From Putin a de facto annexation (as in Crimea in 2014)

Of Franco Venturini

The Russian recognition of the independence of the Donbass separatist republics must not be deceiving: it is a de facto annexation. A scenario not too different from that of Crimea in 2014

In the end, Putin decided to shoot, for now with words and political acts but creating the conditions for the guns to have their say too. Russian recognition of the independence of the Donbass separatist republics must not deceive: it is a de facto annexation, confirmed by the advance of armored vehicles towards Lugansk and Donetsk
. A scenario not too different from that of Crimea in 2014. Ukraine will now have to decide whether to react militarily on its own since Westerners will not.

Putin divided his long speech to unified networks into two parts aimed also, and perhaps above all, at his internal public opinion (the Russian presidential elections will be held in 2024). In the first place, the hand extended to the patriots of the Donbass who, against the oppression of the pro-American power in Kiev, defend their passports, their language and the correct historical memory. An argument, that of Moscow’s national generosity, which had already been used for Crimea and other Russian-speaking areas, and on this Putin practically certain of obtaining a strong increase in internal support.especially if there is no war.

The other verbal offensive was launched by the head of the Kremlin against the West as a whole and NATO in particular. Arguments exaggerated by propaganda, those of Putin, but in this case not without some foundation: the rapid eastward enlargement of the Atlantic Alliance is a fact, and Putin was not satisfied with the explanation that the Europeans had also provided him according to which the entry of Ukraine into NATO not for today nor for tomorrow. He wanted a written guarantee valid forever, and of course this one, which would violate the principles of the Covenant, he did not get.

Hence the verbal illustration of a Russia besieged by enemy missiles, which would not even have time to defend itself against a nuclear attack. Here, too, bread for the voters, even here if there will not be a war with many losses.

Western condemnation was unanimous, but many questions remain on the table about the consequences of Putin’s choices. Will the deadly economic-financial sanctions set up for the case of an invasion continually foreseen by the USA come into force immediately? In this case, will the Western front remain united as it should despite the disagreements on the ways and times that discreetly exist between Washington and the main European capitals (including Rome)? And again, must the hypothesis of a negotiating compromise be filed in full and immediately, or does that track also remain open? Putin struck him, but had his own ability to remain ambiguous about his next moves. If anything, the language he used is the accusations of bad faith and incurable aggression against America and NATO that make one fear the worst.


Leave a Comment