Vladimir Putin is an authentic throwback. He used a series of sham excuses and a phony plebiscite to install Russian hegemony over territory that a week ago belonged to Ukraine.
Putin has an astoundingly bold short game, and would play well with Somalian pirates, but obviously he has no long-term plan or goals. He is willing to consign his country permanently to pre-modern status. In his new form of passive military action, troops walk around and take selfies with citizens in the parks. But Russia is surrounded by a circular firing squad of its own making.
Western Europe depends on Russian gas and oil, especially for heating, and the pipelines come right through Ukraine. Ukraine should mine its pipelines—along the Russian border. At the first sign of troop movement, pipelines should be blown up, in calculated rotation, until the Russians back off. Even Putin will not advance empty-handed.
Ukraine should play Russia’s game by Russia’s rules; double down and keeping its pipelines out of enemy hands. If Russia seeks to petition the country, let them take control of a wasteland.
It’s time for the Mel Brooks effect. Ukraine should turn the gun to its own neck. A bold move against Russia’s energy-dependent exports would have teeth and benefits!
Play Putin by his obsessions. Defeat him by his weaknesses. Since Putin wants to heat up the Cold War, a relic of yesteryear, let his economy grow even colder since he decided to make Crimea a hot spot.
Black History 360* 
Can’t agree here.
For one thing, this is much, much, much older than the Cold War, it’s much more eighteenth than twentieth century in character. And, even in the short run, it would be better to see a somewhat limited Ukraine moving closer to liberal democracy than a mud wrestling exercise that would hurt many and only enrich warmongers.
But that’s just my take.
LikeLike
🙂 Putin is a certifiable nut. If he pulled all this before the Olympics I doubt they would have continued at that site.
LikeLike
(This response originates from my own blog… RoyAlexanderGraham@Blogspot.com)
Putin and the rule of International Morality
In his New York Times editorial, speaking specifically about the Syrian situation and the discussion of the threat of the use of force against the Assad regime by the United States, Putin states : “The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not.” Of course he was talking about International Law and the fact that the use of force by one country against another is only justified in cases of self defense.
Putin is not a disciple of the doctrine of “exceptionalism” and is obviously contemptuous of America’s claim to it. To back up his rejection to any such claim he states : “We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.” Not only does he appeal to our own creed in objection to our doctrine, he also looks at the examples of our excursions in Libya and Iraq as showing that our actions have led to undesirable outcomes.
Despite the unspecific bleetings of those who believe that standing with our allies means marching in to their rescue with our heroic cavalry, Putin is on pretty solid ground in expecting that this will not happen here.
As to whether sanctions wil be effective as deterrence in our just pursuit of international idealism …time will tell. We have no evidence of mass outrage against Russia among the Crimeans. What we have seen so far is celebration. The Crimean people do not need us to save them from themselves…or their leaders. As to our geo-political motives… Iraq is a witness AGAINST that. Much as I value the wisdom of my friend Walter Rhett, I do not see “the Mel Brooks effect” eventuating here. The reality of Russia’s annexation of Crimea is that Putin is not viewed as “other” in the sense that the black lawman was. We have forgotten about Libya. We would like to forget about Iraq. It is just a matter of time before the new geography of Ukraine/Russia becomes status quo. The rule of international morality will “be but a fleeting illusion” as long as some of us view ourselves as “exceptional” and others as objects in our back yards.
LikeLike