![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Consider 6 players in a Ukraine strategy game:
1. The current provisional government
2. Putin
3. The future president of Ukraine
4. Ukrainian separatists
5. Nato (Europe + US)
6. China
Out of all of them, Nato would be the only party that has strong incentives to stabilize the situation in Ukraine right now. Otherwise, Putin moves in, either through a direct intervention or through a local proxy. Once that happens, Nato would have to introduce costly sanctions and increase its military presence in the border states. Furthermore, the de-facto occupation of Ukraine by Russia would be a blow to the current system of global security. Of course, Russia would be ostracized but Putin's personal costs would be quite low, unless somebody from his inner circle decides to get rid of him.
On the other hand, Putin has incentives to continue his overt efforts to destabilize Ukraine through the use of Russian "volunteers" and local separatists. The biggest payoff for him would be a combo of the West's acceptance of the South Stream and acquisition of the Crimea supply corridor. Also, an unstable Ukraine would serve as an excuse to suppress democracy in Russia. The longer, the better for him.
The future president of Ukraine risks alienating Putin, esp. if he succeeds in his destabilization strategy.
An ideal cooperation strategy would be 2,3 and 5 get together and hammer out a deal, but as the failure of the Geneva agreements show, Putin is not going to cooperate. Right now, he's the biggest problem because instability might get out hand and incidents like the one in Odessa could become more frequent.
1. The current provisional government
2. Putin
3. The future president of Ukraine
4. Ukrainian separatists
5. Nato (Europe + US)
6. China
Out of all of them, Nato would be the only party that has strong incentives to stabilize the situation in Ukraine right now. Otherwise, Putin moves in, either through a direct intervention or through a local proxy. Once that happens, Nato would have to introduce costly sanctions and increase its military presence in the border states. Furthermore, the de-facto occupation of Ukraine by Russia would be a blow to the current system of global security. Of course, Russia would be ostracized but Putin's personal costs would be quite low, unless somebody from his inner circle decides to get rid of him.
On the other hand, Putin has incentives to continue his overt efforts to destabilize Ukraine through the use of Russian "volunteers" and local separatists. The biggest payoff for him would be a combo of the West's acceptance of the South Stream and acquisition of the Crimea supply corridor. Also, an unstable Ukraine would serve as an excuse to suppress democracy in Russia. The longer, the better for him.
The future president of Ukraine risks alienating Putin, esp. if he succeeds in his destabilization strategy.
An ideal cooperation strategy would be 2,3 and 5 get together and hammer out a deal, but as the failure of the Geneva agreements show, Putin is not going to cooperate. Right now, he's the biggest problem because instability might get out hand and incidents like the one in Odessa could become more frequent.