I see Kerry is suggesting that by manipulating, fudging language describing, identifying Israel as a 'Jewish state', which Israel insists is a must in any peace agreement, he can placate Palestinian and the Arab League's for that matter firm objections to acknowledging Israel as, ya know, a Jewish state - what does one say? Are these people idiots? Just naive to such a degree that they seem like idiots? Caught in the liberal ideological echo chamber where their vain pretensions simply will not allow for imagining that maybe they're a wee bit misguided? I dunno. Does Kerry really believe that a ruse of language will do away with the ingrained, habitual, well practiced enmity Muslims feel towards Israel? Seriously? Netanyahu et al in private meetings must bounce between tears and laughter and outrage when considering the Obama administration's credulity - or maybe it's fear they feel, maybe they don't see Obama's approach to Israel as hopelessly naive - maybe they see it as pointedly anti-Israel. Given the left wing academic roots of Obama's world view, that would not be surprising.

I find it striking that with Putin massing troops on Ukraine border so few if any seem inclined to entertain notion that this action may represent one of the scenarios I first postulated at the beginning of all this playing itself out, namely that Putin is pressuring Obama into conceding on Crimea in return for an 'agreement' to not push any further, which would clearly be a win for Putin: he'd have Crimea, he'd have shown himself as strong versus the weakness of a West desperate to make unwise compromises in order to avoid conflict, and he'd be free to sit back and slowly start prying away, through various games and subterfuges, Ukraine's eastern provinces and no doubt Odessa.

I dislike and distrust Hitler analogies - but if Obama agrees to something like this and then tries to sell it as his wisdom winning the day for common sense and the press and media [who doubts it?] echoes that naive rhetoric - well, that will look very much like Chamberlain leaving Munich with a smile on his face [not that I at all see Putin as another Hitler even though his long range strategic ambitions are not I think entirely dissimilar].

There are still several ways this can play out - but I was struck by one pundit practically ridiculing Putin for this 'rash' mistake that will bring him all kinds of economic and political woes - what about this seems rash? This action was quite obviously thoroughly planned - and it seems absurdly jejune to imagine that part of that planning was not about the economic penalties the West would try to impose and how Moscow would counter. To talk like that is to yet again demonstrate how the naive idealism of liberal ideology has undermined, hollowed out the West's ability to think strategically - for strategy must always allow for the harsh realities of the world whereas idealism is all about trying to rationalize those realities safely away.

I'm not saying that Putin definitely wins this contest - everybody makes mistakes - I'm saying that based on Obama's record of wretched performance in the foreign policy realm, historical precedence and the fact that Putin seems to be acting with a grand strategy in mind, at the moment I highly doubt Putin loses the contest. Could happen, would't bet on it.

"… in short, what it comes down to, in surveying and thinking about the carnage, both foreign and domestic, that the Obama years will leave behind, is that there is a big difference, huge difference between being smart and having a clue... no one's gonna deny that much of the liberal elite is quite smart in general terms, even if one chooses to define the parameters of that intelligence loosely... what's clearly the problem though is that they demonstrably do not seem to have a fucking clue when it comes to governing, and especially when it comes to governing a place like America… sure, Obama can win you some elections he has absolutely no right winning by cunningly and without shame leveraging the wholly vacuous and utterly cynical politics of identity… but actually run something?… no, these are not the people you wanna be stuck relying on..."

I must say I'm not sure I agree with Republican calls for Obama to get much tougher on Putin - not that I agree with Obama's performance in this regard - I think I can safely say there's nothing Obama has done, since the first day he woke up as president to whatever he's doing right now [ah, with the Pope - maybe they'll discuss his past support for partial birth abortion between fawning smiles for the camera] nothing he's done that I have or can agree with - the problem with Dear Leader getting tough with Putin is that Putin would never buy it or see the threat as credible and therefore might view it as an opportunity to escalate so as to further embarrass Obama, whom Vlad for good reason believes will back down, and drive home the idea that America is a fading power. Now, sure, Putin may be ready to escalate regardless - but since no one really expects the EU or Obama to act in a convincingly forceful way here the only real option left is to limit the damage done to America's reputation as much as possible. Unfortunately, of course, Putin understands this all too well and is no doubt looking to do harm no matter which weak hand Obama decides to play - so there may indeed be no way to save American credibility so long as Obama is calling the shots.

The other problem with 'getting tough' on Putin is that Obama's national security team inspires no confidence whatsoever - who really believes should things heat up that these people have the wherewithal required to get it right? If Gates was still SecDef, maybe - but Kerry, Hagel, Rice and O himself? No, that team does not inspire confidence.

Remarkable how many, when talking about sanctioning Russia, refer to the success of the Iran sanctions - what success? Did the sanctions do much economic harm to Iran? Yes. Did this harm lead to the negotiations? In part, yes. Have the negotiations brought to an end or realistically promise to bring to an end Iran's nuke program? No. That is not success - that looks like Iran getting what it wants by other means.

Why do I say only in part did sanctions lead to negotiations? Since for Obama force was never really on the table even though he liked to claim it was and Iran knew this, he actually needed the negotiations more than they did in order to save him from his lie being revealed - which means, way I see it, Iran has the upper hand. They're certainly behaving like they have the upper hand.

The continuing decline of the Erdogan regime in Turkey (by reputation if not power since Erdogan by hook or crook can still 'win' elections) raises some points. One, how comforting it is to see an Islamist state fail, sort of like in days gone by the satisfaction one took in watching a communist state sink - the joy here being that the idea promoted by the naive progressive mindset of something as intolerant and conformist as Islam being compatible with democracy is revealed to be the risible notion it is. Secondly, the question it raises, to wit: with yet another example of how Obama seems not to have a clue when it comes to all things foreign policy related [recall his big love for Erdogan] when exactly does the man lose all credibility on the world stage if he hasn't already - when does everybody simply stop listening to him as if he knows what the hell he's was talking about? And finally, as Rubin is quoted saying in the Jerusalem Post today regarding Turkey becoming more enemy than friend of the West, when does America start to rethink sensitive hi tech arms sales to the regime? Should we really be trusting Erdogan with F-35s or any other proprietary military tech? Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me.

From Victor Hanson:

Putin, however, has a logic of his own. American intervention or non-intervention in particular crises is not just the issue for Putin. Instead he sees fickleness and confusion in American foreign policy. He has manipulated and translated this into American impotence and thus reigns freely on his borders.

Red lines in Syria proved pink. Putin’s easily peddled his pseudo-WMD removal plan for Syria. America is flipping and flopping and flipping in Egypt. Missile defense begat no missile defense with the Poles and Czechs. Lead from behind led to Benghazi and chaos. Deadlines and sanctions spawned no deadlines and no sanctions with Iran. Then there was the reset with Russia. Obama’s predecessors, not his enemies were blamed. Iraq was cut loose. We surged only with deadlines to stop surging in Afghanistan. Loud civilian trials were announced for terrorists and as quietly dropped. Silly new rubrics appeared like overseas contingency operations, workplace violence, man-caused disasters, a secular Muslim Brotherhood, jihad as a personal journey, and a chief NASA mission being outreach to Muslims.

Putin added all that up. He saw a pattern of words without consequences, of actions that are ephemeral and not sustained, and so he concluded that a weaker power like Russia most certainly can bully a neighbor with access to stronger powers like the United States. For Putin and his ilk, willpower and his mythologies about Russian moral superiority are worth more than the hardware and data points of the West.

Yep, pretty much. Being the most powerful military in the world is of questionable utility if the Commander in Chief of those forces does not believe in the intrinsic value of military power or American power in general. Since day one of his presidency everything Obama has done on the foreign policy side has been guided by a clear intention to dramatically reduce America's strategic posture, shrink it, reorient it towards liberal notions of humility and internationalism and hollow out, gut, compromise, undermine, water down, hamper, constrict [one can argue degree] the adjunct military power attending and enabling that posture. Every single thing he's done on or related to the world stage has been tainted by that desire, that ethos. In short he has essentially intimated, and sometimes none too subtly, to all those who under appreciate, malign, dislike, resent, hate or outright despise American power that he shares their concerns. Possibly the most disturbing thing revealed in Gates' book was revelation that nothing, nothing having to do with the US military roused Obama's interest or distemper more than the problems associated with allowing gays to serve openly - think about what that says about the guy, his world view, his sympathies - and realise that Putin, the mullahs in Iran, Islamic radicals everywhere and the savvy mandarins of the Middle Kingdom are all watching this and adjusting their calculations accordingly.   

At first one thinks Russia's threat to change its position on Iran's nuke program is simply more quality humor from comrade Putin because who ever thought Russia to really be on our side when it came to Iran's nukes - but then you realize this is damn clever of Putin, this is him sticking the knife in, this is him thoroughly displaying how Obama's progressive's view of the world [ie I too dislike and distrust traditional notions of American power] and cult of personality approach to foreign policy [ie people will do what I say because I'm the celebrity black president and just oh so cool to be friends with] has left him utterly exposed and vulnerable - meaning, according to my take on the Iran 'negotiations', if these talks are indeed merely a ruse designed to keep Israel in check, slow walk us to 'containment' and rescue Obama from his hollow threat of force of course being on the table and he'd never allow Iran to nuke up etc etc - and if Russia playing along with this show lent credence to the ruse - Putin's threat to pull back the curtain leaves Obama as the not so great wizard peddling platitudes and fake grandeur: to wit, give Iran what they want and keep your nose out of my business or I'll humiliate you by making it clear your threat of the military option being on the table was never anything more than a lie told by a coward.

I'm not really sure how Obama is planning on selling the demonizing of Russia over Crimea when he just a few months ago legitimized Putin as an honest broker viz Syria where much much worse abuses of human rights and freedoms are ongoing. I'm not saying what's happened in Crimea is legitimate, I'm saying measured against the manifestly weak incoherence of Obama's overall foreign policy getting all puffed up over Crimea doesn't really make sense. What democratic principles are we supposedly cheering on here? We deal with Iran in a putatively progressive way and that's a bogus democracy that by the way just attempted to ship a shit load of dangerous weapons to terrorists threatening a supposed ally of ours - we force Israel, said ally and a real democracy, to negotiate with a fake one that in no way can be trusted and is headed up by a guy who has simply stayed on in power even though his term 'officially' ended years ago - has this administration said anything about what's going on in Venezuela, a place where democracy and democratic principles are as phony as can be and abused without remorse? We treat China as a legitimate near peer even though it doesn't even bother with the mere pretense of democracy, holds a knife made of missiles over the heads of fractious Tibet and Taiwan, enables one of the most despicably oppressive regimes in the world in North Korea and is unilaterally making claims in the China Sea that pay little attention to international norms and the competing claims of their neighbours - and yet we're gonna make a big fuss over Crimea?

Sanctions, devotion to the often delusional promise of international norms and the giving of pretty speeches fade in relevance when compared to an appreciation for the real value of military power, the practice of cunning diplomacy and the long term benefits of a well thought out marco strategy - and all three of those attributes just mentioned are completely lacking in the Obama administration. That we're stuck without good options in the Ukraine is more a reflection of that sad state of affairs than the fact that Putin, as Kerry utterly missing the point complained last week, wants to govern as if the last 100 years never happened. Putin has objectives and he targets the weaknesses of those standing in the way of them - if we had acted in the same coherent way we would never have done a 'reset', we would never have put Putin in charge of what happens in Syria, and most importantly before meddling in Ukraine we would have thought through the consequences of that, realized Putin and possibly no Russian president would ever accept it and then focused in on Putin's prime weakness and vulnerability, an economy entirely dependent on energy sales, and figured out a way to apply pressure there. But of course we didn't because Western democracies are governed by idiots who seem convinced that they're all just so damn clever that nothing bad can ever happen.

[to be fair, as bad of a foreign policy president I think Obama has been, and I think history might remember him as the worst foreign policy president ever, fact is his immediate predecessors weren't much better - Clinton muddled through, apparently trying to triangulate foreign policy the way he triangulated everything else, an approach that at least had the virtue of not doing too much harm while it was busy trying to not do too much good either - Bush had more heft and legitimate purpose but of course went all to hell with the mismanaged clusterfuck that was Iraq - I do think critics of Iraq tend to be ideologically motivated backseat drivers who conveniently ignore how dire the immediate post 9/11 security dynamics were and that pretty much all intelligence agencies believed Saddam had an advanced WMD program including his own generals - but that doesn't excuse the abysmal failure by the Bush administration to come up with a post invasion strategy that made sense and was doable - and let's not forget that it was Bush who first looked into Putin's eyes and saw something he liked - whereas a more thoughtful person well grounded in the harsh realities of history and the way the world works would have seen what SecDef Gates saw: a cold blooded killer]

The problem with the coming sanctions on Russia is that people talk as if this outcome was never considered and accounted for by Putin - they talk as if somehow this action will come as a surprise to Putin and therefore I'm guessing they no doubt overestimate the effect. Now, I'm not saying it's impossible Putin underestimated the economic consequences of his actions and therefore can indeed possibly be effectively pressured by such, I'm just saying far as I'm concerned it seems unlikely Putin hasn't been expecting this and accordingly has a response planned. People thought sanctions would force Iran away from the bomb but that didn't happen, regardless how Obama/Kerry might try to convince us otherwise - people thought capitalism and integration into global markets would force China into becoming a democracy but again that didn't happen, not even close. Certain types in the West make this miscalculation all the time and for an obvious reason: the alternative is a belief in the efficacy of military force - but just because liberals would very much like to believe that such refined and enlightened advocacy can bring order to the restive world in lieu of the massing of armies doesn't mean that the world will acquiesce and behave in accordance with those lofty wishes - in fact, I'd much expect to see the opposite.

Other mistake people are making here seems to me is assuming that even if you manage to get to Putin through sanctions he then simply capitulates. That's wishful thinking - why can't it be that he escalates or looks for some other means to get what he wants? Again, Iran wasn't dissuaded by sanctions, they just modified the means by which they sought their goals - very likely Putin will do the same since if he backs down it's over for him in Russia - and I repeat, I'd be very surprised if these complications had not been thoroughly considered ahead of time and various options for response considered. I may be giving Putin way too much credit, but tend not to think so - till I see evidence to the contrary, far as I'm concerned Putin still sees himself as having Obama's number - as does Iran, as does China - for that matter as do the Palestinians viz the 'peace process' - Obama may be good at manipulating the advantage of a biased media and press in order to leverage the dubious celebrity of being the first 'black' president towards the winning of elections - that he has a knack for - but when it comes to stuff like this, there's nothing he's done as president or before for that matter that suggests he can or even simply cares to play this game - it's not impossible that he sees such coarse things as being beneath his enlightened view of things - regardless, his adventures in foreign policy to date have been uniformly awful and wholly misguided and I'm really not expecting a miraculous change to that record to announce itself here.

[okay, it's charged, you're free with your criticism of Obama - what would you do? Well, as said before, the idiocy of the reset and the tempting of Ukraine to the west without it seems heeding or planning for the likely dire consequences of that are big mistakes that cannot be taken back - so your hands are tied to a degree. Key is figuring out what Putin wants - just the Crimea or more? If it's more, you have to send a strong message and there has to be a military component to the message - can't just be sanctions. But if all he wants is the Crimea, well then, that's an unfortunate thing that the EU and America are partially responsible for bringing about and you just have to accept it - to me it'd be idiotic to escalate this business over keeping the Crimea as part of an overall dysfunctional Ukraine. Now, sure, you do in response have to put up deterrents that limit the damage at the Crimea - but sanctions are not that - military and diplomatic gestures with other eastern European states and possibly Ukraine would be more useful - think long term because Putin wants you thinking short term, he wants you to react in a way that he can exploit for show more than substance so don't give him that opportunity - Russia has no long term future so long as you don't hand Putin the victories he needs, like with Syria, like with sowing doubt about your commitments in the minds of your Mideast allies, and like with reaching out to a completely unnecessary Ukraine without it seems ever considering the consequences of that - but to me sanctions probably don't achieve what you're hoping they'll achieve and run the risk of escalating things for no good reason - as we've seen with Iran, sanctions can become a trap that if expertly manipulated either forces escalation or capitulation on the sanctioning parties. As I've said before, I believe that the way Iran has behaved, China in the China Sea, and Putin in Syria and now Ukraine are all based on perception that Obama is weak and doesn't believe in the indispensable value of American power and therefore can be manipulated, played - and as long as Obama is in the White House that dynamic isn't going to change and therefore your options are perforce limited.

My guess is Putin just wants the Crimea and is willing to then sit back and let the roiling political situation in Ukraine - subversively tweaked by him of course - play out, possibly eventually to his advantage - but that's a guess - I know he's moving a lot of troops around on the border but I still think that's more about applying pressure viz capitulation on Crimea rather than an invasion - I'd sure hope the Pentagon and the CIA have a clearer view of things, but who knows - but regardless, you're still stuck with Obama, that's the weak link - which means options are limited on our side while incentives are sweetened on theirs - and that's a bad combination]

[I should refine this: not necessarily against sanctions or other economic penalties that are punitive simply to be punitive - against sanctions that have a specific goal, as in getting Putin to leave Crimea - very skeptical of efficacy of those - but have no problem kicking Russia out of WTO taking other measure simply to say to Putin "we can't do much about Crimea, but take it further than that and were start doing stuff that is really gonna piss some of your oligarchs off" - I am against all sanctions that are seen as a replacement to military power and smart, keanly strategic diplomacy - that's fantasy way I see it - and I think embracing sanctions with specific goal of getting Putin out of the Crimea is doomed to failure and simply plays into his hands] 

Kerry threatens Russia with a 'serious series of steps' aimed against them should Putin refuse to rethink his misadventures by Monday [my God, another red line from these fucking idiots?] - the way I read things, for Putin that amounts to an invitation to ratchet things up a notch or two - indeed, would not surprise me at all if part of his planning was to wait for Obama/Kerry to express some ridiculous bravado of an ultimatum before moving on to the next stage - as I've said before, Putin's strategy really only works if America and the EU are made to look weak relative to it. 

This whole Malaysia disappearing airliner story is pretty much a farce, yes? I mean, I suppose no one really knows the truth [although I'm guessing several people actually do], but sure does seem like this is connected to terrorism and that Malaysia, a Muslim country that has so far avoided the exporting of extremism even though it has certainly harboured some unsavory Islamist types, seems to be pretty desperate to avoid or bury or beat down the terrorism aspect - with the battery life on the black box only having about 25 days left it's almost as if all the confusion and conflicting stories and misdirection is an attempt to run out the clock on that - if terrorism brought the plane down, at this point only the black box can reveal it.

Of course the curious thing is, if terrorism, why has no one taken credit for it? Two most intriguing answers: the plane has been 'stolen', taken somewhere else for some further dark purpose; terrorists have figured out a way to hack into a plane's communications and navigation systems and this was a dry run for a much larger operation, which is why of course you wouldn't want it known - this would also explain why crash debris cannot be found - the plane drifted way off course - and why communications went dead.

Sure, all speculation, I have no idea - but instincts suggest the story reeks of a something else of a troubling nature going on behind the scenes - I'd be very surprised if this ends with the crash site being found and the cause being confirmed as 'accidental'.

I'm amused by - or is that concerned by - notions that somehow with Putin's Ukraine move making a mockery of that malingering vestige of Obama's 'reset' idiocy that had not already been mocked unto death by Syria etc etc - I'm amused by notion expressed by many that somehow this learning experience will lead to a more mature, unsentimental, forthright and strength based foreign policy from Dear Leader - why?

I see three problems with the conceit. One, how on earth do you realistically expect a guy who had zero foreign policy credentials when he entered the office [and related to this lacking zero executive experience as well] and what little he did know or understand about the art was forged in the delusional furnaces of liberal ideology where American power is a thing to be at best not trusted, at worse despised, how on earth do you realistically expect this guy to suddenly turn into Reagan? To use a glib analogy, that's like telling the guy who never learned to hit the curveball in the minors when he gets to the majors and struggles hitting the curveball to just go out there and start hitting the curveball - that ain't gonna happen - and Putin's got a nice curve.

Secondly, even if Obama could manage a semblance of this transformation, if he practised it in a haphazard way or did not demonstrate a total commitment to the change, do people not see how this could become a more destabilizing thing in the end? Putin is acting as if he's totally got Obama's number - or to borrow There Will Be Blood's excellent imagery, he's acting as if he's totally drinking his milkshake - and China and Iran too, watching all this closely, are no doubt feeling the same way when it comes to their concerns - if Obama suddenly starts acting in a way they haven't planned for or are not expecting, they have to recalibrate, a recalibration that may mean a doubling down on aggression because it would be based on a very legitimate belief that Obama's putative change is without real substance or weakly held - in other words, they may see it as yet another opportunity to further their interests at America's expense - so you see, if Obama starts trying to act as if he's Reagan or even just Bush or hell even Kennedy that could escalate things in a very unpleasant way especially if he hasn't thought the ramifications of the change through in a clear headed way. It's not only demonstrated weakness that can encourage escalation and brinksmanship - phony shows of strength can do so as well and quite conceivably inspire a more rigid and vigorous response than might otherwise have been the case.

And finally, why do people continue to think that Obama's foreign policy 'mistakes' are seen as mistakes by him and his catamites - what if this mess is deliberate? Yes, naive in its conceptual framework and assumptions and therefore poorly thought through, sure - but why not deliberate all the same? Leading from behind in Libya is not a mistake if your goal is to dramatically redraw traditional notions of American influence as the indispensable power. Pulling out of Iraq, applying an utterly arbitrary and debilitating deadline to an Afghanistan withdrawal, backing away from red lines viz Syria and Iran, trying to shame or blackmail Israel into making concessions that no clear thinking Israeli PM would ever agree to, applauding the ostensibly democratic rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as if willfully embracing the naive ignorance of such a position, resetting with an obviously not to be trusted Putin at the expense of true eastern European allies, making a rhetorical pivot to Asia that is not attended by an actual pivot to Asia may all seem like mistakes to a person who values the indispensable nature of American power and wished to preserve the strategic profile it has maintained since the end of WWII - but that ain't Obama - left wing ideologues, which I wholeheartedly believe Obama to be, do not see America nor the world in those terms and the zealotry of their ideological arrogance precludes a rethinking of their beliefs - but regardless of the idealistic sympathies which prop up such a fragile viewpoint they realize in what amounts to a spasm of pragmatism for them that an America as a Reagan might wish to see it is simply not compatible budget wise with the welfare state they so lovingly indulge in their dreams - you cannot afford to buy votes by promising poor minorities and the unemployable and bloated, inefficient public service unions and single women romanticising progressivism because they know they'll never marry or have kids and they need to convince themselves that's okay and the fringe and not so fringe grievance mongers forever crying out for attention and myopic youth and the just all round hopelessly delusional, you cannot promise these guttersnipe wretches reaching out for the state's teat the activist, nurturing government they need and at the same time fund a great military worthy of a superpower - you gotta pick one or the other and there should be absolutely no debate about how Obama chooses - and so why continue to believe he has or could ever have a problem with the regressive foreign policy he has forged?

"… with much disquiet for the cynical the increasingly manifested problem for all Western democracies is the nagging reality that affluence seems to nurture attitudes and opinions and behaviors that tend to be at odds with the very attributes that made the affluence possible in the first place… call it the none too surprising phenomenon of the spoiled child syndrome writ large on a national and even god forbid civilizational stage… rarely does the indulged creature amount to anything more than a mere and quite unremarkable afterthought to the thing that created it…"

The interesting thing about Israel intercepting the Iran to Hamas arms shipment - well, aside from the obvious of it seeming rather idiotic and reckless to be negotiating a weak nuke deal with a country that is such an avid sponsor of terrorism and which leaves all kinds of room for that country to continue on its merry way towards a bomb or breakout capability thereof - but aside from that the interesting thing is that in shipping these arms Iran does not seem to have worried much that behaving in such a way might jeopardize their evolving deal with Obama/Kerry - which I'd say amounts to further confirmation of what I and any objective observer of Obama's regressive foreign policy already know: either that Iran is in the catbird seat here and these negotiations are bogus, a smokescreen designed to keep Israel in check while we move towards the ultimate goal of 'containment' - or that Obama/Kerry are sad dupes who cannot read writing so glaringly written on the wall before them. I always thought for sure it the former, not the latter - but seeing as how they truly do seem to have been surprised by Putin's moves in Ukraine maybe it indeed is that they're naive fools stuck mulling over notions and ideas and perspectives that no doubt play well in the Harvard faculty lounge but are worth less than squat in the real world.

The other interesting thing is the efficiency and reach of Israel's intelligence services - to find and track this shipment was no easy task - this is not just about spy satellites and drones etc etc - this is about highly effective signals intel and assets on the ground - which for me has always been the wildcard viz Israel going it alone with a strike on Iran - I still think that's extremely unlikely - but the wildcard is what kind of assets does Israel have on the ground in Iran? What are they capable of? Does the CIA or Pentagon even know? And how much might these assets make a strike by Israel a more conceivable reality?

Of course the only shocking thing about Russia moving into the Crimea is how shocked by it so many supposedly smart people in the West are - this was all predictable if one had a clear sense of what Putin is, how he sees his strategic interests playing out and how in general those who, like Putin, see themselves as being defined by their opposition or resistance to or hatred and resentment of all things American spend much time thinking about how to manipulate things so as to satisfy that enmity - in short, failure to see what was coming viz Ukraine once the EU and America started trying to pry it away from Russia is a manifestation of a naive and narrow detached from cold reality liberal world view that imagines itself as being of course right and everyone who might disagree with it as of course being wrong. Shorter still: the West is governed by idiots intent it seems on guarding the sanctity of their airy ideals by denying at all costs the notion that those ideals are held and generated by people who don't have a clue what the hell they're talking about. [to be fair, it's not just liberals - neocons and a great many libertarians as well display this penchant for faulty analysis]

The question now is what to do about the consequences of this idiocy - and how badly will Obama fuck it up. There are not a lot of options because all the good options would have involved never in the first place trusting Russia under Putin as a provisional friend whose good intentions could be counted on - so what you do now I'm not sure. Military threats are useless because absolutely no one believes Obama would actually go there - regardless, this problem at the moment does not seem to warrant the high risk of a military response, even if it's just moving a carrier group closer to the Black Sea - that sounds premature and again since no one believes Obama would ever seriously lean towards a show of force you're just setting yourself up to look foolish [although it's representative of how little thought had been given to this inevitability that Obama and Kerry both spoke at first as if 'all' options were on the table thus playing into Putin's desire to make the West look weak]. Kick Russia out of the G8 seems obvious and should have happened day one - but didn't, yet another indication of just how little thought western leaders had given to this inevitability. Sanctions etc? America has very little trade with Russia - the EU does but is no doubt not gonna be too thrilled about the economic fallout of sanctions, not to mention the stranglehold Russia has over Europe's energy needs - so sanctions seem of minor use. Isolating Putin viz world opinion? Again, if dissing Putin means supporting America, much of the world will not be interested in that, including most importantly of all China.

Actually, other than kicking Russia out of the G8 consideration of a response should be based on first coming to an understanding of what Putin's endgame is here - although, given what we've seen from Obama et al to date, even that simple strategically nuanced task might be beyond their capabilities. First and foremost, sure Putin feels he must retain some kind of control over at least Crimea and possibly as well some of the eastern provinces and I see no way he can now give up that very least of things - he may also have his sights set on Odessa - but most important to understand is that aside from whatever practical benefit a Ukraine in part or whole under Russian control brings Putin he absolutely needs to be seen as succeeding viz these goals at the EU's and Obama's expense - in other words, he's strong, they're feckless givers of pretty speeches - his 'win' must be seen as a loss for them. Given that, I see two scenarios: he holds onto the Crimea and uses the vague threat of further action as a bargaining chip to keep Crimea and possibly some other more minor concessions just so long as it looks like the West caved to his demands; or he uses the Crimea as a foothold to spread unrest in the eastern provinces as prelude to a something else. I don't think there's any intention of wider military incursions at the moment, or at least if they come I'd call that reckless on his part - to me there'd have to be precursors before such a thing - I actually think Putin would gladly at this point surrender western Ukraine to the EU because it's too much trouble to hold it with all it's problems and divisions and he'd see letting go of it as amounting to more of a headache than anything else for the EU and American democracy pedlars - indeed Putin may see all of Ukraine outside of the Crimea as ultimately ungovernable without Russian influence and involvement - that may be what he's counting on here long term.

Odds that Putin has bitten off more than he can chew? Not good at moment I'd say - but again depends on what his plans are. If he just means to hold the Crimea while negotiating a settlement, and then to just sit back and wait while the political situation in Ukraine starts to implode for various reasons - well, he's got much of that already. If his plans are a wider incursion or the active stoking of upheaval through various subversive complications, then that could get a bit tricky. Basically, Putin wins if he looks strong and the West looks weak and he keeps control of the Crimea - he wins big time if Ukraine starts to unwind politically and he can peel off in addition a few eastern provinces, possibly even Odessa, while leaving the burden of a dysfunctional and economically vulnerable west for the EU and Obama to deal with. Real wildcard here is if there's an exchange of fire between Russian and Ukrainian troops resulting in significant loss of life - that could send things spiralling in very bad ways that could easily outpace Putin's ability to contain the damage.

[does Obama purportedly telling Putin that he's on the wrong side of history pretty much sum up why Dear Leader is just such a disaster foreign policy wise? Saying something like that tells me that Obama has zero objective insight into what history has to teach and is therefore trapped by the arrogant myopia of a liberal ideologue's narrow and self serving view of history and its meaning, as if he's saying to Putin: my ascension and the full flowering of progressive enlightenment it represents are the true culmination of the western tradition and that you act in ways that do not comport with or openly defy that truth and the dictates thereof is a sure sign you're wrong and you should just admit to it and beg for our forgiveness. In other words, how dare you act in a way that casts doubt on the perfection of my vision. Do these people really not get that for China, Putin, most Muslim polities etc etc America and all it represents are increasingly the things on the wrong side of history and they intend to do all they can to make that belief a reality? And truth be told, that the greatest country on earth could elect to its highest office twice a man so utterly ill equipped to maintain and serve that greatness is a pretty telling sign that maybe Putin et al are right to think future history now belongs to them]