So What Happens if Putin Enters Eastern Ukraine

I will admit that I kept hoping that Putin would not sign the documents that ratified the transfer of the Crimea from the Ukraine to Russia.  Not because he is a nice guy.  No, but because I had hoped that he wanted to demonstrate his power, and then pull back from actually using it and thereby creating a form of gunboat diplomacy in the near-Russia periphery.

I was wrong.  Mr Putin really does want to recreate the Soviet Union.

This throws a new light on things.

In the first instance it raises the stakes exponentially.  For the moment it demonstrates that the decision to join NATO by the Baltics, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and  Roumania was the right decision even if some of the southern European members might be having second thoughts about their position within the EU.

For, if a NATO state is attacked by definition the rest of the NATO states must come to its defence.

The Ukraine is not a NATO state.  Nor is Georgia.

Perhaps Russia only took back what they hold to have been rightfully theirs.  But, as I have discussed previously, it is a dangerous precedent both for those countries on the Russian periphery, but also perhaps for ethnic groups within the Russian mainland such as Chechnya.

But for Russia to make a military move into the Ukraine is a step which cannot be allowed to happen without a response far beyond the sanctions put in place as "punishment" for devouring  the Crimea.

I don't want war.  The West doesn't want war.  But is Putin willing to risk war?  I don't know.  I especially don't know as currently I don't believe he thinks a military move into the eastern Ukraine will be met with a military response, so he quite possibly doesn't even perceive such a move as even a potential declaration of war.

So what to do.

I believe the West needs to call his bluff.  It has to say that a military move into the Ukraine would constitute a declaration of war.

This is not something the West wants-and I would hope neither does Putin.

It would force both sides to sit down and pursue a diplomatic solution which would probably be some sort of a "Finlandisation" of the Ukraine i.e. a neutrality which required any foreign policy moves by the Ukrainians to be sanctioned by the Russians.

It is not clear to me that the Ukrainians would agree to such a solution.  It might require massive pressure from the West to make them acquiesce along the lines that if they don't then they will be left to take on Russia on their own...

This is what Russia really wants.  Control over the Ukraine.

Great Power Realpolitik is full of examples of small countries being sacrificed for what is considered the greater good which in this case is a non-military solution.

I can't help but think that if the West allows Putin to annex the Ukraine, under the threat of a loaded gun, that he will continue until the West says stop.

It is an incredibly depressing thought that on the 100th anniversary of WWI,  the 75th anniversary of the start of WWII, despite the end of the Cold War and the supposed new paradigm of peace, that the Russians, whom I hold at least partially responsible for WWI, and who were joint aggressors in 1939, should once again be the sable rattlers for another European war.

Is it the Spring of 1912, the Fall of 1914, or September 1938?

The first Balkan War of 1912 was started by the Russian sponsored Balkan League which was formed to eject the Ottoman Empire from the Balkans.

The Fall of 1914 is the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I, the blame for which could be aimed at the Russians for their then support of the Serbians in their efforts to escape the clutches of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Given that the Russians lost and with it the Czar disappeared most commentators forget about the battles in the East and focus on the Germans as the guilty ones in World War I- but that is a different post.

Or, with the advantage of hindsight, are we bending over backwards to ensure 'peace in our time' although in this case not as a result of German but rather Russian geopolitical imperatives.

The truth is I don't know.

But I do know that we are in a much more dangerous position than many people appreciate.

On the subject of history the Crimea has been part of Russia since Catherine the Great.  It remained so more or less until Khrushchev-himself a Ukrainian-decided to give it to the Ukraine.

So much for history.

If we go back further than Catherine then the Crimea belonged to numerous peoples-as did almost every other piece of land on earth.  The problem with going back in history is that empires rise and fall.  Sometimes of their own volition, and sometimes through invasion.

This time around there are a lot of voices suggesting that the Crimea, with its majority of ethnic Russians should be allowed to go "back" to Russia.

I even understand that thought.

But to allow the Russians of the Crimea to vote to return to Russia would suggest that wherever there are ethnic minorities, who are however majorities in their ethnic enclaves, they should be allowed to vote to become part of their "parent" countries.

I am not sure that this is a good precedent.

It is true that the lines of nation-states have been drawn somewhat arbitrarily reflecting either the status quo-or a desire to change the status quo-depending on the time and the situation and so there are many borderlands of countries that today look out of place.

Whatever changes are made could look equally out of place tomorrow.

To start allowing these kind of votes will open up fissures between peoples that have actually often enough lived happily together until it was brought to their attention that maybe they shouldn't really get along with one another.

Every group has its own geopolitical hang-ups.  There is always a border which can not be defended; there is always a lack of natural resources, of fertile land.  Essentially every group wants to be in charge of its own destiny-even when that destiny is fraught with danger.

This is the seed of nationalism.  Today it is often a response to globalism.  The benefits of globalism are often positive on a macro level, and equally often negative on a micro level.  This is compounded by the fact that the weak are generally at the mercy of the strong, regardless of how the strong present their case.

So back to my question.

What are the Russians really up to?