World News

32318 readers

914 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

114

Putin's suggestion of Ukraine ceasefire rejected by United States, sources say (www.reuters.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Update: it would seem that people disagree with me, fair enough, but perhaps somebody would care to tell me what is wrong with my theory?

Original comment:
I'm going to try with a crazy conspiracy theory(but the crazy ones are the more entertaining ones, right?):

Putin's investment in the western defense industry drove the invasion of Ukraine to stimulate European NATO countries' military investments.

Reasoning:

Russia's actions towards Eastern NATO countries and the invasion of Ukraine could be strategic moves to encourage European NATO nations to bolster their military investments.
Sweden and Finland's potential NATO membership could further incentivize their procurement of NATO-aligned weaponry.
Other Western European countries are already allocating significant resources to military investments.

Considering Occam's razor, is it simpler to assume Putin, heavily invested in the defense industry, initiated conflict for profit, or believe in complex internal political motives?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

but perhaps somebody would care to tell me what is wrong with my theory?

I'll give it a shot.

First off, any payoff from Russia investing in NATO defense is massively offset by the untold damage this war is doing to Russia's economy and population. This still holds true if it's just putin's investment, although if he were really bent on profit from that he probably could. But there are other, more lucrative and less damaging avenues to profit for a guy with as much money as he has.

Secondly, the war isn't pointless. Occams razor suggests the simplest reason is often the truth. The simplest reason is that Crimea provides Russia a western seaport that isn't frozen half of the year, and taking eastern Ukraine provides a path to that port.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

Thank you for telling why I'm wrong :)

I agree with you partly on your first point. Putin has other ways of making his fortune. BUT that doesn't mean that he couldn't also do this. Maybe it's not the primary reason, but if Putin doesn't care about Russia or the Russian people, then money could be a motivator.

On your second point IDK though. Russia still has a pretty large black sea port in Novorossiysk to the south east of Crimea. That port is on the mainland, has a rail connection, and doesn't rely on an explosion prone bridge. Sevastopol may be an important port, but important enough to go to war over? Besides, the black sea ports aren't the only warm water ports west of the Urals. Not counting the unconnected port in Murmansk, on the Baltic sea there's Kaliningrad and the three large ports near Saint Petersburg. On wikipedia's list of largest ports in the Baltic sea, the three at Saint Petersburg are in the top four.

So why go to war for a fifth port? Was Novorossiysk operating at capacity? I dont buy it. The war wasn't for a path to Sevastopol alone.