Ukraine's future

quote:

---

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

---

Keep in mind this does not mean we MUST criticize the president and that we MUST oppose him at everything he does. This seems to be the opposition's stance in congress when the president is of the other party. It also seems to be a major portion of the press's stance no matter who is president regardless of what is being done.

I wouldn't think so either. Except you misspelled color. Pragmatic Liberalism ... with a mushroom/white wine sauce.

And how does one do that? Throw out some diplomats? Freeze some bank accounts? Refuse to sell tractors and tangerine tarts?How about war? You really want to call his bluff you have to follow through. You have to go in and force them out. Anyone prepared to do that? Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Agreed. Which means we land troops at Sevastopol. But we need to answer three questions before we make such a decision:- Would any sane man push the button?
- Given his obvious megalomania is Putin such a sane man?
- Are you willing to bet the lives of a few hundred million people and the entire economic structure of the planet on your analysis? Appeasement never placates the war lords. We already know this.There is this one hope. For centuries the Crimea has been one of the most vital strategic resources for the Russian. With the recently past political developments in the Ukraine, the prospect of a new not-so-friendly government pushing their allegiance more towards Europe, I could see where Moscow would have to consider what happens if they lose their unfettered access to those most vital ports. From their point of view it could not be good in the least and would cost them decades in military and economic assets to replace, if that could even be done. If the Russian feels secure again with this move maybe the bear will quiesce. If not then we are back to the three questions above.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I agree with #1 . No brainer. #2 is a bit more problematic for me, not that I think you are wrong, just that I'm not sure we really know with any adequate comfort level. For me, then, that means I cannot risk #3. Fortunately I'm not the one having to make such a decision.But for the sake of further discussion let us assume you are correct and we go to war with Russia in a strictly conventional manner. Do you think that such a war could be limited to just the Crimean peninsula? Both nations have such far flung interests and assets, and war being what it is, I would doubt the Russian would feel compelled to keep the destruction of battle in it's own back yard. And things could get really messy from there. Back to #3?This whole damn thing is lose-lose for the entire world.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Something positive, cautious maybe. Putin called Obama and asked for talks toward a diplomatic solution.I do not think Russia will step away since the Crimea is so strategically valuable to the Kremlin. But I think some assurance from Putin that this was a vital interest of national security, with historical justifications, and not the beginnings of a series of land grabs, may help ease the situation.In the days of Realpolitik US and Soviet spheres of influence, and their ability to take actions to secure their vital strategic interests within those spheres, were informally recognized. The Crimean Peninsula has been a very real strategic military and economic national asset for the Russian since before Catherine the Great got up the balls to take it for just those reasons.On the ground, the reality is there is nothing we can do to reverse this without putting the whole world in a very dangerous situation. Diplomatic talks may be able to resolve the fallout, the sanctions and recriminations, but I would not expect the Kremlin to even consider leaving Crimea.