As I wrote before, my opinion is that Putin's action in the Ukraine was primarily an act of opportunism. I do not think that Russia instigated the Ukrainian revolution as a pretext. I think in the early stages the events that unfolded were unexpected and not terribly welcome in Moscow, but when they produced a power vacuum and opened a window of opportunity, Putin took it. Whether or not that involved modifying a plan that was already in place or a completely new plan I do not know. It is entirely possible that plans already existed: governments and militaries routinely plan for all kinds of events.Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
I expect that it is very likely that next time around Putin will try to create his own opportunity, and that bordering nations would be well advised not to provide opportunities.
I don't know what Putin plans, and I don't know his future. Neither do you. Neither does anywhere else here. There's a wide range of skills and knowledge represented here, but clairvoyance and telepathy are not among them. We don't know if Putin wants to restore the former Soviet Union, or the pre-Soviet Russian Empire (Ukraine was part of Russia long before the Soviet Union was ever conceived), or to reunite all of what used to be called the "Rus' Peoples", or to re-establish control over areas with Russian speaking populations, or something completely different. I see no basis for the assumption that Putin intends to re-establish the Soviet Union. The only thing we can reliably assume based on recent events is that if Putin is presented with a gilt-edged silver-platter opportunity to take some land from a neighbor, he'll take it.
I don't believe that Putin has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the 'Stans back, regardless of what he may or may not plan or want.
The discussions that try to position this as a confrontation between the US and Russia, or between Obama and Putin, seem to me almost childish. Europe exists. Europe's economy dwarfs that of Russia and combine EU defense spending is far greater than that of Russia. Europe has far greater economic leverage over Russia than the US has. There is no reason whatsoever to cast this as a US - Russia issue, that's a resurrection of an archaic Cold War anachronism. If Putin is facing off with anyone here, he's facing off with Europe.
I do believe that the US should provide Europe with whatever reasonable support is requested in the imposition of economic sanctions, or even placing US military units in Europe, if - and only if - the cost is borne by Europe. The US taxpayer should bot be footing the bill for the defense of Europe, nor should the US be initiating the moves. Leadership does not mean doing everything for everyone, and it does not mean jumping to the top of every pile and the front of every parade. Sometime it means encouraging, or even forcing, those you lead to make full use of their own capacities.
I do not believe that the continued presence of US forces in Europe would have deterred Putin from moving on Crimea. I think he would have concluded, reasonably and rather easily, that the US is not going to war over Crimea, and carried on. I don't think that has anything to do with Obama, either: the same conclusion would have been just as easy to reach, and just as valid, under any other President.
In short: the US has every reason to be concerned, no reason whatsoever for fear, panic, or hysteria. I don't think it's at all likely that Putin can be forced to give back Crimea, but it is likely that he can be deterred from taking another bite... unless he's presented with an irresistible opportunity, which should be avoided. The US needs to work closely with Europe, urge them to adopt harder sanctions if needed, but not try to dictate what the response should be. I think bluster is pointless and counterproductive and that no demands should be made that we haven't the will or capacity to back up with action.
Is that enough opinion, or would you like more?
Bookmarks