Something one of my bosses just said and got me thinking.
A country can’t join NATO when it is actively at war or under civil war (according to my boss, ex british army officer) - so with Donesk and Crimea they were never going to get accepted. But if they conceed both areas to Russia, that removes the civil war/at war stumbling block for Nato acceptance.
So why not offer Putin the following deal - Donesk and Crimea get handed over to Russia, but Ukraine will be accepted immideately into Nato.
It’s a deal, but I think that’s precisely what Russia would refuse. They don’t want NATO right on its border. They want a buffer zone. That’s what they are fighting for, as far as I can tell. Their perspective (seems iffy to me, but it is their perspective) is that the west is expanding, and they don’t like the idea of NATO on their doorstep. Sort of like a modern day version of the Cuban missile crisis.
Looks good on paper, but strategically if I am already occupying those lands, recognize those lands, and the people in these lands agree with me is that really a win for me? Putin already has the leverage here.
If Ukraine is somehow able to join NATO we will be at full scale war with Russia before the end of that week. That is a major red line for a tyrant who’s trying to restore the eastern block to pre-cold war.
My thinking was that he doesn’t want Nato on their border, but he also wants Crimea and Donesk, so he needs to decide which is more important getting the land he craves, or keeping Nato far away?
Well, a 51-49 percentage is probably a nightmare to handle (it’s the case for some of the nearby regions). If I was Putin, I’d better keep off it.
But if we look at the situation in a somewhat detached way, the Louhansk and Dombas provinces are already independent from Ukraine since quite some time, but unstable and with a lot of tensions. The Russians marching in now are just officially ratifying a pre-existing situation. If we find the current situation unacceptable, we should have found it unacceptable since 2014, not just now.
The conflict in these two provinces has already cost 15k lives since then, and if it goes on, it will continue that way. So, in that light, it’s maybe not a bad thing if the Russians officially take control of these provinces. It will appease things, just like in Crimea. If I was living in Dombas or Louhansk and wanted to live a stable life in peace, I know what I’d chose. Especially if among the Russian-speaking majority.
I might be wrong about that, but I don’t think that they have entire regions with Russian majority, as is the case for Dombas and Louhansk. Happy to learn more about it if I’m wrong.
Russia’s (arguably) most famous person was Georgian. Russia was founded by Ukranians. The ties between Russian and those two states is far closer, at least from the Russian perspective, than they are with the other former Soviet states. The desire to control the other states I think is more based on Geopolitical strategy (e.g. control of the Baltic Sea) where as it is more psychic, more about making Russia whole with these states.
Is even using the word state portraying the Russian narrative…downplaying the fact they are sovereign nations?
Maybe he would say yes to that, but I don’t think he would. He pretty much has those territories in the bag already, Donbas to play out, but I’m sure he’s counting on that and it will happen.
NATO on the border is his big line in the sand and I think it would escalate dramatically if that was forced.
Like the whole world I’m watching with a combination of interest and sadness…
or perhaps the only underlying reason is because they (Russia) can!!!
Does it matter? Does every Russian majority regions has to be incorporated into Russia?
There’s a wonderful system called ethnic-cleansing.
I thought the Ukrainian military was pushing separatists back in 2014, but Russia playing long game, supplied rebels. Here’s article from Guardian in 2014.
Did Roman get the nod? Chelsea fire sale incoming??
would the sanctions have any impact on Chelsea and Everton?
Not that it matters
Would be like buying house insurance when your building is already on fire.
@Iftikhar you asked about what this means for the other former soviet states. You received answers as to why they are viewed differently. No one is saying that means what Russia is doing is justified or right.
On the understanding that it isnt really Moshri’s money but Usmanov’s?
No , anything and everything that might actually prevent one. I did make some suggestions in my comments , but to widen it out a bit , I think it’s time that we went after Putin personally and the oligarchs that enrich themselves through his kleptocracy.
We need to deligitimise him and his regime in the eyes of ordinary Russians. Navalny was doing a pretty good job of it before he was removed from the scene but you can bet that US intelligence has even more evidence of his plundering of the country’s wealth than he had. And Obama had already hinted at as much when he threatened him over Russian interference in their elections. It’s way past time that they were all revealed for the thieves that they are , and once that happens a Russian populace gradually becoming more impoverished by a stagnant economy and more sanctions might not then be so easily placated in the face of a constant stream of exposés about their leaders’ pilfering of their inheritance.
It’s evidently the reason why Dombas and Louhansk will be incorporated into Russia without too much fuss, just like Crimea. But try to incorporate regions with different cultures and languages… that’s a completely different matter. That’s why I wouldn’t be too concerned for countries like the Baltic states for instance. They are Nato-members, and quite safe for the time being.
I’m not aware that Putin has ever practiced ethnic cleansing, or ever threatened to do so. Again, happy to be corrected if wrong.
Well if they can kick Abramovic’s wealth out of him and as a result, harm Chelsea, I’m all for it! 
You don’t understand. I’m not talking about the ease or difficulty of annexing Russian-majority regions. Just because a region (however big or small it may be) has a Russian majority, it doesn’t qualify to be annexed by Russia. No matter if there’s support from the local (Russian) population or not. It’s unethical, sinister. This is incitement and intimidation. It means a lot of national boundaries are merely hypothetical and there will be continued (possibly endless) instability in Europe.
Whether Putin carried out any ethnic cleansing or not isn’t my point. My point is Putin may very well use that to re-Russianize a region. We have seen many instances of ethnic cleansing in last three decades.
Sorry Peter , I get what you are saying and agree , but can people answer why this only applies to Russia? Biden has made money from dodgy business deals in Ukraine, and he’s on video when he was VP saying that if Ukraine didn’t get rid of a prosecutor who was looking into those deals he would withhold billions in aid…that seems relatively similar to what Russia stands accused of, why is it that biden and America are given a free pass to do what they want? Again not aimed at you but think Europe would benefit more from open dialogue without America funding opposition revolutionary sects in countries it does not want to know mainly via CIA secret projects and to keep the military arms manufacturing industry happy ( as in killing innocent people just so they can bullshit the world about freedoms )