Ukraine: military (Aug '14 to mid-June '15) closed

[AmericanPride]

If you then look at the definition and one notices that word WMD is used as one of the three reasons I would and have argued the shooting down of a civilian airliner and killing 298 with a SAM is in fact the usage of WMD---just as the random shelling of civilian targets by the Russian irregulars via the BM21 and 27s are also in fact the reflect the use of WMD.

And... I addressed this by raising questions about the implications of classifying conventional weapon systems as "weapons of mass destruction". So - the next time a U.S. drone kills dozens of people in a wedding party, or a U.S. warship downs a civilian airliner, will you argue that the U.S. is a 'rogue' country recklessly using weapons of mass destruction?

On this I agree... the question is what can be done to adjust his calculations of cost and benefit I've already pointed out one possibility: for the Ukrainians to offer a cease-fire, amnesty, and a degree of autonomy as a way of pulling the rug out from any claim that peacekeeping forces are necessary. I don't think that's an ideal solution by any means, but if the Ukrainialn forces move into urban areas to root out the separatists it's going to be an engraved invitation to Putin for an invasion under the guise of peacekeeping. Better to not hand them the invitation.

At this point, this is probably the most realistic outcome with the highest possibility of restoring stability in the region. Kiev needs to find a way to reintegrate the opposition into the political process - that will isolate the radicals and undermine Russian justifications for intervention. What does Ukraine's political landscape look like if it exterminates the armed opposition?

See AP a rouge country having and threatening the use of nuclear weapons and yes in the early stages of the Crimea nuclear threats were in fact issued by members of the Duma

Is that like U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo calling for the nuclear destruction of Mecca and Medina during the GWoT? There are reckless blowhards in every country. So - if we accept your argument that Russia is a rogue, reckless, criminal, irrational country carelessly throwing around threats of nuclear weapons, why is your proposed response to further provoke it? If there's no connection between the country's interests and its behavior, how can you be certain that escalated sanctions or increased U.S. military presence in eastern Europe won't be met with a nuclear first strike? The very ideas of deterrence and sanctions are premised on the assumption that the targeted state is a rational actor and will respond in a way desired by the other state(s).