Quote:
Originally Posted by CCIP
Yeah, which also brings me back to the other thing too - again, I really don't believe there's any Russian conspiracy, just opportunism of the sort we already saw Putin's Russia engaging in for years, just on a much bigger and more daring scale. I think the idea that there's some sort of neo-Soviet agenda behind it is baseless. It's just taking advantage of present-day circumstances. Any government with a strong mandate that's feeling pretty secure with internal stabilty and in absence of strong external threats to their country would act like that in the situation - just realpolitik and basic sphere of influence.
|
Putin started to plan for playing tough in autumn, and that was the time when signs showed that Yanukovich at last appeared to become weak maybe, no longer decisively standing up against possibly joining the EU (and by that sooner or later NATO).
Mind you also that the Ukraine is dancing on the Kremlin's nosetiup since years and years, especially regarding the gas deals. The Ukraine did nothing in the past 20 yearsa to moidernise its national heating system and thgus is desperately depending on gas, which it can only afford to buy in the needed amounts if it gets a price dramatically below market levels - at Russia's tremendous costs. Also, the oliogarchs in the Ukraine more and more claimed parts of polltical infoluence and contro, for them and their - partially cirminal - business interests. Well, that cannot be in the interest of any hegemonial power inb the region, and rememeber how Putin cracked down on the olio9garchs in ruzssia wehen they threatened to take over the state and bypassing the Krenmlin - he exec uted several examples and suddenly they all fell back into line. Message of it all: do you profit-enriching stuff as long as you want, but do not dare to get in the way of the Kremlin's policy-making: you play by Kremlin rules, or you won't play at all.
The Crimea was non-negotiable form the Russians' point of view, for reasons of national history, pride, and Sevastopol. The Ukrainian East howeder was not automatcially ion Putin'S shopping list, because it would cause a whole heap of bills and costs if it became Russia's responsibility to economically and financially maintain it. What Putin wanted more is to weaken a united Ukraine and to prevent a strong central government, securing s strong Russian influence in Ukrainian internal policy-making that way. And that goal he has reached. To leave the Eastern provinces to the responsibility of Kiev, is only clever. It leaves Kiew weaker than without the East, because the East now isan open, bleeding wound in its side, doing more damage that way than if taking the East away. Also, it gives greater headaches to the EU, especially financially.
What Putin does, is classical power projection on all levels. Morals play no role in that. The danger he risks is that the people in the East will turn away in disappointment when they realise that Russia is not coming to their "rescue" like on the Crimean. They could feel sold and betrayed.