(08-03-2014 10:11 AM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote: If Crimea is so unimportant, why did Putin take it?
Russia took it because Putin isn't playing by the regular rules. You have to understand that Putin isn't behaving rationally.
For Putin, its not about Russia, but about his grip on power. So he stokes nationalism to try to gain support. He's been very successful with that. But the nationalist forces he has set off are hard to control. Putin has to appease them. And so he is doing so. Putin also doesn't have any respect for any former member of the Soviet Union. He regards all of them as part of Russia. Dealing with him is like dealing with an 11 year old bully. All he knows is violence. All he knows is overt force. He's thinking of today, not next month.
But what does he 'get' with Crimea? Putin gets an 80% approval rating (for the time being). But Russia loses any effective leverage over Ukraine (as removing Crimea's Russophiles changes the electoral dynamic in Ukraine, significantly). In effect Russia had Ukraine by the balls as it could rally its supporters in Ukraine and threaten Ukraine with gas cutoffs and other issues in order to destabilize Ukraine. Now the dynamic is turned on its head - Ukraine is now firmly and permanently anti-Putin and Ukraine can cut Crimea off from water, power, and gas if Russia acts. Russia loses any hope of competing economically. Russia loses most of its financial reserves. And Crimea has gas reserves, but they can only be extracted with technology Russia doesn't have. And any company that touches Crimea will be banned from ever selling the oil or gas to anyone else. His decision to 'save' the Russians in Crimea (from something I suppose) has already resulted in 300,000 ethnic Russians fleeing Ukraine. Russia won't be providing any effective support for them. But most of all, Putin has been seen as a man capable of violence, but one that is so weak that he cannot use violence to 'win' a war with the weakest army in Europe (Ukraine).
---------
End games for Putin.
1) He continues to provide covert support to the Rebels at the same level as current. Result - Ukraine gradually takes all of Eastern Ukraine back. Russia gets more sanctions anyway as the support for the rebels cannot be hidden. He looks weak and still ends up with the 'loss' to Ukraine of all nations.
2) He invades overtly or increases support. Result - complete sanctions of Russia. Guerrilla warfare in Ukraine as Ukrainians fight back against Russian occupiers. Russian economy collapses - quickly. Russia would 'win' the war, but would be bogged down in a massive guerrilla war. The problem for Putin is that he really can't stop at Donetsk or Lukhansk if he goes this route, but has to try to take all of Southern Ukraine to protect Crimea. That would pass through many areas where the entire Ukrainian population would fight. Even Putin knows that this will be a problem. So he can't claim, in order to save civilians that he will send 'peacemakers' into Donetsk and Lukhansk without seriously harming his own country.
3) He tries to find a 'conference' solution where he can try to trade peace for promises of Ukraine to recognize his annexation of Crimea and promises that Ukraine will not join the EU or NATO etc. Not going to happen. Russian guarantees are worthless and the Ukrainians would rather go for option 2 than this.
![[Image: twitter_russiapic.jpg]](http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Politics/876/493/twitter_russiapic.jpg)
