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.
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.
