Why Putin Took Crimea....The Gambler in the Kremlin
(www.foreignaffairs.com)
Comments (13)
sorted by:
The first premise is SH*t.
Putin did not take Crimea. They voted themselves part of Russia. It was a democratic decision.
...howls...
Some of this gentleman's theories I agree with. It may have been opportunistic to seize Crimea by way of referendum and stationing of troops. I don't think Russia can afford to loose Sevastopol as the home of it's Black Sea fleet.
There is also a historical component. Crimea has been ruled by the Russians for centuries and fought a good number of wars for it. Following World War II, it was part of the Russian Federation until 1954 when Nikita Khrushchev transferred control to the Ukrainian SSR.
After the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, Crimea became an autonomous republic in Ukraine.
Two additional notes: 1. It was controlled by the Kievan Rus for about 100 years. Rus is from where Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians draw their ancestry. 2. The Kazarians were also in Crimea around 500+ AD, and they had to go!
"Russia can be either an empire or a democracy, but it cannot be both. . . . Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire."
Zbigniew Brzezinski
I'd be willing to bet good precious metals that President Putin is well aware of this quote.
...delightfully expressed observation.....
Behind a paywall
https://archive.ph/MP0Ww
...try this on for size....
Thanks, fren!
...where we howl 1,we howl all....
The article moves from the wrong premise.
But what else is to be expected from the foreign affairs establishment.
...what is the correct premise?
The premise these people move from is a rules based international order, which in turn is based on their own desires.
Putin moves with international law and the security he needs for his country.
...thank you for expounding on your observation...
...I concur completely....
https://archive.ph/MP0Ww
...archived link around paywall....