al jazeera's often not the best source for getting the whole picture. there's no doubt something missing. let's see what the russians say.
nothing as of yet, it seems. just a lot of talk of russia possibly accepting a crimean vote to join the russian federation.
technically, allowing crimea into the russian federation is not invading it. but the force in which the kremlin's spokespeople were rejecting any attempt to sway crimea into russia is not consistent with that kind of policy.
they were very clear on upholding ukrainian sovereignty over the region, while supporting more autonomy.
so, this is either a shift in policy or the collapse of a story that was constructed for western consumption.
it's probably a bit of both.
either way, they lost some credibility with me.
i mean, it's not entirely surprising, but there's a difference between creating propaganda about *why* they're doing something and lying about what they're doing. i've been operating under the perception that while their justifications are usually fabricated, they've been mostly up front about what they're actually doing.
meaning that "we're protecting russians" is obvious bullshit, but "we're not annexing the region" isn't. that may seem subtle, but it's a big difference. it's what v why.
i think it's mostly an extrapolation of how i deal with american propaganda. when the americans indicate they're going after a region - be it iraq or syria or iran - they almost never bluff. you can figure out *what* they're doing pretty easily, by taking their statements at face value. it's the *why* that's usually nonsense and requires a lot of deconstruction.
i don't know how the russians expect anybody to take them seriously when they stand up and say they're doing a thing, and then do the exact opposite. even the americans know not to kill their own credibility like that.
i'm not very forgiving when it comes to this kind of thing. there's still time for a more subtle russian explanation. but, as of right now, they just lost credibility in my mind.