Kāpēc nāca? Ko gribēja?

vara bungas: Tviteri plaši pazīstamais RU bruņojuma blogeris Rob Lee ( īstajā dzīvē ir politologs, analītiķis un eksperts) uz 38 lapām mēģina analizēt RU “staigāšanu gar UA robežu”, š.g, pavasarī. Daudz faktoloģiska materiāla, bet secinājumi tādi… izplūduši. Jēdzīgākā atziņa, ka uzbrukums UA netika īsti plānots, jo viss pasākums bija domāts psiholoģiska spiediena izdarīšanai uz Rietumiem, lai a) ar kremli atsāktu runāt, b) atturētu no UA uzņemšanas jebkur, c) iemainītu solījumu neuzbrukt UA jau pēcpusdienā , pret kaut ko taustāmu. Man šķiet RU viss izdevās a) POTUS tikās ar Putinu b) UA iestāšanās iesniegumi nolikti “uz ledu” c) NS-2 tiks pabeigts.

Militāro potenciālu var izmantot arī šādi. Galvenais, lai novērotājiem sgalabājas pārliecība, ka psihs ir īsts un netēlo.

[..] A better explanation is that the United States and NATO were the primary target of the Russian buildup, which was designed to deter them from taking future actions that Moscow might perceive as “anti-Russian.” Moscow was demonstrating that it could militarily escalate in Ukraine to put pressure on the U.S. and NATO if they adopted policies that were against Russian interests. President Putin provided some clues about Russia’s intentions during his annual address to the Russian Federal Assembly the day before Shoigu announced the end of the certification checks. Putin stated, “if someone mistakes our good intentions for indifference or weakness and intends to burn or even blow up these bridges, they must know that Russia’s response will be asymmetrical, swift and tough.” This clearly referred to the United States. He further warned against crossing Russia’s “red lines.” [..]

avots