Here is the structure of the argument.
1. It is hard to know why Putin did it now.
2. Everything was going so well in russias effort to “pacify” (influence operations) its other border regions.
3. But I know why russia did it now! It saw the western weakness, dont you see! Remember when that Putin/Xi talk was caught on tape, thats proof for the cause having been the want to destabilize the west!
Here is the throughline that argument is missing.
Russia was securing (influence operations) its border regions. Ukraine all the while was an active conflict zone. The US tipped the balance of that conflict zone in ukraines favor (Minsk 2 was there to give Ukraine time to arm up (Merkel), Javelins were in use in the Donbas, confirmed by Ukrainian Officials in interviews with US military journals, and the russian lead opposition didnt have anything to answer the Ukrainians rolling back the Donbas. This was in October 2021.), Europeans were largely not informed (https://harlekin.me/allgemein/just-checking-on-the-journalistic-performance-around-nordstream-because-of-an-interview/). Russia, seeing that the Donbas was about to be retaken by Ukraine, which would allow Ukraine access to irrigation gates that could cut of the water supply to Crimea entirely, moved their army to the borders, then partly withdrew, once the US/Russian talks on the European security structure were scheduled (partly withdrew means, blood conserves were still in the field, and support infrastructure was still built out, during that partial withdrawal (those parts still in preparation for the later invasion)).
Russias initial demands were overzealous (withdrawal of NATO to borders they hadnt to honor for more than a decade, security partnership, veto, …) but they were initial demands. Demands you go into negotiations with. The US in turn refused to even talk about its engagement in Ukraine as part of talks about the European Security arrangements, and ended talks on those principal terms (before details would have had to be discussed, where russias overzealous demands would have come into play (negotations mass)), then the US leaked the initial russian demands which were not principles that made discussion impossible a priori, but just demanded too much at first hand - than would have been possible for the US to agree to in a later phase of the talks, about a defense structure/restructuring in Europe.
The talks were canceled by the US, the russian troops were moved back to the ukrainian borders.
The moment of the declaration in the west, that russias “special operation” constituted a war of aggression was when unmarked russian vehicles entered the Donbas again.
The Nato debates on that they did, circled around “of course this is the beginning of a war, why shouldnt we say so, we have to call a spade a spade”, with the public refusal of UvdL to call it a war ending on day two of the invasion.
Before any rockets flew. Then Selenskyj provoked Russia, with the russian language message to russian citizens on Telegram, that russian people should tend to the streets (“Doctors, Lawyers, Artists, TikTokers, Mothers and also Fathers” to force the Russian government back to the discussion table), and then three hours later the first russian rockets were fired.
Why then, and not later? Putin stated multiple times after the invasion, that he regretted to not have done it earlier when Ukraine was less prepared. But the russian army itself still was ill prepared for the resistance. A miscalculation, we all know about that.
Point being, the Ukraine was about to be successful against russian supported “separatists” in the Donbas, and retake that region. With Ukraine regaining the Donbas, the way would have been open for Crimea being targeted to be freed next (cut off its water supply), and Sevastapol is the main Harbor russia uses for its colonial efforts in Africa, and the Harbor where 40% of Russias Exports were going through at the time. With the next best location russia could use being Murmansk near the Polar circle. Meaning, russia would have been forced to ship its armament-shipments for its colonies in Africa past 19 additional Nato outposts to reach Africa.
Meaning, Russia was on the verge of loosing its most important, year long ice free, harbor and its center of power projection into the black sea region, and into Africa, and the logistic center for 40% of its exports.
Not as a hypothetical, but as a “we know Ukraines plans for the reconquering of Crimea, and what would have been their policy for black sea harbors within Ukraine”. From (EU) Venice comission reports (on Minsk 2 implementation efforts):
So thats “why then” - Part 1.
“Why then” - Part 2 is russias demographic story.
So if they didnt manage to attain lasting control over their border region within the next 10 years, demographically - they wouldnt be able to do so militarily anymore. As in 20 years their military capacity would have halved. Simply because of the demographic factor.
That Germany was in the middle of a political transition, that the US had just withdrawn from Afghanistan in Chaos, that russia had reduced its attack surface for economic sanctions, were those “the reasons russia thought it could attack”, or just due diligence (US does those assesments all the time) combined with factors, that made an attack (resulting in a russian projected quick win) seem like a more promising stragety?
Point being -- was this an attack to topple the western rules based order? Or an attack out of russias own security/high importance economical interests?
And then we can look at how russia was treated in international fora for the past 20 years (gas station with a military, GDP comparable to brazil and on a downward spiral, …
Germany apparently “having forgotten to include russia in its economic planning over the european green deal trajectory they already were implementing”, …)
And even if you did mixed benefit/drawback calculations, taking into account the number of middle aged men in Russia that might die in such a conflict, instead of requesting state benefits in the years to come - and the uprising potential from russias economic developmental story not working out at all, during more and more uncertain times geopolitically, and macroeconomically --
everything trended towards, trying a quick invasion, and dealing with the fallout if it didnt go well later.
As it really was the only major gambit russia had left on its side. There was nothing else.
Once that failed and the west separated from russia economically -- the fallback strategy, and NOT necessarily the initial goal, was to intertwine its economy with the chinese one, which has a lower purchasing power adjusted GDP per capita.
So negative growth for the population in russia, which the russians again could use the war as a “unifying” force to push through, while tightening their security state. Under the pretenses of being engaged in a “war against the west”.
But Mrs. “we have to tell motivational stories all the time, so russias stories dont get traction”, Fiona Hill now wants to argue, that “Russias war against the western world” IS real.
Because Russia thought of it that way from the beginning. And only engaged in it, because it knew (*triumphant hahaaaa!*) what hardship that would mean for the international values based order (*sad oh no!*), you know international law - as enforced by the UN --- which no one gives a fuck about anymore, at least if we look at Israels example, based on a security council that is in a deadlock because of the veto capabilities of its permanent members, and representing a structure not representative of the current world population, or macroeconomic developments anymore…
So how crazy was Putin, dear Fiona, when not thinking about Russias benefit in all of this at all -- but playing on the third level of the 3D Chess board to topple the western value based order, by making everyone understand, that Europe did mostly work because of the peace dividend, and the promise of US protection, that now has (relatively) vanished, because the isolationist camp in the US won the last election.
What level of 3D chess has the craaaaaazy Putin be capable of playing to “Manufacture a Crisis to Rewrite the Global order”, my dear Fiona?
Fiona, you that in the introductionary statement still mentioned, that is hard to know why Putin made this decision when he did.
I mean, whats the conspiracy theory here and whats the “russia didnt want to have Nato in the black see within a 15 years timeframe, while halfing their population of able man, capable of being drafted within the next 20 years”?
I mean, surely Fiona has something to show us, so we can all believe in this devilish russian master plan, to deligitimise the western order, right?
Well, its Putin who thought about it that way, because Fiona again knows how Putin thinks, and thats really all you should need argument wise, not to loose your jobs and get deplatformed in the Wertewesten, right?
PS: The Helsinki Commission is nothing to be in awe from, its the US “staffed by some senators” talking club where the entire Ukrainian PR delegations get invited to, artists and all, to sing a US Senator the US national anthem, before asking for more weapons. Its not an independent non-partisan body at all. Just FYI.
