The Washington Post Editorial Board is incorrect when they say that Obama's new sanctions on Russia are "half-measures." In fact, these sanctions, despite White House denials, are designed to target Vladimir Putin and his ability to move money around. This was reported recently by the New York Times. They are also designed to target companies and individuals who stand to benefit from Russia's latest actions. They are also designed to target people who are escalating the conflict in Ukraine.
The US quarrel is not with the Russian people. The US has had a long history of friendship towards the Russian people, including when we delivered massive aid to them following the Revolution and Civil War that followed. This effort was spearheaded by Herbert Hoover. We were credited with saving millions of Russians from starvation. The other time was when our aid helped Russia win World War II. And the current prosperity that Russia's people are enjoying was in part the result of Western investment following the collapse of Communism. Instead, the US quarrel is with those minority extreme elements within Russia who are pursuing an extreme militaristic policy, including the looting of Ukraine in conjunction with the IMF.
Furthermore, despite UK Foreign Minister William Hague's blustering a couple of weeks ago that the UK was willing to make massive sacrifices if that's what it took to deter Putin, most of Europe is heavily dependent economically on Russia. They do much more business with Russia than the US does. For the US and Europe to overreach would risk cratering a fragile economy which is still recovering from the shock of the Great Recession. Another consideration is that if the US were to impose heavy sanctions now, Russia might decide that there was nothing more to lose and invade Ukraine and overrun it.
The Post argues that the Russian invasion is already underway.
And hasn’t Russia already invaded Ukraine? Kiev’s intelligence service says at least 30 officers of the Russian military intelligence service have been directing the assaults on local governments; a White House statement Monday said, “Russia’s involvement in the recent violence in eastern Ukraine is indisputable.”
They also say:
Why would the United States not aim to bring about an immediate change in Russian behavior that includes sponsorship of murder, torture and hostage-taking?
The problem is that we have to come to terms with the limits of our power. We can't change peoples' behavior and make them say "uncle," as we learned through our "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq. We can't steer Ukraine, a country with ties with Russia dating back to the 9th century, into NATO and not expect there to be consequences. We had no business facilitating the uprising in Ukraine; that was a matter for the Ukrainian people to decide.
There are no good actors in this conflict. Russia, as noted by the editorial, is sponsoring murder, torture, and hostage taking along with violating the 1994 agreement in which they agreed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty. This conflict has given them even more of a pretext to suppress dissent in their country while facilitating aggression in Ukraine. This resulted in the first forcible territorial change since the conclusion of World War II. For this, along with the hostage crisis, Russia runs the risk of becoming a rogue state similar to Iran after they seized the US Embassy. Putin may not be a Hitler, but he is an opportunist.
And Ukraine, even if Russia had not interfered, is on the verge of becoming a failed state. There is a general breakdown of law and order; for instance, in Donetsk today, the police who were supposed to be protecting the Pro-Ukrainian demonstrators instead gave their shields to the Russian special operations forces, foreign nationals, and pro-Russian protestors who engaged in thuggery against the pro-Ukrainian demonstrators. Soldiers have deserted and gone over to the other side, and Ukraine's government is unable or unwilling to restore order even when just 15 people seize a government building or police station. We could see more and more mob activity as government control breaks down. We have a prime minster who is using shrill rhetoric warning that Russia is about to start World War III, a presidential candidate in Tymoshenko who advocated the nuking of Russia, the Right Sector, whose leader, Dmitri Yarosh believes in the "De-Russification" of Ukraine, exerting a disproportionate influence, and we have the IMF ready to swoop in and loot Ukraine after they pass draconian austerity measures.
The US has tried before to prop up weak governments in Vietnam and Iraq. It doesn't work and it frequently only makes the problem worse. The US is right to impose sanctions on Russia. Russia's actions and seizure of diplomats as hostages are a blatant violation of international law, and something had to be done for it to mean something. And contrary to the Washington Post Editorial Board, Putin has plenty to fear for the reasons stated above. But the US has no business trying to prop up a weak government which is on the verge of becoming a failed state. Even Iraq and Afghanistan are functioning better than Ukraine right now.
The general region in which Ukraine is located has some of the richest natural resources of the world, including much of the area surrounding the Black Sea. This conflict can be viewed as one that is fueled by greed, as there are numerous entities which want to get their hands on these resources. The working people in Russia, Ukraine, and the other countries in the vicinity are the losers.