There's a reason his legacy is that of a persona-non-grata in today's Russia.
Their problem was always the suppression of Russian nationalism in the Soviet Union.
He also sought for the party to remain in power, but when push came to shove, didn't turn to the old playbook of violence and repression.
The answer in my opinion is that like the US Russia's leader's are too old. When you're older 20-30 years is like a few years passing by. To putin it was not so long ago when NATO agreed not to expand eastward but also when Russia agreed to Ukraine's independence in exchange for them giving up nukes.
After Iraq and Afghanistan, Putin knew that it was the right time to start invading, because the one critical weakness of America is it's dependence of the will of the people to start and continue to fight a war. America is still weary of "boots on ground". That's why he didn't envision so much western support for Ukraine because he would assume the west would not risk a possible escalation to war, but the west is able to go all the way up to the red line and all but cross it.
Russian leaders and Putin in particular believe that the only way to be great, given their vast territory and relatively small population and the only way to have the home land of western Russia prosper is by having strategic advantage over others. Primarily, this means dominating its neighbors but also interfering in random countries (much like the US) as well.
I believe until Hillary Clinton screwed up the relationship with Putin as Obama's secretary of state he was open to the idea of being freinds with the west, so long as they let him be a good old dictator and do whatever he wants.
Hillary (and by proxy Obama) made the mistake of trying to force human rights, democracy, gay rights,etc... which meant being critical of Russia, meanwhile pushing THAAD to eastern NATO countries in a time of peace.
What was the expectation? For putin to go down like Gadaffi? To have a russian arab spring and Putin quietly retire to his Yacht? Come on!
The west could not tolerate Putin nor could it stop interfering with Russias internal matters including the whole Chechnya thing which even to regular Russians that made them upset against the west.
So in my opinion, Putin had two choices, accept western influence and eventually allow for a democratic Russia with liberal western ideals and cede power and influence over the oligarchs (who also don't want democracy or western liberalism) and militarily, imagine being a nuclear power and your neighbors have ICBM interceptors which meant neutering your nuclear capability (imagine russia having those in mexico and canada) which is obviously an act of agression he would have to tolerate. The second option would be to resist.
I can't support Putin's invasions of course but the west cornered a bear and everyone acts shocked when the bear starts mawling everyone near it.
It is pure western dishonest propaganda to say Putin like Hitler just wants more territory and will invade all of europe if no one stops him. Even if he controlled all of eastern Europe western expansion means nuclear war. At best he will invade all eastern europe countries that are not nato members with the exception of Poland,Finland and sweden.
Do you know why he interfered in the 2016 elections so much? Because freaking Hillary Clinton who already pissed him off with arrogant western expansion/interference and disrespect was about to become president, so he recruits a rich new york asshole that's been in bed with the Russian mob since the early 90s and you know the rest of the story.
The one single act of this century that will reshape the power dynamics of world super powers (and possibly a lot more than that) is the democratic party's insistence on nominating Hillary Clinton who emodies a special brand neo-liberal "manifest destiny" . Bernie would tell putin to go f himself but would not put THAAD in eastern europe or demand democracy in russia knowing full well that means deposing and agitating the current dictator of Russia.
Pride and arrogance comes before downfall.
Edit: to those who are downvoting me, I just ran into this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/24/vladim... It explains Putin's thinking behind Ukraine's invasion. I am not justifying his invasions but pointing out the role of the west in knowingly being hostile and provoking Putin. It is this same neocolonial "manifest destiny" thinking that is resulting in so much hostility with China.
>Pride and arrogance comes before downfall.
Describes the current situation quite well! I'm sure Putin thought those backwater Ukrainians will bend the knee to Russias "superior military might". Putin's invasion of Ukraine is one of the greatest foreign policy blunders of the past 50 years
Yeah, it's weird, as Russia is huge.
If they really wanted a strategic buffer, they'd have created one using their own, existing territory.
eg Redraw their "unfriendly" border areas (say) 100km inwards, with that 100kms being a DMZ.
Russia is so big, people would be hard pressed to notice that on a map.
But Russia insists on pointing at other countries, saying "they're our strategic buffer" instead.
Then acts all surprised when those same countries are like "Well, fuck that!", and join together against this wannabe bully of their nations.
How much of Canada's population is within 100 km of the US border? Admittedly, the War Department put away its invasion plans ninety years ago or thereabouts.
If they want a strategic buffer so badly, they have the room to make one. :)
Guess it sucks if they need to inconvenience the population a bit, but what other option is there?
Oh yeah, they could just invade other countries instead.
Pretty sure that won't inconvenience their population either. <-- SARCASM HERE ;)
Russia is big but the homeland is in western Russia, they would have to move their big cities to the east, far away from trade routes and gas pipes to europe and at an impractical cost.
Keep in mind, the buffer is not just for invasions but for icbms. To shoot down one, the earlier, the better. Once they enter space it's harder than hitting a bullet with another bullet. ICBMs are their proverbial penis and THAAD is a strategically placed castration device if I can be a bit obscene here. This also includes medium range missiles of course but essentially, Russia wouldn't be able to use nukes effectively against countries to its west and south.
Yeah, that seems like the heart of the problem.
Apparently the better option was to just invade those wilful neighbours, and force them to use their territory as a buffer zone instead.
Except, that's not at all how it's going to play out. Not after the "Fool me once..." Crimea invasion.
I concede that you are correct about intercontinental missile defense. However, why was it neccesary to place THAAD in easter europe in a time of peace then? What I am saying is if what you are saying is true then that means the US and the west acted in such an agressive way in a time when they were pledging to be closer and friendlier with Russia, all as a formal act of an alliance formed to counter Russia. It was literally a campaign promise by Hillary.
Is there a prior act of agression by Russia I am not aware of or a non-Russian threat that required THAAD deployment in eastern Europe I am not aware of? I mean, the US could also arm countries with US controlled nukes like with Turkey but does not do so to avoid provoking Russia, so why was the defensive THAAD given the greenlight then? Strategic blunder? Curios on your take.
Again, I must thank you for attacking my reasoning only instead of character or intent like others.
Turkey is just one of five countries that participate in the NATO nuclear sharing program.
It maybe a defensive weapon but when you're a NATO member by way of article 5 along with everything else NATO offers it becomes yours to use. If canada and mexico were russia's allies and russia had a similar technology, would we dismiss it for being purely defensive or work against our neighbors (as with cuba) to change that? Russia's main military strength is their nuclear forces, a defensive weapon changes variables in "mutually assured destruction" it is that much less mutual what the fallout from nukes would be.
I am not supporting Russian reasoning, simply describing it.
> To putin it was not so long ago when NATO agreed not to expand eastward
This never happened. There has been no such agreement.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16119-document-08-letter-...
There is reputable source mentioning when during a negotiation, the US promised in return for a unified Germany there would be no eastward NATO expansion.
The argument you probably heard is that this was not a legally binding agreement. However, between sovreign nations, there is no superior authority by which you can determine what is legal or not, there is no rule of law to govern the world, international law boils down to agreements between sovreign nations and while this was not a formal treaty signed on paper it is dishonest to say that a promise made in public by an official representative of the US and NATO is non-binding. If you make a verbal agreement in any other aspect of law and choose to dishonor that agreement, so long as there is provable documentation of your agreement, you are still found liable right? This is the case in just about any country because it is aligned with a basic principle of justice: your word is your bond.
> You're being downvoted because you're perpetuating Russian lies and false perspectives.
Please sir/madam, attack my arguments all you want but don't attack my character or intent or downvote me based on false assumptions like that. It goes against the spirit of HN to discourage honest and sincere attempt at discourse like this.
I do not know or care if part of what I said aligns with what Russians are saying. My argument is not correct or incorrect because of what Russians think. I provided a rational explanation of my reasoning which you are free to attack. I do not support Russia or their invasions or Putin or Trump or whatever parisan boogeyman you can think of. I made my argument as an individual observing in my limited capacity the facts at hand for which I am glad to be corrected. Please don't attack or misrepresent my character or intent.
So you already know there was no such agreement or promise, and still try claim it as such. You know there's a good reason all the HN discussions in this topic get locked down -- they get immediately targeted by disinformation and indefensible Russian imperialist ideology.
> Please don't attack or misrepresent my character or intent.
I hope you can acknowledge that I'm not attacking you. I don't know you, so I can't know about your intents. The outcome, however, is that you end up repeating Russian propaganda and lies, and that's why you get downvoted.
Clearly I laid out reasons why there is a promise yet you claim I am fraudulently claiming otherwise?
> they get immediately targeted by disinformation and indefensible Russian imperialist ideology.
I don't give a shit about russian ideology, if you don't care to disagree and correct what I said respectfully it would be better if you said nothing at all.
Russians use this reason to justify their actions, I did not justify anything Russia did. You can only join NATO by invitation, when expanding an alliance in a time of peace, it makes sense for the only real enemy of the alliance to fear how they'll fare in the event of a future military conflict no? And NATO knew that and played chicken with a psychotic dictator.
You peope that think the way you do are caught up in morality and who is right and wrong. I am talking about what actions led to conflict and how peace can be acheived. I don't care who you blame, it would not be nice if Ukraine is just the start
Why did countries join NATO in peacetime?
>And then I put the following question to him Would you prefer to see a unified Germany outside of NATO independent and with no US forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO with assurances that NATO's jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position
ie. he asked in discussions what he'd think of NATO agreeing not to shift east. That is quite different from actually agreeing to do so. I can ask you what would you think of me sending you $1m and that is not the same as me committing to do so.
To state the obvious, no such thing occured.
They had no idea where it is, while strenuously asserting that the West should stay out of the conflict, and mind its own business.
Transnistria is a huge fortress in Eastern Europe that can act as a platform for many of Russia's goals. It has not yet been called into action because it is too valuable.
This means that covert access from the Black Sea is available.
This further means that the region has enormous offensive capability that is installed and operational.
Russia put nuclear weapons in Cuba. European tacticians likely know exactly what is in Transnistria.
Transnistria is west of Odesa sandwiched between Moldova and Ukraine. There is only Dniester river nearby, which goes into Zatoka gulf, which is completely controlled by Ukraine. And only access to Zatoka is choke point Pidyomnyy Bridge How any Russian ship will get there without being shot to pieces?
All that needs to move covertly is the payload.
After Cuba, this was likely carefully studied.
Just look at a terrain map with roads. Exits (or entrances) from the Carpathian mountains are incredibly important to control. They've been strategically important for literal millennia.
That explains why Moldova is so rich, thanks to those vital routes through mountains they can tax local merchants.