Some have seen Putin's war on Ukraine as an attempt to return Russia to the glory of the Soviet days or era of Imperial Russia...but forgive me if I missed it, but I don't think Russia under previous leaders did something so brazen with such risks, diplomatic isolation
When we think of the Soviet period, yes Russia went into Hungary and Afghanistan, but overall it did it with some pretense and what it thought is low risk to Russia. It didn't knowingly gamble on huge wars like Ukraine with unclear goals and outcome.
And if we go back to the Czars, from what I recall they pragmatically swallowed up the "near abroad" but usually it was risking much, Russia engaged in wars it always felt it would win easily; with the exception of jumping into WWI and we know how that turned out for Moscow
So if one is Moscow and wants to be pragmatic and learn from history, then evidence would show entering into an openended conflict like Afghanistan or WWI has real risks and yet Putin goes into Ukraine with no real goal or strategy or even great tactics.
Putin is alienating Ukraine, which not so long ago had politics and leaders who were more sympathetic to Moscow. He's ruining cities, to what end? For long occupation? Forever war? What's the endgame? It's not just "frozen conflict" like Donbas.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
