What’s up with Russia and Ukraine? A bit more than a whit.

When I first began hearing about the moves resulting in the Russian annexation of Crimea — let’s call a spade a spade — I thought it was a fairly innocuous move. My speaking of innocuous just now is one  in very relative terms, or so it turns out.

In a very short period the “pro-Russian rebels,” some of whom may or may not be Russian mercenaries or even Russian soldiers, escalated the situation to a seemingly much higher plain. All kinds of questions must be asked with regards to the intentions of Macho Man Vladimir Putin and whether he had this all mapped out before the festivities even began at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. The Crimean troubles began shortly after the end of the winter games in that Black Sea Russian city.

But bigger questions remain: Does Putin want to incorporate Ukraine as he did Georgia? Does he want to foment unrest so that he may slowly creep across the former USSR and take whatever pieces that are available for entry into the Russian fold?

A talking head on the tube this morning gave me a point to ponder as to why those are not particular aims of Putin. I don’t remember who this analyst was, not that it really matters. That is because that person’s ideas are on an equal footing with others who just sit around guestimating.

This person talked about military aims of the Soviets Russians but as well spoke of the geopolitical ones. Or, rather, as to the geopolitical aims, perhaps a more correct interpretation of Mr. Talking Head was what was not a goal of Putin nor Russia. Head said, Fred? No Mr. Head said that Russia lacked the resources to govern Ukraine.

Well, I really had not thought about that. But then I wondered whether Mr. Putin had thought about the consequences of an all-out civil war in Ukraine? I’m sure he has, or his flunkies. But let’s just ponder for a moment. If Putin doesn’t want to destabilize or ultimately conquer Ukraine, then what is it that he really wants?

Hell if I know.

Maybe oil and gas, or rather, control of the means for its transit? I was already wrong about Crimea and the Rooskies. But whether I am right or wrong really matters not one whit. What is a whit anyway? It is defined as a very small amount. That is a definition that leaves a very large hole for clarity. Which, in turn, is like attempting a determination as to just what Russia has ultimately in mind. And for an answer for that, see the previous paragraph.