So to the surprise of approximately no one, the Kremlin finally reaped its first post-election rewards in Ukraine, when they bought themselves an extension of the lease for the naval base at Sevastopol in exchange for a cheap gas package for their faithful loyalist President Viktor Yanukovych.  They were so happy about how easy it was, that Vladimir Putin made some tongue-in-cheek comments about how he doesn’t want all kinds of countries coming forward and offering him military bases for similar energy gifts, as though he were swatting away all of his new fast friends. 

Although about 60% of Ukrainians are in favor of hosting the base, the Rada exploded this week in an embarrassing show of what stands for parliamentary protocol.  Some say it was a passionate display that at least democracy still exists in Ukraine, even if it is dysfunctional and chaotic.

Some journalists are looking for the whole “opposite” angle to the story of base, arguing that in fact Russia is the one who got the bad deal.  Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post wrote on his blog that “Putin will end up the loser in this deal,” while Alexander Golts argued that “Yanukovych has already made the Kremlin a hostage to his hold on power.“

I don’t really buy this argument, and if in fact if being overly invested in Yanukovych is the only price to pay for retaining influence over Kiev, then I am sure the Kremlin is happy to pay it in order to retain a critical geostrategic foothold on the Black Sea.  But in fact, this move actually costs much, much more to the Russian taxpayers – a point raised quite compellingly at the end of this article in the Economist: