Posted on 08/15/2014 1:51:27 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
The leader visiting a region ahead of elections on September 14 to boost his party’s chances is no unusual thing, but this is Crimea, and Vladimir Putin was scheduled to begin his second day of a visit to Russia’s latest outpost with an expected major policy statement on Crimea and infrastructure projects.
This is shorthand for the billions it is going to cost Russia to improve Crimea’s current drip-feed of supplies via over-extended and inadequate transport links.
Yet at the last minute press agencies pulled their coverage, and Moscow then confirmed the speech was cancelled along with an extensive list of engagements and public appearances by Putin.
No reason has been given for the cancellations, and there has been no statement about any further Crimean campaigning by Putin.
Now severed by force from Kyiv, Crimea needs everything; water and power supplies, food and basic essentials, and it all has to come via torturous road and ferry, or air, from Russia. Some analysts said Putin may have been poised to announce a much-mooted plan, and more importantly funding for a bridge over the mouth of the Sea of Azov.
Just keeping Crimea’s motor ticking over is costing Moscow dear, but then add the costs of restoring banking and insurance systems, accountancy, public administration and so on and the costs rise even higher. Crimea is unable to contribute much itself. Its major industry, tourism and health retreats, has lost its major clientele, Ukrainians, and its beaches have room to spare. This season is a dead loss.
Crimeans who so enthusiastically backed Moscow’s takeover will be hoping for much from Vladimir Putin, but how much can he deliver? The Russian economy and rouble have been hit hard by market reactions to the Ukraine crisis and Western sanctions. Russia’s 2014 budget has had a coach and horses driven through it, and Crimea is the cause.
However it is unlikely voters will sanction him in September even if he comes up with nothing new. Putin’s popularity means he can do no wrong, and the Ukrainian and Tatar minorities may struggle for any representation, although the latter group does have its own assembly, albeit powerless.
Although spared the destruction and bloodshed being seen in eastern Ukraine, Crimea’s problems remain severe, and there is a sense among some that they will remain until Moscow achieves its ultimate prize, and Crimea will be seen for what it is; a mere stepping stone in Russia’s territorial expansion from the Black Sea to the pro-Russian Transnistria enclave on Moldova’s border with Ukraine.
I have been saying, what was Putin thinking taking the Crimea. He just bought a money pit. Tourists won’t be back soon.
And they think they’re going to build a bridge from Russia to Crimea? How many billions of rubles is that going to cost? Sounds like “a bridge too far” to me.
Taking Crimea was great for the ego of Russian chauvinists, cranks, and Putinistas. But it was a stupid economic decision. They’ll pay for that gambit for Putin’s glory for a long time, like his most expensive Olympics ever.
Hmmmm......
President Obama comes in from the field over the weekend on relatively short notice — and with a lack of info as to why, beyond the MSM usual guessing games.
Now, Pooty-Poot yanks the plug on short notice for a couple of days...
I have two other little oddities that I’ll keep to myself for now..
Is Something Going To Happen? (Cue the tension music:)
That is a perfect description of Crimea cut off from Russia itself. It also perfectly illustrates why eastern Ukraine is a strategic imperative for Russia. Maintaining its sole warm water port and naval facilities at Sevastopol is an absolute necessity for Moscow, and worth going to war to keep out of hostile EU/NATO hands. It logically follows that a broad land bridge between Russia and Crimea is a vital Russian interest. Since eastern Ukraine is of absolute importance to Moscow and only marginal importance to Brussels, I believe the handwriting is on the wall that eastern Ukraine will be Russian. I don't like it, but the West will not go to war to stop it.
Don’t you think it would be cheaper for them to build that bridge across the Kerch Strait? Reuters reported that Crimea has already cost Russia a trillion rubles.
Russia's stocks plunged at the end of February (Crimean crisis) and has still not recovered from the shock.
Here's the context:
You can’t really blame him because he got his graphic from the lunatic fringe blog “zerohedge” run by a Bulgarian criminal.
Brian Suits of KABC 790 talk about on his radio show couple weeks ago
If Russia deems Crimea and its vital naval (and protective air) bases to be strategic necessities, saving money is not a factor. It is not only important for Russia to be able to sustain Crimea economically in peacetime, but necessary to defend, hold and employ it in wartime. That's why I think the Crimea and a connecting land bridge through eastern Ukraine are far more important to Russia than to the West.
Denying an aggressive expansionist Russia its strategic objectives is very important to the west and we are willing to spend more money on it than Russia has. Money is never irrelevant, and the west has much more of it than Russia does. Russia cannot win an economic war against the west, nor could they win a shooting war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.