The issue is over the Ukraine's membership of NATO which would be a serious security threat to Russia. In that sense it's important to back the Donbass.
And the issue is also of protecting our people, also again the Donbass.
Other than that, there are no more outstanding issues.
Donbass is not preventing Ukranian membership into NATO. It's not the roadblock. That is a fallacy that I explained above to another user. If Donbass independence from Kiev was the problem then Donbass would gain its independence...., the U.S and its lackeys would make sure of it and settle the issue in order to clear the way for absorbing what's left of Ukraine into the NATO block, still achieving their end goal. People citing NATO bylaws as if the empire cares for them and isn't a master at manipulation.... cmon now. If a way must be found it will be found. Matter of fact I think they've worked it out already.
Here is the interesting part in the U.S egging Ukraine to invade Donbass. It may very well play exactly into that plan. If Putin plays predictably, say, destroying the Ukranian military, saving the Donbass and merely stretching a land corridor to Crimea..... that is, to the U.S, an acceptable and insignificant territorial loss with infinite upside.
The wildcard if you will IS NOT the predictable Georgia blueprint (which they very much want); it's the low percentage of chance of an unpredictable response. It's the unpredictable response that doesn't allow their strategists to sleep well at night. It's the unpredictable response that steps beyond the Georgia blueprint... going beyond just the Donbass and across the Dnieper that scrambles and scuttles even their best made plans.
While it's probable Putin will play his predictable card, you can never be 100% sure that's the card he will play. Maybe he's wised up? You can never discount it on your assessment.... how do you respond then (the U.S)? Are you even prepared to handle such a crisis? The Americans aren't stupid.
But that is the game itself - the risks even the empire has to take. What Americans really fear is predictability failing them. Which is why they're probing intentions and thoroughly analyzing every single data point and intelligence source at their disposal before giving a final go ahead. Calling the Kremlin, "negotiating", military chief of staffs chatting... and all the hoopla. It's all covert for: are you going to do exactly what I expect you to do? Or are you going to do something else I've not planned for or don't want?
IF the U.S gives the go-ahead and the Ukies invade the Donbass, AND Russia responds predictably like they did in Georgia ...stopping at the current demarcation line or a bit further while extending a land corridor to say Crimea this serves the U.S to further settle the issue of NATO integration at a future date.
#1. It will obviously be a propaganda boom for the U.S to continue to poison the minds of "Ukrainians", as well as a tool for keeping a grip on Europe and scuttling Russian-EU business ties.
#2. It will allow for the recognition of independence of those regions become a settled matter due to the inevitable reality (insignificant land mass in the grand-scheme)... thus paving the way for NATO integration with the rest of Ukraine while also buttressing #3.
#3. Solidifies hold on the elites and a never look back future (for as long as the empire stands in both feet).
etc etc... it's a synergy of W's.
It all depends on whether they can trust Putin to stay predictable and play the Georgia blueprint - the less aggressive the better for them (although there is a kind of sweet spot to the aggression they're after for the newspapers). In my honest opinion, it's the height of idiocy to promote such a limited, predictable response. What's the saying.... "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
The world is watching and history will judge - as brutal as if often does.
While crossing the Dnieper river and unleashing unpredictability on the "end-game" will still be a propaganda boom for the Americans.... it will however serve Russia more by creating a more extensive and robust buffer zone . It will deprive the U.S and its allies of millions of minds to poison (at least a higher and significant amount). In the unpredictable scenario what is leftover of Ukraine will be, in military and economic terms, of rather insignificant value. Too small of a landmass, losing most of its strategic value.... say merely enlargements of Moldova, Romania, and Poland if you will. Not to mention that it will deprive the Russian hating elites of landmass to conduct business with. In that instance, there is even a high chance for there to be revolt among the slaving elites serving the empire (not a deal they signed for they'll cry - but beggars can't be choosers). So while the unpredictable option does not erase all of the damage or corrects all of the wrong.... it's definitely and without a doubt an infinitely preferable option compared to the Georgia blueprint - which amounts to conscious defeat. To me, employing the Georgia blueprint amounts to a failure the magnitude of which should force, ideally, regime change within the Kremlin (for its sake). Unfortunately, Russian history shows poor leadership can hang around, with devastating consequences (Gorby, Yeltsin etc). Too frigid of a political system.... high on cult of personality, "indispensable - irreplaceable" mindset/fear.
As for "our people" in the Donbass.... is the Ukie imposed demarcation line the limit to where your people live/are? Must all Russians scattered around the Ukraine drop their jobs, social lives and homes and rush to a warzone in order to become your people and thus be saved? The definition of who to save and who not to save based on man made lines as of yesterday if you will is an improper/shaky foundation for loyalty tests. In other words, Russians are everywhere in Ukraine, not just the Donbass. To suggest that the privilege to be saved is earned through insurrection or self migration to an active warzone is kinda crazy. Mind you, I've seen the essence of this take exposed by many here.... it's a common critical thinking problem. It's common to see it bundled with the Kremlin gospel affliction... which can be surmised as: "since the Kremlin picked this plot of land to save, then it must be the worthy one, with the others not being pure or as worthy or whatever". Maybe just maybe the circumstances and geographical distances from Russia's official borders make other plots of land unfeasible to save for the Kremlin (due to whatever calculus) despite being just as worthy, and as much of "your people". Just a thought.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
