I debated writing this blog entry as I prefer to stay away from topics that would be considered political (though I have found that there is nothing that cannot be considered political by someone). My blogs have moved away from the technology explanation motif (primarily because of lack of feedback as to what areas were of interest) but the core reason of a desire to improve communication still exists -- and that is what I am trying to foster with this post.
There is NO justification for Putin's invasion of Ukraine -- particularly with the focus on the civilian population and infrastructure. But there can be a certain degree of understanding.
Back in 1987 (35 years ago now), I visited the Soviet Union with particular concentration on the Moscow, Leningrad/St. Petersburg, and Latvia (Riga) areas. This was in the latter days of the Soviet Union when "glasnost" was being heavily promoted by the Soviet government but the citizens still only half-believed it. A certain degree of highly-supervised, and watched, coordination between Soviet groups and external organizations was being encouraged with the hopes of eventual mutually beneficial exchanges. I was part of such an outreach.
Note that Vladimir Putin was part of the KGB during this period of time.
Moscow and Leningrad/St. Petersburg had many wonderful aspects -- and a few not quite so wonderful -- but I cannot claim to have any significant insight into what was/was not going on there. Many others in the world certainly have more useful contributions. I will say that the tentative balancing act of believing/not-believing in "glasnost" was definitely present within the citizens of those regions.
However, visitation of Riga and the Latvian countryside gave much more information and insight. The groups in Latvia were more willing to be open -- probably because they felt they had much more to gain and a little less to lose. The beaches near Riga were not open to human use because of pollution. And the discussions, that we had there, laid bare the reality that Latvia (and Estonia and Lithuania) were used as expendable regions where central authorities in the Russian regions could locate heavy industry which had more severe environmental impact. Although I had no direct experience with other countries in Eastern Europe, it is good to recall that Chernobyl, and its problems, is located in Ukraine.
It is difficult to understand the mindset between the primary area of Russia and that of the satellite regions of the Soviet Union without discussion of the "fifth line" (pyatny linov). All Soviet citizens had an internal passport and, on the fifth line of that internal passport, was "nationality". Being Jewish was considered a "nationality". There may have been other non-geographic nationalities also used but I have no personal knowledge of that. My Russian language tutor (of Jewish heritage) had been "fifth lined" out of Leningrad. The Soviets eliminated unemployment by making it illegal -- but that didn't mean that there weren't people who did not have jobs. Job or no job, it was still necessary to have income to live within the Soviet Union. Thus my professor's, and her husband's, emigration.
The "fifth line" was used in various ways within the Soviet Union. One large way was within quota systems for various organizations and academic institutions. Such places had strict quotas based upon how many of each "nationality" would be permitted beyond the Russian fifth-lined citizens (rarely affected by quota). Belarus had a somewhat favored secondary status with larger quotas but all non-Russian "nationalities" were kept lower in proportion to those of official "Russian" nationality. There was a certain tendency for people to try to marry others of "Russian" nationality so that their children could have a "Russian" fifth line.
Thus, non-Russian citizens were kept in less influential proportions to that of Russian citizens of the Soviet Union. And their geographical origins (in Eastern Europe, as said earlier I have no direct knowledge of behavior in other areas of the Soviet Empire) were used as expendable areas. These "buffer" areas could, and were, used in ways that was not desired in the primary Russian area of the Soviet Union.
But, an even greater use of this expendable buffer region was as a Russian-controlled buffer between the Soviet Union and the non-Soviet-controlled countries. Russia could use these countries as as a buffer boundary and could locate military and other defenses within them. NATO countries could be directly bordered without direct exposure of Russian soil.
And that is a large goal of this invasion. A territory to possess and use and provide closer access to NATO regions without direct exposure to the Russian central areas. If the infrastructure or countryside is destroyed in the process, it is not important. That is not the primary goal.
And, as has been pointed out by some apologists who want to find a justification for the invasion, it is also why Russia does not want any countries bordering it to be part of NATO. It wants that expendable buffer. If guaranteed to not be part of NATO then some of that fear might ease -- but does not provide Ukraine the security they deserve.
