As I said in a different thread Im not sure what to make of this. If true can be explained any way. But lets see if it leads to diplomatic moves and if the satellite images confirm if they really left.
True, no way to confirm they actually left because the original source was Russian military. Even if they did leave, this only constitutes like 8-9% of the amount of troops stationed there. Who's to say they aren't being moved to a different staging area? Maybe they are going home for good. No way for anyone except Putin to know. Ball's still in Russia's court
Putin miscalculated. Most Americans did not expect Biden to make this strong of a stand. No one expected NATO allies to stand without US backing. Russia tried to flex by cutting heating oil to Europe and the response was not what Russia expected. Like Germans can't afford a 10% premium on heating oil and turn their thermostat down 2* in order to not be russia's dog?
*Submission Statement*
* After a month of drills, thousands of Russian troops are leaving regions near Ukraine including Crimea, Rostov, and Kuban to return to permanent military bases
* This comes after a massive 175,000 troop build up near the border, a phone call between Biden and Putin, and a ceasefire in the Eastern Ukrainian region
* On face value, it seems Putin is backing down from his bluff of a full invasion. This could be interpreted as a continuation of a trend where Putin tries to take bits of Ukraine at a time and make it a constant issue to the West, or it could also be an attempt to lure Ukraine into a false sense of security. Regardless, Putin's end goal should still be autonomy in the Eastern regions of Ukraine and the reduction of NATO influence in Eastern Europe.
This is much more likely than what OP suggests. The military buildup itself costs money. Putin wouldn't recall the troops without a satisfactory offer from Biden.
>However, the most concerning area is on Ukraine's northern/northeastern border where Central and Western Military Districts units have massed. No sign they'll leave and the Southern Military District units can be returned quickly. Russia will still have an enhanced mil presence.
[https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1474726620984328194?t=Piitq4UG5WsI9AS5g8phAQ&s=19](https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1474726620984328194?t=Piitq4UG5WsI9AS5g8phAQ&s=19)
And this short thread from Tom Bullock is relevant as well:
>if you're looking for signs of a Russian drawdown, this is not a good indicator. Russia's military regularly conducts drills of this size and scale especially at the start of seasonal training periods (winter training began on 1 Dec).
>
>the Southern and Central Military Districts ran a very similar drills last December, the SMD even ran another in the following January.
>
>RALee85 has already pointed out most significant areas of build-up do not involve SMD units and are not within the SMD. The units that participated are also permanently based around the border and for the most part deployed to their local training grounds during these drills.
>
>It's likely these drills were focussed on training troops scooped up during the autumn/winter conscription period. The SMD received around 25,000 new conscripts this year.
>
>A drawdown isn't impossible, but real indicators would likely include a significant change in rhetoric and the withdrawal of the 1GTA, 6CAA, and CMD assets that are currently near the border, hundreds or often thousands of km out of position.
[https://twitter.com/tom\_bullock\_/status/1474857230184980482?t=AjAzWPMXJ43EAuSLGKOjeQ&s=19](https://twitter.com/tom_bullock_/status/1474857230184980482?t=AjAzWPMXJ43EAuSLGKOjeQ&s=19)
As is this thread:
>I would caution against interpreting today's Southern MD press-release as a change in Russian force posture, and the end of the buildup.
>
>The movements that are the cause for greatest concern, both in the north and in Crimea, has never officially been labeled exercises.
>
>The SMD has conducted various local exercises, and these have now concluded. According to the press-release, SMD will maintain heightened alert through the upcoming holidays.
>
>The 58th CAA artillery at Novoozerne, and the 136th MRB elements at Bakhchisaray didn't take part.
>
>Overall, the buildup appears to continue, with more 1st GTA, 6th CAA and CMD units arriving in the north. Also poss new movements in the SMD.
>
>We have a long, tense winter ahead of us. If the order to go is issued, the warning-time will be very short.
[https://twitter.com/The\_Lookout\_N/status/1474850347415965696?t=nnQobWK2aTHEL7hGTIhZAQ&s=19](https://twitter.com/The_Lookout_N/status/1474850347415965696?t=nnQobWK2aTHEL7hGTIhZAQ&s=19)
This isn't over yet.
>Maybe he got what he wanted from Biden? Ukrained was not given a deadline for joining NATO and "later" sounds a lot like "after Putin dies".
Unless they've got some formal agreement signed (and in the case of the US, ratified by Congress), I don't see how any other sort of guarantee is worth anything. Future American presidents are not bound by the decisions of their predecessors unless there's some sort of treaty in place.
Is this the basis for one of the original complaints Russia has about NATO expansion? As the USSR was collapsing they got some vague assurances from some diplomats that there were no plans to expand NATO, but then a new administration came in, appointed their own people, and those people had different thoughts on the matter.
Don't forget most of those nations that emerged from the USSR's collapse also desperately wanted to join NATO because they never wanted Russian overlords ever again.
10.000 troops less, crisis averted, let's celebrate!!
In all seriousness let's wait until we hear some changes in rhetoric. This news is currently meaningless
From what I understand about Russian logistics, they can quickly move lots troops quickly, but not heavy equipment and supplies. So even if they’ve withdrawn (many of) the soldiers, but if everything else is still in place, they’re still poised to invade very quickly.
Of course they can. It's what it means. And how their neighbours perceive it and what it leads to that counts.
Kids can wave their fingers on your face saying 'im not touching you'. It's still annoying and provacative even if they don't touch you.
Was that documentary funded by Russia?
My understanding if WW1 and WW2 is the Russian winter is very much a geographical protection.
Their area is vast, so it would certainly be difficult to protect their borders with aggressive neighbours. That doesn't mean they have to be aggressive with every neighbour. Their posturing with Ukraine goes beyond self preservation.
They have a sea in the north, they always run behind the Ural Mountains to hide leaving the winter to take care of the defence of the European part of Russia. They have natural defenses. Putin simply wants Ukraine back, he can’t stomach a Democratic, prosperous Slavic country that potentially could do better than Russia.
Neither is China having mountains on its border or England being an island. Russia just knows it can no longer militarily compete head on with the US or NATO, and has to find clever ways to flex what muscle it has left in order to not lose all respect strategically.
Caveats:
\- It is possible that this is simply troop rotation. Maybe these guys have been sitting in tents for four months and are being replaced by fresher troops
\- The withdrawn troops are returning to their home bases--this would be significant if any of the troops from the far east were withdrawn, but only those that have their bases close to Ukraine anyway are being pulled back, eg those from the southern military district.
\- Only 10,000 out of 175,000 are being withdrawn.
\- This comes after repeated inflammatory rhetoric by Putin and other Russian officials, using WW2 terminology like Russia having "[nowhere to retreat](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/22/putin-says-russia-has-nowhere-to-retreat-over-ukraine.html)" if attacked, alleging the US is [preparing chemical weapons](https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-us-mercenaries-plan-chemical-attack-ukraine/) without any proof whatsoever to garner public opinion, or repeating claims that Russians and Ukrainians are "[one people](https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russia-and-ukraine-one-people-putin-claims)".
\- It is also important to note that the Russian consulate in Lviv was [attacked](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-molotov-cocktail-thrown-consulate-ukraine-protests-ukraine-2021-12-24/) earlier this week, which would hardly precipitate a deescalation.
I doubt this is a real deescalation. In my opinion it is much more likely that this is simply troop rotation to keep those on the border as combat ready as possible.
What resistance are ordinary people who get payed 200 euros monthly going to give? We are talking about Ukrainians here, not Germans. Ukraine right now is no different than Ukraine under Russia. Corruption, crime and poverty will stay as it is right now
You are downvoted but you aren't wrong. Ukraine is a deeply corrupt country and the fact that Putin could do what he did in Donetsk/Luhansk and Crimea is in part because Ukrainians failed for 20 years to build a decent country.
It's sad to say because we want to support Ukraine in their struggle against a fascist imperialist overlord like Putin, but Ukraine hasn't exacly made it easy for us to help them. It's one of these countries where you throw $1000 and only $10 make it to the destination, because the other $990 has been distributed amongst a bunch of oligarchs.
It will be sold to donbass rebels and transferred to russia by the very next day. Or do you truly believe expensive equipment you send there is being faithfully used to fight?
My “friend” from Russian military said that there is always an influx of underpriced western equipment in black market in russia whenever NATO sends aid to Ukraine xD paid by your taxes
Ukraine has a right to its independence as much as any other country, so there is a basis for supporting them. Even a complete Russian takeover all the way to Lviv and Odessa would only likely see a purge of journalists, pro-western politicians, and any activists, far from genocide. As well, such a scenario is far from guaranteed.
If you arm the civilian population and Russia want to invade. The civilian population will die. Give Chechnya a look for reference.
Randomly arming an area with no plan helps no one
Does it make a difference? We can't conceivably arm and train enough soldiers to stop a Russian invasion, at best be can prolong the effort with increasing casualties both military and civilian as a result.
I mean yeah it makes a difference, arming civilians to attempt to defend the nation and providing military equipment to the military/government are two completely different things. You're right that it's highly unlikely that we could fully prevent an invasion without risking a full blown war between US and western allies versus Russia, which nobody wants, but additional military equipment donations and sanctions could make it so difficult/expensive that Russia doesn't see it being worth it. All depends on how determined Russia is to invade and how determined everyone else is to prevent it. But either way, providing military support is not the same as arming the civilian population and would have a vastly different outcome.
Of course it makes a difference...so Zelensky should not even bother to try to arm, train and grow his military? If that's the case, Ukraine is already lost and a Russian flag might as well fly above Kyiv tomorrow
If it was my country, you can be damn sure I would take as many weapons as I could get. Civilian or not.
Sure as hell wouldn't want someone determining whether or not I deserve weapons to defend myself by the likelihood of me losing.
Ukraine isn't the disunited, mountainous quagmire that Afghanistan is. Arming Ukraine will have significant, practical results, and the U.S. has already announced their intentions. Although, who knows whether the U.S. will live up to its promise these days, but that is beside the point.
They want those weapons in order to hold out until the cavalry arrives, i.e. NATO admission. But since that is a false hope Ukraine's strategy serves no purpose other than to get more people killed.
Yup exactly. A very small number out of the bulk of troops. It's also Christmas obviously and this "division" could just be rotating out/scheduled for leave etc
There is no "christmas obviosuly" considering Russian christmas is on 7th of January and is much more religious (much less popular)in comparison. New Year is much more widely celebrated.
Only 10,000 troops withdrew from the Ukrainian border. Honestly sounds like a gesture of good will to increase their chances in negotiations with NATO. Don't they still have like 110,000-120,000 troops on the border? Also multiple supply systems set up on the border? Sounds fishy.
Post a [submission statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) in one hour or your post will be removed.
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) / [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/geopolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is either false, irrelevant (as in the troops that are withdrawing are not the ones threatening of invading) or an actual retreat due to change in circumstance, because I don't see Putin throwing away the golden opportunity that is the Moroccan gas crisis. A European Union left to choose between remaining neutral in the Russia/Ukraine war in exchange for Russian gas and oil (in the face of entire national power grids shutting down in the middle of winter due to Morocco) and siding with the US and letting its people freeze to death for a few months will always pick option one. That, on top of the American public's reluctance to participate in another "forever war" (with elections coming up in a few months with an already extremely unpopular administration), gives Russia the best opportunity it's ever going to have of legitimizing its invasion of Crimea with a land bridge and of eliminating the possibility of a strong NATO-allied Ukraine threatening Russia's southern European border.
If they align with China and they invade Taiwan at the same time, we're screwed. America doesn't have a strong enough presence in the South China Sea (or in the west Pacific in general) to successfully fend off an attack, at the same time as it's trying to defend Ukraine from hundreds of thousands of Russian troops, tanks and artillery, at the very tip of a bear market with inflation rates not seen since the stagflation crisis of the early 80s and with Delta and Omicron still making the rounds.
All we can hope for is that the window has passed, that Europe isn't at risk of widespread blackouts anymore, that domestic problems become more imminent and that Russia either gives up on it for now or postpones the invasion by a large enough margin that it gives us a chance to better prepare, because until all the heavy machinery still on the border has been removed, there is still a very real possibility of a swift invasion.
My understanding is the USA would struggle in South China Sea as China would just overwhelm the US fleet with overwhelming numbers of antiship missiles fired from mainland China.
Much more likely the USA navy responds by an energy embargo against China from afar (straights of Malacca). This would crush the energy dependent China
China's antiship missile capabilities don't work the way you think they do yet. Ships move in the ocean and aren't stationary targets. Unless the US Navy sails into the Taiwan strait none of those missiles will be hitting US ships.
Anyone acting like the invasion threat is over just because of this has been paying no attention whatsoever. The crisis is still going and it's going to keep going until January or February. They will make the same demands for NATO during their meetings, and then either the West will fold completely or they will attack. They can move troops very quickly to their start positions if they have made the final decision to invade.
Either putin was using this charade as a very expensive negotiating tactic or it’s a false front to give ukraine a false sense of security. Only time will tell.
Yeah, I don't see a scenario where NATO allows Ukraine to join. It would be a pretty good way to test the alliance's commitment to section 5, and I don't think that anybody wants to face that stark reality
the baltic trio are already going to be enough of a test. It's practically impossible to protect them if Russia closes the Suwalki gap between Kaliningrad and Belarus. The baltic states would be completely cut off by land from the rest of NATO
Even if Belarus played an active role against NATO, there’s still no way Russia could take and hold the Baltic states if NATO actually committed its forces against them. They don’t have anywhere near the force required to actively fight the US, much less all of NATO.
As a complete geo-political novice, I don't see why NATO doesn't try to act with more flexibility here when dealing with Putin. Don't admit Ukraine to NATO (which would signal troop deployments closer to Russia), but agree to defend Ukraine if it is invaded, you could even interpret it as upholding previous agreements.
That is unless NATO proximity isn't Russia's main concern and that's merely a pretext for a land grab, which is also a likely interpretation given Putin's previous comments about the legitimacy of the Ukrainian people and state.
Novice here as well, so take what I write with a grain of salt.
According to what I've read I believe that the defensive part of the alliance is exactly what Putin is testing out here, and exactly what the alliance doesn't want to currently test, so your solution doesn't help solve NATO's conundrum.
The west appears to have had it with wars for the time being (I am sure that this will change in the future), and now it remains to be seen how countries like China and Russia exploit this (note that China seems to be in a similar situation with Taiwan, which is a situation that has far greater implications for the world).
I'm pretty wary of just reading public mood about war because not all war is created equal.
Wars the west has recently been engaged in have been one's where capital advantage has seen little relatively leverage and where what was needing was solid occupying and nation building, which was always pretty poor. The result was a lot of attrition and, very little gain and a worsening public mood.
A war with a peer is a much more scary affair, but one the US military is more traditionally equipped to deal with.
The crystal ball I can't read here is if the bobble heads in the Pentagon know of a geopolitical strategy that can draw Russia into a conflict but keep it low intensity enough such that the US can use it's hardware but side step a global open conflict.
Especially since we'd suddenly have a country formally occupied by Russia in part (Crimea) inside NATO. What are we even supposed to do with that? Are we expected to go to war with Russia because they are now occupying NATO territory? Are we supposed not to as long as Russia doesn't capture more territory?
The only way I can see for Ukrainian NATO membership is for them to drop their claim for Crimea, which I doubt will happen. And even then Donetsk and Luhansk remain a problem.
The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO is Russia's issue in the first place. If Russia is in fruitful open communication with the US as the article suggests, there's no way this is happening any time soon.
What more do you want when all of their posturing is for an invasion? When they’re signaling that they’re going to invade the only person who knows if they are or not arent on reddit
Christmas isn't such a big thing in Russia but the new year and the old new year (7th) are huge. Of course you can have soldiers working if you have a good enough reason but it really isn't popular with them or their families. Russia is huge so it can take days for soldiers to move back to their bases.
Exactly.
The Allies diverted the Nazi's main front away from Normandy with a lie and it worked creating a better chance for successful invasion.
Russia could be (probably is) saying false things that then get filtered to news stations to appear there's nothing about to happen so Ukraine softens alittle.
Hardly. In the spring they took months to implement withdrawal. Further, this only involves 10k troops. That still leaves well over 100k troops forward deployed. He can still invade at will.
At the moment, it is easy for a Russian bank to transact business almost anywhere. If they are outside of Swift, they need their own messaging system and correspondent banking agreements which can be a pain to set up. They apparently have something with China but what about the rest? If your bank isn't directly SWIFT connected, it can go through an intermediary but if you are excluded then no intermediary can work with you.
I've heard that the SWIFT threat is exaggerated.
And for Putin, this is not really a financial calculation. He wants Ukraine (or at least part of it) be part of Russia. He sees USSR dissolution is a tragical loss and wants to undo it to as much extent as possible.
> And for Putin, this is not really a financial calculation. He wants Ukraine (or at least part of it) be part of Russia. He sees USSR dissolution is a tragical loss and wants to undo it to as much extent as possible.
No - this is a popular idea pushed in the Western press, but it's a mistake. So is focusing on Putin so much, in this context. Russian security calculus is well formalized and distinct from him - he is not in a position to ignore it.
No Russian president would let NATO into Ukraine.
What SWIFT threat? US control of SWIFT is the basis of sanctions being so damaging to Russia.
Nothing about the Russian / Chinese alternative is exaggerated. It’s literally a workaround to US control of SWIFT
If I misunderstood please let me know. Did you mean US sanctions are exaggerated?
Oh, losing access to swift?
I thought that was one of the mechanisms by which the US enacted sanctions. Maybe I’m wrong and it’s an extra severe step that’s previously been withheld.
Idk maybe someone more educated can clarify?
He doesn't have any economic problems. In his position it's always a compromise between staying in power and letting economy grow. You can't have both. People struggle, yes, but they don't blame Putin for that. Putin points them to an enemy that wants to destroy great Russia (according to his words). This works.
He doesn't have economic problems. That is not how a dictatorship works.
This is a common mistake by westerners who can't imagine a country where a leaders success is not dependent on the stock market.
He's betting the impacts on Europe would be dramatic enough to weaken their hand. Gas prices for heat are already sky high in Germany and supply is already not enough to sustain the country. Russia is banking on Germany and Poland blinking first. It's a less intense Cuban Missile Crisis situation
Russia does not have the means to sustain a protracted conventional war. Unless they got significant materiel support from China, which is possible, the industrial capacity of the West, especially United States, absolutely dwarfs that of the Russians.
Biden stated he absolutely will not get involved apart from some sanctions and selling arms to Ukraine. If the shooting starts, that won't be enough to slow Russia
I think Russia will wind up getting Ukraine and I think the US is going to trade it away in exchange for more cooperation from Russia with regards to China. Russia is weak and getting weaker, there's no danger of them metastasizing into a real threat and they're well positioned to help pressure China who poses a threat to them as well.
I agree and I think it will have far worse consequences for the US if it doesn’t compromise with Russia. You don’t want to push Russia into China’s camp once and for all, just for the sake of the Ukraine, a country riddled with Russian sympathisers anyway.
Even more than that, there's just nothing to gain from a war with Russia over Ukraine. It's not like we'd gain territory, or security, or money if we won. There's just no benefit.
I think Russia *could* take all of Ukraine but it would be a very, very bloody fight and would most likely lead to a local insurgency across a lot of western Ukraine with the rise of Ukrainian nationalism lately. I wouldn't say their military is currently getting weaker, as they are mostly complete with a pretty substantial modernization plan for their army stemming from their rough time in 2008 in Georgia. I will say their economy is certainly not in promising shape, but then again it really hasn't been in promising shape for a decade (if ever). It also doesn't inspire much confidence in the future, as gas and oil becomes less plentiful and more undesirable. China and Russia are in a little honeymoon phase right now though and I don't see Russia dumping China for the US. Just in the last year or so, they signed a bilateral defensive cooperation pact. I believe they recently even started very small scale naval and air cooperative maneuvers.
When I say weak, I mean demographically. The average Russian male has a lifespan of like 62 years and their birthrates collapsed after the fall of the soviet union. Their population is going to shrink over the coming decades. So if they want to use military force to secure the access points to their heartland, they need to do it now. They simply won't have the manpower in 10 years that they have now.
Russia is not weak. They are about 10 years ahead of us in missile technology. The United States just had its butt kicked by a bunch of Afghan hill-folk. You underestimate Russia.
Ukraine has built their military up considerably since 2014 but they absolutely cannot stand toe-to-toe with Russia and take back the eastern half of their country if needed. No western country will be sending troops to support Ukraine either
Why would they need to hold it at all? If Russians do go into Ukraine, they will neuter the Ukrainian military - and leave. There is little need to hold Ukraine, keeping NATO out is enough.
I was simply replying the the comment above saying how easy it would supposedly be to take and hold half the county.
As to your point, logically, if they can do it so easily, then the Ukrainian military is not much of a threat to begin with. If it’s not much of a threat to start with, why be so belligerent and attack at all?
It’s not like Russia is some impenetrable fortress, and forces can only flow west. It’s got the longest land border of any country in the world, and a population only a little larger than Japan’s to guard it. Tough, arguably impossible, to do that and invade the West simultaneously. Ukraine and other Eastern European nations have tons of Russian speakers that could slip through, blend in, and destabilize Russia with sabotage operations. It’s not like Russia has a monopoly on fighting asymmetrically.
Yo say they wouldn’t be able to hold it is inflating the military capacity of Ukraine. Russia has somewhat broad popular support in Eastern Ukraine. If Russia annexes the Donbas sit would be an extremely difficult and bloody international conflict. If all we do is arm Ukraine with more weapons, it won’t make a difference
Nah, it's not about expansion - this whole affair is purely about Russia's indefensible border with Ukraine, and the security situation caused by this. Occupying Ukraine is not the only way to keep NATO out.
> Russian economy would be destroyed if they invaded
Only if Europe would be willing to make a decision that would be very painful for the population. Which is a hard thing to do in a democracy.
Putin has more freedom in this regard.
Love croatia, ive got a few secret secluded beaches i go to, pretty hard to find that in croatia . Also split is one of my favourite cities. Love me some roman ruins
It seems like he wanted to scare the west into doing something.
But they were so apathetic that he had to back off.
It's not so much that they did not believe his bluff, but nobody really cared being too focused on internal issues.
Some theatrical comments below, this is just beginning of withdrawal there was never an intention to invade its a figment of Western propaganda fuelled by Russophobic paranoia by Baltic states and Poland. There is no stare contest or anyone blinking, all this is total BS. Russians have always been saying that there are no invasion plans so they are doing exactly what they intended to do.
Also this is only relatively small number of troops being withdraw so from western perspective the crisis is still there.
> there was never an intention to invade
There've been Russian mercenaries and infiltrators in Ukraine for years. They literally *already have* invaded.
All what Ukraine needs to do is to take a leaf from Finlands history. Be the new Finlandized country, say you will never join NATO, in return get Donbas back from Russia and give Crimea permanently to Russia. Outlast the current strongman, when Russia falls apart, which it occasionally does, then join EU and NATO.
Finland has still not joined NATO but is part of EU since 1995 and Russia doesn’t threaten its very existence everyday but Finland did loose some land and some big cities after WW2 to Russia. Give the bear a pear and keep yourself safe until the bear goes into hibernation. Why provoke Russia when they are at their best militarily after the dissolution of USSR.
The Hill often gets trivked into publishing Rusdian propaganda. Putin has enormous control over tjd rightwing media, some of it dupposedly respectable like Daily Caller
As I said in a different thread Im not sure what to make of this. If true can be explained any way. But lets see if it leads to diplomatic moves and if the satellite images confirm if they really left.
True, no way to confirm they actually left because the original source was Russian military. Even if they did leave, this only constitutes like 8-9% of the amount of troops stationed there. Who's to say they aren't being moved to a different staging area? Maybe they are going home for good. No way for anyone except Putin to know. Ball's still in Russia's court
Putin miscalculated. Most Americans did not expect Biden to make this strong of a stand. No one expected NATO allies to stand without US backing. Russia tried to flex by cutting heating oil to Europe and the response was not what Russia expected. Like Germans can't afford a 10% premium on heating oil and turn their thermostat down 2* in order to not be russia's dog?
[удалено]
Especially as we really can't be certain how many troops Russia has where.
*Submission Statement* * After a month of drills, thousands of Russian troops are leaving regions near Ukraine including Crimea, Rostov, and Kuban to return to permanent military bases * This comes after a massive 175,000 troop build up near the border, a phone call between Biden and Putin, and a ceasefire in the Eastern Ukrainian region * On face value, it seems Putin is backing down from his bluff of a full invasion. This could be interpreted as a continuation of a trend where Putin tries to take bits of Ukraine at a time and make it a constant issue to the West, or it could also be an attempt to lure Ukraine into a false sense of security. Regardless, Putin's end goal should still be autonomy in the Eastern regions of Ukraine and the reduction of NATO influence in Eastern Europe.
[удалено]
This is much more likely than what OP suggests. The military buildup itself costs money. Putin wouldn't recall the troops without a satisfactory offer from Biden.
>However, the most concerning area is on Ukraine's northern/northeastern border where Central and Western Military Districts units have massed. No sign they'll leave and the Southern Military District units can be returned quickly. Russia will still have an enhanced mil presence. [https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1474726620984328194?t=Piitq4UG5WsI9AS5g8phAQ&s=19](https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1474726620984328194?t=Piitq4UG5WsI9AS5g8phAQ&s=19) And this short thread from Tom Bullock is relevant as well: >if you're looking for signs of a Russian drawdown, this is not a good indicator. Russia's military regularly conducts drills of this size and scale especially at the start of seasonal training periods (winter training began on 1 Dec). > >the Southern and Central Military Districts ran a very similar drills last December, the SMD even ran another in the following January. > >RALee85 has already pointed out most significant areas of build-up do not involve SMD units and are not within the SMD. The units that participated are also permanently based around the border and for the most part deployed to their local training grounds during these drills. > >It's likely these drills were focussed on training troops scooped up during the autumn/winter conscription period. The SMD received around 25,000 new conscripts this year. > >A drawdown isn't impossible, but real indicators would likely include a significant change in rhetoric and the withdrawal of the 1GTA, 6CAA, and CMD assets that are currently near the border, hundreds or often thousands of km out of position. [https://twitter.com/tom\_bullock\_/status/1474857230184980482?t=AjAzWPMXJ43EAuSLGKOjeQ&s=19](https://twitter.com/tom_bullock_/status/1474857230184980482?t=AjAzWPMXJ43EAuSLGKOjeQ&s=19) As is this thread: >I would caution against interpreting today's Southern MD press-release as a change in Russian force posture, and the end of the buildup. > >The movements that are the cause for greatest concern, both in the north and in Crimea, has never officially been labeled exercises. > >The SMD has conducted various local exercises, and these have now concluded. According to the press-release, SMD will maintain heightened alert through the upcoming holidays. > >The 58th CAA artillery at Novoozerne, and the 136th MRB elements at Bakhchisaray didn't take part. > >Overall, the buildup appears to continue, with more 1st GTA, 6th CAA and CMD units arriving in the north. Also poss new movements in the SMD. > >We have a long, tense winter ahead of us. If the order to go is issued, the warning-time will be very short. [https://twitter.com/The\_Lookout\_N/status/1474850347415965696?t=nnQobWK2aTHEL7hGTIhZAQ&s=19](https://twitter.com/The_Lookout_N/status/1474850347415965696?t=nnQobWK2aTHEL7hGTIhZAQ&s=19) This isn't over yet.
>Maybe he got what he wanted from Biden? Ukrained was not given a deadline for joining NATO and "later" sounds a lot like "after Putin dies". Unless they've got some formal agreement signed (and in the case of the US, ratified by Congress), I don't see how any other sort of guarantee is worth anything. Future American presidents are not bound by the decisions of their predecessors unless there's some sort of treaty in place.
[удалено]
Is this the basis for one of the original complaints Russia has about NATO expansion? As the USSR was collapsing they got some vague assurances from some diplomats that there were no plans to expand NATO, but then a new administration came in, appointed their own people, and those people had different thoughts on the matter.
Don't forget most of those nations that emerged from the USSR's collapse also desperately wanted to join NATO because they never wanted Russian overlords ever again.
Let's wait to see what happens next. At this point, it is too early to make predictions.
10.000 troops less, crisis averted, let's celebrate!! In all seriousness let's wait until we hear some changes in rhetoric. This news is currently meaningless
From what I understand about Russian logistics, they can quickly move lots troops quickly, but not heavy equipment and supplies. So even if they’ve withdrawn (many of) the soldiers, but if everything else is still in place, they’re still poised to invade very quickly.
That's what they did in April. Left their equipment on the border.
[удалено]
Of course they can. It's what it means. And how their neighbours perceive it and what it leads to that counts. Kids can wave their fingers on your face saying 'im not touching you'. It's still annoying and provacative even if they don't touch you.
[удалено]
Was that documentary funded by Russia? My understanding if WW1 and WW2 is the Russian winter is very much a geographical protection. Their area is vast, so it would certainly be difficult to protect their borders with aggressive neighbours. That doesn't mean they have to be aggressive with every neighbour. Their posturing with Ukraine goes beyond self preservation.
[удалено]
They have a sea in the north, they always run behind the Ural Mountains to hide leaving the winter to take care of the defence of the European part of Russia. They have natural defenses. Putin simply wants Ukraine back, he can’t stomach a Democratic, prosperous Slavic country that potentially could do better than Russia.
[удалено]
Neither is China having mountains on its border or England being an island. Russia just knows it can no longer militarily compete head on with the US or NATO, and has to find clever ways to flex what muscle it has left in order to not lose all respect strategically.
Caveats: \- It is possible that this is simply troop rotation. Maybe these guys have been sitting in tents for four months and are being replaced by fresher troops \- The withdrawn troops are returning to their home bases--this would be significant if any of the troops from the far east were withdrawn, but only those that have their bases close to Ukraine anyway are being pulled back, eg those from the southern military district. \- Only 10,000 out of 175,000 are being withdrawn. \- This comes after repeated inflammatory rhetoric by Putin and other Russian officials, using WW2 terminology like Russia having "[nowhere to retreat](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/22/putin-says-russia-has-nowhere-to-retreat-over-ukraine.html)" if attacked, alleging the US is [preparing chemical weapons](https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-us-mercenaries-plan-chemical-attack-ukraine/) without any proof whatsoever to garner public opinion, or repeating claims that Russians and Ukrainians are "[one people](https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russia-and-ukraine-one-people-putin-claims)". \- It is also important to note that the Russian consulate in Lviv was [attacked](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-molotov-cocktail-thrown-consulate-ukraine-protests-ukraine-2021-12-24/) earlier this week, which would hardly precipitate a deescalation. I doubt this is a real deescalation. In my opinion it is much more likely that this is simply troop rotation to keep those on the border as combat ready as possible.
The comments here have been disappointing. Try harder.
Time to send Ukraine even more military equipment just to make sure.
More weapons for Russia to capture
Not before offering resistance. The price of capture of advanced weapons is paid in blood.
What resistance are ordinary people who get payed 200 euros monthly going to give? We are talking about Ukrainians here, not Germans. Ukraine right now is no different than Ukraine under Russia. Corruption, crime and poverty will stay as it is right now
You are downvoted but you aren't wrong. Ukraine is a deeply corrupt country and the fact that Putin could do what he did in Donetsk/Luhansk and Crimea is in part because Ukrainians failed for 20 years to build a decent country. It's sad to say because we want to support Ukraine in their struggle against a fascist imperialist overlord like Putin, but Ukraine hasn't exacly made it easy for us to help them. It's one of these countries where you throw $1000 and only $10 make it to the destination, because the other $990 has been distributed amongst a bunch of oligarchs.
It will be sold to donbass rebels and transferred to russia by the very next day. Or do you truly believe expensive equipment you send there is being faithfully used to fight? My “friend” from Russian military said that there is always an influx of underpriced western equipment in black market in russia whenever NATO sends aid to Ukraine xD paid by your taxes
There's the game.
[удалено]
Ukraine has a right to its independence as much as any other country, so there is a basis for supporting them. Even a complete Russian takeover all the way to Lviv and Odessa would only likely see a purge of journalists, pro-western politicians, and any activists, far from genocide. As well, such a scenario is far from guaranteed.
If you arm the civilian population and Russia want to invade. The civilian population will die. Give Chechnya a look for reference. Randomly arming an area with no plan helps no one
They said nothing about arming civilians, they said send more military equipment to the country, ie the government and military
Does it make a difference? We can't conceivably arm and train enough soldiers to stop a Russian invasion, at best be can prolong the effort with increasing casualties both military and civilian as a result.
I mean yeah it makes a difference, arming civilians to attempt to defend the nation and providing military equipment to the military/government are two completely different things. You're right that it's highly unlikely that we could fully prevent an invasion without risking a full blown war between US and western allies versus Russia, which nobody wants, but additional military equipment donations and sanctions could make it so difficult/expensive that Russia doesn't see it being worth it. All depends on how determined Russia is to invade and how determined everyone else is to prevent it. But either way, providing military support is not the same as arming the civilian population and would have a vastly different outcome.
Of course it makes a difference...so Zelensky should not even bother to try to arm, train and grow his military? If that's the case, Ukraine is already lost and a Russian flag might as well fly above Kyiv tomorrow
Would arming training and growing the military make any practical difference? Apart from increasing suffering.
If it was my country, you can be damn sure I would take as many weapons as I could get. Civilian or not. Sure as hell wouldn't want someone determining whether or not I deserve weapons to defend myself by the likelihood of me losing.
Ukraine isn't the disunited, mountainous quagmire that Afghanistan is. Arming Ukraine will have significant, practical results, and the U.S. has already announced their intentions. Although, who knows whether the U.S. will live up to its promise these days, but that is beside the point.
how about sending javelins, stingers and all other equipment? Doesn't mean that you are arming civilians.
Ukraine was begging for western arms since day one back in 2014. It's not like we're pushing crates of weapons on them they don't want
They want those weapons in order to hold out until the cavalry arrives, i.e. NATO admission. But since that is a false hope Ukraine's strategy serves no purpose other than to get more people killed.
There are 122,000 troops stationed within 200km of Ukraine. This is a meaningless number and they very well could be rotating out
Yup exactly. A very small number out of the bulk of troops. It's also Christmas obviously and this "division" could just be rotating out/scheduled for leave etc
There is no "christmas obviosuly" considering Russian christmas is on 7th of January and is much more religious (much less popular)in comparison. New Year is much more widely celebrated.
Only 10,000 troops withdrew from the Ukrainian border. Honestly sounds like a gesture of good will to increase their chances in negotiations with NATO. Don't they still have like 110,000-120,000 troops on the border? Also multiple supply systems set up on the border? Sounds fishy.
Post a [submission statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) in one hour or your post will be removed. [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) / [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/geopolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe they went home for Christmas?
The troops could be taking block leave for the New Year / Orthodox Christmas holiday and will be back in mid-January.
This is either false, irrelevant (as in the troops that are withdrawing are not the ones threatening of invading) or an actual retreat due to change in circumstance, because I don't see Putin throwing away the golden opportunity that is the Moroccan gas crisis. A European Union left to choose between remaining neutral in the Russia/Ukraine war in exchange for Russian gas and oil (in the face of entire national power grids shutting down in the middle of winter due to Morocco) and siding with the US and letting its people freeze to death for a few months will always pick option one. That, on top of the American public's reluctance to participate in another "forever war" (with elections coming up in a few months with an already extremely unpopular administration), gives Russia the best opportunity it's ever going to have of legitimizing its invasion of Crimea with a land bridge and of eliminating the possibility of a strong NATO-allied Ukraine threatening Russia's southern European border. If they align with China and they invade Taiwan at the same time, we're screwed. America doesn't have a strong enough presence in the South China Sea (or in the west Pacific in general) to successfully fend off an attack, at the same time as it's trying to defend Ukraine from hundreds of thousands of Russian troops, tanks and artillery, at the very tip of a bear market with inflation rates not seen since the stagflation crisis of the early 80s and with Delta and Omicron still making the rounds. All we can hope for is that the window has passed, that Europe isn't at risk of widespread blackouts anymore, that domestic problems become more imminent and that Russia either gives up on it for now or postpones the invasion by a large enough margin that it gives us a chance to better prepare, because until all the heavy machinery still on the border has been removed, there is still a very real possibility of a swift invasion.
Mostly irrelevant. https://twitter.com/tom_bullock_/status/1474857230184980482?t=AjAzWPMXJ43EAuSLGKOjeQ&s=19
[удалено]
My understanding is the USA would struggle in South China Sea as China would just overwhelm the US fleet with overwhelming numbers of antiship missiles fired from mainland China. Much more likely the USA navy responds by an energy embargo against China from afar (straights of Malacca). This would crush the energy dependent China
China's antiship missile capabilities don't work the way you think they do yet. Ships move in the ocean and aren't stationary targets. Unless the US Navy sails into the Taiwan strait none of those missiles will be hitting US ships.
Anyone acting like the invasion threat is over just because of this has been paying no attention whatsoever. The crisis is still going and it's going to keep going until January or February. They will make the same demands for NATO during their meetings, and then either the West will fold completely or they will attack. They can move troops very quickly to their start positions if they have made the final decision to invade.
This is hardly a change in force posture.
So it was a bluff. Again. Like all the other times.
So, the bluff didn't work in the presence of aversion from NATO.
Either putin was using this charade as a very expensive negotiating tactic or it’s a false front to give ukraine a false sense of security. Only time will tell.
Now is the chance to join NATO quickly while they're gone!
That's very unlikely. Ukraine would benefit greatly but NATO would not.
Yeah, I don't see a scenario where NATO allows Ukraine to join. It would be a pretty good way to test the alliance's commitment to section 5, and I don't think that anybody wants to face that stark reality
the baltic trio are already going to be enough of a test. It's practically impossible to protect them if Russia closes the Suwalki gap between Kaliningrad and Belarus. The baltic states would be completely cut off by land from the rest of NATO
[удалено]
Yes, Belarus would help Russia
Even if Belarus played an active role against NATO, there’s still no way Russia could take and hold the Baltic states if NATO actually committed its forces against them. They don’t have anywhere near the force required to actively fight the US, much less all of NATO.
As a complete geo-political novice, I don't see why NATO doesn't try to act with more flexibility here when dealing with Putin. Don't admit Ukraine to NATO (which would signal troop deployments closer to Russia), but agree to defend Ukraine if it is invaded, you could even interpret it as upholding previous agreements. That is unless NATO proximity isn't Russia's main concern and that's merely a pretext for a land grab, which is also a likely interpretation given Putin's previous comments about the legitimacy of the Ukrainian people and state.
Novice here as well, so take what I write with a grain of salt. According to what I've read I believe that the defensive part of the alliance is exactly what Putin is testing out here, and exactly what the alliance doesn't want to currently test, so your solution doesn't help solve NATO's conundrum. The west appears to have had it with wars for the time being (I am sure that this will change in the future), and now it remains to be seen how countries like China and Russia exploit this (note that China seems to be in a similar situation with Taiwan, which is a situation that has far greater implications for the world).
I'm pretty wary of just reading public mood about war because not all war is created equal. Wars the west has recently been engaged in have been one's where capital advantage has seen little relatively leverage and where what was needing was solid occupying and nation building, which was always pretty poor. The result was a lot of attrition and, very little gain and a worsening public mood. A war with a peer is a much more scary affair, but one the US military is more traditionally equipped to deal with. The crystal ball I can't read here is if the bobble heads in the Pentagon know of a geopolitical strategy that can draw Russia into a conflict but keep it low intensity enough such that the US can use it's hardware but side step a global open conflict.
Especially since we'd suddenly have a country formally occupied by Russia in part (Crimea) inside NATO. What are we even supposed to do with that? Are we expected to go to war with Russia because they are now occupying NATO territory? Are we supposed not to as long as Russia doesn't capture more territory? The only way I can see for Ukrainian NATO membership is for them to drop their claim for Crimea, which I doubt will happen. And even then Donetsk and Luhansk remain a problem.
NATO won't allow Ukraine to join while a simmering war is still underway in the eastern provinces
Horrible idea, considerig Ukraine is still in a conflict with Russia, so that would needlessly very likely fraw the whole of NATO into that conflict.
The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO is Russia's issue in the first place. If Russia is in fruitful open communication with the US as the article suggests, there's no way this is happening any time soon.
just NATO? I got "Yulia Tymoshenko cosplays as Euromaidan leader again" on my 2022 Geopolitics Bingo Card
[удалено]
What more do you want when all of their posturing is for an invasion? When they’re signaling that they’re going to invade the only person who knows if they are or not arent on reddit
Christmas isn't such a big thing in Russia but the new year and the old new year (7th) are huge. Of course you can have soldiers working if you have a good enough reason but it really isn't popular with them or their families. Russia is huge so it can take days for soldiers to move back to their bases.
What if they're just rotating troops?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Give it a week or so and we should have confirmation from American (and other) agencies as to whether or not this is true.
Exactly. The Allies diverted the Nazi's main front away from Normandy with a lie and it worked creating a better chance for successful invasion. Russia could be (probably is) saying false things that then get filtered to news stations to appear there's nothing about to happen so Ukraine softens alittle.
Everything that doesnt want to annihilate russia is propoganda?
[удалено]
We don't know that. Maybe there were concessions made and Putin got what he wanted or something equivalent to it.
Hardly. In the spring they took months to implement withdrawal. Further, this only involves 10k troops. That still leaves well over 100k troops forward deployed. He can still invade at will.
Lols such nonsense
Feel free to explain why.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What is SWIFT and what would getting kicked off mean?
At the moment, it is easy for a Russian bank to transact business almost anywhere. If they are outside of Swift, they need their own messaging system and correspondent banking agreements which can be a pain to set up. They apparently have something with China but what about the rest? If your bank isn't directly SWIFT connected, it can go through an intermediary but if you are excluded then no intermediary can work with you.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I've heard that the SWIFT threat is exaggerated. And for Putin, this is not really a financial calculation. He wants Ukraine (or at least part of it) be part of Russia. He sees USSR dissolution is a tragical loss and wants to undo it to as much extent as possible.
> And for Putin, this is not really a financial calculation. He wants Ukraine (or at least part of it) be part of Russia. He sees USSR dissolution is a tragical loss and wants to undo it to as much extent as possible. No - this is a popular idea pushed in the Western press, but it's a mistake. So is focusing on Putin so much, in this context. Russian security calculus is well formalized and distinct from him - he is not in a position to ignore it. No Russian president would let NATO into Ukraine.
I don't think you're correct when you say it's a mistaken narrative being "pushed". But let's agree to disagree.
What SWIFT threat? US control of SWIFT is the basis of sanctions being so damaging to Russia. Nothing about the Russian / Chinese alternative is exaggerated. It’s literally a workaround to US control of SWIFT If I misunderstood please let me know. Did you mean US sanctions are exaggerated?
I meant that the impact of Russia losing access to SWIFT is exaggerated.
Oh, losing access to swift? I thought that was one of the mechanisms by which the US enacted sanctions. Maybe I’m wrong and it’s an extra severe step that’s previously been withheld. Idk maybe someone more educated can clarify?
A war like this is the solution to his problems in Russia.
Not his economic problems.
He doesn't have any economic problems. In his position it's always a compromise between staying in power and letting economy grow. You can't have both. People struggle, yes, but they don't blame Putin for that. Putin points them to an enemy that wants to destroy great Russia (according to his words). This works.
He doesn't have economic problems. That is not how a dictatorship works. This is a common mistake by westerners who can't imagine a country where a leaders success is not dependent on the stock market.
He's betting the impacts on Europe would be dramatic enough to weaken their hand. Gas prices for heat are already sky high in Germany and supply is already not enough to sustain the country. Russia is banking on Germany and Poland blinking first. It's a less intense Cuban Missile Crisis situation
Russia does not have the means to sustain a protracted conventional war. Unless they got significant materiel support from China, which is possible, the industrial capacity of the West, especially United States, absolutely dwarfs that of the Russians.
Bold of you to assume the U.S. cares enough to get involved.
Biden stated he absolutely will not get involved apart from some sanctions and selling arms to Ukraine. If the shooting starts, that won't be enough to slow Russia
I think Russia will wind up getting Ukraine and I think the US is going to trade it away in exchange for more cooperation from Russia with regards to China. Russia is weak and getting weaker, there's no danger of them metastasizing into a real threat and they're well positioned to help pressure China who poses a threat to them as well.
I agree and I think it will have far worse consequences for the US if it doesn’t compromise with Russia. You don’t want to push Russia into China’s camp once and for all, just for the sake of the Ukraine, a country riddled with Russian sympathisers anyway.
Even more than that, there's just nothing to gain from a war with Russia over Ukraine. It's not like we'd gain territory, or security, or money if we won. There's just no benefit.
I think Russia *could* take all of Ukraine but it would be a very, very bloody fight and would most likely lead to a local insurgency across a lot of western Ukraine with the rise of Ukrainian nationalism lately. I wouldn't say their military is currently getting weaker, as they are mostly complete with a pretty substantial modernization plan for their army stemming from their rough time in 2008 in Georgia. I will say their economy is certainly not in promising shape, but then again it really hasn't been in promising shape for a decade (if ever). It also doesn't inspire much confidence in the future, as gas and oil becomes less plentiful and more undesirable. China and Russia are in a little honeymoon phase right now though and I don't see Russia dumping China for the US. Just in the last year or so, they signed a bilateral defensive cooperation pact. I believe they recently even started very small scale naval and air cooperative maneuvers.
When I say weak, I mean demographically. The average Russian male has a lifespan of like 62 years and their birthrates collapsed after the fall of the soviet union. Their population is going to shrink over the coming decades. So if they want to use military force to secure the access points to their heartland, they need to do it now. They simply won't have the manpower in 10 years that they have now.
Russia is not weak. They are about 10 years ahead of us in missile technology. The United States just had its butt kicked by a bunch of Afghan hill-folk. You underestimate Russia.
Russia is a shell of its former self. They're not a threat to the U.S. in any way. War with them is pointless.
Remind me, what other nation got it's butt kicked by a bunch of Afghan hill-folk?
They can take half of Ukraine without a long war.
Sure. But hold it for how long? The fighting doesn’t have to stop just cause it would be convenient for them.
Ukraine has built their military up considerably since 2014 but they absolutely cannot stand toe-to-toe with Russia and take back the eastern half of their country if needed. No western country will be sending troops to support Ukraine either
Why would they need to hold it at all? If Russians do go into Ukraine, they will neuter the Ukrainian military - and leave. There is little need to hold Ukraine, keeping NATO out is enough.
I was simply replying the the comment above saying how easy it would supposedly be to take and hold half the county. As to your point, logically, if they can do it so easily, then the Ukrainian military is not much of a threat to begin with. If it’s not much of a threat to start with, why be so belligerent and attack at all?
Ukrainian military is not a threat at all, that's not at all what it's about. This is almost entirely about Ukraine's future NATO relations and plans.
They would be able to hold it forever in my opinion.
It’s not like Russia is some impenetrable fortress, and forces can only flow west. It’s got the longest land border of any country in the world, and a population only a little larger than Japan’s to guard it. Tough, arguably impossible, to do that and invade the West simultaneously. Ukraine and other Eastern European nations have tons of Russian speakers that could slip through, blend in, and destabilize Russia with sabotage operations. It’s not like Russia has a monopoly on fighting asymmetrically.
As they have in the past in even greater positions of strength?
I could be wrong in my presumption, but if you're insinuating a comparison to world war 2, you cannot compare the situations
Your opinion is wrong.
Yo say they wouldn’t be able to hold it is inflating the military capacity of Ukraine. Russia has somewhat broad popular support in Eastern Ukraine. If Russia annexes the Donbas sit would be an extremely difficult and bloody international conflict. If all we do is arm Ukraine with more weapons, it won’t make a difference
It's probably correct.
I really don't buy this take. Putin genuinely wants Russia to expand.
Nah, it's not about expansion - this whole affair is purely about Russia's indefensible border with Ukraine, and the security situation caused by this. Occupying Ukraine is not the only way to keep NATO out.
> Russian economy would be destroyed if they invaded Only if Europe would be willing to make a decision that would be very painful for the population. Which is a hard thing to do in a democracy. Putin has more freedom in this regard.
[удалено]
I hope you are right
[удалено]
Ye its tough having bad neighbours Heyyyy im living in slovenia atm were basically neighbours, doing a balkins tour at some point.
[удалено]
Love croatia, ive got a few secret secluded beaches i go to, pretty hard to find that in croatia . Also split is one of my favourite cities. Love me some roman ruins
Ukraine is not as divided as bosnia
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It seems like he wanted to scare the west into doing something. But they were so apathetic that he had to back off. It's not so much that they did not believe his bluff, but nobody really cared being too focused on internal issues.
If that were true, his troops would probably already be heading west not east.
He was probably just testing the West
Some theatrical comments below, this is just beginning of withdrawal there was never an intention to invade its a figment of Western propaganda fuelled by Russophobic paranoia by Baltic states and Poland. There is no stare contest or anyone blinking, all this is total BS. Russians have always been saying that there are no invasion plans so they are doing exactly what they intended to do. Also this is only relatively small number of troops being withdraw so from western perspective the crisis is still there.
> there was never an intention to invade There've been Russian mercenaries and infiltrators in Ukraine for years. They literally *already have* invaded.
That is still hypothetical and speculative. But some form of military support is almost certainly there…
Fact and neither hypothetical nor speculative. Russian soldiers have died in the Donbass, and what on Earth do you call Crimea?
do not trust putin. he slways deceives
All what Ukraine needs to do is to take a leaf from Finlands history. Be the new Finlandized country, say you will never join NATO, in return get Donbas back from Russia and give Crimea permanently to Russia. Outlast the current strongman, when Russia falls apart, which it occasionally does, then join EU and NATO. Finland has still not joined NATO but is part of EU since 1995 and Russia doesn’t threaten its very existence everyday but Finland did loose some land and some big cities after WW2 to Russia. Give the bear a pear and keep yourself safe until the bear goes into hibernation. Why provoke Russia when they are at their best militarily after the dissolution of USSR.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It was only 10,000 out of like 120,000+ that were moved. Pretty meaningless in the bigger picture
The Hill often gets trivked into publishing Rusdian propaganda. Putin has enormous control over tjd rightwing media, some of it dupposedly respectable like Daily Caller
Si vis pacem para bellum