There were many factors. The war in Afghanistan, obviously the one you mention, (the pressure of the Cold War in keeping up with the West), the social pressures from the Russian people becoming increasingly more aware of the outside world, the economic pressures based on failed marxist policies and corruption, the pressures from the republics that didn't want to be Soviet (Baltic states, Ukraine, Chechnya etc,) and of the client states who didn't want to be client states (East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania etc.). Some of those factors, and in particular the military and economic ones, are just as relevant today for Russia.
Indeed and the bordering non-Western European countries should take this opportunity of the weakend Rvssia to grab the territories with all the minerals and the ones being under authoritarian Pootin supported rule should take the chance to get rid of them. We should be actively stirring things up on the Rvssian borders to make them either weaken their efforts in the Ukraine or losing territories they actually can't afford to lose.
A close friend of ours' family fled Pinochet's Chile. First to Spain, then to the US. She never really likes to talk about it. Must have been very painful. This guy's family also. He just hosted SNL and mentioned it in his monologue.
Weiss's podcast has some interesting indepth interviews I caught up with one where they looked at the China angle. According to some sources, China has hung Russia out to dry. China basically has no interest in the outcome of the conflict, except they do not want nukes under any circumstances. Putin seems to have badly miscalculated on that relationship.
That assessment makes no sense. If that was true, what's this about then? https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-aids-russias-war-in-ukraine-trade-data-shows-11675466360 China knows that they are next after Russia. Here's an uncomfortable truth : China won't allow Russia to lose in Ukraine.
What else can the west throw at them? I think we're moving the goal posts. The initial objectives were to crash their economy, reduce the "Ruble to rubble" and stop their ability to wage war. In that regard, the sanctions aren't working and any serious economist are saying the same Are they affecting Russia's overall revenues? Of course they are but not to the point of achieving the goals we set. Worst, it embolden Global South nations to go their own way and seek to reduce their reliance on the Western financial system (or try to exit it) and exit the USD.
I had neighbors from Chile in my childhood. I presume that they were refugees from the Pinochet regime.
So we're going to see Chinese soldiers in the Donbass? Chinese missiles/granades/tanks? What do you mean with next? Ukraine invading them?
Projecting much? Russia losing in Ukraine is in China’s best interest as it turns Russia into a secondary player and subservient to China. Given how resource rich Russia is and how resource poor China is, having a subservient Russia means China can start developing land connections between Russia and China and eliminate their biggest national security weakness… That being that they are easily cut-off from resources because they ship everything into their country through the S China Sea that US allies control the access to.
No, the next step after providing parts for Russia's arm manufacturing needs would be for China to start using theirs and send weapons if NATO were to step in in my opinion Or something like this Moscow and Tehran are moving ahead with plans to build a new factory in Russia that could make at least 6,000 drones https://www.wsj.com/articles/moscow...cility-in-russia-11675609087?mod=hp_lead_pos8
Hard diplomacy reset and get more of the Global South to get along with the sanctions, not sending Yellen or diplomats and use threats. What's been made painfully obvious is that the West ability to paralyze a countries economy is somewhat proportional to how many global south nations you can get on board. China and Russia did sanction the likes of Iran and North Korea at some point. Or I could be wrong and we keep trying to add more layers of sanctions like nuclear and other commodities but gotta be careful to drag Europe along with them
China has demonstrated tons of patience and their political structures aren't tied to "mandates" and having the next election in mind. You're not wrong "long term" but short to medium term, China needs Russia's resources and military especially in the eventuality of a war against the US.
You realize China is dependent on Dutch ASML machines to produce chips and are on the edge of being denied the acquisition of the Deep UV machines, the next best level machines available in the world (the best machines are the Extreme UV machines of ASML, China isnot allowed to buy). So it sure as hell is the most brilliant strategic move to send weapons to a country that invaded and brought war into the European continent. If you think that will happen, I suggest you buy asap anything you need that has advanced chips in it, like a new smartphone or a new tv etc., because China willnot be able to produce those chips needed for western consumer products if that what you say happens.
We may have already discussed this so apologies if I missed it…but can someone explain to me the strategic importance of Bahkmut?
For Ukraine? It's part of Ukraine. That's enough. You can't just say "this part is hard to hold so we will back up" because Russia will move up and just make a new attack on the new front and you get hard fighting all over again. Eventually you run out of places to retreat to. Bahkmut has a slight elevation advantage over the local terrain, and if you retreat from there they will have a elevation disadvantage at all points back to the Dnipro. This affects things like artillery range. But it's not a big amount. For Russia? You can't take Kramatorsk and Sloviansk without taking Bahkmut and they want to take Kramatorsk and Sloviansk.
In any event Russia and China are both nuclear nations. Sure Russia can lose the territory it stole in Ukraine - but that is it. There is no way either Russia or China can be 'next'
It has none. For Putin it seems to be mostly symbolic - he is on the 'offensive' and as @spejic points out, the road to Kramatorsk and Sloviansk lies through Bahkmut. But the problem is he doesn't have the other arm of the offensive since he lost critical territory during Ukraine's Kharkiv offensive. For Ukraine - there is nothing really better to do. They have to defend the front somewhere, so it might as well be at Bahkmut.
Ehhhhh. This was true before the Kharkiv counteroffensive… Bakhmut falls and the Ukrainians will have problems holding Siversk and if Siversk falls, the flank of the Ukrainians pushing in Kreminna is exposed and, most likely, has to retreat.