Dodik said that the entity he leads was "facing an absurd situation in which it is being accused by many for separating RS [from Bosnia], while we are saying that we will not allow separatism in countries such as Serbia".
He insisted that "Kosovo has been taken from Serbia" violently in a breach of international law that humiliated all Serbs.
The second sentence of the posted text goes:
"But he said that RS took
its lead from Belgrade and would not allow Bosnia to recognise Kosovo."
Which is exactly what I said. RS is preventing Bosnia to recognize Kosovo, because RS was instructed to do so by Serbia, so trough RS - Serbia has leverage over the foreign policy of her formally sovereign neighbor.
Maybe I should have been clearer, as I think we are agree... The RS is refusing to allow BiH to recognise Kosovo as independent, as it will force the BiH to recognise RS independence. Which is what I wrote
It is actually quite opposite. RS would
love if BiH would be forced to recognize RS independence. Actually, gaining independence for RS is Dodik's core policy. He was even threatening with Krimean style referendum lately, and he is constantly blocking all the federal institutions, by the power of indiscriminant veto, while, in the same time complaining that Bosnia is failed state, and that the Serbs would be far better of without it.
The very fact that he went
against the Kosovo independence, although supporting the precedent of Kosovo independence would be theoretically beneficial for him, and that he publicly stated that he is doing so following Serbian que shoes just how much influence Serbia still has over RS.
When it comes to South Ossetia, or Abhazia, he was not that cheap, he publicly stated that RS is in favor of
their indepedence. Look, I don't blame you for getting things upside down, Balkans is a total mess, quite complicated politically, and generally not so interesting any more to outsiders.
What I was saying is that Russia would love to have some sort of Ukrainian Republika Srpska, which she could use to influence Ukrainian policies on federal level, same way Serbia does, for instance, when it comes to Kosovo, and other issues in Bosnia. And that would be even more beneficial to Russians, than to simply secede the eastern parts, and leave the rest of Ukr on its own.
Kerry was, actually directly asked after his meeting with Lavrov whether Russians proposed the Bosnian style federation in Ukraine and he did not deny the fact that Russians mentioned something like that (although he did not confirmed it either).
If you consider that a large number of units fighting alongside the militias are in fact SV guys from Russia, I think it's safe to say that Putin does retain some control over the pro-Russian side. I am basing this on what Feanor has already laid out earlier in the thread; the escalation of commitment surely would imply some degree of Russian control over the militias. Besides, I think both sides are getting sick of all this. Saying no to a ceasefire, especially for the militias, would be detrimental.
Just my two cents. I might be misreading the whole thing entirely.
Well off course Putin has control over the pro-Russian side. Hell, he behind the whole thing. I was just saying that, due to the lack of the clear chain of command, that one might reasonably suspect, when it comes to the army consisted of dozens different militias, local units, and gunmen collected all over the place, Putin will be in harder position to push for cease fire, than Poroshenko.
While Poroshenko would have to worry over couple of "volunteer" batalions affiliated with right sector, etc ...his army is mainly consisted of regular army units. With pro-Russians it is other way around. Its probable that Russia has some number of regular troops inside Ukraine, however bulk of pro-Russian forces are militias, which are much harder to control. That's the difference.
