Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[Dayuhan]

Putin still really "wants" to place the Donetsk under the control of "peace keepers" to separate the ethnic Russians from alleged brutality by the Ukrainian Army against civilians

Nobody here knows what Putin "really wants". We only know what he does: any effort to deduce motivation or desire is speculative.

What we know is that Putin has had troops positioned to intervene for months. He's had all the pretext he could ask for. The "rebels" have begged him to intervene. He hasn't. I don't know how that squares up with the assumption that he "really wants" Russian peacekeepers in Donetsk. If he really wanted them there, they'd have been there a long time ago.

This also seems inconsistent with that position:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-Ukraine.html

Vladimir Putin has asked Russia's parliament to revoke a controversial law authorising him to use military force in Ukraine, in what appears to be a good will gesture as diplomats scramble to resolve the crisis in the country.

Now notice just how quiet it is with NATO on these movements as well as the EU and the US. There is some reporting out there of roughly 20K Russian troops now again close to the Ukrainian border just opposite of Donetsk.

Haven't similar movements back and forth been going on for months? Why would NATO suddenly make a big fuss over it now?

I'm sure Putin will continue sending men and equipment to help his proxies, though they appear to be increasingly incoherent, conflicted, and unable to establish any functional political apparatus. I see no reason to assume that he wants to send in troops. If he wanted that it would be a fait accomplii already, as it was in Crimea. Again, we don't know why he hasn't moved: fear of sanctions, fear of bogging down in an occupation role... all conjecture. What we know is that he could have done it a long time ago, and has not.

Dayuhan--still a win for Putin as h established his doctrine of intervention to defend ethnic Russians wherever they reside and in whatever country.

He's spoken the words, but he hasn't acted on them. His proxies are retreating in disarray, fighting with each other and losing faith in his promises... and that's a win? What would you call a loss?

Putin and his "radical nationalists advisors vastly underestimated the impact of some actually flawed sanctions thus the pull back.

If even those ridiculously minimal sanctions, and a few threats, could force him to pull back, then all he's done is advertise his own vulnerability. How is that a win?

BUT while he is struggling outwardly he is still pushing armed irregulars into Donetsk based on video footage still coming into the net and he is still pushing for a settlement that "allows" the Russian irregulars to "appear" to be winners---ie he states there must be talks before the arms are laid down and he is still trying to control the international responses from the international players ie that last meeting of the four FMs in Berlin which they spun as an iron clad legal document which it was not.

So even through outwardly appearances say one thing I still think he can book a major victory---and along the way verify his new military doctrine as well.

He can claim whatever he wants. What the world sees is that in May he looked set to seaize the Eastern Ukraine and possibly push across to Transnistria, cutting Ukraine off from the sea, and potentially threatening the rest of Eastern Europe... and today he looks set to settle for a bit of nebulously defined "influence" in Eastern Ukraine. Can't see that as a "win" in any sense.

West has lost massively as the EU is slowly breaking up on the topic of the South Stream pipeline and both the EU and the US backed away from their threatened sectorial sanctions.

How is that a loss? If the mere threat accomplishes the goal, what need is there for elevated sanctions?

So I do not see where the US got anything out of being still---Russian irregulars are still fighting and weapons are still coming across that "enhanced" security border Putin promised.

The predicted threat did not materialize and looks less likeley to materialize every day... and it's entirely possible that a more active response involving military threats would have made matters worse, not better. If anything Putin has underscored his own weakness by backing down in the face of very limited sanctions and a few vague threats of more extensive ones. Can't call it a 100% win for the West, of course, as Crimea is realistically gone, but if Ukraine manages to re-establish functioning sovereignty over the east it is certainly not the huge Russian win that was being predicted here not long ago.

[Dayuhan]

Also interesting...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...turn-explained

Putin's Ukraine U-turn: why it makes sense for Russia to allow Kiev victory

Eastern Ukrainian separatists have emerged as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s biggest critics in the past few weeks.

Their pleas for Russia to intervene militarily have been ignored. Moreover, as they were pleading for help, Putin turned to his legislature and asked it to rescind his mandate to use military force in Ukraine.

This modest policy change in Moscow was reaffirmed in the Berlin agreement on 2 July, which called for a ceasefire and new talks aimed at resolving the conflict. The key element of the new agreement is strengthening control of the Russian-Ukrainian border amid the closure of border checkpoints and incidents of shelling on Russian territory from the Ukrainian side of the border. Kiev and Western governments are intent on sealing the border and cutting off the separatists’ supplies. If implemented, this will be an important gesture by Moscow amid Kiev’s stepped-up campaign of so-called anti-terrorist operations.

It is also noteworthy that the word “junta” has disappeared from Russian state media’s descriptions of the government of Ukraine. In addition, Ukraine and Russia have held new talks about gas deliveries and future plans for Crimea. In retrospect, the build-up of Russian troops along the border in recent weeks appears to have been a face-saving act, or even a hedge against the possible movement into Russia of fighters from eastern Ukraine.

Putin’s policy shift makes sense for a number of reasons...

[OUTLAW 09]

Nobody here knows what Putin "really wants". We only know what he does: any effort to deduce motivation or desire is speculative.

What we know is that Putin has had troops positioned to intervene for months. He's had all the pretext he could ask for. The "rebels" have begged him to intervene. He hasn't. I don't know how that squares up with the assumption that he "really wants" Russian peacekeepers in Donetsk. If he really wanted them there, they'd have been there a long time ago.

This also seems inconsistent with that position:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-Ukraine.html





Haven't similar movements back and forth been going on for months? Why would NATO suddenly make a big fuss over it now?

I'm sure Putin will continue sending men and equipment to help his proxies, though they appear to be increasingly incoherent, conflicted, and unable to establish any functional political apparatus. I see no reason to assume that he wants to send in troops. If he wanted that it would be a fait accomplii already, as it was in Crimea. Again, we don't know why he hasn't moved: fear of sanctions, fear of bogging down in an occupation role... all conjecture. What we know is that he could have done it a long time ago, and has not.



He's spoken the words, but he hasn't acted on them. His proxies are retreating in disarray, fighting with each other and losing faith in his promises... and that's a win? What would you call a loss?



If even those ridiculously minimal sanctions, and a few threats, could force him to pull back, then all he's done is advertise his own vulnerability. How is that a win?



He can claim whatever he wants. What the world sees is that in May he looked set to seaize the Eastern Ukraine and possibly push across to Transnistria, cutting Ukraine off from the sea, and potentially threatening the rest of Eastern Europe... and today he looks set to settle for a bit of nebulously defined "influence" in Eastern Ukraine. Can't see that as a "win" in any sense.



How is that a loss? If the mere threat accomplishes the goal, what need is there for elevated sanctions?



The predicted threat did not materialize and looks less likeley to materialize every day... and it's entirely possible that a more active response involving military threats would have made matters worse, not better. If anything Putin has underscored his own weakness by backing down in the face of very limited sanctions and a few vague threats of more extensive ones. Can't call it a 100% win for the West, of course, as Crimea is realistically gone, but if Ukraine manages to re-establish functioning sovereignty over the east it is certainly not the huge Russian win that was being predicted here not long ago.

Dayuhan---here is the problem with your thinking analysis processes and actually JMA is correct.

What one "sees" is not what you "get".

I could actually go day by day the last two weeks and depict in detail that while you, EU and Obama "thinks" you are ahead---Putin has actually taken three steps forward and only a half step backwards.

He is in a race---namely does he get what he needs and wants and that is the New Russia ie the Donetsk before his economy tanks for a long while. Why Donetsk---it is where the bulk of all Russian military production which Russia needs for their 2020 rearming program is currently being produced and it would take Putin ten years to rebuild it inside Russia---he needs the Donetsk.

That is his race and we do not even see it---strange is it not? You honesty think Putin thinks for a single moment he is losing come on Dayuhan.

If you think for one moment those Russian "war tourists" or what I call irregulars are not being slid through a border that Putin "claims" was secure with the approval of the FSB ---check this link showing documents of a killed "Russian war tourist"---down to the Russian military unit he was assigned to.

http://inforesist.org/en/the-fate-of...in-the-donbas/

In the meantime no one is believing anything the EU, NATO and the US is actually saying any more while nothing has been done on the last threat of sanctions---meaning Putin had to fulfill four points inside one week and nothing was done---Putin is a great slight of hand specialist meaning he "shows" a hint of something and we in the West fall over backwards and yell hey it's working he is backing down---far from the truth.

He was to;
1. recognize the elections as fair---has he openly stated that--no
2. he was to fully recognize the current Ukrainian president---has he openly stated that to the world?---no
3. he was to stop the movement of armed irregulars and weapons across the Russian border and what did we get 20 T64s and more coming
4. he was to get the irregulars to lay down their weapons

Has any of that occurred?

As for the infowar---he fired his radial nationalist advisor Dugin to appear like he is backing off but the infowar is raring just as hard as before the firing---they are n o longer using the terms, Nazis, junta and more talk about civilians being killed and needing humanitarian aid and protection zones.

http://inforesist.org/en/us-showed-6...russian-media/

[Stan]

If you think for one moment those Russian "war tourists" or what I call irregulars are not being slid through a border that Putin "claims" was secure with the approval of the FSB ---check this link showing documents of a killed "Russian war tourist"---down to the Russian military unit he was assigned to.

http://inforesist.org/en/the-fate-of...in-the-donbas/

Given the fact you claim the Russian military are advanced and capable, I would have a real problem with this article. Some SF dude infiltrated and took his real documents with him

I'm certain you have a good explanation for this and, I, am dying to hear it.

[kaur]

Dayuhan

Nobody here knows what Putin "really wants". We only know what he does: any effort to deduce motivation or desire is speculative.

Some thoughts.

The three strategic objectives he has pursued in Ukraine since the February revolution overthrew his Ukrainian satrap, Viktor Yanukovich, are not likely to change. First, to punish, humiliate, destabilize, if possible, dismember and, ultimately, derail a Europe-bound Ukraine. Second, to prevent the West from imposing meaningful sanctions. And finally, to continue to solidify his domestic political base by rallying around the flag.

Thus, Putin is looking at three tactical options. The first, undoubtedly preferred, would be to reverse the battle by pouring “volunteers,” guns, ammo and military hardware across the border, all the while denying Russia’s involvement and calling for “peace” and “direct negotiations” between the thugs and the legitimate government of Ukraine, as well as a unilateral cease-fire by Kiev, which must stop “killing the innocent civilians.”

Another Putin choice is to call for an “international peace conference” where, in exchange for a cessation of hostilities, “guaranteed” by Russia, Germany, France and the U.S., Kiev would be forced to accept “federalization” of Ukraine. The country’s east-south would become essentially a Russian protectorate, tied to Moscow economically, politically, ideologically and culturally, and exercising, on the Kremlin’s command, a veto power over Ukraine’s further moves to the West.

The third option could be called a “Libya version.” Moscow could use Western “interference” in Libya as a “precedent” to move regular troops and aircraft into Ukraine and to fully occupy the region, declaring that Ukraine is now in the “throes of a fratricidal civil war.”

http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-a...cal-pause/#mbl

News from Donetsk. Vice premier of DNR in security question is now former head of Transnistria KGB (1992-2012). In 2012 he left to Russia.

http://translate.google.be/translate...24%26bih%3D425

[OUTLAW 09]

Given the fact you claim the Russian military are advanced and capable, I would have a real problem with this article. Some SF dude infiltrated and took his real documents with him

I'm certain you have a good explanation for this and, I, am dying to hear it.

Advanced and capable does not preclude stupidity---evidently the Russian SF does not believe in going in clean ---hey this is the old concept in Eastern Europe anyway---when one crosses an official border you might never know if you need your passport to cross back over---right--he was just being a little to pro-active and it got him killed.

[Stan]

Advanced and capable does not preclude stupidity---evidently the Russian SF does not believe in going in clean....

Hmmm, other than a spare mag of ammo, an exfil generally does not include dog tags and passport.

Explain this “old Eastern European Concept” as if it was still in play. I think today’s Russians are not the generation you speak of.

[Firn]

More abductions, torture seen in separatist-held eastern Ukraine is an article based on multiple sources which shouldn't surprise nobody which informed himself from time to time.

While definitive statistics on abductions are hard to come by, the Ukrainian Interior Ministry has reported some 500 cases since the onslaught of the conflict in April. The Amnesty report says that the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission for Ukraine recorded 222 abduction cases in that time.

Human rights observers say the kidnappings by the rebels are meant to intimidate the local population. But hostages are also being kept and used as human shields, locked away in rooms of rebel-occupied buildings to keep Ukrainian forces from striking them by air and bombarding them with heavy artillery, observers say. Others are held for ransom.

On June 24, the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights Ivan Simonovic warned that the situation in eastern Ukraine is “rapidly deteriorating.” Three weeks on, Amnesty International says the situation is only worsening.

"The bulk of the abductions are being perpetrated by armed separatists, with the victims often subjected to stomach-turning beatings and torture," Amnesty's Deputy Europe and Central Asia Director Denis Krivosheev said, adding that there is also "evidence of a smaller number of abuses by pro-Kyiv forces."

Human right abuses get committed in practially every conflict and in this case it is pretty selfevident why payed thugs organized in an ad-hoc fashion with criminal interests intertwined with a political campaign mostly based on terrorism and hatred are responsible for most crimes and the most vicious at that.

Helluva job Putin, at making Russia an increasingly despised enemy in Ukraine instead of a 'slavic brother' and pushing your neighbours into the arms of the EU and US. The most cynical CIA plot could not have done a better job at that, congratulations.

[mirhond]

[QUOTE=Firn;158462]

Helluva job Putin, at making Russia an increasingly despised enemy in Ukraine instead of a 'slavic brother' and pushing your neighbours into the arms of the EU and US. The most cynical CIA plot could not have done a better job at that, congratulations.

During the "Gas wars" Russian public opinion was on the Ukrainian side - now it is not, so yes, Putin did a good job at consolidating support for all his actions. Besides, Ukraine drifts Westward for all 20 years of independence, bloody mess in the East just make this move faster.

[OUTLAW 09]

Hmmm, other than a spare mag of ammo, an exfil generally does not include dog tags and passport.

Explain this “old Eastern European Concept” as if it was still in play. I think today’s Russians are not the generation you speak of.

Stan---what is and has not died is the eastern European is the belief that one must have a passport in order to cross borders or if need be prove that one is a Russian citizen thus it is not so strange that Russian irregular fighters carry passports---if in fact he was Russian SF which I do not believe he was---he definitely would have gone in clean but then the Ukrainian SBU has picked up GRU types carrying Russian passports.

So they are simply in the hectic of trying to get more irregular fighters into the Ukraine just sloppy.

[OUTLAW 09]

A really deeply telling article if correct as it is the first Russian admission that Russia is supplying new advanced weapons in large numbers into the Donestk region sine 3 Jul.

The question is why? Or is Putin all in now for an open UW fight?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._putin_donetsk

[Dayuhan]

What one "sees" is not what you "get".

I could actually go day by day the last two weeks and depict in detail that while you, EU and Obama "thinks" you are ahead---Putin has actually taken three steps forward and only a half step backwards.

What exactly were those steps, and where have they gotten him?

What I see is that some people here who are personally invested in the idea of an ascendent Russia and the West in retreat are very eager to cling to that construct.

He is in a race---namely does he get what he needs and wants and that is the New Russia ie the Donetsk before his economy tanks for a long while. Why Donetsk---it is where the bulk of all Russian military production which Russia needs for their 2020 rearming program is currently being produced and it would take Putin ten years to rebuild it inside Russia---he needs the Donetsk.

That is his race and we do not even see it---strange is it not?

A race against what? If he wants Donetsk, all he has to do is take it, as he took Crimea. He could do it today. He could have done it months ago. He hasn't, which suggests that either he doesn't want it all that badly or he's concerned about potential consequences.

You honesty think Putin thinks for a single moment he is losing come on Dayuhan.

It would be silly for anyone here to speculate on whether or not Putin thinks he's winning or losing. No way to know what he thinks.

If you think for one moment those Russian "war tourists" or what I call irregulars are not being slid through a border that Putin "claims" was secure with the approval of the FSB ---check this link showing documents of a killed "Russian war tourist"---down to the Russian military unit he was assigned to.

We all know they are there. Are they winning?

The Ukrainian government could still blow it, of course, if they lay siege to Donetsk and create a bloodbath. I don't think they are that stupid, though. If they can back the rebels into a few urban centers they can hold up, offer a conditional amnesty that would send the Russians back to Russia without consequence and give the local irregulars a way out that does not involve urban warfare.

We'll see soon enough, but surely you notice that all the talk about how Putin is bound to seize all of eastern Ukraine and link up with Transnistria has completely evaporated.

[Ulenspiegel]

outlaw,

if you use the situation in 2012 as starting and reference point, you have real trouble to explain where Russia won.

Russia is actually paying for less she had in 2012, this is not a gain, especially when your opponent can use asymmetric economic warfare to hurt you. An occupation of eastern parts of Ukraine would increase the problems, a cynic would actually hope for it.

Putin is minimizing losses, sorry.

[JMA]

The annexation of Crimea for one. This is now part of Russia and not part of a neighbouring state which was increasingly difficult to dominate.

outlaw,

if you use the situation in 2012 as starting and reference point, you have real trouble to explain where Russia won.

Russia is actually paying for less she had in 2012, this is not a gain, especially when your opponent can use asymmetric economic warfare to hurt you. An occupation of eastern parts of Ukraine would increase the problems, a cynic would actually hope for it.

Putin is minimizing losses, sorry.

[Ulenspiegel]

The annexation of Crimea for one. This is now part of Russia and not part of a neighbouring state which was increasingly difficult to dominate.

They (re)occupied a region, that is supplied by Ukraine, with an economy much weaker than their own in order to secure a maritime base. This menas in my book they will have to pay.

Without occupation of eastern Ukraine Russia faces the interesting situation that parts of "her" industry are now located in a country that was turned from neutral/friendly to hostile by Russian operations. Great. BTW there are not only some production facilities for military hardware but also for oil/gas production and distribution in Ukraine. Of course they can rebuild this industry in Mother Russia, however, that will cost.

Occupation of eastern parts of Ukraine, again a region with weaker economy, may solve the industrial problem, but requires even more investments than the Krim.

Western Ukraine, a neutral or friendly buffer, is lost and a country with around ~30 million citizen (around 1/4 of the Russian population) will now spend recources to defend against Russian operations in future.

[Firn]

They (re)occupied a region, that is supplied by Ukraine, with an economy much weaker than their own in order to secure a maritime base. This menas in my book they will have to pay.

Without occupation of eastern Ukraine Russia faces the interesting situation that parts of "her" industry are now located in a country that was turned from neutral/friendly to hostile by Russian operations. Great. BTW there are not only some production facilities for military hardware but also for oil/gas production and distribution in Ukraine. Of course they can rebuild this industry in Mother Russia, however, that will cost.

Occupation of eastern parts of Ukraine, again a region with weaker economy, may solve the industrial problem, but requires even more investments than the Krim.

Western Ukraine, a neutral or friendly buffer, is lost and a country with around ~30 million citizen (around 1/4 of the Russian population) will now spend recources to defend against Russian operations in future.

I agree. A key to understand the current crisis is that the personal goals of Putin and Russia aren't necessarily the same, to put it midly. This is true even if there is no doubt that for now, after massive propaganda campaigns, the Kremlin leader has a very strong popular backing.

PewGlobal has some interesting new polls:

More than seven-in-ten Ukrainians also express disappointment with Putin. Broad majorities of Ukrainians in the west (89%) and the east (66%) express no confidence in Russia’s president, while just 5% of residents of Crimea say the same. About half of Russian-only speakers (51%) in the east lack confidence in Putin’s foreign policy compared with 43% who say they trust him.

Ukrainians’ attitudes toward Russia also have changed significantly over time. Six-in-ten in Ukraine rate Russia unfavorably today, compared with just 11% in 2011, the last time the question was asked. Within Ukraine, there are deep divides by region and language. More than eight-in-ten in the country’s west (83%) give Russia low marks, compared with 45% in the east and only 4% in Crimea. Within the east, Russian-only speakers (28%) are less negative toward Russia than their neighbors (58%).2

It strongly supports the comment of many that almost all of Ukraine will be lost for quite some time for Russia as friend and partner. The aspect of the minority of the minority of Russian-only speakers which trust Putin is of course interesting.

But another survey, published by Ukraine's Razumkov Center last week, makes unhappy reading for the Russian President. The Razumkov pollsters said 54 percent of Ukrainian people want their country to join Nato, with just 32 percent against.

P.S: Good to see oversampling in the East and Crimea, given their smaller size. Russian-only speakers tend of course to be over-rappresented as they are considerable more urban then bilinguals.

Country: Ukraine
Sample design: Multi-stage cluster sample stratified by Ukraine’s six regions plus ten of the largest cities – Kyiv (Kiev), Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Odessa, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, Lviv, Kryvyi Rih, Lugansk, and Mikolayev – as well as three cities on the Crimean peninsula – Simferopol, Sevastopol, and Kerch
Mode: Face-to-face adults 18 plus
Languages: Russian, Ukrainian
Fieldwork dates: April 5 – April 23, 2014
Sample size: 1,659
Margin of error: +/-3.3 percentage points
Representative: Adult population (Survey includes oversamples of Crimea and of the South, East and Southeast regions. The data were weighted to reflect the actual regional distribution in Ukraine.)

[JMA]

They (re)occupied a region, that is supplied by Ukraine, with an economy much weaker than their own in order to secure a maritime base. This menas in my book they will have to pay.

Are you saying you don't understand the importance to Russia of the access to the Black Sea afforded by bases in Crimea? I would suggest they are prepared to pay... and with the annexation it will make it that much more difficult for Russia to hand Crimea back.

It seems that the patheticly weak response from the US and Germany to the annexation will serve to embolden Russia (as did the pathetic response from the West to the Russian aggression in Georgia in 2008). When will Russia make its next move? Not a matter of if, rather one of when.

When Ukraine promised to take Crimea back the Russians threatened to use nukes. That got the urine flowing on the White House floor again and the Germans no doubt making promises of no more sanctions.

Game, set and match to Russia.

Without occupation of eastern Ukraine Russia faces the interesting situation that parts of "her" industry are now located in a country that was turned from neutral/friendly to hostile by Russian operations. Great. BTW there are not only some production facilities for military hardware but also for oil/gas production and distribution in Ukraine. Of course they can rebuild this industry in Mother Russia, however, that will cost.

Occupation of eastern parts of Ukraine, again a region with weaker economy, may solve the industrial problem, but requires even more investments than the Krim.

I am no suggesting that Putin is the master strategist. Maybe his critics are correct that he is taking a short term view. It is not like he has any opposition... Obama and Frau Merkel's Germany are a joke. He has two years left of Obama... he can operate with much freedom, even a challenge to NATO (he would probably get away with).

Western Ukraine, a neutral or friendly buffer, is lost and a country with around ~30 million citizen (around 1/4 of the Russian population) will now spend recources to defend against Russian operations in future.

Ukraine was drifting away from Russia anyway (for good historical reasons) and Putin would have seen that. Putin would be smart enough to realise that there is no military threat from Ukraine and Europe (although he may play to the Russian audience in this regard).

[mirhond]

The Ukrainian government could still blow it, of course, if they lay siege to Donetsk and create a bloodbath. I don't think they are that stupid, though. If they can back the rebels into a few urban centers they can hold up, offer a conditional amnesty that would send the Russians back to Russia without consequence and give the local irregulars a way out that does not involve urban warfare.

Actually they are that stupid - Kievan authority promised to surround and blocade Donetsk and Lugansk. I won't be bloodbath, it will be surrender by starvation.

[JMA]

We'll see soon enough, but surely you notice that all the talk about how Putin is bound to seize all of eastern Ukraine and link up with Transnistria has completely evaporated.

Yes Putin had the US, Germany and the EU in a state of panic over what they thought Putin's next move would be.

His first step was Crimea, the second was the threat to what you mention.

No question he has won outright on Crimea. (His step one)

He is still sitting with Donetsk so maybe only a half step back... Which is understandable given US weakness and German gutlessness.

I guess he is judging his moment to repeat the two steps forward.

[Dayuhan]

No question he has won outright on Crimea. (His step one)

That will seem a pretty hollow win if the rest of the Ukraine ends up under a pro-western government.

He is still sitting with Donetsk so maybe only a half step back... Which is understandable given US weakness and German gutlessness.

How is that understandable? If he sees himself faced by weakness and gutlessness, wouldn't the logical move be to take what he wants and establish a fait accomplii, as he did with Crimea? What does he gain by waiting? Not as if things have been going his way in the meantime.