So this is pretty incredible:
FoxNews said:
Putin recognized for the first time that the troops in unmarked uniforms who had overtaken Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula before its annexation by Moscow were Russian soldiers...
"It's all nonsense, there are no special units, special forces or instructors in the east of Ukraine," Putin said.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/04/17/ukraine-interior-minister-says-three-pro-russian-protesters-killed-at-military/
Observations/Analysis (Opinions):
So he's admitted what most of us here already concluded: yes, those unmarked troops in Crimea were Russian. In stark terms, he's essentially admitted he invaded, conqured and annexed Crimea (though he still contradicts that, he's admitted to the details of it). Clearly, he must consider that issue settled, so it doesn't hurt him to drop the ridiculous pretext that the troops weren't Russian.
Then he says there are no Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Hmm...where have I heard that before? Oh yeah: two sentences ago! His boldness here is remarkable. IMO, he must be after one thing with these combined statements: he's asking for our tacit approval to annex the eastern portion of Ukraine.
Which the Obama administration appears to have provided:
CNN said:
White House officials now say that sectoral sanctions � those that cut off a portion of the Russian economy - will not be enacted unless Russia attempts a full-on invasion of Ukraine...
When asked why the United States won�t provide arms to Ukraine to assist in quickly quashing the Russia-backed elements, U.S. officials said they don�t want to risk a violent escalation or start a proxy war with Russia. The White House lauds the restraint that Ukraine itself has employed...
Obama said that Putin doesn�t want a military conflict, either, and emphasized that Ukraine should determine its relationships with other countries.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/16/sanctions-against-russia-for-ukraine-actions-working-and-more-may-be-on-the-way/?hpt=hp_bn3
What I'm reading in the subtext there is Obama is saying (paraphrase) "Go ahead and take what you want, as long as you do it covertly and lie about it so I can plausibly deny I can prove it crosses my red line. Oh, and Ukraine: you should continue letting Russia do this so the situation doesn't become more overt to where my plausible deniability is eroded."
In a bit of bad reporting by CNN (same article):
CNN said:
Sanctions against Russia for Ukraine actions working � and more may be on the way
Sanctions imposed against Russia are working as a deterrent, President Barack Obama and other White House senior administration officials said Wednesday in a detailed defense and explanation of the U.S. response to the escalating crisis in Ukraine...
�What I�ve said consistently is that each time Russia takes these kinds of steps that are designed to destabilize Ukraine and violate their sovereignty, that there are going to be consequences,� he said. �And what you�ve already seen is the Russian economy weaker, capital fleeing out of Russia. Mr. Putin�s decisions are not just bad for Ukraine, over the long term, they�re going to be bad for Russia.�
"Working" is the reporter's word, not Obama's. Obama says what the sanctions are doing (damaging the Russian economy...if we accept the cause-effect relationship), but he doesn't say they are "working". What's the difference? The purpose of the sanctions isn't to damage Russia's economy, it is to coerce Russia into stopping or reversing its invasion of Ukraine. The Russian people are not our enemy and the goal is not to hurt them. The best outcome here would be for the sanctions and threat of more to make Putin stop so that the sanctions can be lifted,
minimizing the harm to the Russian people.
This is remarkable too:
Foxnews said:
Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who leaked details of U.S. intelligence eavesdropping, asked Putin a question during the televised call-in show, Reuters reported.
According to the report, this exchange was the first known direct contact between Snowden and Putin since Russia granted Snowden asylum last summer.
Snowden reportedly submitted his question in a video clip and it was not immediately clear if he was speaking live or if it had been recorded earlier.
"Does Russia intercept, store or analyze, in any way, the communications of millions of individuals?" Snowden said, also asking whether Putin thinks improving the effectiveness of investigations justifies "placing societies .. under surveillance."...
According to Reuters, Putin said Russia regulates communications as part of criminal probes, but "on a massive scale, on an uncontrolled scale we certainly do not allow this and I hope we will never allow it."
Putin is using Snowden for propaganda. The purpose of this question is to poke the US in the eye by claiming Russia is less of a Big Brother than we are. Snowden is not a POW: he is in Russia illegally and by his own choice. That makes this
treasonous, even if Snowden is too stupid to realize why Putin wanted the question and/or was coerced into giving it. Not that we'd do anything about it: the precedent is (old, but probably still relevant...) Jane Fonda's actions in Vietnam.
