From watching some of the interviews Putin has given over the last decade, his main concern was Russia's security, including Russian speakers across the border.
1 - Putin lies. Constantly.
2 - See 1.
3 - 'Russian speakers' have fuck all to do with Putin, often by their own choice. If those Russian speakers want to be Russia they can apply for Russian citizenship. Putin doesn't get to decide three guys in Donbass took GCSE Russian, therefore I can annexe Crimea.
4 - I may have mentioned this, but Putin lies.
This meant that Ukraine had to remain neutral.
Ukraine is under no formal obligation to do what Putin wants. Ukraine is an autonomous country with its own government, tasked with operating in Ukraine's interests.
He was open to Ukraine's EU membership, as long as the EU remains purely an economic union.
Bully for him. The people who's interests in whether Ukraine gets to join the EU matter are: 1 - The EU; 2 - Ukraine.
But now the EU is edging towards military union too, so it's less likely that Putin will be ok with Ukraine's membership.
The EU is being forced to adopt a military stance because of Putin's invasion of Ukraine. That's what's pushed Trump to openly split with Europe over defence, and without US security guarantees someone else has to be more vocal. NATO's inclusion of US hampers its ability to step up, even if it could be worked into the reactive and defensive posture that's written into their charter (and which they've been, rightly, criticised for overstepping in the past).
He didn't intend to annex it.
He accidently amassed huge numbers of troops and materiel, implemented a draft and lost track of where he put them when they travelled hundreds of miles across a foreign country to destroy infrastructure and defences, and then despite everyone pointing out he'd just started a war he didn't realise he could pull them back? You don't 'accidently' annex 10,000 square miles of a foreign country. Let me guess, he hadn't realised he'd built a bridge there, either?
As I understand it, on the advice of his army chief he invaded as far as Kiev in order to prevent the Ukrainian army concentrating too many troops in Donbas.
Because he didn't want those troops quelling the unrest his operatives had been agitating because that's what was giving him the excuse for the invasion he wanted in the first place. The second invasion of that country in a decade. The sixth invasion of a foreign country in his time as President. Are you not seeing the pattern?
[quoteThe Russians withdrew from Kiev after Ukraine initialed the draft peace treaty drawn up in Istanbul. Then the Ukrainians, seeing the Russians had withdrawn, refused to ratify the treaty.[/quote]
The Russians were pushed back because their military - in particular their logistics - was incompetent. Ukraine drafted a peace deal - effectively a surrender - in case things went badlly, but their military (with materiel assistance) stepped up, so they didn't need it.
His illegal invasion of Crimea was his response to the illegal US, Biden/Nuland-led "Yats is the guy" coup, which pushed out the neutral president and opened the door for Ukraine to join NATO.
We've covered that misrepresentation repeatedly, and you trying to pretend it was 'neutral' president is bullshit and you know it. Even if any of that were true, though, internal diplomatic and political activities with Ukraine, even if they make Putin sad, are not sufficient justification for him to send in troops.
We have yet to see what Trump and his team do.
We've seen plenty. He's offered Putin an olive branch and a way to make money and claim a victory, he's stabbed his Western allies in the back and he seems to be in the process of trying to sell Ukraine's territory out from under them.
They and Russia have so far only established plans to reinstate respective embassies, the first step towards normalising relations.
Which removes the leverage anyone has over Russia at the moment, which is the sanctions that bites into their economy, targetting the oligarchs who are Putin's support network.
They wanted to recoup the money the previous administration gave Ukraine, while not taking part in the war, but (I think?) have accepted they won't get that money back.
No, I don't think they have accepted that, I think they're planning to strip the mineral wealth for everything they can get.
At the moment the plan seems to be that Ukraine will exchange rare minerals for reconstruction work, not military aid.
So that when the US has bled the place dry, it's in no better a position to resist another Russian invasion.
Trump suggested that the US might protect it's people who will be involved in the reconstruction, and in that way give a security guarantee to the country.
If I were Ukrainian, I'd be sceptical of the effectiveness of that - I suspect there won't be many American-run mining operations in Kyiv.
The problem is the Russians won't stop the fighting if it means allowing Western troops into Ukraine.
The problem is that Russia would have had to stop the fighting, and the negotiations could have been on a relatively even footing, if Trump hadn't jumped the gun and looked out for himself and America, and fuck everyone else. America could have still had at least some access to mineral rights - Ukraine would have had to repay what's been given to it one way or another - but Ukraine would have been whole or closer to it, would be approaching American relations with a better rapport, and the rest of the world wouldn't be so distrustful of the US.
He's wasted huge amounts of political and social capital for, arguably, a greater portion of less mineral wealth, which he justifiies because it means his political allies - who he sees as his commercial opposition, because he sees everything in commercial terms - get less and the commercial opposition that he fears less and thinks he can make most out of - Russia - comes out of it better and therefore is amenable to him. He's traded future world security for a quick buck like the lackwitted corporate whore he has always been.
O.
