this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
484 points (95.5% liked)
World News
32321 readers
840 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, Russia is not primarily motivated by gaining resources, they're motivated by self-preservation and public pressure to stop the ethnostate Nazis next door from doing ethnic cleansing and having the civil war spill over. Whatever land the Russians take isn't going to be worth their losses for a really long time. That doesn't obviously mean they're unhappy if they capture anything of value, but it's pretty clear they were trying to avoid this situation.
That civil war in Ukraine was potentially going spill over, plus a hostile military force (and/or NATO troops) there is great lever to threaten Russia into submission. They could use any instability inside Russia (fueled by them) as a pretext to move weapons or troops into Russia proper. Just the threat of that could cause Russia to cave.
The US and EU look at eastern Europe as a great opportunity to exploit and plunder, and were trying to increase their grip on the region. In the case of Ukraine, they supported pro-western libs and Nazis to install thoroughly pro-western regime that would allow them to loot and plunder and station troops there.
You could argue that this became so big and generated so much blowback, that the US empire is now also looking at this as an existential problem (not existential for the US state really, but for the empire), but it didn't start out this way. They were just in the usual "crush resistance, expand influence, loot resources" mode, but they could just as easily have chosen to just wait and see and back off for now, without this causing any existential problem for them.