Nidheg/Russian invasion of Ukraine, Reasons
The main reason for the invasion is (as in many other military conflicts) historical revanchism multiplied by the desire of the dictator to sit in the warm presidential chair longer. More details below.
A little bit of history
One of the key points that was imprinted in the thinking of the population of Russia is the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was the event that gave ground for populist politicians to use the ideas of revanchism in order to get popular support. And for the last twenty years, the russian government, which has crushed all the media, has not tried to smooth it over, but rather supported this spark in the minds of people, reinforcing it with notes of resentment.
The scale of ambition often extends beyond the former borders of the Soviet Union itself, up to the borders of all the countries of the Warsaw Pact and even Fort Ross in America.
Georgian case
Moreover, resentment is an important component of this equation. It is what explains the aggressiveness of Russia’s actions. This was first clearly seen during the invasion of Georgia in 2008. Mikheil Saakashvili, who was elected after the Rose Revolution, was then president in Georgia. He introduced a series of near-libertarian reforms to the Georgian economy (a tribute to his finance minister Kakha Bendukidze, who was a libertarian), and led a massive anti-corruption campaign. And yes, he replaced the pro-Russian president, and this is again a slap in the face of the Kremlin.
And here you need to understand one important thing. Imperial revanchism from USSR is classic propaganda for the masses. For Russian officials, all these cries about “spheres of influence” and “geopolitics” are nothing more than convenient topics for collecting electoral points. The real problem was that a neighboring country with a similar historical background suddenly took... and was able to replace a corrupt president, implement reforms, and generally move away from the post-Soviet legacy. For the Kremlin, this example was unacceptable, as it showed people in Russia an example of how things could be. Therefore, it was extremely important for Putin’s team to interfere with Georgia, so fter shaking the situation in the border region, Russia began an intervention.
As a result, this led to the loss of territory by Georgia (by the way, it has not yet been annexed to Russia. Even after the recent referendum on accession, this is not Kherson for you), as well as economic consequences. Plus, the opportunity for Georgia to join NATO was closed due to the territorial dispute that emerged. As a result, the Kremlin achieved its goal - laid siege to a neighbor who tried to live better than Russia.
Ukraine, first Maidan
But the case with Georgia was the first use of force to achieve such goals. Back in 2004, the Orange Revolution took place in Ukraine. Why did people then come to the square “Maidan Nezalezhnosti”? You will be surprised, but then it was also because of Yanukovych. The Orange Revolution took place after it was announced that Yanukovych had previously won by a margin of 3%. As a result, people came out and began to demand an investigation into electoral fraud.
As a result, on December 3, 2004, the Supreme Court of Ukraine recognized that it was not possible to determine the winner, since the Central Election Commission violated six articles of the law on the CEC and eight of the law on presidential elections. Participants in the presidential campaign, according to the court, did not have equal access to the media, and officials of the executive branch and local self-government did not comply with the ban on election campaigning. As a result, the court considered it impossible to “establish the results of the real expression of the will of voters” and appointed the third round of elections for December 26, 2004. According to the results, the winner was ... Yushchenko. And the pro-Kremlin Yanukovych was left with nothing.
And here we see a case that is dangerous for the Kremlin. People resent unfair elections, and as a result, there are investigations and changes. The Kremlin could not have allowed Ukraine to start living well after such a turn (besides the fact that Yanukovych was a protege of the Kremlin, and Putin personally, which added personal resentment from the russian dictator). As a result, in the following years, Russia, through its agents of influence, imposed unprofitable gas deals on Ukraine, which destabilized the economy (as a result, after the investigation of gas deals, Yulia Tymoshenko went to jail).
Why didn’t Russia then use force using some pretext? In 2004, Russia was not ready, but ... began to prepare. As a result, Russia began to boost the separatists in Ukraine.
In 2004, after the revolution, the Donetsk Republic organization was formed out of Yanukovych’s fans.
Moreover, it was a rather specific sort of separatists who wanted not only separation, but also the territory of the neighboring region (they advocated the restoration of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog SSR).
Until 2007, they quite legally existed and broadcasted their ideas. Only later they were recognized as a terrorist organization, and as history has shown, not in vain. According to available information from social networks, it is known that since at least 2009, the activists of this organization have been training with military weapons in Russia, near Seliger.
Yes: years before Euromaidan, these people were already preparing for armed aggression, with direct support from russia.
Ukraine, second act: Euromaidan
In 2010, Yanukovych won the presidential elections in Ukraine. This time the elections were held without significant violations, so that he became president for the next 4 years. And he would have been president until the end of his term, if the agreement on association between Ukraine and the European Union had not happened at that time.
The Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine was supposed to serve as the economic integration of Ukraine into the European economy. From the Kremlin's perspective, it would have set a bad precedent: as in the case of Georgia, this could serve as an example that it is possible to get rid of the Soviet past and fully integrate into the world economy. And since Yanukovych was a de facto man of the Kremlin, as president he tried by all means to slow down the process of signing the treaty. In the end, when there were no more reasons to slow down, he simply froze the draft association agreement. Which in turn led to Euromaidan.
Initially, a small number of students and young people came to the square of Maidan Nezalezhnosti. They felt that the politicians in power were trying to turn the country around according to a pro-Russia scenario, according to which all Russia’s neighbors must live even worse than Russia. As a result, Yanukovych crossed the line from corrupt politician to dictator.
He begaan to disperse the protests as harshly as possible, which ultimately led to an escalation ... and eventually to his escape to ... Russia.
As a result, the situation for the Kremlin became even worse than with the hypothetical European integration. Not only was the dictator overthrown in the neighboring country, but also a huge trail of corrupt activities was revealed behind him. Plus, again, the protege of Russia was overthrown. Tsar Putin certainly could not forgive such a slap in the face to his dictatorial pride. As a result, at the snap of a finger, separatist cells became active in Ukraine, an example of which is the organization known as “Donetsk Republic”.
In the photo, for example, the future field commander of the DPR, who would later receive the call sign “Motorola”, at a pro-Russian rally in Kharkov. An important nuance here is that he came to this pro-Russian rally from Russia, from Rostov-on-Don. Thus creating for itself a casus belli, Russia simultaneously launched an intervention in Crimea and a hybrid war in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Moreover, the Kremlin prepared public opinion for the annexation of Crimea. As a result, this was presented to the population of Russia as a small victorious war, without a single shot being fired.
Crimea and ratings
The media treatment of Russian citizens at that time essentially laid the foundation for further intervention. And how?
That’s how. The shutdown of the Crimea allowed Putin to correct the existing drawdown in the rating. And the increased ratings led to a feeling of God’s chosenness among the standard corrupt dictator (it is worth noting separately that the ratings of opinion polls, although they reflect the dynamics, are usually very high due to the specificity of the audience that is usually ready to participate in such polls and the methods of conducting them). And this also explains to us the reason why we decided to try to repeat biting off a piece from a neighbor ...
Since 2015, Putin’s rating has been on a downward trend. The euphoria from the new territories subsided, but the effect of the imposed sanctions came. The effect is small, but significant. And since 2018, a pension reform has taken place in Russia, during which the retirement age has been raised. And Putin’s rating fell to a psychological mark for dictatorial regimes.
It is important to note here that the whole world then made the current situation acceptable by not putting pressure on Putin. Weak sanctions, combined with high electoral profits, told Putin that the method of rapid annexation is very convenient, since the benefits outweigh the consequences. So ... we can repeat it?
L/D-PR and 8 years
Meanwhile, a full-fledged hybrid war was going on in Ukraine. At that time, Russia completely denied its participation in the conflict on the territory of Ukraine. The equipment that appeared in the Donetsk separatists was explained by the fact that these were trophies recaptured from the Armed Forces of Ukraine. True, how could the Armed Forces of Ukraine have modifications of tanks that are only in service with Russia (such as the t-80bvm and t-72b3) or complex air defense systems, like the well-known the Buk.
/* to a word about a situation with a the buk. If we sum up the information received about the rocket that shot down the Boeing, we get an interesting situation. This rocket had an interesting life path, starting with storage at a military base in Ukraine. After the rocket as part of the the buk complexes was sold to Georgia. Where, in turn, was taken as a trophy by Russian troops. It is impossible to establish whether this the buk was intentionally sent to Donetsk or this coincidence. */
Now Russian politicians openly admit that yes, all these years our military and Wagner PMCs have been operating on the territory of Ukraine (a separate point is that PMCs are prohibited by law in Russia and the very existence of Wagner is a violation of the law). Troops clashed in Donetsk and Lugansk, weapons were supplied to the separatists, but just enough to prolong the conflict.
But what was the point of all these actions? And this could be understood by looking at the Russian media. In propaganda, they savored to the maximum “that Ukraine is now suffering having turned its back on Russia”, that now all the “evil Nazi-Jewish-Bandera” are there, etc. All these 8 years, Russia has been shedding the blood of people in order to prevent its neighbor from developing and creating endless newsbreaks for itself, diverting people’s attention from news inside the country. All the negativity was directed towards Ukraine and Ukrainians, with their gradual dehumanization.
As a result, over 8 years of such propaganda, this led to the birth of the “what’s with the Khokhols” meme, and the target audience gradually began to develop tolerance to this topic. And so, in the end, we are at that point in time when the Kremlin decided to increase the intensity of propaganda and try to repeat the Anschluss of Crimea, but in most of Ukraine. This, together with total miscalculations, has led to the fact that now we have a full-scale war.
propaganda and Kremlin miscalculations
And why did the Kremlin manage to miscalculate and goof off in this conflict? Decades of propaganda and sliding into totalitarianism have paid off. The consequence of sliding into totalitarianism was that the circle of officials around the president degenerated into a crowd of ass lickers who say exactly what Putin wants to hear, always only positive reports. And propaganda ... as it was said in one crime series, “a drug dealer should not use his own product.” Similarly, with propaganda, if you make propaganda and then draw conclusions based on it, then you simply lose touch with reality. The feedback mechanism is destroyed. As a result, Putin lives in a world of pink unicorns, where Russia is still the second army in the world (not even the third or fifth), Russia is doing great in the financial sector and industry (no) but in Ukraine entirely evil Banderas (no). It can be said that he breathed his propaganda into all his nostrils.
Conclusions. or briefly for those who do not want to read the whole text
In sum, we have in Russia a dictator with a background from the special services, who is stuck in a fictional world drawn by his own propaganda. This dictator wants to sit indefinitely and is afraid of losing power. And since he cannot develop the country even with such a huge amount of natural resources, he can only play in contrast with his neighbors. And this means that none of Russia’s neighbors should develop better than Russia. Otherwise, separatists arise, and pro-Russian parties begin to corrupt the economy.
Russia’s neighbors understand this. But they do not have a great choice: either accept the fate (as for example Belarus) or look for someone who will stand up for you. Georgia tried the second option, trying to join NATO, but did not have time. But Kazakhstan, under the nose of Russia, became friends with China. As a result, the Kremlin has only to look angrily at the democratic reforms of Tokaev (who literally destroys the personality cult of the previous president. Exactly what Putin is afraid of).
Ukraine did not want to put up with the endless backlog of the post-USSR, but did not have time to enlist the guarantees of those who would instantly give Russia in the nose in case of war.
A little bit about NATO
It may seem strange to libertarians from the same USA, but in Eastern Europe they have a positive attitude towards NATO. And based on the above, the reader can guess why. Without NATO membership and the resulting mutual assistance, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland would have long suffered under Russia’s “neighbourly embrace”. And these countries, in contrast to NATO, remember membership in the Warsaw Pact (the Warsaw Pact organization created by the USSR). Unlike NATO, membership in the Warsaw Pact was not voluntary. There were countries on which the Soviet zone of occupation spread after the Second World War. And as a result, everyone understands that NATO is a necessity. And it turns out quite even in a libertarian way - if you are small and weak in order to resist the Leviathan, then simply unite in an agreement with others of the same kind. That is why Putin is NATO’s best PR man.
Q&A
-NATO provoked Putin!!!(?)
One of the favorite motifs of Putin’s propaganda. Did NATO actually provoke Putin? No. and most clearly seen that before 2014, NATO spending was falling, and the countries of Eastern Europe and France were thinking about whether it makes sense for them to be in NATO. But then the Crimean Anshlyuz- and all again value their membership in NATO. Thus, Putin turned out to be the best PR man for NATO. But would it be necessary for NATO if it were not for him? History shows that it is not.
If Putin wanted to destroy NATO, then instead of seizing the Crimea, he would only have to wait a couple of years in silence, and NATO itself would have collapsed.
-is there any persecution of the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine? Maidan and the Russian language.
No. This is also a lie promoted by Russian propaganda. There is no persecution of the Russian language in Ukraine, as well as of the Russians themselves. Moreover, up to 50% of the Azov Battalion are Russians, and 15% of them even still have Russian passports. For them, this war became the confrontation of the modern Western world against the new incarnation of USSR, and they chose their side.
There was also no harassment on the basis of language or nationality on the Maidan. This can even be witnessed by 2 members of the Libertarian Party of Russia who were on the Maidan.
Maidan is a project of the CIA and the US State Department! (?)
No. Maidan did not happen because of some ill will from the United States. Everything happened due to the fact that in an attempt to move from presidency to dictatorship, Yanukovych (and he is more likely an agent of the Kremlin and not the CIA) used such harsh methods that for Ukrainians the issue of his overthrow became a matter of honor and principle.
Not the CIA gave the order to the riot police to beat the students in the blood. It wasn’t the CIA who put snipers on the roof to fire on the protesters.
NATO is building military bases around Russia! (?)
Another thesis copied cleanly from Russian propaganda. Usually, belief in this thesis is accompanied by a person’s ignorance of geography and the inability to read maps. For example, it is usually silent that NATO military bases on the southern borders of Russia were built for logistics to Afghanistan, and at the moment many have already been abandoned. The second extremely important point related to the previous one is that even in Russia, in the city of Ulyanovsk, until recently there was a NATO logistics military base.
If at the same time you think that NATO is really hostile to Russia, then how do you think they allowed the construction of this military base and the passage of logistics through the territory of Russia?
-Is referendum in Crimea legitimate?
No. Moreover, for two facts. First, Putin’s authoritarianism over the years has learned to imitate democracy. In elections in Russia, there is almost no talk of real democratic procedures.
No one is investigating violations, and the election results by precincts so cause laughter among fans of the theory of probability. Secondly, a referendum held at gunpoint is, by definition, not democratic.
Agree, when such a machine gunner looks at you at a polling station, there are not many options.
Alternative causes
Of the alternative prerequisites for starting a war, one cannot fail to mention the gas-related theory, which is particularly popular with Russian neo-reactionists. The bottom line is that Russia’s strength is based on the export of oil and gas. Russia perceives this as a near-monopoly position in the market, with the ability to dictate its will to Europe. Ukraine, in this regard, was a potential problem. In particular, in the Crimea, which Russia first captured, there were explored gas reserves. Which could give Ukraine the possibility of energy independence from a neighbor. And this is the reason why the Crimea was taken away first. Donetsk and Luhansk became targets for a reason, they were areas where it was promising to produce shale gas.
That is... this whole war is an attempt by a monopolist to maintain its monopoly by the method of aggressive violence.
If some Kremlintarian from the “Mises” PAC is reading this
As a sidenote, I would like to address the members of the US LP Mises caucus. The zeal with which the Kremlin propaganda is being replicated in your environment raises many questions for us. But much worse is the fact that from your words it follows that the desire for freedom among the inhabitants of other countries can appear only as a result of the influence of the CIA. In that case, you must be consistent - if the CIA encourages the desire for freedom in the world, then they are doing a good deed /*sarcasm*/. But all the same, it is more likely THAT PEOPLE ON THEIR OWN STRIVE FOR THE VALUES OF DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM.
It also looks extremely strange that people who some time ago defended the procession in Charlottesville ... shout about the Nazis in Ukraine. I will tell you a secret, but from the outside, at such moments you look like people who envy Ukrainian alt-rights. You envy them that they are respected by their people, and you are not in yours. Try to think about the reasons for this difference.
That’s all!
—Nidheg, LPR Chairborne, January 17, 2023
