My WAG is that he thought the pressure he was applying would be enough to, at a minimum, fracture the Ukraine further, so Russia could snag off some additional territory. I also think he underestimated the international backlash and response. Since (so far) the Ukraine hasn’t fractured further, he doesn’t actually want the election which will legitimize the new Ukrainian government, since that might solidify their position and also allow them to start dealing with things happening in their own territory that Russia has been lending a hand too. So, I guess in a way he’s backing down, but really he’s playing for time. The longer he can stretch things out wrt the election, the longer the interim government won’t have that legitimacy, and the better chance that there will be additional fragmentation. He’s got guys like NFBW cheer leading for him, after all, so time is really on his side if he can stretch things out.
Finally, an issue on which both Turks and Israelis can agree! 
Fuck Putin for de-escalating the conflict. Does he not want a proxy war!!?
Yeah man, I hear you. Putin, he’s the man. Way to go de-escalation the conflict he escalated in the first place! What would we do with him? He’s definitely your hero. And NFBW too!
I would love to understand the context for these two lines. Is it something from Russian warfare with the Ottoman empire?
It is historical. The Russian Empire was always interested in “regaining Constantinople”, for a couple of reasons: (1) strategic location (obviously); and (2) because the Russian Orthodox Church had a religious connection with Byzantium, and Russia considered itself, religiously, as the inheritor of Byzantium (they even sometimes called themselves ‘the third Rome’).
Of course, what fueled a lot of this was more practical, empire-building concerns, as Muscovy expanded at the expense of Turkish vassals (like the Crimean Tatars) and against the Turks themselves. This lead to all sorts of wars, and even to European intervention on behalf of the Turks (the Crimean War).
Similarly, the Russians considered themselves as “protectors of Jerusalem”, again for reasons of history and religion.
All of which history fits with Putin’s cozying up to the Russian Orthodox Church.
Thanks Malthus! I guess I need to stop thinking of Russians as atheistic Commies. It’s interesting their church incorporates this kind of Crusader-ish thinking.
It could just be that, as far as Putin is concerned, the border has moved west.
I don’t think Putin was ever very interested in Eastern Ukraine. These were events driven entirely by the people in the region that threatened to suck in Russia. The region, although one of the richer in Ukraine, is poor. A takeover would be extremely expensive, and the people have too high expectations of what Russia could do for them. Any Russian takeover is bound to be a disappointment, and which politician wants to be head of a disappointment.
But let them have their referendum. Let the people have the freedom to decide for themselves which state they wish to belong to.
The Pentagon and NATO are full of shit. The border stretches for more than 2200 km and NATO has not botherer to specify what they mean by close to the border. And they previously counted military installations that have been in place since Soviet times. How many troops have the USA amassed on the border to Mexico?
Couldn’t you make the same argument of Crimea, though? Poor region, expensive takeover, high expectations by many of the locals… and yet Putin was happy to take them in
Perhaps. Crimea is a much more manageable region though (and not really as poor as many say). With clear borders, more clear cut support from the locals, already military installations in place, not as big as the east Ukrainian regions, without the mass of Soviet era rusting industry behemoths and coalmines. Russia does seem to go all in with financial support for Crimea, but I doubt they’d have the resources to bite over much more – for all the oil and gas, it’s not a wealthy nation. I think a take-over of Eastern Ukraine would be a nightmare for Russia. I expect Putin and his staff would come to the same conclusion.
But events on the ground have a life of their own, and can upset the careful laid out plans of the most powerful rulers. There is a level of killing where after Russia would be forced to enter with peacekeeping forces, whether they want or not.
Anybody can enter with peacekeeping forces. It doesn’t have to be just the Russians.
To suggest any country - never mind when it involves Eastern/Western blocs - isn’t “interested” in what happens on its direct border is naive.
To ignore the importance to the Russian electorate and military of its leader/s supporting and protecting ethnic Russians anywhere, including Ukraine is ridiculous
To ignore the importance of playing this situation politically well for Putin and Russia on the world stage – for its status, reputation, for its overall credibility – is … well… you get the picture.
Of course it depends on how escalated the situation is. Last I heard the Ukrainian government is considering opening up its considerable storage of Soviet era small arms to arm the general population of eastern Ukraine. It’s hard to imagine a more stupid thing to do than dropping five million pieces of Kalashnikov submachine guns on the ground, but it’d be certain to make the life of any international peace keeping troops miserable.
Where are all those countries wanting to put men on the ground in Donetsk? There’s just a small handful of countries in the world that even have the capacity. NATO countries, and countries aligned with NATO, would be seen as a part of the conflict and instantly come under fire; and I doubt Russia would accept it anyway so they might respond with troops of their own. I can just imagine German troops in Kharkov or Dnepropetrovsk. That’d be fun. They could march down the central street in Dnepropetrovsk, which they build the last time they were there. French, Swedish, English, or American troops would have much of the same historic baggage.
Russian troops would also be seen as part of the conflict but they have a more direct vested interest and could accept higher losses.
I mean interested in a take over. Clearly they’re extremely interested in general, and for a settlement that protects Russian interests and that of the Russian-speaking people of the region. Before it started they’d probably have been content with a federation-like solution.
Just wondering XT, since you call opposition to US policy that you immediately endorse - cheerleading the opposite side - and knowing that in the past your endorsement was in error, did you use the cheerleading angle in the past as part of your argument for or against war?
Interestingly, and quite contrary to the notion that people in Eastern Ukraine actually want to split off and join Russia, actual polling data indicates that a strong majority want a united country - and that includes a majority of Russian-speakers in Eastern Ukraine. This, according to the data released today.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/poll-most-ukrainians-want-unified-nation-even-in-restive-east-1.1811699
If true (and I have no particular reason to believe it isn’t), this is pretty good evidence that the “insurgency” is, as many have said, a minority position artifically bolstered by Russian forces.
If true, it indicates that any actual fair voting on referenda would see the pro-Russian position lose. Which goes some way to explaining why Putin doesn’t want a vote to occur now - he is much happier with votes that occur after his forces has taken over a place, where they can be guaranteed to produce the result he approves of.
No, it was used against me. Rightfully in some cases, though I was never, ever as enthusiastic as you seem to be, nor did I ever have the devotion (well, really ANY devotion) to Bush that you seem to have for Putin.
Then you should look to who is behind the think tank:
Madeleine Albright is on record with her opinion on the matter of Russia (and Serbia, etc.). She is not an impartial observer and anything she says or fronts on the matter is to be considered an opinion piece from a fairly extremist wing with an agenda to grind.
You call that evidence? Jesus.
You are saying that because the insurgency may only have backing of a smaller percentage (although presumable still a double digit percentage) of the population, then it’s given that they must be Russian intruders? I’m sorry, but that’s just not how the world works. A small but dedicated group of people can make changes far in excess of what their numbers speak. History has shown this to be the case numerous times.
Anyway, my opinion on the matter is that likely there is not a majority that want to break away from Ukraine, although I do think that there is a majority that are massively fed up with Kiev and what is perceived as decades of shit taken from the Ukrainian speaking side. A federalization could perhaps be a workable compromise. In a few decades, if Ukraine gets it shit together, they can centralize again. If not the regions can have time to properly prepare an exit and entry to Russia.