"What does Putin want- a major analysis"

Duh.

Of course he wants to keep it together because if there is complete separation he has no political control over what is happening in Ukraine. Decentralize on his terms which would most certainly mean rebel border control and federal veto and he effectively has a leash on any future government.The last thing he wants is to be saddled with the adminstration of that part of the country. Make them recognize rebel autonomy and still take all the responsibility and he gets to have his cake and eat it too.

Why do you think he has been pushing for the Ukrainian government to negotiate with the rebels?

What are you saying, that Putin wants the U.S. to step in and deal with the situation? Somehow I doubt that.

And what genocide? May as well use the word you mean, as there is nothing clean about it. But sorry, a civil war, bloody as it is, does not make genocide, even if some of the presecution of non-orthodox believers and Tatars  is a step in that direction.

The US has been trying, among other things, to create great expenses for the Russians: a million Ukrainian refugees, the destruction of the infrastructure in the Donbass that was, hitherto, integrated into the Russian economy, a failed state with fascist militias out of control right next to their country, reneging on signed contracts, diversion of Russian gas supplies, destined for Europe, by the pro-US junta in Kiev, attempts to use Ukraine as an intermediary for sanctioned goods from the US and EU which were meant to be dumped in Russian markets, etc., etc., etc..

The Russians, naturally enough, would like to see the US, or its EU allies, pay for the mess they have created.

This is in addition to the sanctions by the "international community" (i.e., the US and its vassals like Canada), possible manipulation of the international price of oil by US ally Saudi Arabia, etc.

The very odd thing here is the insinuation that to oppose various Western imperialisms (which are certainly not one "Empire" - there is a hell of a lot of wrangling between the US and the EU, for example) one must support the militaristic, repressive state in Russia. Leftists should support neither of those.

The initial post in this thread was just strange. I usually stay out of this stuff as I see it as a sort of virus that in no way contributes to people's struggles against the power structures here, but it was too strange, with these odd self-appointed experts. This one even includes Orthodox Christian imagery. I can appreciate that in a cultural historical sense as much as the art produced by the Western Church, by Islam or by traditions that have nothing to do with Abrahamic Monotheism, but there is really nothing progressive about the patriarchal content.

ikosmos, the talk even a year ago was that Ukraine was unlikely to even be considered for European membership, never mind brought into NATO. But if you wonder why the Baltic states, Poland and other eastern and central states are themselves concerned about strengthening those ties, I think the reason lies to the east rather than to the west. If the U.S. was so bent on attacking Russia why did they push for Ukraine to get rid of its nuclear arsenal? If Russia wanted good relations with its neighbour why did they immediately start strangling them into submission in the early 90s?

And while I take the point which actually has been by serious observers about Russia not having much breathing room, that is only in relation to the U.S., not European nations. Donetsk to Moscow is about the same as Sarajevo to Munich. During the bloody First World War you could hear the artillery of the front line from Dover for the entire war. In the second war Russia did not have its capital bombed as Britain did. During the 80s which apparently weren't so bad as the situation we are in now Germany had cruise missiles pointed at its own soil in the event of an invasion.

Moscow's position is hardly unique.

The strategic importance of Crimea is one thing (one thing that they HAD an agreement on) but there isn't a case that this is all about NATO expansion. There are people on both sides of this who created this problem. And many people in the middle whose concerns have nothing to do with that dynamic.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Duh.

Of course he wants to keep it together because if there is complete separation he has no political control over what is happening in Ukraine. Decentralize on his terms which would most certainly mean rebel border control and federal veto and he effectively has a leash on any future government.The last thing he wants is to be saddled with the adminstration of that part of the country. Make them recognize rebel autonomy and still take all the responsibility and he gets to have his cake and eat it too.

Why do you think he has been pushing for the Ukrainian government to negotiate with the rebels?

 

Double Duh. Since this is obvious to all, you now have to ask why the Ukraine government and its international allies insist on "integration" of the breakaway republics, as opposed to recognizing their 'independence" and jettisoning them right away, as opposed to launching offensives to bring them into line.

Do you have an explanation for that, or is it part of the Russian plot as well?

Could the strategy of "tension" be a two way street?

Sure. And the other side of that equation is decades of political and economic interference, and most recently an invasion.

And that saker seems to be going even more off his racist religious deep end with this abomination nonsense.

He's a politician.  You expect something different than that?

The solution is implementation of Minsk. The problem is its active sabotage. If Canadian progressives would actually read the agreement and put some energy into advocating its compliance, instead of this awful complicity with the UCC ultranationalist lobby, and its collaborating creatures in Ottawa, perhaps something positive would ensue.

Canada's deployment of troops is also arguably in violation of Minsk. Minsk is the last hope for peace.

http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc11785.doc.htm

6079_Smith_W wrote:

No double talk about it. I am talking about the respective positions and motives of Ukraine, and Putin. And they are different.

We all know there are examples where nations have been invaded and divided. Would you extend that to an endorsement of Northern Ireland and the Golan Heights too? Me neither.

I don't accept the premise that there was an invasion. I believe that there is strong support among the majority Russian-Ukrainian population of the breakaway republics, and that if not unanimous, a greater proportion would vote for independence or union with Russia.

You will dispute this of course. However, objectively speaking, Ukraine can make the case that the "independence" vote was rigged, and call for a new one to be conducted under a UN mandate.

A simple enough demand, and reasonble. No such proposal has been put forward by Ukraine, and it has chosen the military option to establish its sovereignty. Clearly, this is not a position of compromise, or one that recognizes the principle of "self-determination" of peoples, upon which the entire case for Ukrainian sovereignty rests.