people and do a lot of damage, but they could be much better at it. How many people absorbing Russian propaganda through Facebook and Twitter during the 2016 election knew that it was Russian propaganda. It doesn't come with a label on it. I can feel the passion in your arguments, but often have difficulty seeing their sense or consistency.--PercyEdited by Percy, : army => military

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

the majority of which are conscripts on 1 year contracts. They have no professional NCOs, they have very little institutional knowledge. The russian army is a large paper tiger as we've seen in Ukraine.

If you would be so kind as to provide reference for the source of your information…—Percy

Conscription in Russia - WikipediaExplainer on Russian Conscription, Reserve, and Mobilization | Institute for the Study of WarRussia admits conscripts have been fighting in Ukraine, despite Putin's previous denials | CNNWhat the use of Russian conscripts tells us about the war in Ukraine – POLITICOUkraine update: What is an 'NCO,' and why does Russia's lack of them cause them so much troubleEdited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

What warm water port would Russia lose? They needed to seize control of the Black Sea. If Mariupol was seized, Russia would also end up with full control of more than 80% of Ukraine's Black Sea coastline - cutting off its maritime trade and further isolating it from the world. Again, learn to read. Russia is trying not to lose anything. It is Ukraine that had control of newly discovered (2012) Gas deposits under the sea near their coast. Putin did not want Ukraine (especially a NATO Ukraine) to remain in control of them. Do you ever read the news.jar?

Again Phat, learn to think.Could Russia buy natural gas from Ukraine?Could Russia ship to and through Ukrainian Ports?Commerce is far cheaper, far more reliable and far more effective than war or occupation.AbE:Even in the very source you quote it points out that the goal of occupying and controlling the ports is the persuit of the war, not for Russian commercial use.Learn to actually read what you use as a source.Edited by jar, : see AbE

Think long-range, ringo. Think next 30 years. Oil and gas will become rare and expensive. Russia likely figures they need more.Let us go to a Marxist source! Party for Socialism and Liberation These are the same woke jokers that were behind defunding the police! Oil, imperialism and national conflict in the CaucasusThat was an old article. Let me find a more timely statement from them.(They are very Marxist. LNA could have worked for them!
PSL Statement on Russia’s military intervention in UkraineI figured you would like the propaganda from the comrades!Why must they pick on the US?