Imminent Invasion: It Makes No Sense Whatsoever
No Sense Whatsoever
Publication date: 2022-02-14
Update 2022-02-18: included an ‘Update’ section and a link to the MSNBC interview in which USA Secretary of State Blinken cannot answer the very question which this article asked two days previously.
Open letter to all the "Russia will invade Ukraine" people.
Why?
Two graphs provide a coarse summary of Ukraine's economy. It is in trouble and has been for some time.
[Image: Ukraine GDP since 1990. Source World Bank.]
Ukraine does have a problem with emigration too. Its currency has also been massively hit since 2008.
[Image: from Google financials (using MAX time) showing the two massive crashes in the value of the Ukrainian currency vs the USA dollar since the beginning of the existence of the UAH.]
Yes, Ukraine does have some natural resources, but Russia is not in need of them, having both its own resources and those about to become available via the BRI/EAEU. Ukraine is an economic burden, and has no significant resources.
Ukraine is so politically divided that following the coup in 2014, the destruction of the Ukraine/Russia free trade zone (due to EU Association efforts) and the removal of Russian as an official language, a civil war was the result. Thus, should Russia choose to occupy Ukraine it will suffer an ongoing insurgency which will be costly both financially and politically in Russia. Excluding Russia, Ukraine is the LARGEST nation in Europe (by area, see table above), bigger than France. Who in their right mind would wish to attempt to occupy and pacify a nation that large which you know would resist the occupation and be supported by external actors?
There is nothing the western arms manufacturers and anglophone intelligence agencies would want more, with the possible exception of a war with China, than a Russian occupation of Ukraine. Russia has watched as the USA/NATO tried these occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and remembers her predecessor's folly in Afghanistan. She has learned the lessons of history.
If, as Russia says, her concern is about NATO expansion, and thus the placement of offensive short/medium range missiles near her border, then occupying Ukraine will make this literally true. How does that help? It directly undermines her objectives.
Consider the requests by both of the breakaway republics to join Russia. Both were rebuffed. It probably cost a little political capital in Russia to deny them. So, why? Because approving those requests would leave the remainder of pro-western (with neo-Nazi elements) Ukraine likely to join NATO, and thus, again, you end up with no buffer state between Russia and NATO. Ergo, Russia denies the requests by the breakaway republics, despite the local political cost. Otherwise, again, it literally creates the situation which they wish to avoid. If you doubt Russia's stated aims, what other explanation is there for her denying these requests? Does this not add weight to their veracity? Can’t we just actually believe what Russia is saying in her draft treaties when her actions validate this position?
So, again, Why? What possible benefit is there to Russia, to achieve her stated aims, by her invading Ukraine?
Not only will it directly undermine her objectives but will be politically and economically costly for a very long time. One can have whatever opinions one wishes about Russia, but neither her leadership nor her bureaucracy are stupid.
The stupidity on display is coming from western politicians and especially the media with all of this brain-dead rubbish about "imminent" "invasion".
The solution Russia seeks is laid out in UN Security Council Resolution 2202, which was unanimously approved. It leaves the breakaway republics in Ukraine and with cooperation from the USA/NATO, EU/OSCE re-creates the "neutral" buffer state that Ukraine was before the 2014 coup.
Dear Journalists, please ask the people spouting the "invasion" rubbish to list what benefits Russia achieves if she does invade Ukraine? When they reply with the garbage you expect, please feel free to list points made above as counter arguments.
All of the above is a simple answer to the question of why the narrative is cracking?
Update
A greybeard at MSNBC finally got the memo and asked USA panic merchant Blinken the key question:
(min. 1:35) “What would be the upside for Putin by invading Ukraine?”
Blinky had no idea:
“That’s an excellent question: ask Putin.”
And then gets straight back to the panic selling. (See sources below for video).
Sources
Losing Brains and Brawn: Outmigration from Ukraine, Denys Kiryukhin, Wilson Center, 2019-05-14
Commentary:
CrossTalk Bullhorns | Home edition | ‘Crying wolf?’, CrossTalk, RT, 2022-02-14
Putin Talks With Biden & Macron, Accuses West of Anti-Russia Campaign, Denies Plan to Invade Ukraine, Alexander Mercouris, his youtube channel, 2022-02-14
U.S. needs to see ‘exactly the opposite’ of what Russia is doing in Ukraine, says Blinken, MSNBC, 2022-02-16
(In which Blinken has no idea about any advantage to Russia by invading Ukraine. 01:35 offset for the magic question.)
If you like what you read here, you can please the author by sharing it.
Do Not Subscribe: Broke the “no notifications” rule on this article. I hope the simple arguments given are enough to shatter the “invasion” narrative, and it needs to be shattered.
Following @YesXorNo on Twitter is an effective alert mechanism.
Copyright and Licensing
This work is copyright to the blog's author with CC BY-SA 4.0 licensing. Have fun, reuse, remix etc. but give credit and place no further restrictions. Lets build culture. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode