In real life good hardly ever wins, because only evil is fighting to begin with. All you have is lesser evils beating bigger evils.
Unfortunately true. We need happy-ending fantasies to distract us from the fact that we live under constant surveillence by a disconnected political and security elite, have rampant social and economic inequality and lack of mobility, have had our rights to protest, speak freely and civil liberties eroded by decades of "anti-terror" legislation and so on. Not sure we can take too many down endings after all that.
WW2 was a just and worthy fight. I'm glad someone took up the challenge.
The fight to abolish slavery was another...
In fact many fights are worthy.
I am more disaffected by governments willing to invade on the pretext to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but unwilling to step in to save civilian populations from genocide in Syria.
I loathe the UK Labour party due to this hypocrisy... all who vote for them have blood on thier hands.
We can't forget Russia's influence on the Syrian conflict. Without Putin's support, Assad has no geopolitical clout backing him. Does that excuse others' inaction? Of course not.
Maybe I should split these last posts to a new thread... I will wait and if people are really interested in discussing International Politics and real world wars, I'll split the comments.
WW2 was a just and worthy fight. I'm glad someone took up the challenge.
The fight to abolish slavery was another...
In fact many fights are worthy.
A fight being "worthy" does not automatically the ones fighting them good. In the case of WWII, Germani would obviously be the greater evil. Believing the Allies to be any kind of good is ridiculous, though. Violent anti-semitism and institutionalised racism/race biology was common all over the West before WWII, Stalin would go on to commit his own face-based atrocities, and the Nazi eugenics and "race hygiene" programmes were strongly based on American initiatives or theories, and even funded by American organisations such as the Rockefeller Foundation. Nazi Germany just went further than everyone else with what everyone else already advocate doing, and then horrified everybody by showing what those ideals and theories actually meant in practice. It was an incredibly dark and evil time for all of the west, and no country came out of it without guilt. Lesser evils to Germany's greater.
And that's not even going into the consequences of WWII leaving the USA and USSR as the only superpowers in the world and all the misery and conflict that can be traced back to them and their Cold War.
Much of the idea of WWII as a "just and worthy" war is retrospective. At the time it was primarily about German expansion with evidence of concentration camps and genocide only really being discovered later. Ultimately the Nazis and other European fascist powers did some pretty godawful stuff and needed to be stopped, but @scriver's right about not every Allied power being a clear-eyed idealist.
Winston Churchill at one point pondered about using mass anthrax bombing of German civilian populations to destroy morale. Toward the end of the war the allied leaders connived against one another to get the best deal for themselves. Many partisan groups fighting the Nazis had their own agendas, are some fought other resistance groups as well as fascists.
From a government perspective, you can say that... but not from a personal perspective?
Both my Grandads fought in WW2. They fought so that the people of France, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway and numerous other countries could live their lives free from tyranny. They were willing to die for it. I would say they were heroes. (Although I had one grandad full of bulletholes which was always fun because he made up a ridiculous story for each scar) [spoiler]Turns out the real story that he told once... and once only... was at Arnem, cut off and had to swim back across to allied lines, making him a sitting duck to a german machine gun fire many of his friends didn't make it... [/Spoiler]
That it turned out afterwards that the Nazis were far more evil than first thought is irrelevant.
They fought because they believed it was the right thing to do @Corvino and @Scriver . Nothing more nothing less.
How governments react are always analysed by the people... And your right, some shabby decisions were made. The tory government, after winning the war, was booted out.
You're right @Anduin. Individually people are usually compassionate, kind and good, and a lot of hopeful, optimistic people joined up for both world wars to try and make the world a better place.
@Anduin I am not sure the situation in Syria would be rectified by western intervention. We often forget that while Assad is a total cynical asshole, many of the more powerful rebel groups are also very dubious. There are ethnic tensions here where if one group was able to gain control some of the opposing ethnic or religious groups. Assad is a member of the Alawi Sunni muslims, which is in a minority in Syria, I am really scared that if/when he is toppled, the Alawi's will become prosecuted.
There were a lot of compassionate, kind and good people fighting on Germany's and Italy's side as well, have no doubt about that. They're still irrelevant to the evil of their countries as a whole. I'm sure the pilots who burned Hamburg, Dresden and Leipzig were "good" people who "fought because they believed it was the right thing to do" as well. In Hamburg, they killed 40 000 civillians in one go.
I agree with both of you to an extent, but not totally.
Some wars are certainly more 'legitimate' than others, and you can personally go to war for more or less noble reasons.
For example my (maternal) grandfather was a soldier in the Nationalist Revolutionary Army (KMT) during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). He signed up in order to resist the Japanese invasion, and was away from home for eight years, a period in which none of his letters got delivered back home in the chaos of that dark period, so most people in the village thought he was dead. He returned home after eight years after deserting the army, because Japan had been defeated, and with the Chinese Civil War resuming between the Nationalists and Communists, he had no appetite to fight another war, which was less morally clear as far as he was concerned. This was a hugely dangerous decision as he had to escape being hunted by the Nationalists for being a deserter and the Communists for being a KMT officer.
However, as @scriver said, good and bad people fight on both sides of wars, because there are good and bad people in every society. Incidentally I avoid using the term 'evil people' because, with perhaps very few exceptions, I don't think many people consciously think of themselves as evil, and enjoy committing acts of evil for the sake of it.
For example the Japanese soldiers who invaded China were indoctrinated into believing that their empire, with its divine Emperor, was Asia's only hope in resisting Western domination, and thus the inferior Chinese, Koreans and other Asian peoples ought to welcome Japanese liberation from their own corrupt governments and accept Japanese leadership of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. In fact, before the Japanese went all Fascist about it, there were Chinese and Korean nationalists who shared that dream, because they believed that only if Asians were united, could they collectively resist Western Imperialism.
When the Chinese resisted so fiercely, as in the KMT actions at the Battle of Shanghai, and Communist and other insurgent groups began to strike painfully Japanese-occupied territories, China became a hellish graveyard for Japanese soldiers. Given how American soldiers in Iraq have been known to react to constant battlefield stresses with terrible atrocities on occasion, is it any wonder that Japanese soldiers, given their indoctrination, carried out war crimes in China.
The Japanese pilots who struck at Pearl Harbour were not 'evil' people. They genuinely believed (rightly so) that their country would not survive unless they could secure the Pacific and break the American oil embargo that would have strangled Japanese industry and doomed their war efforts in China, for which so many had already given their lives.
This is not quite a fair comparison as there is no official policy to abuse or punish Iraqi civilians, whereas the Japanese did implement official policies to punish Chinese civilians suspected of harbouring insurgents and partisans. The most infamous being the Three Alls Policy.
Of course the German story we are are more familiar with, so I won't go into detail, but if you look at the details of the Treaty of Versailles and what happened to Germany post-WW 1, is it any wonder that an extremist government, feeding off general resentment, would take power in Germany? German aggression and atrocities are 'evil acts', but plenty of German soldiers volunteered for service with noble intentions.
Syria and Egypt are interesting when viewed as an outsider as there's often a push for outside intervention without half our politicians really understanding the conflict.
Afghanistan was similar. It's usually portrayed in the media in the West as government & coalition forces vs. the Taliban. That isn't strictly true. Afghanistan has had internal tribal violence going on for centuries between dozens of different groups. When the country was invaded some of these groups split to either side, but a lot would have their main tribal or ethnic affiliation as well. It's almost impossible to return peace there because there wasn't really peace to start with.
As @Aristillius says, ethinc and religious tensions are a big part of the Syria conflict. In addition to pro-democracy groups a number of groups designated as Al-Qaeda linked terrorist organisations are part of the opposition. I'm sure hindsight will be 20/20, but at the moment establishing who should be helped and how, and how to avoid creating a second Taliban make it pretty impossible.
Sigh... as we approach the 100th Anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War, major world powers, driven by Political Realism calculations, continue to create potential flashpoints where miscalculations and accidents could trigger unintended conflicts with terrifying potential. A few months ago, who thought of the Ukraine as a significant flashpoint? Now it is probably the most dangerous crisis in the world.
I hope I am wrong but it looks like Putin has calculated that if Russia cannot keep all of Ukraine within its sphere of influence, then it will at least seize Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea. Russian strategy appears to be an unofficial takeover of the apparatus of power within pro-Russian regions of Ukraine, which if the pro-Western Kiev government resists, would provide a pretext for even greater Russian military intervention, in the same manner of the 2008 war in Georgia.
In the Georgia conflict, the West, most importantly the US, chose not to intervene. Putin likely calculates that the same will occur if war does break out in the Ukraine. However the Ukraine is much larger and more important than Georgia, and the US may calculate that a stand needs to be made or it would lose further credibility, as in 2008, with Eastern European allies like Poland.
History is full of terrible conflicts that arose from small incidents, where none of the actors intended to escalate the conflict, but felt unable to back down once rhetoric escalated into bombs and bullets.
Syria has been tragic, but Ukraine and other flashpoints that pit major powers on opposing sides, and where one side perceives its fundamental interests threatened, are truly dangerous.
Of course the German story we are are more familiar with, so I won't go into detail, but if you look at the details of the Treaty of Versailles and what happened to Germany post-WW 1, is it any wonder that an extremist government, feeding off general resentment, would take power in Germany? German aggression and atrocities are 'evil acts', but plenty of German soldiers volunteered for service with noble intentions.
The thing about war is, it does not resolve most conflicts (and may be even worse when it leaves issues UNresolved)
American Civil War ends. The newly re-united states finally join in on the Age of Imperialism.
WWI ends. We get the Treaty of Versailles. National Socialism spreads as a response, monster put in charge. WWII.
WWII in Asia ends, Japanese invasion of China ends. We are left with the greatest butcher the world has ever seen in power.
WWII in Europe ends. We get a cold war that lasts for decades and the policy of conscription gets reinstated in the US during the conflict with the Vietcong.
WWII ends, the Holocaust is ended, and imperialism is no longer en vogue. We are left with a sloppy and careless restructuring of the Middle East and religious conflict that spans generations.
Cold War ends... Middle East is partitioned to end political conflicts...
but now the US and Russian governments are at it again... over political political conflicts in the Middle East
There are noble intentions in all wars, but it worries me when people seem so eager to get involved in armed conflicts, as they are with Syria and Ukraine.
Someone else said it best "War, huh, good God What is it good for? Absolutely nothing"
What is going on in Ukraine is crazy. I'm not certain whats going on in Putin's mind, if he's got some wish to retire in Sevastopol with Russian flags waving everywhere, but nobody really wins in this situation (well except arms dealers I suppose).
For much of Russian history, Russia has felt threatened by various powers from the west, be that Napoleonic France or Nazi Germany. Western Russia is one massive plain with no geographic barriers that can protect its core territories and cities like St. Petersburg and Moscow. For example the Italian-French border is nicely divided by the Alps, and Britain has a measure of security thanks to the English Channel.
The inherent vulnerability of Western Russia means that Russian governments have always been obsessed with strategic depth on its western frontier in the form of buffer states or at least governments not hostile to Russian interests.
Rightly or wrongly, Russian strategists believe that the West, particularly the US, has been continuing efforts to erode Russian national interests in places like Eastern Europe, with the continued growth of NATO through the inclusion of former Warsaw Pact countries like Poland. On the surface, Putin and Russia may appear belligerent and aggressive, but Russian strategy, like so many conflicts in the past, is driven by a sense of strategic vulnerability.
As far as Russia is concerned, the West has been the strategic aggressor for decades, and Ukraine is only the latest battleground. A hostile Ukraine, right on the borders of the Russian heartland, is unacceptable to Russian strategic interests, and thus if Russia cannot keep Kiev within its sphere of influence, then it will, by force if necessary, secure a measure of security with de-facto buffer states in eastern Ukraine and the Crimea, the latter being particularly important as the home port of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
Remember that Political Realism, which seems to be the guiding principle of foreign policy in most countries, including the US, Russia and China, does not consider intentions, and so it does not matter to Putin if the US has no intention of using Ukraine to threaten Russia, a pro-Western Ukraine is in itself unacceptable for Russian security.
The current Ukraine crisis has echoes of the Georgia conflict of 2008, though a war in Ukraine would be far more dangerous and has far greater potential for wider escalation. The 2008 war occurred due to miscalculation by Georgia that its alliance with the US would protect it from Russian retaliation if it forcibly attempted to reclaim the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Russia now calculates that losing all of Ukraine is unacceptable and that again the West would not intervene decisively if it seized the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. This has already been done, albeit unofficially. If the Kiev government responds by forcibly attempting to exert its authority on these de-facto breakaway regions, then Russia is likely to respond with open military intervention.
The US/West would then be forced to once more back down in the face of Russian 'aggression', and lose credibility with allies, or intervene on a more practical level. Open warfare is unthinkable, but logistical support, military intelligence and armaments would balance the odds considerably, and is much more likely than 'American boots on the ground'. However, even a limited conflict would be tragic for the Ukrainian people and this type of conflict always has the potential of escalating further.
Apparently Obama and Putin had a 90min phonecall regarding the crisis, with Obama demanding a withdrawal of Russian forces and Putin insisting that Russia reserves the right to defend its national interests in the Ukraine.
Putin's language is remarkably frank. There is no sugar-coating it as 'protecting Russian citizens in Ukraine', though that will undoubtedly be used as a justification if open war does break out, this is very much about national interests through the lens of Political Realism.
Another example of great powers being driven by a sense of strategic vulnerability, rather than strategic strength, can be found in the Korean War of 1950-53, which escalated far beyond what any of the actors initially intended, and could have easily escalated further into WW3.
In the summer of 1950, a 'small war' broke out in a North-east corner of Asia called Korea. The Korean people were divided by a Communist government in the north, backed by the Soviet Union (which had liberated Manchuria from Japan at the end of WW2, and still held great influence in region), and a capitalist government supported by the US in the south.
'Naturally', the stronger North Korean regime attempted to unite the country under its rule. As in the case of the Vietnam War 20 years later, this was more driven by a Nationalist agenda to unify the country than Communist revolutionary zeal. However, as North Korean regiments routed the disorganised Republic of Korea (RoK) army, the West (US) perceived that this was but the latest in a series of Soviet provocations around the world, including Greece, Germany and elsewhere.
As far as US strategists were concerned, Communism was a dangerous ideology, and its spread was detrimental to US national interests. It mattered not that the Soviet Union and China were both exhausted by decades of devastating warfare that ruined their heartlands (around 40-60 million people died in the USSR and China during WW2), and had no intentions of exporting Communism abroad, as both were more concerned with domestic difficulties and the challenge of reconstruction. The US simply regarded any spread of Communism, regardless of its possible grass-roots support (we tend to forget that Communism was genuinely popular at this stage, as people had yet to realise its systemic flaws that typically led to economic stagnation and political disaster) as strategic losses that should be avoided.
Thus, from a sense of strategic vulnerability, perfectly illustrated by the Domino Theory, the US perceived the USSR as a malevolent all-controlling puppet master attempting to dominate the world with its ideology. If Korea fell, then surely Southeast Asia would follow, and then Japan, and then Hawaii and then Soviet troops would be marching in California! Thus the North Koreans must be stopped! In hindsight this was ludicrous, the North Korean invasion of the south was not part of some Soviet master-plan, and the Soviet Union had no designs on Japan. In fact Stalin was exceptionally cautious and did not even throw his whole weight behind Mao in the Chinese Civil War (1945-49) because he initially expected a Nationalist victory, and did not want to have to deal with an openly hostile China in the aftermath Mao's defeat.
Regardless the US perception of Soviet aggression led to the UN intervention in Korea, which was possible because the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council in protest at the exclusion of the People's Republic of China from the UN, where the Republic of China (Taiwan) nominally represented China. Of course the much superior firepower of the UN army drove the North Koreans out of South Korea. Had General Douglas MacArthur stopped there at the 38th Parallel, the pre-war border between the Koreas, then that would probably have been the end of the war.However, seeing has the war was going so well, General MacArthur, with the tacit approval of the US government, counter-attacked into North Korea, seeking to 'roll back' the forces of Communism.
The People's Republic of China, established on the Chinese mainland only a year earlier, and still attempting to root out Nationalist and warlord forces in isolated pockets of resistance, was far from ready to wage another war. However, Chinese strategists could not rely on the uncertain limits of the ambitions of 'American' intervention, and believed that the US would use Korea as a launchpad to invade Manchuria and China-proper, (just as Japan did in 1931 and 1937) in support of the recently deposed KMT government that had fled to Taiwan. It mattered not that there were no American plans to 'reclaim China' for the KMT, the Communist government felt sufficiently threatened that the American domination of Korea was unacceptable for Chinese security. If a war had to be fought, then better fight it in the mountains of Korea than the plains of Manchuria and the already devastated cities of the Chinese coast.
Thus China repeatedly warned the US against continuing advances in Korea, whilst secretly preparing for a major Chinese intervention with troops massing in Manchuria beyond the Yalu River, the border between China and North Korea. Chinese preparations were spotted by Western intelligence, but General MacArthur dismissed the possibility of a Chinese intervention because he thought it would amount to strategic suicide against the superiority of UN forces. This miscalculation made Chinese intervention inevitable as UN units approached the Yalu River.
General MacArthur grossly underestimated both Chinese capability and determination to fight in Korea. The Korean War was called the "Resist America, Aid Korea" War in China, with soldiers told that they were fighting for the future of China and that if they failed, evil capitalists would threaten their homeland next, and so they must aid their Korean comrades to resist aggressive American ambitions. Due to the element of surprise and the experience of the Chinese army, mostly veterans of the Civil War, the UN offensive was totally stalled and driven all the way back to the 38th Parallel.
Despite defiant public declarations, Mao was deeply concerned about fighting a war against the much superior forces of America and her allies. So he was pleasantly surprised by the extent of China's initial victories, and his ambitions grew as a result. Instead of merely preventing the collapse of North Korea, as UN forces retreated in disarray across the front, Mao now saw an opportunity to seize an outright victory by destroying the UN army in Korea and driving all UN forces out of Korea and securing the peninsula as a region of Chinese influence, instead of the US or the USSR.
As UN forces faced the real danger of total collapse in 1951, General MacArthur requested the use of nuclear weapons against China, and expanding the war beyond the Korean peninsula. Thankfully, cool heads prevailed in Washington, which calculated that expanding the war might draw the USSR openly into the conflict as well, where so far the Soviet Union limited its intervention to military advisers, armaments, supplies and units of the Soviet air force disguised with Chinese and North Korean insignia, and strictly forbidden from operating over skies controlled by UN forces. (So that no pilots can be shot down over enemy territory).
In the end a tacit understanding was reached between Moscow and Washington, in which the ongoing conflict would be limited in the Korean peninsula, and although the war was catastrophic for Korea and dragged on for 3 bloody years, it did not escalate further into something far more nightmarish.
The point however was that none of the major powers, the USSR, the USA and China, wanted to fight a major war so soon after WW2. Yet all three factions, through a sense of strategic vulnerability, felt compelled to defend their interests in Korea through intervention, and a sequence of miscalculations* escalated the conflict to the stage that it could have triggered another World War.
*Miscalculations: 1) By North Korea: We can achieve a quick and easy victory over South Korea, the US would not intervene so far from home and so soon after the war against Japan.
2) By the US/UN: The North Korean army is crippled, we can depose the Northern communist government easily and quickly ("Home by Christmas") and China would not dare to intervene.
3) By China: Well the Western Imperialists are not so tough after all. Their morale and organisation is shattered, we can easily drive them into the Yellow Sea with one more great offensive!
As a citizen of Poland I'm much interested, worried in fact, of all this commotion in Ukraine. I'm not quite sure if Crimea is the sole point of interest for Putin. I have a feeling that whole Ukraine is just a stop for him to take over control of the former Soviet Union republics (I'm mainly thinking of Belarus). I'm fairly confident that US or EU don't do a jack until there will be any danger to one of the countries that are the part of NATO.
I wonder if Putin have that much power in Russia to decide alone about whether to start a conflict or not? You know, he's former KGB and he had someone over him sometime...someone put him in charge as a president of one of the most powerful countries in the world.
@Cahir Putin probably would like to re-establish control over Eastern Europe like in the Soviet era, because unless there is a fundamental shift in international politics, then whoever rules Russia will always attempt to create strategic depth on its western front. Russia's geographic weaknesses is in fact shared by Poland, which also lacks natural geographic barriers, and is why your country's history has been so 'difficult'. The Polish-Lithuanian League was partly established to create a neutral power bloc between Russia and Western Europe (France and Germany) that could ensure the independence and security of the countries between the two giants, but of course it proved insufficient to overcome the numerous challenges it faced in the 17th and 18th Centuries.
Anyway I believe that Putin is a rational actor, although he might play the North Korean card of appearing unpredictable and dangerous in order to extract maximum concessions from the West. He should be aware that, in the foreseeable future, Russia does not have the power and influence to bring Poland, the Baltics and other former-USSR satellite states under its sphere of influence again, and even if he has the power to initiate military action (he probably does), it would be folly to do so.
NATO/US is strategically ambiguous with regards to non-NATO allies like Georgia and (now) the Kiev faction in Ukraine, but it is legally bound to react to any aggression against existing NATO members like Poland. This is precisely why Russia is so keen to prevent Ukraine and Georgia actually joining NATO as well, and why Russia would go to war to prevent it from happening (NATO does not accept new members with ongoing conflicts).
Political Realism expects countries to behave rationally in accordance to its strategic interests and capabilities. China would like to reclaim Vladivostok and the resource rich parts of Siberia that were part of the Qing Empire, ceded to Russia following military defeat in the latter years of the Qing Dynasty. (This dispute was a contributing factor to the Sino-Soviet Split in the Cold War) But Chinese strategists calculate that the US is a greater threat to Chinese national interests for now, and a alliance, or at least a benign relationship with Russia, is more prudent than demanding concessions from Russia that China is not strong enough to back up and leaving the country even more isolated in international politics.
So, thankfully, those guided by political realism are also unlikely to pursue entirely crazy strategies like a Bond villain. I would guess that Putin/Russia would accept one of the following outcomes:
1) A negotiated settlement whereby a neutral or pro-Russian government is established in Kiev, a roll-back of the recent revolution just like pro-Russian elements in Ukraine rolled back the Orange Revolution of 2005.
2) If a pro-Western government remains in power in Kiev, then Russia would likely try to legitimise its de-facto control of the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. I doubt Russia would go as far as annexation, but a formal declaration of independence from Kiev is possible.
There will be no planned war over Ukraine. If it occurs, it will be because of a misunderstanding or some sort of accident like this incident might have triggered...
@Heindrich I pretty much agree with what you've wrote. I'm thinking though what sanctions could possibly UE or US put on Russia to be of any concern for Putin. Diplomatic efforts won't do any good, because he knows it's just words...and words can't hurt him. Any economic sanctions will end with turning off gas pipes by Gazprom, which will be painful mainly for Ukraine, but for Poland too. It's just as Putin said, there is economic dependency between Russia and the rest of the world, so any attempts on economic isolation put on Russia will bounce back to its economic partners - which in fact is every country in the world.
@Cahir Well, as an objective neutral observer, I am not particularly unhappy with either of the above solutions I mentioned.
The most important thing is avoiding a "shooting war" over the Ukraine crisis, and although I would personally prefer to see the Ukraine remain united, it would not be the worst thing in the world if the Crimea and/or Eastern Ukraine seceded from the rest of the country.
The West always promotes Democracy and self-determination as inalienable human rights that ought to be upheld as a matter of principle, and yet there is considerable double-standards when it comes to actually enforcing these ideals. I could also write an essay about the serious flaws associated with these seemingly noble ideals*, but assuming we accept that self-determination is the good and proper solution to this kind of conflict, then option 2) above ought to be the desired outcome for both sides of the conflict.
The majority of western Ukraine is pro-Western, the majority of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is pro-Russian, so by self-determination the country should be partitioned accordingly. It is hypocritical to demand that Russia respects the will of the people of Western Ukraine, whilst at the same time ignoring the will of the people of Eastern Ukraine. The Crimea was even historically Russian, until it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954.
*PLEASE do not misunderstand my academic criticisms of Democracy and self-determination as some sort of implied support for Autocracy and/or Russia in this dispute. I am of a student of political theory, and true political theory is the critical analysis of the merits and weaknesses of all sorts of political systems. Blindly championing any particular system as a sacred guide to prosperity and utopia is in itself ignorant and dangerous, whether it's Democracy, Nationalism or Communism.
For those who had friends who died or were injured fighting for change and justice in the Ukraine. You have my sympathy.
You trusted a political elite that failed you. You needed leadership, someone to spearhead your needs. You empowered and gave trust to those you voted for.
Your needs were not met. And leaderless, your people removed the tumor. And bled as a result.
You have my respect.
Forgive my humorous and almost callous tone below. Sometimes the only thing you can do confronting overwhelming force is to laugh in its face.
...
Look. If Putin annexes Crimea or parts of the Ukraine... Most of the world... Will frankly not give a damn.
It has given the west the right (I actually think someone is going to make money out of this!) to freeze the assets and deny visas of billionaire Russians at a whim, who hate their own country, don't even trust it to keep their money safe and educate their children and holiday in Europe (Okay England, they all come to England mostly but we are the land of the free and do anything you like if you have money place to be, country of choice...)
However, as my colleague who studied the cold war points out... If Russia gets away with it in the Ukraine and annexes swathes of it... then the Russian speakers in the Baltic states can be used as a context for invasion.
These Baltic states are part of NATO. And my pants will need to be changed often as WWIII would actually loom large. Or NATO dies and we give in to Russia. (I think the citizens of the USA will vote out the president who does THAT! Not gonna happen.)
Luckily for us all, I'm too old to fight...
But poor young @CrevsDaak would be in the front line and likely to be shot first...
To answer your question of how the West can apply pressure on Russia with the aim of achieving a more favourable outcome than either of the above... The answer is "with great difficulty". Obviously open war is unthinkable. Obama could also attempt to "play poker" with Putin, and threaten indirect military support for the Kiev government. Putin might be hesitant to order a full military intervention if he believes that the West would support the anti-Russian resistance forces on a practical level like in Afghanistan, which could turn Ukraine into a military quagmire. Of course Obama and Putin playing poker would be a very dangerous game for the rest of the world if neither side refused to fold.
More likely the West would have to look at economic sanctions. But although the US is relatively resilient to Russian economic retaliation, the same is not true for the European Union. Germany in particular is hugely reliant on Russian energy, and this is why Germany, amongst the major western powers, has been particularly keen to resolve the crisis as quickly as possible, and has not criticised Russia in the same manner as the US, UK and other Western powers.
Even the UK, whilst trying to appear tough and supporting the US position against Russia, is clearly unwilling to put UK national interests at risk over the Ukraine crisis. It is even possible that the information 'leak' was deliberate as a reassurance to the Russians that British rhetoric was just exactly that, and British foreign policy was merely 'going through the motions' of appearing outraged.
The hesitation of Germany and the UK also highlights another problem for 'the West'. The West is not a single political entity, and although as a whole, Western countries dominate international politics and economy, it is composed of a myriad of individual countries with their own national interests and perspectives, which makes it almost impossible to implement a unified 'Western' response to this Russian 'provocation'.
In the absence of a comprehensive and consistent set of Western sanctions, any sanctions imposed by specific nation-states like the US would be largely symbolic. Although asset freezes and trade embargoes would hurt specific Russian individuals and businesses, it would not be crippling for the country as a whole, and might even provide opportunities for countries like China to replace American influence over the Russian economy.
The world has changed drastically since the Kosovo War of 1999, when Russia was forced to back down in the face of Western economic advantages. Thanks to much higher energy prices, the Russian economy is no longer reliant on Western aid and investment, and the growth of China as an economic power provides alternative markets for Russian energy and alternative sources of capital investment.
Anyway that's my understanding of the situation, of course I do not have access to classified information that might provide different options I unaware of. Who knows, maybe Obama is holding a joker in his hand that I have not considered, but based on my humble analysis, I expect one of the above 2 options I mentioned as the most likely outcome for this crisis.
Obama has the same options Bush had when he squared off against Putin in 2008 over Georgia. Economic sanctions, suspending G-8 summit meetings, canceling Presidential visits, reneging trade agreements, kicking Moscow out of the Group of 8, or actually moving warships into the region. Obviously some of those options carry grave consequences. Thus far, Obama has suspended the June G-8 summit meeting. Time will tell if he goes further than that. It's also important to note that if he cannot outright annex certain land, Putin is happy to leave troops there long-term, which isn't much better and is still a form of occupation.
As a german i just want to say that most of the german soldiers were just that "soldiers". They swore an oath that includes to do as ordered, not to question it. Germans were raised this way for many hundreds of years. This is not an excuse for the warcrimes and evil acts some commited. But dont compare today´s knowledge and wisdom about a period where people actually lived it!
And dont forget that in irak (21 century) innocent people are murdered by the same people who likes to fingerpoint at others... and palastine is one big ghetto (also in the 21 century) if you like it or not and no one gives a damn except for a very few brave regulary humans.
German soldiers were good ones, just had terrible leaders. Thats my oppinion and i had some vets in my family. Every story has 2 sides of a coin.
Comments
WW2 was a just and worthy fight. I'm glad someone took up the challenge.
The fight to abolish slavery was another...
In fact many fights are worthy.
I am more disaffected by governments willing to invade on the pretext to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but unwilling to step in to save civilian populations from genocide in Syria.
I loathe the UK Labour party due to this hypocrisy... all who vote for them have blood on thier hands.
And that's not even going into the consequences of WWII leaving the USA and USSR as the only superpowers in the world and all the misery and conflict that can be traced back to them and their Cold War.
Winston Churchill at one point pondered about using mass anthrax bombing of German civilian populations to destroy morale. Toward the end of the war the allied leaders connived against one another to get the best deal for themselves. Many partisan groups fighting the Nazis had their own agendas, are some fought other resistance groups as well as fascists.
Both my Grandads fought in WW2. They fought so that the people of France, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway and numerous other countries could live their lives free from tyranny. They were willing to die for it. I would say they were heroes. (Although I had one grandad full of bulletholes which was always fun because he made up a ridiculous story for each scar) [spoiler]Turns out the real story that he told once... and once only... was at Arnem, cut off and had to swim back across to allied lines, making him a sitting duck to a german machine gun fire
That it turned out afterwards that the Nazis were far more evil than first thought is irrelevant.
They fought because they believed it was the right thing to do @Corvino and @Scriver . Nothing more nothing less.
How governments react are always analysed by the people... And your right, some shabby decisions were made. The tory government, after winning the war, was booted out.
Because freedom and democracy rules!
I am not sure the situation in Syria would be rectified by western intervention. We often forget that while Assad is a total cynical asshole, many of the more powerful rebel groups are also very dubious. There are ethnic tensions here where if one group was able to gain control some of the opposing ethnic or religious groups. Assad is a member of the Alawi Sunni muslims, which is in a minority in Syria, I am really scared that if/when he is toppled, the Alawi's will become prosecuted.
There are no good people in war.
I agree with both of you to an extent, but not totally.
Some wars are certainly more 'legitimate' than others, and you can personally go to war for more or less noble reasons.
For example my (maternal) grandfather was a soldier in the Nationalist Revolutionary Army (KMT) during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). He signed up in order to resist the Japanese invasion, and was away from home for eight years, a period in which none of his letters got delivered back home in the chaos of that dark period, so most people in the village thought he was dead. He returned home after eight years after deserting the army, because Japan had been defeated, and with the Chinese Civil War resuming between the Nationalists and Communists, he had no appetite to fight another war, which was less morally clear as far as he was concerned. This was a hugely dangerous decision as he had to escape being hunted by the Nationalists for being a deserter and the Communists for being a KMT officer.
However, as @scriver said, good and bad people fight on both sides of wars, because there are good and bad people in every society. Incidentally I avoid using the term 'evil people' because, with perhaps very few exceptions, I don't think many people consciously think of themselves as evil, and enjoy committing acts of evil for the sake of it.
For example the Japanese soldiers who invaded China were indoctrinated into believing that their empire, with its divine Emperor, was Asia's only hope in resisting Western domination, and thus the inferior Chinese, Koreans and other Asian peoples ought to welcome Japanese liberation from their own corrupt governments and accept Japanese leadership of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. In fact, before the Japanese went all Fascist about it, there were Chinese and Korean nationalists who shared that dream, because they believed that only if Asians were united, could they collectively resist Western Imperialism.
When the Chinese resisted so fiercely, as in the KMT actions at the Battle of Shanghai, and Communist and other insurgent groups began to strike painfully Japanese-occupied territories, China became a hellish graveyard for Japanese soldiers. Given how American soldiers in Iraq have been known to react to constant battlefield stresses with terrible atrocities on occasion, is it any wonder that Japanese soldiers, given their indoctrination, carried out war crimes in China.
The Japanese pilots who struck at Pearl Harbour were not 'evil' people. They genuinely believed (rightly so) that their country would not survive unless they could secure the Pacific and break the American oil embargo that would have strangled Japanese industry and doomed their war efforts in China, for which so many had already given their lives.
This is not quite a fair comparison as there is no official policy to abuse or punish Iraqi civilians, whereas the Japanese did implement official policies to punish Chinese civilians suspected of harbouring insurgents and partisans. The most infamous being the Three Alls Policy.
Of course the German story we are are more familiar with, so I won't go into detail, but if you look at the details of the Treaty of Versailles and what happened to Germany post-WW 1, is it any wonder that an extremist government, feeding off general resentment, would take power in Germany? German aggression and atrocities are 'evil acts', but plenty of German soldiers volunteered for service with noble intentions.
Afghanistan was similar. It's usually portrayed in the media in the West as government & coalition forces vs. the Taliban. That isn't strictly true. Afghanistan has had internal tribal violence going on for centuries between dozens of different groups. When the country was invaded some of these groups split to either side, but a lot would have their main tribal or ethnic affiliation as well. It's almost impossible to return peace there because there wasn't really peace to start with.
As @Aristillius says, ethinc and religious tensions are a big part of the Syria conflict. In addition to pro-democracy groups a number of groups designated as Al-Qaeda linked terrorist organisations are part of the opposition. I'm sure hindsight will be 20/20, but at the moment establishing who should be helped and how, and how to avoid creating a second Taliban make it pretty impossible.
I hope I am wrong but it looks like Putin has calculated that if Russia cannot keep all of Ukraine within its sphere of influence, then it will at least seize Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea. Russian strategy appears to be an unofficial takeover of the apparatus of power within pro-Russian regions of Ukraine, which if the pro-Western Kiev government resists, would provide a pretext for even greater Russian military intervention, in the same manner of the 2008 war in Georgia.
In the Georgia conflict, the West, most importantly the US, chose not to intervene. Putin likely calculates that the same will occur if war does break out in the Ukraine. However the Ukraine is much larger and more important than Georgia, and the US may calculate that a stand needs to be made or it would lose further credibility, as in 2008, with Eastern European allies like Poland.
History is full of terrible conflicts that arose from small incidents, where none of the actors intended to escalate the conflict, but felt unable to back down once rhetoric escalated into bombs and bullets.
Syria has been tragic, but Ukraine and other flashpoints that pit major powers on opposing sides, and where one side perceives its fundamental interests threatened, are truly dangerous.
American Civil War ends. The newly re-united states finally join in on the Age of Imperialism.
WWI ends. We get the Treaty of Versailles. National Socialism spreads as a response, monster put in charge. WWII.
WWII in Asia ends, Japanese invasion of China ends. We are left with the greatest butcher the world has ever seen in power.
WWII in Europe ends. We get a cold war that lasts for decades and the policy of conscription gets reinstated in the US during the conflict with the Vietcong.
WWII ends, the Holocaust is ended, and imperialism is no longer en vogue. We are left with a sloppy and careless restructuring of the Middle East and religious conflict that spans generations.
Cold War ends...
Middle East is partitioned to end political conflicts...
but now the US and Russian governments are at it again... over political political conflicts in the Middle East
There are noble intentions in all wars, but it worries me when people seem so eager to get involved in armed conflicts, as they are with Syria and Ukraine.
Someone else said it best
"War, huh, good God
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing"
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing"
I like this a lot.
stupid
The inherent vulnerability of Western Russia means that Russian governments have always been obsessed with strategic depth on its western frontier in the form of buffer states or at least governments not hostile to Russian interests.
Rightly or wrongly, Russian strategists believe that the West, particularly the US, has been continuing efforts to erode Russian national interests in places like Eastern Europe, with the continued growth of NATO through the inclusion of former Warsaw Pact countries like Poland. On the surface, Putin and Russia may appear belligerent and aggressive, but Russian strategy, like so many conflicts in the past, is driven by a sense of strategic vulnerability.
As far as Russia is concerned, the West has been the strategic aggressor for decades, and Ukraine is only the latest battleground. A hostile Ukraine, right on the borders of the Russian heartland, is unacceptable to Russian strategic interests, and thus if Russia cannot keep Kiev within its sphere of influence, then it will, by force if necessary, secure a measure of security with de-facto buffer states in eastern Ukraine and the Crimea, the latter being particularly important as the home port of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
Remember that Political Realism, which seems to be the guiding principle of foreign policy in most countries, including the US, Russia and China, does not consider intentions, and so it does not matter to Putin if the US has no intention of using Ukraine to threaten Russia, a pro-Western Ukraine is in itself unacceptable for Russian security.
The current Ukraine crisis has echoes of the Georgia conflict of 2008, though a war in Ukraine would be far more dangerous and has far greater potential for wider escalation. The 2008 war occurred due to miscalculation by Georgia that its alliance with the US would protect it from Russian retaliation if it forcibly attempted to reclaim the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Russia now calculates that losing all of Ukraine is unacceptable and that again the West would not intervene decisively if it seized the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. This has already been done, albeit unofficially. If the Kiev government responds by forcibly attempting to exert its authority on these de-facto breakaway regions, then Russia is likely to respond with open military intervention.
The US/West would then be forced to once more back down in the face of Russian 'aggression', and lose credibility with allies, or intervene on a more practical level. Open warfare is unthinkable, but logistical support, military intelligence and armaments would balance the odds considerably, and is much more likely than 'American boots on the ground'. However, even a limited conflict would be tragic for the Ukrainian people and this type of conflict always has the potential of escalating further.
Apparently Obama and Putin had a 90min phonecall regarding the crisis, with Obama demanding a withdrawal of Russian forces and Putin insisting that Russia reserves the right to defend its national interests in the Ukraine.
Putin's language is remarkably frank. There is no sugar-coating it as 'protecting Russian citizens in Ukraine', though that will undoubtedly be used as a justification if open war does break out, this is very much about national interests through the lens of Political Realism.
In the summer of 1950, a 'small war' broke out in a North-east corner of Asia called Korea. The Korean people were divided by a Communist government in the north, backed by the Soviet Union (which had liberated Manchuria from Japan at the end of WW2, and still held great influence in region), and a capitalist government supported by the US in the south.
'Naturally', the stronger North Korean regime attempted to unite the country under its rule. As in the case of the Vietnam War 20 years later, this was more driven by a Nationalist agenda to unify the country than Communist revolutionary zeal. However, as North Korean regiments routed the disorganised Republic of Korea (RoK) army, the West (US) perceived that this was but the latest in a series of Soviet provocations around the world, including Greece, Germany and elsewhere.
As far as US strategists were concerned, Communism was a dangerous ideology, and its spread was detrimental to US national interests. It mattered not that the Soviet Union and China were both exhausted by decades of devastating warfare that ruined their heartlands (around 40-60 million people died in the USSR and China during WW2), and had no intentions of exporting Communism abroad, as both were more concerned with domestic difficulties and the challenge of reconstruction. The US simply regarded any spread of Communism, regardless of its possible grass-roots support (we tend to forget that Communism was genuinely popular at this stage, as people had yet to realise its systemic flaws that typically led to economic stagnation and political disaster) as strategic losses that should be avoided.
Thus, from a sense of strategic vulnerability, perfectly illustrated by the Domino Theory, the US perceived the USSR as a malevolent all-controlling puppet master attempting to dominate the world with its ideology. If Korea fell, then surely Southeast Asia would follow, and then Japan, and then Hawaii and then Soviet troops would be marching in California! Thus the North Koreans must be stopped! In hindsight this was ludicrous, the North Korean invasion of the south was not part of some Soviet master-plan, and the Soviet Union had no designs on Japan. In fact Stalin was exceptionally cautious and did not even throw his whole weight behind Mao in the Chinese Civil War (1945-49) because he initially expected a Nationalist victory, and did not want to have to deal with an openly hostile China in the aftermath Mao's defeat.
Regardless the US perception of Soviet aggression led to the UN intervention in Korea, which was possible because the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council in protest at the exclusion of the People's Republic of China from the UN, where the Republic of China (Taiwan) nominally represented China. Of course the much superior firepower of the UN army drove the North Koreans out of South Korea. Had General Douglas MacArthur stopped there at the 38th Parallel, the pre-war border between the Koreas, then that would probably have been the end of the war.However, seeing has the war was going so well, General MacArthur, with the tacit approval of the US government, counter-attacked into North Korea, seeking to 'roll back' the forces of Communism.
The People's Republic of China, established on the Chinese mainland only a year earlier, and still attempting to root out Nationalist and warlord forces in isolated pockets of resistance, was far from ready to wage another war. However, Chinese strategists could not rely on the uncertain limits of the ambitions of 'American' intervention, and believed that the US would use Korea as a launchpad to invade Manchuria and China-proper, (just as Japan did in 1931 and 1937) in support of the recently deposed KMT government that had fled to Taiwan. It mattered not that there were no American plans to 'reclaim China' for the KMT, the Communist government felt sufficiently threatened that the American domination of Korea was unacceptable for Chinese security. If a war had to be fought, then better fight it in the mountains of Korea than the plains of Manchuria and the already devastated cities of the Chinese coast.
Thus China repeatedly warned the US against continuing advances in Korea, whilst secretly preparing for a major Chinese intervention with troops massing in Manchuria beyond the Yalu River, the border between China and North Korea. Chinese preparations were spotted by Western intelligence, but General MacArthur dismissed the possibility of a Chinese intervention because he thought it would amount to strategic suicide against the superiority of UN forces. This miscalculation made Chinese intervention inevitable as UN units approached the Yalu River.
General MacArthur grossly underestimated both Chinese capability and determination to fight in Korea. The Korean War was called the "Resist America, Aid Korea" War in China, with soldiers told that they were fighting for the future of China and that if they failed, evil capitalists would threaten their homeland next, and so they must aid their Korean comrades to resist aggressive American ambitions. Due to the element of surprise and the experience of the Chinese army, mostly veterans of the Civil War, the UN offensive was totally stalled and driven all the way back to the 38th Parallel.
Despite defiant public declarations, Mao was deeply concerned about fighting a war against the much superior forces of America and her allies. So he was pleasantly surprised by the extent of China's initial victories, and his ambitions grew as a result. Instead of merely preventing the collapse of North Korea, as UN forces retreated in disarray across the front, Mao now saw an opportunity to seize an outright victory by destroying the UN army in Korea and driving all UN forces out of Korea and securing the peninsula as a region of Chinese influence, instead of the US or the USSR.
As UN forces faced the real danger of total collapse in 1951, General MacArthur requested the use of nuclear weapons against China, and expanding the war beyond the Korean peninsula. Thankfully, cool heads prevailed in Washington, which calculated that expanding the war might draw the USSR openly into the conflict as well, where so far the Soviet Union limited its intervention to military advisers, armaments, supplies and units of the Soviet air force disguised with Chinese and North Korean insignia, and strictly forbidden from operating over skies controlled by UN forces. (So that no pilots can be shot down over enemy territory).
In the end a tacit understanding was reached between Moscow and Washington, in which the ongoing conflict would be limited in the Korean peninsula, and although the war was catastrophic for Korea and dragged on for 3 bloody years, it did not escalate further into something far more nightmarish.
The point however was that none of the major powers, the USSR, the USA and China, wanted to fight a major war so soon after WW2. Yet all three factions, through a sense of strategic vulnerability, felt compelled to defend their interests in Korea through intervention, and a sequence of miscalculations* escalated the conflict to the stage that it could have triggered another World War.
*Miscalculations:
1) By North Korea: We can achieve a quick and easy victory over South Korea, the US would not intervene so far from home and so soon after the war against Japan.
2) By the US/UN: The North Korean army is crippled, we can depose the Northern communist government easily and quickly ("Home by Christmas") and China would not dare to intervene.
3) By China: Well the Western Imperialists are not so tough after all. Their morale and organisation is shattered, we can easily drive them into the Yellow Sea with one more great offensive!
I'm fairly confident that US or EU don't do a jack until there will be any danger to one of the countries that are the part of NATO.
I wonder if Putin have that much power in Russia to decide alone about whether to start a conflict or not? You know, he's former KGB and he had someone over him sometime...someone put him in charge as a president of one of the most powerful countries in the world.
Putin probably would like to re-establish control over Eastern Europe like in the Soviet era, because unless there is a fundamental shift in international politics, then whoever rules Russia will always attempt to create strategic depth on its western front. Russia's geographic weaknesses is in fact shared by Poland, which also lacks natural geographic barriers, and is why your country's history has been so 'difficult'. The Polish-Lithuanian League was partly established to create a neutral power bloc between Russia and Western Europe (France and Germany) that could ensure the independence and security of the countries between the two giants, but of course it proved insufficient to overcome the numerous challenges it faced in the 17th and 18th Centuries.
Anyway I believe that Putin is a rational actor, although he might play the North Korean card of appearing unpredictable and dangerous in order to extract maximum concessions from the West. He should be aware that, in the foreseeable future, Russia does not have the power and influence to bring Poland, the Baltics and other former-USSR satellite states under its sphere of influence again, and even if he has the power to initiate military action (he probably does), it would be folly to do so.
NATO/US is strategically ambiguous with regards to non-NATO allies like Georgia and (now) the Kiev faction in Ukraine, but it is legally bound to react to any aggression against existing NATO members like Poland. This is precisely why Russia is so keen to prevent Ukraine and Georgia actually joining NATO as well, and why Russia would go to war to prevent it from happening (NATO does not accept new members with ongoing conflicts).
Political Realism expects countries to behave rationally in accordance to its strategic interests and capabilities. China would like to reclaim Vladivostok and the resource rich parts of Siberia that were part of the Qing Empire, ceded to Russia following military defeat in the latter years of the Qing Dynasty. (This dispute was a contributing factor to the Sino-Soviet Split in the Cold War) But Chinese strategists calculate that the US is a greater threat to Chinese national interests for now, and a alliance, or at least a benign relationship with Russia, is more prudent than demanding concessions from Russia that China is not strong enough to back up and leaving the country even more isolated in international politics.
So, thankfully, those guided by political realism are also unlikely to pursue entirely crazy strategies like a Bond villain. I would guess that Putin/Russia would accept one of the following outcomes:
1) A negotiated settlement whereby a neutral or pro-Russian government is established in Kiev, a roll-back of the recent revolution just like pro-Russian elements in Ukraine rolled back the Orange Revolution of 2005.
2) If a pro-Western government remains in power in Kiev, then Russia would likely try to legitimise its de-facto control of the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. I doubt Russia would go as far as annexation, but a formal declaration of independence from Kiev is possible.
There will be no planned war over Ukraine. If it occurs, it will be because of a misunderstanding or some sort of accident like this incident might have triggered...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26432253
Well, as an objective neutral observer, I am not particularly unhappy with either of the above solutions I mentioned.
The most important thing is avoiding a "shooting war" over the Ukraine crisis, and although I would personally prefer to see the Ukraine remain united, it would not be the worst thing in the world if the Crimea and/or Eastern Ukraine seceded from the rest of the country.
The West always promotes Democracy and self-determination as inalienable human rights that ought to be upheld as a matter of principle, and yet there is considerable double-standards when it comes to actually enforcing these ideals. I could also write an essay about the serious flaws associated with these seemingly noble ideals*, but assuming we accept that self-determination is the good and proper solution to this kind of conflict, then option 2) above ought to be the desired outcome for both sides of the conflict.
The majority of western Ukraine is pro-Western, the majority of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is pro-Russian, so by self-determination the country should be partitioned accordingly. It is hypocritical to demand that Russia respects the will of the people of Western Ukraine, whilst at the same time ignoring the will of the people of Eastern Ukraine. The Crimea was even historically Russian, until it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954.
*PLEASE do not misunderstand my academic criticisms of Democracy and self-determination as some sort of implied support for Autocracy and/or Russia in this dispute. I am of a student of political theory, and true political theory is the critical analysis of the merits and weaknesses of all sorts of political systems. Blindly championing any particular system as a sacred guide to prosperity and utopia is in itself ignorant and dangerous, whether it's Democracy, Nationalism or Communism.
You trusted a political elite that failed you. You needed leadership, someone to spearhead your needs. You empowered and gave trust to those you voted for.
Your needs were not met. And leaderless, your people removed the tumor. And bled as a result.
You have my respect.
Forgive my humorous and almost callous tone below. Sometimes the only thing you can do confronting overwhelming force is to laugh in its face.
...
Look. If Putin annexes Crimea or parts of the Ukraine... Most of the world... Will frankly not give a damn.
It has given the west the right (I actually think someone is going to make money out of this!) to freeze the assets and deny visas of billionaire Russians at a whim, who hate their own country, don't even trust it to keep their money safe and educate their children and holiday in Europe (Okay England, they all come to England mostly but we are the land of the free and do anything you like if you have money place to be, country of choice...)
However, as my colleague who studied the cold war points out... If Russia gets away with it in the Ukraine and annexes swathes of it... then the Russian speakers in the Baltic states can be used as a context for invasion.
These Baltic states are part of NATO. And my pants will need to be changed often as WWIII would actually loom large. Or NATO dies and we give in to Russia. (I think the citizens of the USA will vote out the president who does THAT! Not gonna happen.)
Luckily for us all, I'm too old to fight...
But poor young @CrevsDaak would be in the front line and likely to be shot first...
I will start making a plaque...
To answer your question of how the West can apply pressure on Russia with the aim of achieving a more favourable outcome than either of the above... The answer is "with great difficulty". Obviously open war is unthinkable. Obama could also attempt to "play poker" with Putin, and threaten indirect military support for the Kiev government. Putin might be hesitant to order a full military intervention if he believes that the West would support the anti-Russian resistance forces on a practical level like in Afghanistan, which could turn Ukraine into a military quagmire. Of course Obama and Putin playing poker would be a very dangerous game for the rest of the world if neither side refused to fold.
More likely the West would have to look at economic sanctions. But although the US is relatively resilient to Russian economic retaliation, the same is not true for the European Union. Germany in particular is hugely reliant on Russian energy, and this is why Germany, amongst the major western powers, has been particularly keen to resolve the crisis as quickly as possible, and has not criticised Russia in the same manner as the US, UK and other Western powers.
Even the UK, whilst trying to appear tough and supporting the US position against Russia, is clearly unwilling to put UK national interests at risk over the Ukraine crisis. It is even possible that the information 'leak' was deliberate as a reassurance to the Russians that British rhetoric was just exactly that, and British foreign policy was merely 'going through the motions' of appearing outraged.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26431849
The hesitation of Germany and the UK also highlights another problem for 'the West'. The West is not a single political entity, and although as a whole, Western countries dominate international politics and economy, it is composed of a myriad of individual countries with their own national interests and perspectives, which makes it almost impossible to implement a unified 'Western' response to this Russian 'provocation'.
In the absence of a comprehensive and consistent set of Western sanctions, any sanctions imposed by specific nation-states like the US would be largely symbolic. Although asset freezes and trade embargoes would hurt specific Russian individuals and businesses, it would not be crippling for the country as a whole, and might even provide opportunities for countries like China to replace American influence over the Russian economy.
The world has changed drastically since the Kosovo War of 1999, when Russia was forced to back down in the face of Western economic advantages. Thanks to much higher energy prices, the Russian economy is no longer reliant on Western aid and investment, and the growth of China as an economic power provides alternative markets for Russian energy and alternative sources of capital investment.
Anyway that's my understanding of the situation, of course I do not have access to classified information that might provide different options I unaware of. Who knows, maybe Obama is holding a joker in his hand that I have not considered, but based on my humble analysis, I expect one of the above 2 options I mentioned as the most likely outcome for this crisis.
Thus far, Obama has suspended the June G-8 summit meeting. Time will tell if he goes further than that.
It's also important to note that if he cannot outright annex certain land, Putin is happy to leave troops there long-term, which isn't much better and is still a form of occupation.
And dont forget that in irak (21 century) innocent people are murdered by the same people who likes to fingerpoint at others... and palastine is one big ghetto (also in the 21 century) if you like it or not and no one gives a damn except for a very few brave regulary humans.
German soldiers were good ones, just had terrible leaders. Thats my oppinion and i had some vets in my family. Every story has 2 sides of a coin.