Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
How's that any different from most conflicts in, say, the preceding 100 years? How is knowledge of the extent of the militia's autonomy or acknowledgment of Russian sponsorship relevant to U.S. ability to influence a favorable outcome?
Probably because the U.S. does not want its own war against Russia. If that's the case, I agree with the intention.
Does anyone like losing? So what?
The handling of the incident and crash site may open the door politically for more U.S. sanctions. But it's not the sanctions that's damaging Russia's economy; it's the uncertainty of the conflict's outcome. Historically speaking, sanctions are generally ineffective in compelling policy changes.
The Putin administration's popularity is at an all time high. Given effective state control of the media, it's obvious that any downward turn in the Russian economy will be blamed on the U.S. Is that the kind of political environment we want to foster in Russia? The Clinton and Bush administrations already effectively destroyed the credibility of the liberals in Russian politics.
And?
So - what you're saying is that the incident is a pretext for the U.S. to escalate the conflict further by providing arms and direct assistance rather than pursuing a cease fire and negotiated settlement? Has any consideration been given to the long-term political ramifications for Ukraine's internal politics and the dyadic relationship with Russia if the separatists are destroyed? Does that resolve Ukraine's political problems?
There are very few, if any, similarities between the incidents. If any two incidents share similarities, it's the U.S. government's response to it's shoot down of the Iranian airliner in 1988 in which the U.S. refused to apologize on the grounds that it occurred in a war-time environment. This is not a question of moral culpability but instead of a state's place in the international power structure. If Russia has the power to not take responsibility, why would it or should it?
In what ways could the U.S. have 'acted decisively'? In the way that Russia acted decisively in seizing Crimea and sponsoring the separatists? There is a continuum of commitment levels - first, U.S. soft power intervention in Ukraine's internal unrest, followed by a lightning strike of Russian hard power combined with sponsoring militants and providing political cover, to be followed by what U.S. escalation of commitment? Outlaw suggested providing arms and advisers. What happens when a U.S. adviser is killed by a separatists, or worst, killed by a Russian direct action team? What if it was a U.S. recce aircraft that was shot down instead of a civilian airliner? At that point, the U.S. would have no options but to further escalate its commitment less it risk destroying its credibility. Is that the kind of route we want to take with Russia? The problem is that Russia got in first and beat us to the punch. Further commitments by the U.S. means escalating the conflict, and that means directly confronting Russia. I don't think that's politically feasible for America's own internal politics.
I fear your overzealous morality offensive is not conducive to actually producing an accurate understanding of the situation or to exploring realistic outcomes to the conflicts. Those same people you are condemning also set up memorials and shrines at the crash site and Russians demonstrated their sympathy at embassies in Moscow. Given that the separatists do not have a fully functioning government or a national army, I'm not surprised they did not have a plan to handle an incident of this kind nor were prepared to negotiate the details of an investigation with the Kiev government (with whom they're engaged in a bitter conflict).
It also should not be forgotten that in the same breath you are condemning the withholding of transferring the victims' bodies over to Ukrainian custody as political leverage for a cease-fire, you are also advocating using the deaths of those same persons to justify the escalation of the conflict through more direct U.S. intervention.