'moral authority' is not relevant to what happens with Ukraine. Consequences are.

[geek tragedy]

Whether or not the US or Europe has any 'moral' right to say anything about what Russia is doing is, to be blunt, pointless blathering.

What matters is very simple: what consequences will Putin face for what he's doing? Will there be any costs for him to do so?

The answer is that there must be some. Now, that does NOT mean that any kind of military response is a credible idea. It most certainly is not.

But, economic and diplomatic consequences to his actions are entirely appropriate. Putin has already decided that it would be worth the costs to intervene and annex Crimea. The real question is whether he gets sent the bill, or whether he gets away with it with zero consequences. Because what really matters is where do we go from here, and do we want Putin to be more or less likely to do this the next time a former vassal state wants its independence.

[Jake Stern]

1. That's like a mugger becoming indignant that his friend was mugged.

There isn't a mop big enough to wipe up the hypocrisy that oozes from Washington's lips over this.

If the US made genuine atonement to all the countries we forced ourselves on and had a couple of generations of staying out of other people's business then MAYBE we might have re-earned the right to complain.

[1awake]

2. That is irrelevant. Sorry, but it completely is in this situation. nt

[Jake Stern]

6. We wish to criticize Russia for going into Ukraine

when we are one of the biggest offenders in that field. That is what's known as hypocrisy. Absolutely relevant.

[1awake]

9. NO. it is irrelevent.. we are not talking about website boards

or some moral high ground... this is peoples lives. Everything you said is accurate but also irrelevant since it solves nothing and potentially, would make matters worse for years to come.

[Jake Stern]

13. It's not our job to solve anything in the Ukraine.

Let Europe take care of their own problems for once.

[1awake]

16. Isn't that what they said in WW1... and WW2? How'd that work out? nt

[arely staircase]

8. all countries and all governments are hypocritical

absolutely irrelevant.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

14. Enough with that crap.

Bush is five years in the rear view mirror.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. The US has every right to be critical when a country gets invaded. nt

[Fumesucker]

19. And everyone else has the right to roll their eyes at the cosmic level of chutzpah

[Cali_Democrat]

20. Everyone certainly has a right to their own opinion. nt

[geek tragedy]

25. if international diplomacy were about morals and principles and ethics, sure

but at the end of the day it's about states want, how they can get it, and what they can get away with

[Vattel]

28. so states are collective psychopaths?

[cali]

27. Hypocrisy is foundational to diplomacy. Really.

It's for sure not about atonement or earning this or that right. It never was and it never will be. If nationss had to follow your guidelines, there would be no diplomacy and that would NOT be a good thing. Flawed as it is, by its very nature, it's better than the alternative.

And as far as hypocrisy goes, I think one does well to keep EM Forster's line about it in mind:

"Only hypocrites cannot forgive hypocrisy".

For me, personally, what's vital, is acknowledging our own less than stellar history.

[arely staircase]

32. + 1 nt

[cali]

3. I agree with that- basically

I'm not sure what consequences are appropriate. I do know that the response has to be well thought out and coordinated.

We need to know what we're trying to achieve with any consequences that we issue. We need to be sure that any action we take won't make matters worse.

[geek tragedy]

4. that's pretty much it. nt

[arely staircase]

5. absolutely

well put.

[1awake]

7. Consequence must come from

somewhere other than the security council. The UN will largely be impotent in this case for obvious reasons. Key countries coupled with diplomatic and economic action in conjunction with NATO could be appropriate. I would stress Economic sanctions easily enforced via foreign business initiatives (or lack there of) for a not to subtle taste of isolationism.

A second plan must be met by the same group in the area of gas replacement as well as loans to fully negate Russia's own economic plan to further hurt Ukraine (again violating the Budapest Memorandum).

Russia cares less for the People in Crimea (though I'm sure that is part of it) and more for the access to the sea. Without that access their navy is severely limited due to cold weather in most other areas. Some form of a deal will need to be reached most likely ending up in Crimea becoming a puppet satellite of Russia. I believe there is no other option nor better outcome for everyone even though this will not be liked.

Anyway... just some thoughts.

[arely staircase]

12. did you post in the right place?

that isn't what gt is saying. I'm not being snarky I think you replied to the wrong thing.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. Oops

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Agreed...there's no concept as irrelevant in foreign policy as "hypocrisy"

It's utterly beside the point.

That said, the western powers and the EU also simply want Ukraine as a vassal state. It's notable that this whole thing was kicked off by a trade agreement - precisely the sort of agreement that so many are decrying here in the form of the TPP (indeed, the terms of the agreement are completely lop-sided). Those fighting against the agreement certainly had Moscow-based reasons for doing so. Those fighting for it aren't pure either, though: it's a typical neoliberal "annexation" of Ukraine's labor and resources and "inclusion" ina two-tiered economic system that robs countries like Ukraine blind. At least some of the opposition to that agreement is right and fitting.

This is a contest between two annexations. I'm not inclined to see Putin as a villain on that basis.

[geek tragedy]

23. I would disagree in that metaphorical annexation is not the same as

annexation annexation. Trade agreements can be waived off, tanks can't.



Funny thing about EU deals, everyone feels like they're getting robbed blind--ask the Germans and the Greeks who benefited from EU expansion, and you'll get radically different answers.

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. It's not the same thing, but it has consequences just as dire

Moreover, if Russian tanks were rolling into Kiev, I'd certainly be immediately and unquestionably on your side. I am just mostly on your side because the whole (autonomous zone) of Crimea thing strikes me as very different. No doubt, Putin will always use threats against Russian ethnics for his own military-expansionary purposes; it's not that different than what Hitler was saying about the Sudetenland and the Krakow corridor, after all. That said, the revolutionary forces in Kiev have been considering giving the state police apparatus over to Dmitro Yarosh - lunatic anti-Russian militia leader Dmitro Yarosh. There's a case to be made that ethnic Russians have something to fear.

Putin wasn't going to put the EU in charge of his Black Sea ports. Anyone who didn't see that is just silly.

[Fumesucker]

15. What "consequences" did Dubya face for what he did?

[geek tragedy]

21. Personally, none. But it cost the United States very dearly, and it cost

the Republican party control of Congress in 2006.

[cali]

22. should he have?

[reddread]

26. I would wonder about the country who couldnt control a stolen election exerting influence

even if the red flags of russia baiting hadnt been thrown up weeks ago.
Fingerprints everywhere.

[sadoldgirl]

31. To get back to your original question, my answer would be: no

We may squack or scream, it won't make any difference. He does what he does, because he knows that he can even invade without any serious repercussions. He is not a stupid man. Had he any fear of any serious interference he would have acted with far more circumspections.