Russia 'distributing passports in the Crimea'

I'm less concerned about the Georgai/SO passport/ethnic identification issue than I am about such activities if they turn up in parts of the Ukraine and Baltics. The Georgia/SO issue seems to have been let fester by all parties for whatever motives. If the issuing of passports to other regions comences it is no longer an isolated dispute and becomes a pattern of aggression.

So, you think the Russians plan to retake all the breakaway republics? I don't know...

I think you may be on to something, not that Russia will attempt invasions per se, but that they have a vested interest in inciting civil unrest in the surrounding areas.

Obviously there's a proxy war going on in the region, it's not new. The color revolutions really irked Russia, for obvious reasons.

Anything Russia can do to thwart the Western influence is a good play, from their perspective.

Certainly Putin expected some type of reaction from the West over this. The question is, was he expecting some type of Chamberlainesque response or something closer to what we are seeing.

I don't know, good question. Knowing what he expected would go a long way to explaining his precise motives.

If I had to guess, I'd say that Russia counted on harsh words and no action. Just a guess, mind you.

Russia is blessed to be so mineraly rich, but when you see the lack of respect for private property and rule of law, one has to wonder if its worth it to do business with them.

Well, it's worth it if you're willing to do business on their terms. They've proven this.

It's not worth it if you plan on trying to pull a fast one, and smuggle wealth out of the country. We've seen what happens then - you cool your heels in Siberia for a while.

First and foremost, he's a nationalist, I think, not a capitalist. His actions always, to me at least, appear to be in the interest of Russia's place in the world and their bottom line. If you can do business with Putin/Russia that is mutually beneficial, I don't think there are any roadblocks to that.

I still can't understand why Russia didn't shut off the gas to Ukraine. I just don't get it. Have you got any ideas? International pressure is essentially meaningless, it can't just be that simple. (This has been bugging me for a while)

Surely the issue is that if the Ukrainian government decided to organize a referendum and Eastern Ukraine voted to secede, that would be one thing, but if Russia is deliberately taking steps that could lead to civil unrest that is another.

Well, I think it's a safe bet that there will be no referendum on this issue, right? If the country is to be split, it will most likely be the result of a long and drawn out civil war, with support from America and Russia for their respective 'dogs in the fight'.

Is splitting along ethnic lines always progressive?

Progress is a double-edged sword - this fact is perfectly illustrated by this scenario we're discussing. In order to achieve progress and learn to live together, people have to be at each others' throats for some time before they grow weary of the status quo and opt for change.

So, in the name of progress, we could put a million cobras in a large arena with an equal number of mongoose, with the intent of fostering common ground and mutual understanding. It may take a thousand years...

Would respective minority populations be treated as second-class citizens?

Probably, and it's a shame. So often the liberated, having just had the boot of oppression lifted off their neck, choose to place their own boot on someone else's neck. It's a shameful and all-too familiar cycle in most parts of the world. The best example I an think of, off the top of my head, is Rwanda. Certainly though, there are endless examples.

Would this perhaps open the door to other border disputes and civil unrest?

Without a doubt. If you create a new border, you will necessarily create new border disputes.

The point is it took that long for them to fully realise how being tied to the Russian economy and political system was not only an issue of them not possessing self-determination, it was a dead-end in terms of development. And in case of global war they would be expendable!

I see what you're saying, but I have to call foul. Most people will abandon any notion of self-determination, and even freedom, if the standard of living improves and they can feed their families. People NEED food, more than they need freedom, and they know this. So, economic stability and the creation of jobs will almost always win out over esoteric notions of free will. Almost always...

Russia holds the key to economic prosperity for the region, and indeed they hold the key to comfort and survival when it comes to the pipelines. Could the breakaway republics manage on their own? Definitely. Would it be a lot harder, at least at the beginning? Certainly. That's the crux, isn't it. Will the people of the region sacrifice NOW for LATER?

And, to your second point, about the people of the region, and even the region itself, being expendable...

It doesn't matter which side they play for, they're expendable. The only hope they have of NOT being expendable is to forge ahead on their own, without being beholden to either the Russia or the West. Unfortunately..and I hate to say this, but it's true, in that case, they are expendable to both sides, and without support.

These are fledgling governments, and they require a great deal of support in order to remain solvent and functioning. So, they turn to the superpowers, and exchange their self-determination for some much needed capital. It's a choice, and no choice comes without consequences.

Georgians know that they will be expendable, whether they side with Russia or the West. If they didn't know it a couple of weeks ago, they almost certainly know it now. It's a hard lesson to learn, but necessary.