What does Putin really want? My theory about the war in Ukraine

originally posted by: face23785
Also, to everyone responding with variations on "you can't tell the truth to a dictator," yes we've all heard the cliche. That's a very surface-level take.

As I already mentioned, what's worse than telling a dictator the truth is telling him a lie that gets him embarrassed on the world stage.

So what is your explanation of Putin arresting and purging over 150 FSB officers for failing to give him proper intel, including the head.

originally posted by: randomuser

originally posted by: face23785
Also, to everyone responding with variations on "you can't tell the truth to a dictator," yes we've all heard the cliche. That's a very surface-level take.

As I already mentioned, what's worse than telling a dictator the truth is telling him a lie that gets him embarrassed on the world stage.

So what is your explanation of Putin arresting and purging over 150 FSB officers for failing to give him proper intel, including the head.

This "gotcha" attempt would be a good move if I claimed to know everything about the internal workings of Russia's government and Putin's intentions/actions.

I didn't.

I will point out that, as far as I can tell, the only source for that story are "leaks" from the FSB. It's worth noting that intelligence agencies sometimes "leak" information to further a disinformation agenda, which is precisely what I am alleging is happening in my OP.

It also lends credence to what I said earlier. The simple analysis of "you can't tell the truth to a dictator" is based on a fairy tale where once you lie to him and tell him what you want to hear, you are safe. You would be in much more danger after your lies lead him to take a disastrous action.

You guys are contending that these intelligence agents thought they had to tell him what he wanted to hear so they would be safe after the bad info led him into a disaster?

That is yet another contradiction in the official narrative. It makes no sense.

I am curious what your explanation is for the other contradictions in the official narrative that I noted in the OP? I talked about 4 of them. I'm sure there's more. #1 and 2 are particularly glaring, imo. Why do you think the official narrative contradicts itself in such a manner? The truth usually doesn't hold any contradictions.

a reply to: face23785

Why no tactical nuclear weapons.

Because they don't exist? It's just a great, big propaganda lie - impossible to prove one way or another, but when you look at the 'evidence', you realize how FLIMSY it is. The videos are completely 'unreal' (and many look like they just pointed the camera at the sun), clouds do not move one millimeter in a nuclear blast, even the famous Japanese cities being supposedly 'blown up by nukes' look exactly, EXACTLY like the cities that have been firebombed; buildings and trees still stand (though not supposed to be able to), there are people HAPPILY LIVING in those cities although it was supposed to be a 'nuclea radiation wasteland for 10000 years' and so on.

This either proves that cities CAN be 'safely bombed' with nukes, (so why hasn't ANYONE used a nuke after that??) or that nukes were just a big fake propaganda thing of 'we have a fantastic SUPERweapon, don't question the official story' to make certain countries and governments seem more powerful and people fear those countries and governments.. 'We better obey, as they can always push the button'.

What if that button does nothing and nuclear bombs can't even exist the way they're depicted?

Just asking.

In ANY case, as far as the core message of your topic is concerned, I don't know anything or have any facts, BUT I have felt very strange about this whole Ukraine vs. Putin-thing ever since it started. Something doesn't sit right, there's something powerfully fishy about this whole affair and how it has been reported in mainstream media. The narrative makes no sense, and it's scary how people automatically cheer for Ukraine and hate Russia and Putin without asking questions or questioning the narrative from the source that was JUST proven to have been lying to them for decades.

That's the scariest thing about it - how people are so easily swayed in their superficial opinions about things, how no one does any research, because 'why would the TV lie to me' and 'their research has to be better quality than some individual's research' and so on. It's a headshaking and facepalming situation, but it's also really scary.. we live amidst stupid sheeple that can be EASILY manipulated to attack and turn on you at any second, and most people don't even realize this, which makes it even more scary.

The official story is either always, or almost always a lie or at least an enormous exaggeration. I won't talk about the other 'official stories', because neutral, pragmatic research and familiarizing yourself with the facts and then comparing those facts to the 'evidence' we have been presented, then processing it all through the 'official story' narrative and bit by bit, proving to yourself whether it happened the way we were told or not, tends to cause RIDICULOUS emotional backlash for some reason.

You are simply not allowed to even ask questions about CERTAIN official stories. There are big taboos in this 'world of free speech' and 'free world where anyone can be anything they want'. There are surprising other taboos as well, but I might write a post about those later. Just to give an example, you are not allowed to like cloudy weather, this makes people angry for some reason.

It's amazing to me how the same people talk about individuality and freedom, while getting really angry if anyone is GENUINELY individualistic, unique or uses their freedom to have an actual opinion that might not align with the opinion you are SUPPOSED to have. This goes from VERY mundane things all the way to the 'official stories'.

People speak flowery words about freedom, speech, human values and all that, but when you question their 'normie-thinking', their brainwashing is revealed. You are COMPLETELY FREE, as long as you only use this freedom to have the same values and opinions that the masses are programmed to have, and if you blindly believe everything the governments verbally spew to your face.

This whole Ukraine-thing really should open people's eyes that there's something wrong about simplifying a complex situation to 'the good guys and Putin'. I don't know exactly WHAT, but something is VERY wrong about the whole dichotomy and the mainstream narratives about these things, Ukraine vs. Putin is just ONE tiny link in the ENORMOUS chain of disinformation and lies from TPTB, designed to keep people in a certain state of mind, thinking certain kind of thoughts, and NEVER QUESTIONING certain big lies.

So I hate to bump my own thread, but I read an article in Foreign Affairs about how bad Russia's invasion has been.

Ironically, in it, there are actually several parts that support my thread here and apparently don't cause any of these people to even broach the question of whether our intelligence is wrong.

Four paragraphs in, the authors describe a successful invasion strategy. They then follow with this:

Russia knows these principles well. Indeed, the Soviet Union perfected many of them over the course of decades, and the post-Soviet Russian military inherited and further developed these doctrines to conduct large-scale mechanized warfare.

It's worth noting that the post-Soviet experience includes plenty of military action under Putin's direction. It's not like he is new to this, or that the Russian military is.

Of course these big thinkers don't even ask the question: "So why have they abandoned successful strategy for an obviously flawed strategy?"

Then there's this gem, my emphasis:

Instead, Russia assigned its premier armored force—the 1st Guards Tank Army, which is optimized for a rapid offensive using tanks and armored personnel carriers—to attack the eastern city of Sumy, about 190 miles from Kyiv. Conquering Kyiv was then entrusted to the troops of the Eastern Military District, the one with the least-trained and worst-equipped mechanized forces.

So they really believe that the Russians sending some of their worst forces towards Kyiv supports the narrative that Russia's objective was to capture Kyiv? This just supports my OP's supposition that the "advance" toward Kyiv was all for show and that they never intended to capture it and the western part of Ukraine. Under no circumstances would the Russians send their worst forces after their main objective. Even if you believe Putin was "being lied to," it's common sense that the capital will be the most heavily defended area. No amount of lying intelligence officers could convince him to send some of his weakest units to Kyiv if Kyiv was his main goal. It's just beyond credulity.

Moving right along:

The natural path for Russian forces looking to encircle Ukrainian troops in the pocket around Popasna, Rubizhne, and Severodonetsk would be to advance from Izyum southeast toward Slovyansk, and from the area around Russian-occupied Debaltseve northwest along the same highway to Slovyansk. But although Russian forces around Izyum have been trying to drive toward Slovyansk, they have somewhat oddly begun pushing out to the west, away from the rest of the Russian forces operating in the Donbas rather than toward them.

So we have repeated examples of things these experts can't seem to explain and that don't conform to what we know about Russian military doctrine. What conclusions do they draw from this?

It suggests that the Russians have truly forgotten everything they and their Soviet predecessors ever knew about how to fight mechanized warfare on a large scale.

That's real in-depth thinking guys. The idea that maybe our intelligence is wrong (when has that ever happened, right?) or that Russia has an alternative goal doesn't even occur to them.

Putin is just doing his part in the main plan of the fascist/islamist conspiracy. Concretely this crisis in Ukraine seems designed to escalate into a bigger war that destroys much of Europe.

a reply to: chris_stibrany
a reply to: face23785



My theory is that he wants extra tech to wind up in Ukraine to advance Russian technology. By delaying his ideals, we have sent drones, missle defense systems and more to ordinary civilians in Ukraine who don't think twice about leaving an empty missle launcher behind when pulling back or advancing.

If you think and pay close attention you will see unknown systems that don't have a country of "recorded" origin has come online. So my idea is that he sends advancements on troops to distract and reroute the Ukraine defensive once a majority of tech is essentially out of ammo, then sends salvage teams to retrieve it. Which gets reversed engineered, and rebuilt by the Russians. (P.s salvage teams are small in number 5-10 people, if you have been paying attention that is the average capture numbers in Ukraine, simply because they went to early, or some stayed behind to tend injured.)

If you think about it this way, this stalemate is intentional, everyone knows Russian population divided in half still leaves 4 to 1 Ukraine, and if you do the same to Ukraine it's up words of 5-8 to 1(which counts for elderly, disabled, children, and those that already fled the country). Because now UK, Canada, Germany and the US are getting ready to deliver heavy artillery like tanks with the newest tech to Ukraine.

Since it's not being piloted by our soldiers who would destroy the actual systems or completely disable them I.e ripping out chips, on purpose to avoid the "bad guys" from getting it. All we are doing is handing off technology to Russia. As Ukraine has no use for tech when it's out of ammo since they can't develope more.

In the end, should this escalate further we will be at war with our own technology.


If you consider every country was sending them money not equipment at first.. peace talks were a thing. Several attempts were made until Boris Johnson stepped in and said no, don't do it we will send equipment for you to fight them. Then the war continues without a glimmer of hope for a resolve.

As long as we send equipment and better and better technology Russia doesn't have.. it will be worth it to them to keep this war going. Because this will give Russia serious technological boost simply by reverse engineering it. But y'all can think what you want. I am pretty sure that Putin is smart enough to realize this.

But you all keep thinking it's about just control. No, it might of started as control at first. But as time went on and we started supplying equipment Russia realized that every country in the world who opposes them is handing over their technology, free of charge. This gives the Russians huge advancement in tech they couldn't otherwise get.


At this point all he has to do is launch a missle every six weeks and he gets access to all of our crap. Ukraine IS NOT Winning this period. We are all falling into a spider trap, by handing over military equipment to our enemies. P.s no country outside of Ukraine will attack Russia directly unless they use nukes, so it's not really much of a challenge. Losses are expected and probably even planned, because to die for ones country is honor and pride to everyone who would fight for it.

In all honesty I am surprised people believe that the "officers" captured and killed are even real officers, instead of those sacrificing themselves for their country's, because as we have seen it's not hard to erase or create someone's history for(Dr. Robert Malone is prime example.. along with thousands of not millions of pages of data disappearing from the internet archives) greater good and advancement of ones country.

I want to point out one thing that will solidify my case, Russia has destroyed their own submarines "accidently", air fields and more (sorry civilians are not as capable to pick up military tech and manage to magically and accurately pinpoint strike a Russian base from cross borders. These are planned losses.). Chances are some of the bases destroyed were ghost armies. This gets the dumbest people on board thinking Ukraine actually has a chance. (Look it up, we used it repeatedly against the Nazi regime). Who's to say Russia isn't doing the same?. This would be clear mental warfare, not just brutal force. I believe Russia has learned from the tactics we use to use on them that countered them in ww2. These destroyed images can look as real as they want to be. Hell we use to have recordings that would be so loud you could hear it 8 miles away for our ghost armies. Looked real too, and guess what it was enough for us to backdoor the opposition.

So if you don't think they remember these tips and tricks, your dead wrong. It cost them the last war. It's not hard to throw in some panelling, tubing, an old car engine snap a picture and call it a tank that was destroyed and release it as reported losses.. hell they are probably using a non-protected radio channel with easy to "break codes" just to push the belief further. Just like we did to them.

I tend to agree with the OP. A couple of observations;'
It seems Russia is using up all their "junk" and worst soldiers in this.
We were sending "junk" at first, now it's starting to be the good stuff.
Maybe we run out of junk before them is part of the plan?

The only logical sane negotiated end that could happen at this point is everyone keeps the territory they have & stop shooting.

Russia needs a warm water port, best they have is Crimea. I don't think their access to Crimea was ideal, I agree the coast & Odessa are the goals.

I also believe we (not me) wanted Russia to do this, and did everything we could to get this to happen. For what end, I'm not sure. Ukraine seems to be the vehicle for all kinds of money laundering, human trafficking, biolab shenanigans, who knows what else. Those Russian missiles hit file cabinets sometimes, and now there's no evidence.

We also have a house of cards mortgaged to the hilt over here that a nice big war would help to start over.

I can only be sure of what it's NOT, which is what CNN says it IS.

a reply to: bounder

I said that it's a technology grab, Russia has zero intentions of ending this when they get our tech which is handed to civilians that don't care about what happens to it when it is out of ammo.

See selling secrets is treason, but giving prototypes and creations is not. We have been trading secrets with our allies this way to get around the treason rules for generations.

I would be more inclined to say this war we want so bad between Russia and a country no one really cares about is more of a payoff to keep Russia quiet about what was really on those laptops of Bidens kid. What really goes on in those labs, and the fact it probably contained real military secrets. We have no idea of what was on those laptops, a gb can hold over 1000mb of data or 1000000kb of data and even the dictionary is only like 300kb, and those hard drives can go up to what 500terabytes? Who knows how big the hard drive really is since our military only lets 25year old tech into public use/knowledge.

One thing is for certain though, Russians are true to their word. Which is why they are constantly quiet about the crap they claim they found.. aka the payoffs are real.

When the world runs out of oil, gas, food, fertilizer, graphene(shungite). How rich do you think Russia is going to become, when sanctions get lifted because of the dire need for supply? Insanely rich..

The NATURAL graphene supply alone that's harvested for pennies.. verses creating it.. is enough to make them the richest country in the world considering all the advancements in graphene green technology. (Look into it, your about to be wowed..)

Russia ain't doing bad when you consider most of our exports go to China. Then china sells them to whomever they want, and don't have sanctions on Russia.

The other interesting thing is most countries don't take our products, period. So they again really aren't losing anything. But it can be spun however you want to. Oh look no American milk in their stores.. well news flash, even Africa won't touch our milk they rather have their people starve.

a reply to: face23785

I think your ideas are closer to the truth of the situation and have aged very well.

What people are overlooking is that Putin's original offensive actually did work like a charm. He got the Ukrainians to the negotiating table and they agreed to a peace deal, which seems to have been the plan (he certainly didn't have the manpower in place to do what the west claimed). It was the west that stopped it, they have put too many resources into this over too many years for that to happen. This was a miscalculation on his part (thinking the west would ever allow a peace deal), they obviously don't care about the Ukraine, only their own agendas.

For the most part Putin already has what he wants. He has most of the ethnic Russian speaking areas (though he might eventually take other southern regions like Odessa when he thinks the time is right) which are also valuable in other ways. He doesn't want the rest of Ukraine (why would he, that will only amount to a huge headache for him), but he will make sure that it remains unaligned with the west militarily, and never again used in a way that is hostile to Russia.

Another result is that there has been a massive geopolitical and economic shift (away from the "west") that has gained momentum amongst the other 85% of the world (the "non west").

a reply to: face23785

If you look at Russia's moves with regard to the Next Great solar minimum. and consider that the Baltic might freeze over. Arable land would be a great incentive. It's only the West pushing global warming. In the great cycle of things, an ice-bound Vladivostok only leaves the Black Sea as an all-weather port. The long game?

Putin admits Ukraine invasion is an imperial war to “return” Russian land

Much more at: www.atlanticcouncil.org...

a reply to: carewemust

Very first line of the article:

Throughout the past few months, Vladimir Putin has offered up all manner of outlandish excuses for his invasion of Ukraine.

So he's said the war is for all kinds of different reasons, but only the one that aligns with what you believe is what he really meant?

Putin has made plenty of mistakes in this. I doubt he anticipated the expansion of NATO. But in the end he's gonna have those southeastern provinces of Ukraine, which I still believe is all he wanted.

Imagine if maybe the British should follow Russian logic - and begin a special operation in neighboring Republic of Ireland because:

a) they have expressed interest in joining The Collective Security Treaty Organization,

b) have a large English speaking population

c) they have a large British diaspora with British passports

d) they have a right wing nationalist militia called the IRA

e) it was once a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

d) they have a right wing nationalist militia called the IRA

a reply to: AuditTheAudit

The IRA is Marxist -Leninist in political outlook

Intent was not only driving Brits out, but creating a communist state (Ie Cuba) in both the North and Irish republic

a reply to: face23785

transcript

 1991 in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, representatives of the party elite of that time made a decision to terminate the Soviet Union, without asking ordinary citizens what they wanted, and people suddenly found themselves cut off from their homeland. This tore apart and dismembered our national community and triggered a national catastrophe. Just like the government quietly demarcated the borders of Soviet republics, acting behind the scenes after the 1917 revolution, the last leaders of the Soviet Union, contrary to the direct expression of the will of the majority of people in the referendum of 1991, destroyed our great country, and simply made the people in the former republics face this as an accomplished fact.

I can admit that they didn’t even know what they were doing and what consequences their actions would have in the end. But it doesn't matter now. There is no Soviet Union anymore; we cannot return to the past. Actually, Russia no longer needs it today; this isn’t our ambition. But there is nothing stronger than the determination of millions of people who, by their culture, religion, traditions, and language, consider themselves part of Russia, whose ancestors lived in a single country for centuries. There is nothing stronger than their determination to return to their true historical homeland.

I know - this is hypothetical

a reply to: firerescue

a reply to: AuditTheAudit

The IRA was never right wing.

I know it’s hypothetical hence the usage of “imagine” Jesus christ 🙄 the education levels are lacking

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

a reply to: AuditTheAudit

Perhaps you might have made that clearer?