Spent a few days in the Crimea, not on government invitation, so free to explore. Conclusions: 1) Massive government infrastructural investments. Locals complain of outrageous corruption but note corruption under Ukraine (with little investment);
2) Overwhelming support for Russia. Locals recounted their enthusiastic involvement in the pre-annexation referendum. Russian flags flying everywhere, etc. If another referendum were held today, it is inconceivable that it would result in a vote for Ukraine.
3) Sanctions were felt. Oddly, Russian mobile operators treat Crimea as a foreign country (for roaming purposes). Foreign cards proved useless. Crimea's is a cash economy, and will likely remain so.
4) Many locals secretly hold on to their Ukrainian passports.
- "Why?"
- "Just in case."
5) Ukrainians are selling their vacation homes in Crimea but the slack is being taken up by scores of Russians (from Siberia etc) buying vacation homes.
6) There seems to be considerable seasonal workforce from Ukraine that continues to service Crimea's vacation industry.
7) No happy end to this story. Crimea is not "returning" to democratic Ukraine any time soon, or ever. This should probably be taken as a starting point for a regional settlement.
One could argue that non-recognition keeps this hope alive, as in the case of the Baltics (their annexation by the USSR was never recognised by the West). But the parallel is a weak one, mainly because Crimea is populated by ethnic Russians.
What else to say? Worth visiting, just to get a better grasp on the political realities.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There has been a lot of confusion about what has or has not been agreed in Riyadh. Let me try to summarize where we are now that we have statements from all sides and preliminary reactions. In a nutshell, I don't think a Black Sea truce has been agreed yet.
This is despite statements by the White House (here: whitehouse.gov/briefings-stat… and here: whitehouse.gov/briefings-stat…) that claim that an agreement has been reached with Russia and Ukraine "to ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea."
The reason why I say no agreement on a truce has been reached is that Russia issued a statement of its own, claiming that it would only go into effect after sanctions on Rosselkhozbank "and other financial organizations" had been removed, and other sanctions lifted.
So since everyone (myself included) have been trashing Witkoff, let me offer an alternative view of his interview with @TuckerCarlson, which I think should be watched in full, to give Witkoff the benefit of the doubt. I think he deserves it tbf.
I found several striking elements in the interview. And no, I won't talk about his knowledge (or lack thereof) of the "five regions." The fact of the matter is: even if Witkoff new Eastern Ukraine like the back of his hand and could name every little village...
... even if he studied Ukrainian history and defended his PhD on the subject of Khrushchev's handling of Crimea --none of this would actually change the underlying reality of Ukraine being peripheral to core US interests, and not in this sense being "existential" for the US. So.
Well, @MartinDiCaro since you asked, Alan Kuperman's oped on the origins of the war in Ukraine is not particularly convincing. It's one-sided in its presentation of facts, and omits important information. thehill.com/opinion/519802…
First, Kuperman argues that far-right militants were responsible for violence in Kyiv in February 2014. He draws heavily on Ivan Katchanovski who published several studies to this effect.
Kuperman acknowledges that Yanukovych's ouster "does not justify Russia's invasion," and yet claims that it "provoked" Russian invasion. To translate, Yanukovych's ouster... provoked an unjustified Russian invasion. If it sounds ridiculous, that's because it is.
As we are waiting for the outcome of the second Trump-Putin call, let's take a closer look at Putin's comments to Russian businessmen earlier today. Some very interesting points, which I think suggest what Putin thinks he can and cannot accomplish. Full transcript: .kremlin.ru/events/preside…
One thing I found interesting is that Putin did *not* make the recent distinction between "our partners" the Americans and the difficult Europeans. He did not take the opportunity to thank @realDonaldTrump profusely for his commitment to peace (as in the presser with Lukashenka).
Instead, he seemed to have returned to some of his previous rhetoric about the collective West... "the so called Western elites."
As we think about how the Russians will react to the ceasefire proposal, let's return to Putin's comments from December 19, 2024. Here he says that a ceasefire would give Ukraine breathing space at a time when the Russians are making gains on the battlefield.
On the other hand, here he talks about a "lengthy ceasefire period," implying perhaps that a "shorter" ceasefire would not have the same effect.
It's important to remember too that Putin will want to be seen as "negotiating", and pin any breakdown of negotiations on the recalcitrant Ukrainians. For this reason, he may agree to a tactical pause, perhaps after the Russians recapture the entirety of the Kursk oblast (seems likely to happen in the next few days).
So now that passions have died down somewhat (including my own), let's try to understand what happened. The disastrous Trump/Zelensky press conference reflected a real divergence of interests, but also a culture clash and a personality clash.
Trump's worldview is that of a crime boss. He brooks no dissent and values loyalty above all else, including competence. Contradicting the boss in public makes Trump lose face, and cannot be tolerated. @JDVance knows this, which is why, as a loyal underling, he jumped to Trump's defense at the flimsiest of provocations.
Zelensky, by contrast, perceives himself as something of a martyr. He is a brave man tbs, leading a very difficult fight against a superior adversary on behalf of the Free World. In matters of who should be grateful to whom, he thinks that the Americans should be grateful to him and to Ukraine, because it's that world, and, by extension, American leadership in it, that his country is defending.