• BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m gonna try with a crazy conspiracy theory here. But the more crazy the theory, the more entertaining it is. Can you disprove it?

    I propose: Putin is heavily invested in western defense industry, and the invasion of Ukraine was both for internal political reasons but also to make European NATO countries ramp up military investments.

    My reasoning:

    1. Russia is generally flexing on the eastern NATO countries. And now is actively eating an unaffiliated country. Why? Is Putin so removed from reality, that he couldn’t have predicted the current outcome?
    2. Sweden and Finland have either joined, or is in the process of joining, NATO. Making both countries more likely to invest in weapon systems from NATO countries.
    3. The other western European countries are diverting considerable resources toward military investments.

    Hanlon’s razor would suggest that Putin is just incompetent, but… The current theory seems to be that Putin had internal political reasons for the invasion. But apply Occam’s razor, which is more simple? “the richest person in the world wants more money” or “the Russian dictator has internal political issues that can’t be solved by suiciding people, but somehow can be solved by starting a precursor to WW3”?

    • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      but perhaps somebody would care to tell me what is wrong with my theory?

      I’ll give it a shot.

      First off, any payoff from Russia investing in NATO defense is massively offset by the untold damage this war is doing to Russia’s economy and population. This still holds true if it’s just putin’s investment, although if he were really bent on profit from that he probably could. But there are other, more lucrative and less damaging avenues to profit for a guy with as much money as he has.

      Secondly, the war isn’t pointless. Occams razor suggests the simplest reason is often the truth. The simplest reason is that Crimea provides Russia a western seaport that isn’t frozen half of the year, and taking eastern Ukraine provides a path to that port.

      • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Thank you for telling why I’m wrong :)

        I agree with you partly on your first point. Putin has other ways of making his fortune. BUT that doesn’t mean that he couldn’t also do this. Maybe it’s not the primary reason, but if Putin doesn’t care about Russia or the Russian people, then money could be a motivator.

        On your second point IDK though. Russia still has a pretty large black sea port in Novorossiysk to the south east of Crimea. That port is on the mainland, has a rail connection, and doesn’t rely on an explosion prone bridge. Sevastopol may be an important port, but important enough to go to war over? Besides, the black sea ports aren’t the only warm water ports west of the Urals. Not counting the unconnected port in Murmansk, on the Baltic sea there’s Kaliningrad and the three large ports near Saint Petersburg. On wikipedia’s list of largest ports in the Baltic sea, the three at Saint Petersburg are in the top four.

        So why go to war for a fifth port? Was Novorossiysk operating at capacity? I dont buy it. The war wasn’t for a path to Sevastopol alone.