World press on Ukrainian crisis and Russian president's policies(September 9-10, 2014)

The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "What Does Vladimir Putin Want?"

The author of the article, Bret Stephens, believes that President Putin does not desire money, power, territory or revenge. According to him, "the Russian strongman" is after bigger game.

Putin wants to rebuild the once glorious Russian Empire and establish a system of unquestionable authoritarian rule, the author of the article believes.

"Vladimir Putin aims to reconstitute the Russia of the czars. He wants to avenge the historic humiliation, as he sees it, that was the collapse of the Soviet Union. He's got to do what he's got to do to stay in power, probably for life, if necessary by whipping Russians into nationalist frenzy. And he wants to have a lot of fun while doing all of it," the author writes.

The time has come to end the Ukrainian conflict, Katrina vanden Heuvel believes. " If the United States and Europe were thinking rationally, the NATO summit in Wales last week would have been an opportunity to discuss a lasting resolution to the violent crisis in Ukraine, which has claimed thousands of lives and crippled the country’s economy. Instead, amid a fragile ceasefire agreement between Kiev and pro-Russian rebels in the east, the assembled world leaders used the summit for more belligerent talk and reckless sabre-rattling, with their ultimate goal increasingly unclear. The goal seemed more preparing the NATO alliance for a new Cold War with Russia than exploring how to make peace, even as Moscow was helping to bring about the cease-fire agreement," her article in the Washington Post reads.

"The meeting was just the most recent disturbing example of how cavalierly and cynically the NATO leaders — including President Obama — have escalated tensions, while dismissing opportunities to bring the conflict to a reasonable conclusion quickly. Absent from the discussion in Wales, among other things, was any recognition of NATO members’ own roles in triggering the crisis. Despite the dominant narrative that Russia is to blame for Ukraine’s uncertain future, history tells a different story — one in which the West’s provocative behavior has had predictable repercussions," the author writes.

"There would have been no civil war if the European Union’s leadership had not insisted on an exclusive association agreement that prejudiced Ukrainian industry in the east and trade with Russia, or if the United States and European nations had used their influence with the demonstrators to abide by the February 21 agreement that then-President Viktor Yanukovych signed, which would have handed more power to parliament and called for elections in December, or if the United States and Europe had been willing to work with Russia to restore the February 21 agreement and calm worries in Crimea and the east about the rights of Russian-speaking Ukrainians," she believes.

"Instead the U.S. and E.U. have encouraged the most radical elements in the Kiev government in their campaign to subjugate the east with military force — to seek a military solution to what is essentially a political problem in a deeply divided and economically fragile Ukraine," the article reads.