Annexation of Crimea, did Putin have a choice?

Darith

As we all know Putin annexed Crimea. But did he have a choice, afterall there are other Russian speaking regions where the Russian Federation provides mutual defence and economic agreements without resorting to annexation. Or does the strategic position of the Crimea or its naval bases further complicate this unfortunate scenario. Would annexation only have allowed the continued operation of the bases. Maybe Crimea demanded annexation? Afterall part of Moldova is governed like this. The whole thing is a mess.

BoJack Horseman

Darith wrote: »

As we all know Putin annexed Crimea. But did he have a choice, afterall there are other Russian speaking regions where the Russian Federation provides mutual defence and economic agreements without resorting to annexation. Or does the strategic position of the Crimea or its naval bases further complicate this unfortunate scenario. Would annexation only have allowed the continued operation of the bases. Maybe Crimea demanded annexation? Afterall part of Moldova is governed like this. The whole thing is a mess.

There is always a choice....

Putin had to make a call on whether he thought any next Kiev government would renege on the Kharkiv Pact.
And take back the military installations around Sevastopol.

It was not enough just to reinforce their bases there, they would have been too vulnerable to attack in the worst case scenario. (however unlikely)

Luckily for Vlad, the geography of the peninsula presented an opportunity to take the whole province & prevent any possibility of it being retaken by force.

So, looking back at the annexation... the plight of locals has nothing and never had anything to do about it, like Moldova, Kaliningrad, etc.

It was an extremely successful mission that has secured prime real-estate for the RuAF & RuN for perpetuity, just like Moldova & Kaliningrad.

As to the choice, He had one & it was an easy one to make.
The benefits have far outweighed the costs.
And who knows.... in 20 years time an modernised Ukranian military could well have ejected them from Sevastapol.... but now, no chance.

AbusesToilets

Darith wrote: »

As we all know Putin annexed Crimea. But did he have a choice, afterall there are other Russian speaking regions where the Russian Federation provides mutual defence and economic agreements without resorting to annexation. Or does the strategic position of the Crimea or its naval bases further complicate this unfortunate scenario. Would annexation only have allowed the continued operation of the bases. Maybe Crimea demanded annexation? Afterall part of Moldova is governed like this. The whole thing is a mess.

He chose to invade a sovereign country in order to secure ports that they utilise under treaty from the Ukrainian government. So now they own that land, and have to power to increase the prices on gas sold to the Ukrainians. Win win for Putin. Don't see how you can paint this as some existential crisis presented to the Russian people.

Darith

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

There is always a choice....

Putin had to make a call on whether he thought any next Kiev government would renege on the Kharkiv Pact.
And take back the military installations around Sevastopol.

It was not enough just to reinforce their bases there, they would have been too vulnerable to attack in the worst case scenario. (however unlikely)

Luckily for Vlad, the geography of the peninsula presented an opportunity to take the whole province & prevent any possibility of it being retaken by force.

So, looking back at the annexation... the plight of locals has nothing and never had anything to do about it, like Moldova, Kaliningrad, etc.

It was an extremely successful mission that has secured prime real-estate for the RuAF & RuN for perpetuity, just like Moldova & Kaliningrad.

As to the choice, He had one & it was an easy one to make.
The benefits have far outweighed the costs.
And who knows.... in 20 years time an modernised Ukranian military could well have ejected them from Sevastapol.... but now, no chance.

What would have happened if Crimea simply declared independence?

BoJack Horseman

Darith wrote: »

What would have happened if Crimea simply declared independence?

They did (March 11th 2014).

But like the 'declarations of independence' from Luhansk & Donetsk, it was all part of the plan from HQ.

Darith

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

There is always a choice....

Putin had to make a call on whether he thought any next Kiev government would renege on the Kharkiv Pact.
And take back the military installations around Sevastopol.

It was not enough just to reinforce their bases there, they would have been too vulnerable to attack in the worst case scenario. (however unlikely)

Luckily for Vlad, the geography of the peninsula presented an opportunity to take the whole province & prevent any possibility of it being retaken by force.

So, looking back at the annexation... the plight of locals has nothing and never had anything to do about it, like Moldova, Kaliningrad, etc.

It was an extremely successful mission that has secured prime real-estate for the RuAF & RuN for perpetuity, just like Moldova & Kaliningrad.

As to the choice, He had one & it was an easy one to make.
The benefits have far outweighed the costs.
And who knows.... in 20 years time an modernised Ukranian military could well have ejected them from Sevastapol.... but now, no chance.

So in summary are you suggesting a military alliance with an independent Crimea would not have been enough in any case? That a substantial Militarization of the whole Crimea with Russian Forces was the only option to guarantee the safety of the bases?

Gatling

Darith wrote: »

So in summary are you suggesting a military alliance with an independent Crimea would not have been enough in any case? That a substantial Militarization of the whole Crimea with Russian Forces was the only option to guarantee the safety of the bases?

In the situation no viktor yanukovic even signed a large lease extension on the base guaranteeing a legal military presence in Crimea, and even at that he sent troops and various militias loyal to the Kremlin to take the bases and force through a referendum under threat of armed violence.

BoJack Horseman

Darith wrote: »

So in summary are you suggesting a military alliance with an independent Crimea would not have been enough in any case?

No.
An independent Crimea was never, ever part of the plan.
It's 'declaration of independence' was part of the mechanism to move it to Russian ownership.
ie: A poor attempt to appear legitimate by absorbing an 'independent' statelet into greater Russia rather than a formal conquest of an opponents territory, which is what it was.
There was no independence movement prior to invasion.
In fact the current 'leader' of Crimea, Sergey Aksyonov was from a party that had 4% of the peninsula's electoral support before armed FSB & Spetsnaz operatives put him in power

That a substantial Militarization of the whole Crimea with Russian Forces was the only option to guarantee the safety of the bases?

By annexing the entire peninsula, large scale militerisation was avoided.

If you look at google maps, the peninsula is connected by 2 very narrow spits of land.... Controlling this requires fewer forces than trying to secure the 24,000sqkms of territory behind it.

Obviously a much easier task.

stevejazzx

Crimea voted in the 1990s to essentially join back to Soviet Union and again in 2014 albeit under dubious unknowable circumstances of an almost certainly rigged election
However ~60 % of them are essentially Russian natives - east Ukraine is predominately Russian leaning with a high Russian ethnicity in its populous - and all of Ukraine, particularly the east, has a long inseparable connection and shared history with Russia.
So the chances of a bona fide Crimean referendum on joining Russian yielding a Russian favorable result is, according to polls and most experts in the region, very high to almost certain.

Due to what was undeniable western interference in Ukraine and of course a long history NATO expansionism to their borders - the recent historical US regimes plan to invest in (5 billion in spending in Ukraine since 1991 on the record - and god knows what else off the record through NGO's) and control the area; Russia was essentially forced to play Crimea on the chessboard.

The US knew that Ukraine was geo-strategically essential for for energy supply and now that they have a US friendly regime in place it helps disrupt Russian plans for energy domination in the region.
Incidentally I believe Russia just gave Crimea independence from Ukrainian electrical grid.

The question to be asked is; was that intervention in Ukraine necessary to stop Russia dominating and therefore unfairly controlling it border countries via energy price manipulation? This version of events makes some sense of what many see as madness on the part of the US - whos actions have pushed us - with not too inconsiderable help from Russia of course - much closer than ever before toward a 3rd world war.

Conveniently for the US) the annexation of Crimea has allowed the US to build anti Russian sentiment to cold war levels and drive through sanctions, against the will of the EU, the French and Germans at many stages in talks to offset such - read to here understand how sanctions have been working in reality -, in an attempt to cripple Russias economy and with great success. This should have kept Russia fairly quiet in middle east but it hasn't quite worked - yet.

The next stages are already playing out for the US - Syria, Brazil and possibly Venezuela and any other part of south America they can infiltrate - again - .

The US population voted almost overwhelmingly to opt out of any action against Syria in 2013 when Obama tried to sell Assads alleged chemical weapon use on his own people as a reason to do so - people in the US could see another Iraq and began demonstrating en masse against Syrian intervention - polls taken revealed huge opposition to any intervention at all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/syria-poll_n_3894628.html
Oddly, perhaps interestingly, (Pre Ukraine of course), the US population was essentially on the same train of thought as Putin
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0

Seeing that intervention in this regard wasn't going to fly - here began the
unending story of ISIL, ISIS, Daesh, Dash etc. etc. and videos would soon begin of desert backdropped extremists in all black chopping off the heads off westerners and general infidels. This was very convenient for building support for intervention in the same way 911 was for Iraq - personally I don't believe a direct conspiracy exists in either case - nonetheless both events were manipulated and milked by the US as ultimate Casus belli for middle eastern intervention - something that mass demonstration and polls were ineffectual against.

As time has progressed however it has become clear that Russia has been, seemingly, fighting ISIS - in an effort to keep Assad, effectively their puppet in place,
The US on the other-hand for the large part of 2014 seemed to be pumping a lot of weapons and vehicles into the area to aid the Assad rebels who have now been identified really as mercenary's willing fight on whichever side pays them more - at least large elements and sects of this exist as has been isolated and remarked upon by Chomsky and other spectators.

With Russia and the US both desperately wanting different outcomes here it becomes clear that a pattern is evolving - one in which two corrupt superpowers are playing for the right to supply future energy markets through geopolitical influence and control.

In analysis these conflicts are about power, energy and control.
The idea that Russia just woke up one morning and decided to take Crimea is ludicrous - it was a direct result of the US's intervention in Ukraine following on from NATO expansionism that has seen the installation of missile shields in Poland, which were scrapped and are now being renewed after Talks with Biden (who's Sons Hunter sits on the board of Bursima) and now Romania with further plans for Georgia in the the pipleine! Heres an interesting article on Saakasvili now and his US ties and another on the 2008 war with Russia -

The biggest problem that people have is trying to understand such vast complexity built on history and modern geopolitical capitalism.
Modern propaganda is at permanent saturation point and future historical records are in constant jeopardy however conversely and ironically thanks to propagandas main tool - the internet - facts can be checked and crossed checked which means that slivers of truth are available for those willing - its never simple - one side is never evil and the other good but at least an ability to see past the stereotypes can be had with a little work.