“There are four new regions of Russia,” Putin said from the Kremlin in Moscow, according to a translation.
“The results are known, well known,” Putin said, referring to the series of annexations that the West described as a sham. He claimed the results were due to the will of millions of people, saying they had the right to self-determination.
How much self-determination can be exercised when surrounded by soldiers waving guns is, of course, one of the great unasked questions regarding the referenda.
“We will definitely rebuild the destroyed cities and towns, housing, schools, hospitals, theaters and museums. We will restore and develop industrial enterprises, factories, infrastructure, social security, pensions, healthcare, education,” the head of state said.
With Russian industrial production still in decline year on year as of August, it will be interesting to see where Putin hopes to get the output needed to carry out the promised rebuilding.
Now comes the question: When Ukraine retakes Kherson, will Putin nuke Kiev?
I find it funny how "democracy" is the greatest thing ever, right until a place votes for something that The Powers That Be don't like. See Italy as one example; they will be punished economically for voting the wrong way because we can't just call the Italian elections a "sham". Now the ethnic Russian provinces of Ukraine; yep, those elections were obviously a sham and illegitimate, just like the referendum in Crimea was in 2014, right?
In Luhansk and Donetsk, I can believe there would be sufficient pro-Russian sentiment for an accession referendum to pass. After all, that's where pro-Russian separatists have been fighting for years for that very objective.
Kherson? That's well outside the separatist Donbass region.
Crimea was Russian territory up until the 50s, when Krushchev transferred it to Ukraine, so once again, the premise of a sufficient degree of pro-Russian sentiment is believable. The fact that there does not appear to have been much opposition to Russian occupation since 2014 is rather strong evidence that the people in Crimea are at the very least unopposed to being Russian rather than Ukrainian.
However, even accepting the existence of pro-Russian groups and ethnic Russian enclaves within these regions, with a number of residents of these areas having fled to escape the ravages of the war, as well as the presence of arguably hostile troops during the referendum process, the credibility of the referendum vote has to be deemed suspect.
For example, a 2015 survey of Ukrainians found that only 3% of Ukrainians--and 0% of the inhabitants of Kherson--wanted to be part of Russia rather than Ukraine.
If he loses kherson he's in major trouble. Having just decreed that to be eternally Russia, if Ukraine takes it back his credibility with the Russian people will take it in the shorts.
If he's cornered, he becomes really dangerous. That's when I would fear the nukes, when he believes he's got nothing to lose.
I find it funny how "democracy" is the greatest thing ever, right until a place votes for something that The Powers That Be don't like. See Italy as one example; they will be punished economically for voting the wrong way because we can't just call the Italian elections a "sham". Now the ethnic Russian provinces of Ukraine; yep, those elections were obviously a sham and illegitimate, just like the referendum in Crimea was in 2014, right?
In Luhansk and Donetsk, I can believe there would be sufficient pro-Russian sentiment for an accession referendum to pass. After all, that's where pro-Russian separatists have been fighting for years for that very objective.
Kherson? That's well outside the separatist Donbass region.
Crimea was Russian territory up until the 50s, when Krushchev transferred it to Ukraine, so once again, the premise of a sufficient degree of pro-Russian sentiment is believable. The fact that there does not appear to have been much opposition to Russian occupation since 2014 is rather strong evidence that the people in Crimea are at the very least unopposed to being Russian rather than Ukrainian.
However, even accepting the existence of pro-Russian groups and ethnic Russian enclaves within these regions, with a number of residents of these areas having fled to escape the ravages of the war, as well as the presence of arguably hostile troops during the referendum process, the credibility of the referendum vote has to be deemed suspect.
For example, a 2015 survey of Ukrainians found that only 3% of Ukrainians--and 0% of the inhabitants of Kherson--wanted to be part of Russia rather than Ukraine.
https://zn-ua.translate.goog/ukr/UKRAINE/lishe-3-ukrayinciv-hochut-priyednannya-yih-oblasti-do-rosiyi-160641_.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Yet somehow once Russia occupies Kherson the people there have a complete change of heart and want to be part of Russia proper?
Accepting these referenda results at face value requires a degree of credulity that is simply not justifiable under the circumstances.
Well, Putin got his "land bridge" and now let us see if he can keep it.
The only thing worse than a dictatorship with thousands of nukes and sophisticated delivery systems? A weak one.
If he loses kherson he's in major trouble. Having just decreed that to be eternally Russia, if Ukraine takes it back his credibility with the Russian people will take it in the shorts.
If he's cornered, he becomes really dangerous. That's when I would fear the nukes, when he believes he's got nothing to lose.