Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[AmericanPride]

I have a problem with your narrative. It smacks of the Cold War. The Soviet Union was a direct threat to the United States because it advocated exporting worldwide a political and economic system that was a direct threat to capitalist democracy. For that reasons the two sides played a game a chess (or chicken) with each other with the world as their playground. That is not the case today. Russia has a direct interest in the Crimea. It was part of Russia until it was given to the Ukrainians. It houses the Russian Black Sea Fleet. There is a substantial Russian population (never mind the fact that the large Russian population is the result of Stalin removing the native Tartars). This is not the Soviet Union trying to exert influence over a small Island in the Caribbean (ala Granada). We have little direct interest in this case. So to portray actions in the Crimea as a US/Soviet Union conflict is reading the situation wrong. The Crimea was never the U.S.'s to lose.

I think in one sense the Cold War never ended. Washington exploited the collapse of the communist system to probe deeply into historical Russian spheres of influence -- and Washington routinely dismisses Russian objections under the ideological cover of promoting the free market and democracy. But even within free market democratic systems there is intense, even anti-democratic, competition, and Ukraine is no different. It was not acceptable to Washington that Ukraine was not firmly within Washington's vision of a capitalist America-oriented Europe (it should be noted that Washington's solution to Ukraine's financial problems, which triggered this episode, was to offer IMF conditional loans attached to deeply unpopular austerity measures). The removal of Yanukoych was the policy objective even if, as you state (and with which I agree), the United States has no direct interest. I agree that Moscow has legitimate and material interests in Ukraine. The difference is that Moscow secured its interests with a military operation.

EDIT: In addition, I think (1) Washington has clearly reached the apex of its influence, meaning that short-sighted, almost reckless policies, should be abandoned; (2) Washington should be negotiating with Moscow on issues, like in Iran and Syria, rather than testing the limits of relations, and (3) Americans, specifically American politicians, need to realize the practical limits of American exceptionalism and reevaluate the country's place in the world.

Russia will lose in the end, because the Ukraine that remains will be very interested in joining NATO, finally bringing the alliance they respect, if not fear, directly to their doorstep.

What is Moscow losing that it doesn't want or need in the first place? Washington is not in any position to dictate to Moscow, and Brussels is firmly tied with Moscow economically. Berlin and Paris specifically are less interested in confrontation with Moscow than Warsaw or any of the Baltic states. Moscow also has leverage in Tehran and Damascus than Washington notable lacks -- aside from the threat of military force, which is not politically feasible given America's domestic political and economic situation. There are clear divisions in NATO vis-a-vis Moscow policy, so it may be in hindsight that the expansion of NATO in the 1990s could become a political liability for the credibility of the alliance.