Understanding Putin’s Motivations Behind the Ukraine Invasion

[Social Media]

 

In a recent Q&A with Penn Today, Michael C. Horowitz, director of Perry World House and the Richard Perry Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, provides deep insights into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s motivations behind the large-scale attack on Ukraine. This aggressive move has not only shattered peace in Europe but also sparked global condemnation and severe sanctions. Horowitz, an expert on international politics and military power, sheds light on Putin's expansionist views, the timing of the invasion, and the implications of his nuclear threats.

 

Why Invade Ukraine Now?

When questioned about the timing of the invasion, Horowitz asserts that the crisis is a product of Putin’s own making. The Biden administration’s information indicates that Putin meticulously engineered the situation to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The specific timing, however, seems influenced by practical considerations: the winter weather in Ukraine, which is favorable for military operations involving tracked vehicles like tanks, and the conclusion of the Olympics, ensuring that the invasion does not overshadow China’s event.

 

The Threat of an Independent Ukraine

Horowitz emphasizes that Putin perceives an independent, democratic Ukraine as a significant threat to his regime and to Russia. Putin’s decision to counter this perceived threat with overwhelming military force stems from his belief that Ukraine's democratic evolution could inspire similar movements within Russia, undermining his autocratic rule. This view aligns with Putin’s broader disdain for the post-Soviet order and his desire to restore Russia’s influence to what he perceives as its former glory during the Soviet era.

 

Expansionist Goals and Soviet Nostalgia

Putin’s ambitions extend beyond Ukraine. Horowitz notes that Putin harbors maximalist goals of reestablishing Russia’s status akin to its Cold War power. In a recent speech to his National Security Council, Putin suggested that all post-Soviet states should be considered part of Russia, indicating his broader territorial ambitions. This rhetoric and action reveal a desire to not only reclaim lost influence but also to secure his legacy as the leader who restored Russia’s might.

 

Nuclear Threats and NATO’s Role

The nuclear threat posed by Putin is a critical concern. Horowitz explains that while the Biden administration has ruled out direct military intervention in Ukraine, Putin’s implied nuclear threats are consistent with Russia’s strategic doctrine. Russia views its nuclear arsenal as a counterbalance to its conventional military inferiority compared to NATO and the United States. Thus, in a direct conflict with NATO, Russia might resort to nuclear weapons to avoid losing a conventional war. However, in the Ukraine context, the nuclear threat is primarily a deterrent against external intervention.

 

Visuals of War and Historical Parallels

The invasion’s visuals, reminiscent of past European wars, are startling. Horowitz highlights that this is the largest land invasion in Europe since World War II, underscoring its potential scale and impact. While war has persisted globally, large-scale territorial conquests have diminished over the past 75 years. The invasion of Ukraine represents a stark return to such aggression, driven by a combination of Russian weakness and ambition.

 

Predicting Future Developments

The future of the conflict remains uncertain. Horowitz outlines possible scenarios: Putin might attempt to consolidate control over the entire country, facing inevitable insurgencies, or install a puppet government, withdrawing forces to eastern provinces. Both strategies would likely encounter significant resistance from Ukrainians determined to reclaim their sovereignty.

 

The Role of Leadership in International Politics

Horowitz stresses the importance of leadership in international politics, particularly in autocratic regimes like Russia. Putin’s personal control over the Russian political system means that his whims heavily influence Russian foreign policy. Unlike democratic leaders, who are often constrained by political checks and balances, autocratic leaders like Putin can act unilaterally, leading to unpredictable and rapid developments in international crises.

 

The Efficacy of Sanctions and International Response

The effectiveness of sanctions in deterring Russia’s actions depends on multiple factors, including the severity of sanctions and the global community’s ability to reduce reliance on Russian resources. Although the Russian economy is suffering, Putin appears indifferent to the resulting hardships faced by Russian citizens. He likely hopes that Western resolve will wane before the economic pain forces him to reconsider his strategy. However, Horowitz believes this is a miscalculation, as the international community remains committed to supporting Ukraine and punishing Russian aggression.

 

The Crucial Takeaway

Ultimately, Horowitz urges people to recognize the gravity of the situation: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is driven by Putin’s desire to expand Russian influence and power. While various explanations exist for Putin’s actions, the responsibility for the invasion rests squarely on his shoulders. The crisis, manufactured by Putin, has catastrophic implications for countless individuals, highlighting the dire need for a robust international response.

In summary, Michael C. Horowitz provides a comprehensive analysis of Vladimir Putin’s motivations behind the Ukraine invasion. Putin’s actions, rooted in a desire to reassert Russian dominance and counter perceived threats from a democratic Ukraine, have led to one of the most significant conflicts in Europe since World War II. As the world watches, the international community must navigate the complex dynamics of sanctions, military strategy, and diplomatic efforts to address this unprecedented crisis.

 

 

 

Credit: Penn Today 2024-05-20

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

[Gweiloman]

I wonder how many times this Horowitz guy has met Putin. I’ll wager none. He’s (Horowitz)an idiot and Putin doesn’t meet with idiots lol.

[RayC]

11 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

I wonder how many times this Horowitz guy has met Putin. I’ll wager none. He’s (Horowitz)an idiot and Putin doesn’t meet with idiots lol.

 

Why do you consider Horowitz to be an idiot? He presents a well-reasoned argument.

 

Churchill never met Hitler, but that didn't prevent Churchill forming the correct opinion of Hitler. 

[Gweiloman]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

Why do you consider Horowitz to be an idiot? He presents a well-reasoned argument.

 

Churchill never met Hitler, but that didn't prevent Churchill forming the correct opinion of Hitler. 

Because in my opinion, his conclusions are all wrong. To me,  he’s just another western mouthpiece, possibly funded by those who has an agenda.

[rabas]

12 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

I wonder how many times this Horowitz guy has met Putin. I’ll wager none. He’s (Horowitz)an idiot and Putin doesn’t meet with idiots lol.

 

Very impressive. Horowitz is right on every point.  The interview [here] was on February 24, 2022 the first day of the war. He knew.

 

[rabas]

12 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

I wonder how many times this Horowitz guy has met Putin. I’ll wager none. He’s (Horowitz)an idiot and Putin doesn’t meet with idiots lol.

 

Talk to Putin? Why?

 

Russia has been the world's most prolific manufacturer of weaponized propaganda for 100+ years. Greatly improved by Putin. You stand as testimony. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

[Gweiloman]

11 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Very impressive. Horowitz is right on every point.  The interview [here] was on February 24, 2022 the first day of the war. He knew.

 

 

10 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Talk to Putin? Why?

 

Russia has been the world's most prolific manufacturer of weaponized propaganda for 100+ years. Greatly improved by Putin. You stand as testimony. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

He is forming an opinion of Putin’s intentions, based on his (Horowitz’s) own interpretation of events and information from tainted sources.

 

For eg, in the first para:

When questioned about the timing of the invasion, Horowitz asserts that the crisis is a product of Putin’s own making. The Biden administration’s information indicates that Putin meticulously engineered the situation to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

What does he mean a crisis of Putin’s own making? This crisis was forced on Russia.

 

From the second para:

Horowitz emphasizes that Putin perceives an independent, democratic Ukraine as a significant threat to his regime and to Russia. 

Total nonsense. Ukraine is an irrelevant country on the global stage. Most people probably never even heard of it before the conflict started. It is its geographical location that has brought it into focus.

 

3rd para:

Putin’s ambitions extend beyond Ukraine. Horowitz notes that Putin harbors maximalist goals of reestablishing Russia’s status akin to its Cold War power.

Just repeating more western propaganda. At this point, I didn’t bother reading anymore as he has nothing original to say.

 

I noticed you like to quote Wikipedia as if it’s unbiased and factual in all instances. It is in fact full of western propaganda and disinformation. In your own words, you stand as testimony.

[still kicking]

6 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

 

He is forming an opinion of Putin’s intentions, based on his (Horowitz’s) own interpretation of events and information from tainted sources.

 

For eg, in the first para:

When questioned about the timing of the invasion, Horowitz asserts that the crisis is a product of Putin’s own making. The Biden administration’s information indicates that Putin meticulously engineered the situation to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

What does he mean a crisis of Putin’s own making? This crisis was forced on Russia.

 

From the second para:

Horowitz emphasizes that Putin perceives an independent, democratic Ukraine as a significant threat to his regime and to Russia. 

Total nonsense. Ukraine is an irrelevant country on the global stage. Most people probably never even heard of it before the conflict started. It is its geographical location that has brought it into focus.

 

3rd para:

Putin’s ambitions extend beyond Ukraine. Horowitz notes that Putin harbors maximalist goals of reestablishing Russia’s status akin to its Cold War power.

Just repeating more western propaganda. At this point, I didn’t bother reading anymore as he has nothing original to say.

 

I noticed you like to quote Wikipedia as if it’s unbiased and factual in all instances. It is in fact full of western propaganda and disinformation. In your own words, you stand as testimony.

Are you Russian?

[rabas]

2 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

I noticed you like to quote Wikipedia as if it’s unbiased and factual in all instances. It is in fact full of western propaganda and disinformation. In your own words, you stand as testimony.

 

The Wiki articles have 577 verified references on Russian propaganda from all over the world. Did you read them? 

 

My views on Russia come from lifelong interaction with Russia and close longtime Russian friends, not media. They will tell you do not believe anything that comes out of Russia. Emphasis theirs. 

[RayC]

11 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

Because in my opinion, his conclusions are all wrong. To me,  he’s just another western mouthpiece, possibly funded by those who has an agenda.

 

11 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

 

 

Imo Horowitz makes a compelling argument in support of the premise is, " ... Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is driven by Putin’s desire to expand Russian influence and power".

 

He is far from being an idiot.

[frank83628]

[frank83628]

what a load of western BS propaganda, the war was cause by nato expansion to Russian borders, the us backed coup in 20124 and cis backed intereference since, the head of nato even admitted the nato encroachment recently.

 

 

[Northstar1]

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

what a load of western BS propaganda, the war was cause by nato expansion to Russian borders, the us backed coup in 20124 and cis backed intereference since, the head of nato even admitted the nato encroachment recently.

 

 

They had to encroach, Russia invaded Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, eastern Ukraine! What’s next?

thank god nato did this. Russia would be steamrolling Eastern Europe if they didn’t!

[Gweiloman]

18 hours ago, rabas said:

 

The Wiki articles have 577 verified references on Russian propaganda from all over the world. Did you read them? 

 

My views on Russia come from lifelong interaction with Russia and close longtime Russian friends, not media. They will tell you do not believe anything that comes out of Russia. Emphasis theirs. 

What a coincidence. All my American friends tell me not to believe anything that comes out of America. 

 

It doesn’t matter what your views are or what your (imaginary?) friends tell you. Every country spreads its own propaganda and none more so than America. More countries in the world sides with Russia than against. That simple fact speaks volumes.

[Gweiloman]

10 hours ago, RayC said:

 

 

Imo Horowitz makes a compelling argument in support of the premise is, " ... Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is driven by Putin’s desire to expand Russian influence and power".

 

He is far from being an idiot.

He makes a compelling argument in your view, because that’s what you want to believe.

 

In my view, he’s talking nonsense. That makes him an idiot, in my view.

[Gweiloman]

6 hours ago, Northstar1 said:

They had to encroach, Russia invaded Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, eastern Ukraine! What’s next?

thank god nato did this. Russia would be steamrolling Eastern Europe if they didn’t!

Standard western propaganda. Don’t you have something more original?

[Denim]

On 5/20/2024 at 7:49 PM, Gweiloman said:

He’s (Horowitz)an idiot and Putin doesn’t meet with idiots lol.

 

High praise for Tucker.

[Gweiloman]

10 minutes ago, Denim said:

 

High praise for Tucker.

Tucker’s a racist, xenophobe and many other disgusting things. Sadly, he’s not an idiot as he knows what his audience likes to hear and believe. Fortunately, I’m not part of his audience.

[frank83628]

9 hours ago, Northstar1 said:

They had to encroach, Russia invaded Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, eastern Ukraine! What’s next?

thank god nato did this. Russia would be steamrolling Eastern Europe if they didn’t!

yeah, all Putin wants is to take over Europe😒

[RayC]

7 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

He makes a compelling argument in your view, because that’s what you want to believe.

 

In my view, he’s talking nonsense. That makes him an idiot, in my view.

 

An idiot is a person of low intelligence. Whether you accept Horowitz's premise or conclusion, he presents a coherent argument which suggests that he is not an idiot.

 

I do not want to believe anything. It's simply that I find the counter arguments such as this war all being part of some US attempt to solidify its' unipolar hegemony; Russia having no choice; Putin saving Ukraine from corruption; Putin ridding us of Nazism, etc altogether less convincing.

 

We all have bias. We need to recognise that and mitigate against as best we can.

[Gweiloman]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

An idiot is a person of low intelligence. Whether you accept Horowitz's premise or conclusion, he presents a coherent argument which suggests that he is not an idiot.

 

I do not want to believe anything. It's simply that I find the counter arguments such as this war all being part of some US attempt to solidify its' unipolar hegemony; Russia having no choice; Putin saving Ukraine from corruption; Putin ridding us of Nazism, etc altogether less convincing.

 

We all have bias. We need to recognise that and mitigate against as best we can.

Ok, easy question. NATO expanding into Ukraine poses a major threat to Russia. Agree or disagree?

[Wobblybob]

7 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Ok, easy question. NATO expanding into Ukraine poses a major threat to Russia. Agree or disagree?

Total nonsense, NATO are not expanding anywhere, nations are joining NATO because of Russias threat to annexe them. Remember Finland and Sweden, they had no intention of joining NATO until Putin illegally invaded Ukraine.

Totally clueless!

[Gweiloman]

23 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Total nonsense, NATO are not expanding anywhere, nations are joining NATO because of Russias threat to annexe them. Remember Finland and Sweden, they had no intention of joining NATO until Putin illegally invaded Ukraine.

Totally clueless!

Lol. Some people just have no clue. Or can’t face facts. Hopeless.

[Wobblybob]

Just now, Gweiloman said:

Lol. Some people just have no clue. Or can’t face facts. Hopeless.

I am waiting for a link to his fabricated comment, perhaps you can point him on how a forum works.........birds of a feather!

[Bkk Brian]

On 5/20/2024 at 7:49 PM, Gweiloman said:

I wonder how many times this Horowitz guy has met Putin. I’ll wager none. He’s (Horowitz)an idiot and Putin doesn’t meet with idiots lol.

 

10 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

Tucker’s a racist, xenophobe and many other disgusting things. Sadly, he’s not an idiot as he knows what his audience likes to hear and believe. Fortunately, I’m not part of his audience.

I think Tuckers an idiot but have you ever met Tucker to have that opinion because according to your initial post that would be essential.

[Denim]

11 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

Tucker’s a racist, xenophobe and many other disgusting things. Sadly, he’s not an idiot as he knows what his audience likes to hear and believe. Fortunately, I’m not part of his audience.

 

I think Putin himself would call him a useful idiot. 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tucker-carlson-completed-evolution-kremlin-170043044.html

[rabas]

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

Lol. Some people just have no clue. Or can’t face facts. Hopeless.

 

Question for you. Do you believe that Russia has the right to attack other countries for territorial gain?  I.e., does Russia have a right to expand Russian territory?

 

Yes or no.

 

Edited May 22 by rabas

[frank83628]

5 hours ago, Wobblybob said:

 

Totally clueless!

yes, i agree, you are

[Wobblybob]

4 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

yes, i agree, you are

Frank, I think this topic is too difficult for you! Have you thought of challenging yourself with the 'word association' thread. You know it makes sense and you can participate whilst under the influence of what ever you're on! 😂

[Gweiloman]

12 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Question for you. Do you believe that Russia has the right to attack other countries for territorial gain?  I.e., does Russia have a right to expand Russian territory?

 

Yes or no.

 

No, I don’t believe that Russia has the right to attack other countries for territorial gains. I don’t believe that Russia started this SMO for territorial gain. If that was the objective, they would have gone in with a much bigger force, not just the 200-300,000 troops. I believe their goal was to get Ukraine to the negotiating table and they actually succeeded. A deal was initialled by the Ukrainian side in Turkey. Sadly, this was scuppered by the US and UK. Anyone that has been following events closely would know this.

 

Now maybe you would have the decency to answer my question. NATO expanding into Ukraine poses a major threat to Russia. Agree or disagree?