Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
The expansionism will stop when/if the perceived cost and risk to the leadership clique exceeds the perceived potential gain to the leadership clique.
Given your knowledge of the Russian/Ukrainian situation what circumstance will that be?

(I don't think the people calling the shots are too concerned with the cost/benefit equation for "Russia" generically, only for themselves.)
Can you elaborate on that?

I see no particular reason why that would require the emasculation of Russia.
Perhaps if this territorial aggression was likely to end with Ukraine. But is it? Will there be no more?

As Fuchs has pointed out, the strategy so far seems to focus on the gathering of low hanging fruit, though in the case of Crimea the fruit was already on the ground and needed only to be picked up.
Fuschs says a lot of things, much of which is plain wrong. In this case though he is correct in that the US and the EU are currently impotent and unable to act in concert to reverse this Russian aggression.

I see little reason to interpret that as a conquering juggernaut that can only be stopped by emasculation, unless of course you really want to. Trying to raise the fruit a bit might be easier and less risky than trying to emasculate the scavenger.
Well if like with Germany after 1945 you want to be sure that they will no longer be able to stage any acts of military aggression Russia gets emasculated in one of a couple of ways. Then peace in Europe will become a reality.

Very bold, but how do you propose to do that?
Why ask me, I won't be doing it.