Realistically, though, the West has already made it clear they have no intention to oppose Putin meaningfully. So the ship has pretty much sailed, even if I were transferred into Obama's body at this moment.

Not to mention China would never let the US actually directly engage Russia militarily.

"he knows the US really doesn't give two shits about Crimea."

Yeah, exactly, the point is to convince him we DO give two shits about Crimea, and in fact those two shits are enough to make us send a carrier group toward Russia. That's the entire point I'm making, right there.

Yeah, but we don't and he knows it. So, leaving Thucyville and reentering reality, what do you propose we do?

"Not to mention China would never let the US actually directly engage Russia militarily."

Are you sure? If Obama started threatening NATO action to get Putin to reverse the Crimea annexation, do you actually think China would threaten military action against the US to get us to stop? No, they'd probably just say they "appeal for calm" and ask Putin to return to diplomacy behind closed doors.

Again, all these people, Xi Jinping, Obama, Putin, aren't insane. Just as in the Cold War, everyone understands that a war between any of them would basically be the end of the world. But they also all understand that the West would win the war, if there was one. As long as this is true, the US can and should use the threat of military force to see to it that international law is respected.

It's too damn bad, really, because even if this all ended tonight, the Crimea crisis has set us back several years in terms of integrating countries like China and Russia into the world system so that they don't have to be adversaries anymore.

Indeed, there is a remote chance that if the West plays it right, this crisis could alienate China from Russia toward the West. Very unlikely, but possible. China might actually finally become that "responsible stakeholder" we have been desperately hoping for ever since it became clear that China was or would become a superpower.

"So, leaving Thucyville and reentering reality, what do you propose we do?"

See post beginning "Realistically,"

You could, you know, read what I'm saying, at least. I understand that y'all aren't in agreement with me, but you don't have to pretend I'm disconnected with reality.

also, you are aware of the difference between "is" and "ought", I assume? Is making the distinction really as hard for you as you're making it seem?

As long as we are talking "is" and not "ought", though, my honest prediction is that it is now mostly a waiting game to see if Russia or some other country decides to go one step further and try something else they think they can get away with. Repeat until it is too late.

I don't mean to draw the parallel with WWII too strongly but, well, the paralell is obvious, so. Complete with the breakdown of international order, and the disgruntled defeated, revanchist superpower from the last war.

I would have liked to have thought we left this shit in 1918, or 1945, or at least 1991. But of course I was never too optimistic about that. Hence the need for a realist approach to liberal institutionalism.

Well, Thucy, let's take a step back and ask which is more likely:

I'm purposefully misunderstanding you just to annoy you, or

Your rabid arguments aren't nearly as coherent to an outside observer as you think.

"See post beginning "Realistically,""

That post didn't suggest anything. It just said your crazy plan wouldn't work.

This is what I think we should do:

Immediately start exporting natural gas to Europe, especially Germany, so Russia can't have a stranglehold over them.

Redouble diplomatic efforts with China.

Economically and politically isolate Russia with a variety of sanctions.

Putin gets Crimea but loses relations with the rest of the world. Seems like a good trade to me.

Another, even darker prediction, is that the US acknowledges down the line a ways that international law is gone, or at least re-written, and begins to engage in this kind of behavior itself "if you can't beat em join em" style. That would be incredibly sad, but not entirely out of the realm of possibility if, decades from now, America is a far weaker power, and China, India, Russia, EU, and others are competing for spheres of influence without as much of the constraining factor of law and treaties.

I pray sincerely that we never find ourselves annexing, say, Panama again, for a reason similar to the one that of why Putin is annexing Crimea (strategic importance and influence of foreign powers). But today, it seems likelier than it did two months ago.

I agree with all of your proposed plan, but it would have to be accompanied by credible military threats, which don't needlessly escalate. If I were to become Obama tonight, it would probably be something like his red line on Syria (though a different phrase would have to be used for obvious reasons) with respect to the rest of Ukraine and to any other invasions or annexations for that matter.

A huge embarrassment, since it acknowledges we're not seriously expecting Russia to ever leave Crimea and admitting we will one day recognize the annexation, but at least it would send the message around the world that this was a one-time fuck-up, and will not be a trend going forward.

Of course, the sudden change of tone would make people wonder if Obama tomorrow is the same person he was yesterday... which they would be right to wonder... lol.

"I'm purposefully misunderstanding you just to annoy you,"

Nah, I doubt it's that, you're not krellin. How about a third option: You don't take my other arguments seriously enough to read every sentence I write very closely? Maybe even not a conscious decision. It's okay, I'm not mad at you.

"We're starting to apply sanctions"

lol, you mean the visa bans and asset restrictions on 12 Russian officials who don't travel outside of Russia nor own foreign assets? The leader of the Duma laughed at Obama's sanctions....literally.

I actually followed Thucy's line of thought fairly clearly, Abge.

"Immediately start exporting natural gas to Europe, especially Germany, so Russia can't have a stranglehold over them."

It isn't economical to transport natural gas across oceans. This is why the majority of natural gas transfers are done via a pipeline. Besides, Russia gets 80% of its resource revenues from oil, not gas - and it is against the law for the US to export domestic oil.

"Redouble diplomatic efforts with China."
This will work so long as China wants it to. China plays China's own game, as we've seen time and time again. If we want China on our side, we're going to have to hardball them onto our side.

"Economically and politically isolate Russia with a variety of sanctions"

Which would cost the EU alone around $450 billion in trade losses, and they're only just climbing out of a double-dip recession.

The best thing to do would be to stick a few carriers off the Russian coast and tell them to back off. Move an armored brigade into Poland. Russia will blink first, and it won't tank the European economy.

I think, generally, at least going off of the Syria chemical weapons crisis and the Crimea crisis, the y'all on this forum grossly underestimate the importance in geopolitics of principle and precedent.

Anyway I have to go now. My opinion should likely surprise no one. I hardly consider it rabid to think the leaders of the world should be taking concrete steps to protect peace and human rights, but whatever.

Another, even darker prediction, is that the US acknowledges down the line a ways that international law is gone, or at least re-written, and begins to engage in this kind of behavior itself "if you can't beat em join em" style.

Good grief, Thucy. Since the end of the Cold War America has moved aggressively to ensure the continuance and expansion of the new American Hegemony. If WWIII kicks off, it certainly will not be due to America's weak kneed appeasement policy. We respect International Law if and when it suits us. We have utterly torn up the agreements we made with the Russians as they let go of their communist empire. We promised them that we would not move NATO east of Germany. Now were pushing for it to expand into Georgia and the Ukraine? We may not be annexing countries in the traditional sense, but we certainly are aggressively expanding are orbit in a very provocative manner.

@gold

Yeah, I agree current sanctions accomplished very little. That's largely, I think, because Europe is still so dependent on Russia as a trade partner.

"and it is against the law for the US to export domestic oil."

For reasons that haven't been relevant in decades; there's no reason those laws can't be changed.

"This will work so long as China wants it to."

Agreed, but at this point I think this has a better chance than working things out with Russia directly.

"Russia will blink first, and it won't tank the European economy."

Russia is not going to release Crimea...

"A huge embarrassment, since it acknowledges we're not seriously expecting Russia to ever leave Crimea and admitting we will one day recognize the annexation, but at least it would send the message around the world that this was a one-time fuck-up, and will not be a trend going forward."

Thucy, why would the next instance be treated any differently? We can say now that we won't allow this to become a trend, but why should we expect different action taken?

I would think it would be expected that if another incident occurred and the U.S. opposed it that Russia would probably interject and oppose the U.S.'s involvement.

It seems to me that military action has become an instance of, "If you're first in, you get what you want." The countries with the largest military forces all look to avoid direct conflict with each other. So why should we expect any intervention from a major power against another major power when they get involved somewhere?

For the record Thucy, I'm not disagreeing with your thoughts. I'm just wanting to examine how serious of a message that would actually be. If it's clear that two major powers will avoid each other at nearly all costs, how can we expect different action?

@Barn3tt

I'd be interested to look at your sources for supporting the Gorbachev side of the Russia-U.S. disagreement regarding NATO's expansion. The NATO Wikipedia article merely mentions the argument without going into it. Sadly my history lessons end around the Cold War.

While I knew about proposals for integration into the EU, the fact that Ukraine and Georgia were up for NATO membership at some point in the future was news to me. Apparently it's a pretty big deal in Georgia.

I doubt you could actually send a serious message and mean it.

Any message you send I presume would be to get Russia to give up Crimea. Unfortunately Putin views Crimea as central to Russian interests. For him it is sovereign land which happens to be within Ukraine because Khrushchev gave it to them as a goodwill present fifty odd years ago. The pride of the nation is at stake and anything short of war probably would not do.

If we are willing to go to war over Crimea, then that's a way to send a serious message. I don't think the Americans want to fight a war with the country with the most nuclear weapons on the planet, so no there's not going to be talk of military action. The western leaders have acknowledged as much. You can sanction Russia all you like to show your disgust but at the end Russia keeps the piece of land, you're going to have to trade with Russia eventually, and the end result is a win for Putin (maybe not for Russia).

Well, if we go to war with Russia and win, then all their nukes are belong to us now. We win the game by having 95% of the world's nukes.

/notserious

Apparently it's a pretty big deal in Georgia. ... and Russia

I have heard it several times. Here is an article that discusses it: http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/broken-promises-1535
Other articles can be found to. I suppose the argument is that since the Russians were only told explicitly and received nothing in writing, it doesn't really count.

If the Warsaw Pact expanded to Mexico and began talks with the independent state of "The Texas", America would probably have a rather extreme reaction. America has "red lines" zig -zagging across the globe. I am not sure why other countries' concerns in states geographically right next door to them are utterly dismissed off hand.

This video is long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z6_5Vd8R5M, but I found it to be informative. I am certainly open to being shot down on this, but I really think this is much more complicated than "bad, Russia"- not that this is what everyone is saying.

I wasn't particularly looking to shoot down your statements, just to find out where they're coming from, since the're actually NEW arguments to me. Will look into it in the morning.

I appreciate your question, and admittedly I have just really started digging myself these last couple of weeks. So, I am curious to see what you come up with. Close mindedness can be rather the norm on webdip. So, overtly expressing my willingness to be corrected seems relevant to the discussion.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/ron-paul-crimea-united-states-104766.html

Wise man.

US should not do anything at all, its Ukraine's and Russia's problem.

"Start a war over a tiny strip of land that most people agree probably belongs to Russia only because we don't like the idea of Russia growing any bigger, blabla something about democracy"

OK, so we made a promise and Ukraine was dumb enough to get rid of their weapons cache. A) We should never have made that promise and B) Ukraine should never have agreed to dump their guns.

If "A" had never happened, it would be a non-issue. If "B" had never happened, Ukraine could defend themselves and it would be a non-issue.

So now we are stuck with blustering and pretending we are gonna do something when we are in no position to tell Russia or Ukraine what they should do. No matter what happens, we look like the bad guys. So I say let Russia dso what it will and let the CIA secret same serious arms into Ukraine (Iran-Contra style) and our arms makers can make some money off this.

Draugnar - in simple terms as I understand it the promise the UK, USA and Russia made to the Ukraine was that each of them would not invade the Ukraine. There was never any promise made to come to the Ukraine's aid if either the other parties to the treaty invaded. Maybe I have misunderstood.

No, Draug, you don't look like the bad guys. You look impotent, which is far worse.