Vladimir Putin is not going to have a change of heart and voluntarily give up something that he now so clearly controls and had obviously planned for so long in obtaining.
Before we escalate this into a replay of the 20th Century cold war when a false dichotomy was projected onto many countries’ conflicts as an ideological, East/West divide; everyone should take a deep pause.
The simple facts are that Russia has had a naval presence in Crimea since the 18th Century.
Most of the people living in Crimea speak Russian and would overwhelmingly prefer to be part of Russia.
Perhaps most significantly, Crimea had in fact been nominally part of Russia until 1954 when Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev capriciously decided to cede it to Ukraine, ostensibly for organizational project planning purposes, but most likely to facilitate some petty back-room Soviet politburo maneuverings.
That does not mean that Putin was right in moving in.
Ukraine has always recognized that its collective identity is as rich and as complex as its history.
That is why Crimea was given so much constitutional autonomy. Any change in that status should properly have been decided by all the people of Ukraine through constitutional means. What Putin did was most definitely a violation of international law and protocol.
Still, for a number of reasons, a military response by the United States or NATO is clearly out of the question.
Economic sanctions, while appropriate and perhaps, necessary, are unlikely to have much of an impact.
Fortunately though, Ukraine still has a few potent political options with Russia (and by that I mean not so much with the implacable Vladimir Putin but the impressionable and potentially empowered Russian people).
In today’s multi-media world, Ukraine, can on the world stage, communicate directly with and gain the active support of the Russian people.
They need to impress upon ordinary Russians (including those Russians living in the other former soviet republics) that, although Putin may appeal to their sense of nationalism in the short term, taking over Crimea or parts of any other sovereign nations will be terrible for their long term interests.
This path can only lead directly back to the dark days when Georgian Josef Stalin ruled the entire region by capricious whim and an iron fist.
Ukraine also needs to do a better job explaining to the international community (including Russia) the two internal events that seem o have precipitated the current crises.
The first is that it wanted stronger ties with Europe.
This should properly be seen not as a pivot to any particular sphere of influence but rather as a natural desire for economic efficiency and transparency. The ties Ukraine will develop with Brussels will in no way lessen its ability to trade with Russia and its Eastern European neighbors.
Ukraine is in a unique geographical position.
Every nation has the right to capitalize on its particular geopolitical position for the economic benefit of its citizens.
The second is that Ukraine decided through its legislature to remove its president, Victor Yanukovych. This was a natural and perfectly legal response to an overwhelmingly popular uprising against Yanukovych. He was removed not by a violent coup but by its elected legislature in accordance with the constitution.
Any vibrant democracy should necessarily have a means, not to mention the ethical responsibility, by which the legislature can-with good reason-remove the chief executive. Any nation that has less is effectively a dictatorship.
And their certainly was good reason to remove Yanukovych.
He was adamantly against any transparent and comprehensive economic agreements with Brussels in favor of some rather nebulous arrangements with Russia comprised mostly of guaranteed loans.
His removal allowed the world to see the extent of corruption of his regime.
Previous loans worth $37 billion have disappeared from Ukraine’s treasury.
As much as $70 billion has been sent out of the country during Yanukovych’s presidency.
A simple tour of his palace grounds shows enough whorish excess that is reason enough to remove him from office.
Even his own political party has disowned him.
Ukraine has to make the world and especially Russia see these two events not as a capitulation to the West but rather as a simple rejection of the political model that Victor Yanukovich represented-that of a pseudo-democracy where a strong man rules mostly by cronyism and corruption and where political foes and the free press are attacked, intimidated, poisoned, or imprisoned on trumped up political charges.
Sadly, most of the former Soviet republics including Mother Russia have fallen into this same soul-sucking trap.
The best revenge Ukraine can have in all of this is to build a successful democracy with a thriving economy.
Letting go of Crimea and the Trojanesque costs of accepting Russian largess that go with it will be a good step in that direction.
Finally, although Ukraine should be grateful to Europe and the United States for their support, it also needs to affirm its strong desire not to be seen as a mere pawn in a geopolitical chess game.
This will help both sides, Russia and the West ratchet down the pressure.
This tired 20th Century model, when proxy wars were fought as each side competed to extend their sphere of influence, is yet again being forced upon the world.
We need to tone this down before it leads us into yet another tragic, heart-breaking century of conflict.
Brian Fox is a freelance writer specializing in politics and culture.
