Firn: Thank you from the readers of this thread ...
for doing a bang up job on this story. Nice graphics, which often say more than thousands of words.
IMO (and broken crystal ball): If Georgia and Sudetenland I (Sudetenland II being when Adolf gobbled the rest of Cz) are the precedents, then Slap's post just above suggests the eventual diplomatic outcome: a secure Russian naval base in the Crimea, with an ethnic Russian buffer zone in southern and eastern Ukraine following the 2010 election results, leaving the rest of the Ukraine for the EU (at least for now).
JMA: Here's the US playbook on the Ukraine:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e_portrait.jpg
aka "All Options Are on the Table" John - doing what he does best: lofty rhetoric (Youtube now, and Youtube then).
Of course, the WH had to "refine" his statements (from Politico's "All Options Are on the Table" article):
Quote:
Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that “all options” were “on the table” as Washington determines how to respond to the Crimea crisis, but a senior administration official later told reporters he was describing the American “menu” of non-military options.
“We are focused on political and economic and diplomatic and economic options,” the official said. “We do have a wide range of options to include isolation, potential sanctions, relationships between Russia [and other countries]. … Our goal is to uphold the territorial integrity and government of Ukraine, not to have a military escalation. I don’t think we’re focused right now on some sort of military intervention. I don’t think that would be an effective way to deescalate the situation.”
So, don't expect a lot out of NATO Art. 4 and Art. 5 - which is going to be Germany's call anyway.
Ashley Deeks (a reasonable sort) looks at the Russian Forces in Ukraine: A Sketch of the International Law Issues, and concludes (after going through the major points):
Quote:
Russia’s invasion of Crimea provides the latest evidence of two recurrent themes in “use of force” law: That many of its concepts remain malleable on paper, and that certain forcible actions fall within the core understandings of those concepts, such that most credible observers would agree that those actions violate international law.
To which, I can only say - So What ? Recourse to Thucydides would seem a more fruitful employment of one's time and effort.
Regards
Mike