3 ms·

OK, I think that's a valid consideration. I don't think you'll get much pushback for prioritizing the will of the people, and their disinterest in living in a w

OK, I think that's a valid consideration. I don't think you'll get much pushback for prioritizing the will of the people, and their disinterest in living in a war zone. I have not read anything on NPR or CNN calling for the expansion of war in the Baltics. But they run opinion pieces too, just like most other media outlets. I was expecting something controversial. :) The counterargument of course is that the region was annexed by aggression, which is dangerous to legitimize. Letting the bullies win is a recipe for creating more and bigger bullies. But sometimes there are no good answers. I don't know any trustworthy sources of information from that area (only expats and news reporting which are all various degrees of clueless and biased). Avoiding inflicting war on a reluctant people sounds humane. Restoring national sovereignty to a conquered people sounds noble. Impeding the spread of territorial aggression and natural resource theft sounds righteous. Personal opinion, pragmatic I think: You can't retake Crimea without obliterating Russia. You can't obliterate Russia without horrifying consequences. Don't retake Crimea, but draw a very clear and public line, and allow no concessions regarding the next Crimea (Ukraine). This turns out to be very close to the foreign policy of most of the world.

actionfromafar 3y ago
Ah, like the red lines drawn up for Assad in Syria. And Crimea is strategic. Look at a map. Without it, the Ukraine and its ports are always under threat from the whims of Russia. It’s probably true that you can’t crush Russia without serious consequences. Unfortunately, you can’t let it win territory without very serious consequences either. This follows its own tragic logic now and you (we) can’t wish for a nice solution that has no consequences down the line. Letting Russia off the hook is a terrible precedent.
- quesera 3y ago
  I agree completely. We were asleep when Russia took Crimea, and unprepared to react with anything more than stern words. We were not ready for Putin. He obviously saw the opportunity, took the risk, and he won. It would be tragic to return to a world where aggressive expansionism is the norm. But fighting back through Crimea would be tragic also. And it's not clear we would have the support of the locals. That's courting disaster even before you contemplate that the opposing leader is mercurial and nuclear. My opinion is that we have to take the L on Crimea, but make it clear that the world is not sleeping any more, and that Ukraine is not next on the menu. Syria is an important example. US bluster doesn't carry much weight in the world these days. But the situation in Ukraine is very different. It astonishes me that there's political disagreement on Russia's aggression toward neighbors, but if we fail Ukraine it will be squarely the fault of one group of people, and it will be incredibly damaging to US interests in the world.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    I don’t think a long fight through Crimea has to be necessary at all. The Russian troops cab withdraw over the bridge to Russia when it’s apparent they will otherwise be trapped. Leaving Crimea to Russia is not just appeasement, it’s strategically unsound.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      The Ukrainians can also dam the river to Crimea again and continually attack Russian supply lines to Crimea. Russia will be in a tight spot if the water supply to Crimea stops and the bridge explodes.

actionfromafar 3y ago

Ah, like the red lines drawn up for Assad in Syria. And Crimea is strategic. Look at a map. Without it, the Ukraine and its ports are always under threat from the whims of Russia. It’s probably true that you can’t crush Russia without serious consequences. Unfortunately, you can’t let it win territory without very serious consequences either. This follows its own tragic logic now and you (we) can’t wish for a nice solution that has no consequences down the line. Letting Russia off the hook is a terrible precedent.

quesera 3y ago
I agree completely. We were asleep when Russia took Crimea, and unprepared to react with anything more than stern words. We were not ready for Putin. He obviously saw the opportunity, took the risk, and he won. It would be tragic to return to a world where aggressive expansionism is the norm. But fighting back through Crimea would be tragic also. And it's not clear we would have the support of the locals. That's courting disaster even before you contemplate that the opposing leader is mercurial and nuclear. My opinion is that we have to take the L on Crimea, but make it clear that the world is not sleeping any more, and that Ukraine is not next on the menu. Syria is an important example. US bluster doesn't carry much weight in the world these days. But the situation in Ukraine is very different. It astonishes me that there's political disagreement on Russia's aggression toward neighbors, but if we fail Ukraine it will be squarely the fault of one group of people, and it will be incredibly damaging to US interests in the world.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  I don’t think a long fight through Crimea has to be necessary at all. The Russian troops cab withdraw over the bridge to Russia when it’s apparent they will otherwise be trapped. Leaving Crimea to Russia is not just appeasement, it’s strategically unsound.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    The Ukrainians can also dam the river to Crimea again and continually attack Russian supply lines to Crimea. Russia will be in a tight spot if the water supply to Crimea stops and the bridge explodes.