Quote:Prior to Zalensky, Ukraine was managed by Kremlin-appointed kleptocrats, who's only job was to manage the skim from the gas. Kiev was the base for global crime syndicates, and corruption was rife. Ukraine was Putin's wild west.
The people had their say. Yanukovych was ousted in 2013 for reneging on a commitment to joining the EU. This led to the Euromaidan uprising, Putin's annexation of Crimea, and finally, the first fair election since the fall of the Soviet Union in 2019.
Zalensky's unwillingness to bend to Putin saw the invasion of 2022. From now on, Ukraine was not willing to play the role of so many other Russian satelite puppet regimes. Ukraine has a 43 million population and huge mineral wealth - why should it?
If a Ukrainian leader is going to do the right thing by Ukrainians, turning West is a no brainer. Economically sure, but politically: any Ukrainian prez who doesn't commit to European integration will simply be deposed, if not assassinated. Ukrainians want to be nice, safe, happy Euros. Why wouldn't they?
Putin puppets like Alexander Lukashenko and Ramzan Katyrov are now few and far between. Nearly all of the former Soviet states want to be Western-style democracies. It's why, after all, the iron curtain came down in the first place. Putin's dream of a Russia Mir is over - no one shares it.
Putin can only achieve influence outside Russia through kleptocracy, the oligarchs and the Russian Mafia. It's hardly a romantic vision. His invasion of Ukraine has now shown the rest that the emperor was wearing no clothes.
The Russian military is no longer capable of a good old Soviet invasion. It's certainly not capable of a US-style shock and awe assault on a recalcitrant state, which was the aim in Ukraine. Muscle was Putin's last card. He no longer has this, and everybody who counts in Russia knows it. All the states in Russia's orbit - the Russia Mir - are now looking Westward, or signing up to Xi's Belt and Road.
By invading Ukraine, Putin has single-handedly destroyed the Russian dream.
what the bugger are you talking about? there were very few real soviet 'invasions' besides the invasion of afghanistan, which failed just like america's invasion of afghanistan failed. there was no initial "shock and awe" in ukraine, the force russia committed into the country was small, power infrastructure was not targeted (like in iraq), and initially this was better understood as a means of creating prescence and space and triggering a negotiation (following the georgian example in 2008-2009) which apparently almost succeeded, if boris johnson had (allegedly) not sabotaged the proceedings sometime in march or april 2022.
the police force alone in kiev was larger than the force russia had around the capital; if you really think a force of 50,000 or so was intended to capture a metropolitan area of 3-4 million you've been reading different military text books than i have. after it was clear ukraine wasn't going to negotiate for whatever reason, the front around kiev was (rightfully) evacuated, because there was no chance of capturing that city with the quantity of men submitted.
much of what russia is doing or has been doing can be understood probably as
1) not disrupting ordinary life domestically too much (hence the recalcitrance to transition to some degree of war economy, which ukraine has 100% at this point on top of NATO largesee - something i don't agree with btw)
2) not wanting to disrupt relations with its important trading partners such as india, china, etc, hence the relative reluctance (certainly compared to america) to initially target civilian infrastructure, though we have seen increasing willingness to degrade ukrainian AA resources as politically it has become more expedient and percieved politically viable to do so
you have clearly overestimated the impact of the sanctions, exaggerated and created a phony/dishonest narrative of russia's global isolation, parroted strawman after strawman and generally are just a bore to talk to