Your Preferred Solution to the Crimean Crisis?

[DGuller]

But the Cold War didn't end because both sides fell in love with one another.

It just never would have worked:

Red phone rings

Eisenhower:  Hello
Krushchev:  Ike, speak to me
Eisenhower:  I told you never to call me here
Krushchev:  I needed to hear your voice, it seems like we've grown apart since we defeated the Axis powers.
Eisenhower:  It's over Nikita (hangs up)
Krushchev:  Ooh, I will bury him!

Please, God, let that be the entirety of Sav's story.

[Savonarola]

Please, God, let that be the entirety of Sav's story.

Tune in next week for Nixon and Breshnev: Forbidden Détente.

[Eddie Teach]

Needs more shoe-banging.

[Martim Silva]

I think the only reason why there are no Russian tanks yet at the Dniepr is that the Russians got surprised by the political and market reactions over the Crimea shit. With bullies like Putin's Russia (or the Soviet Union) you stand up to them, or submit to them. There is no convincing of them with kindness.

Remember that, unlike the Crimea, the weather in the Ukraine at the moment is really bad for military operations: in February-March, the ground tends to thaw during the day (becoming muddy) and freezes at night, trapping vehicles. While in April - early May it's just very muddy and hard to do anything practical in a military sense.

And the idea of the TVs showing pictures of the Russian military struggling to unstuck their armoured vehicles as their advance is turned to a crawl by the weather is hardly appealing for the Kremlin.

That said, this is basically a dispute over a very key nation in Europe. Russia needs the Ukraine to remain strategically viable (and also because it feels its not complete without it), while Europe absolutely needs the Ukraine to be relevant if it ever wants to become a competing world superpower (with solid food production and dominant access to the Black Sea, the Caucasus and a good position vs Russia).

That is why the EU is trying all possible ways to give financial aid to the Ukraine (heck, for years Germany has been reselling Kiev the gas it gets from Russia, at far lower prices than those Gazprom charges).

And also why EC presidente Barroso said that the political agreements that will be signed will "seal" the ties between the Ukraine and the EU, while the European Parilament passed an (admiteddly non-binding) resolution saying that all the agreements "will not the the end goal" of the EU-Ukraine partnership - effectively telling Moscow that we want to put the Ukraine in the EU and sending alarm bells ringing all over the Kremlin.

So neither side can really back down. All else apart, it's a matter of very crucial strategic interests. And it's not about the Crimea alone, either. The end goal of all this is the whole of Ukraine. Nothing more, nothing less.

(the Americans are basically in for the ride, and seem to think of the situation like a sort of Cold War 2.0 issue. It is not.)

[Josquius]

Throw out all the Russians and Ukranians. Hand it over to the Tartars. Bring in a bunch of unemployed Greeks too.

[The Minsky Moment]

while Europe absolutely needs the Ukraine to be relevant if it ever wants to become a competing world superpower

If I were to come up a list of things "Europe" absolutely needs to be a world superpower, Ukraine would be very far down the list.
Probably #1 on the list would be the need to be some kind of coherent political entity, rather than an abstraction that requires scare quotes if referred to as a political actor. 
"Solid food production"?  Seriously?  Like 19th century Britain?  We just had a country mature into a competing world superpower and it happened at the same time that country became a significant good importer.

[Iormlund]

I'd be very surprised to learn that we cannot feed ourselves if needed be. Countries like France, Spain or Italy produce obscene amounts of food.

[garbon]

But the Cold War didn't end because both sides fell in love with one another.

It just never would have worked:

Red phone rings

Eisenhower:  Hello
Krushchev:  Ike, speak to me
Eisenhower:  I told you never to call me here
Krushchev:  I needed to hear your voice, it seems like we've grown apart since we defeated the Axis powers.
Eisenhower:  It's over Nikita (hangs up)
Krushchev:  Ooh, I will bury him!

Please, God, let that be the entirety of Sav's story.

I'm still waiting for the end of the gay Canadian pornstars.

[lustindarkness]

Same as anywhere else, if not worth nuking or conquering, we should not get involved in military action.

[Ed Anger]

I'd be very surprised to learn that we cannot feed ourselves if needed be. Countries like France, Spain or Italy produce obscene amounts of food.

Delicious, delicious food.

[Martim Silva]

Probably #1 on the list would be the need to be some kind of coherent political entity, rather than an abstraction that requires scare quotes if referred to as a political actor. 

We do need more integration, and are working on it, but we're taking all opportunities as they come. Ukraine is now within realistic reach, so we're going for it.

And the signing of the agreement with the Ukraine has been rushed for next week, btw.

"Solid food production"?  Seriously?  Like 19th century Britain?  We just had a country mature into a competing world superpower and it happened at the same time that country became a significant good importer.

The British were indeed major food importers... from their Empire. In particular Canada and Australia, which procuded tons of food. They were not dependent on other nations for their food, which is what allowed them to the the most powerful Empire on Earth.

I'd be very surprised to learn that we cannot feed ourselves if needed be. Countries like France, Spain or Italy produce obscene amounts of food.

Then be surprised. Western Europe does not produce nearly the adequate crops we need, in particular to feed our livestocks. Also, we need to take into account the needs of all the other nations we're adding.

We've been trying to increase our agricultural production with our own means for quite awhile, but it's been quite expensive and not always successful.

Also, we dedicate 40% of the EU budget to subsidize our inefficient farmers just to guarantee we'd have a half-decent food production base in case we'd need it. The Ukraine would solve most of this wastage AND give us access to proper crops.

For some of our food data, see here:

http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/should_world_keep_feeding_europe-113562

[Admiral Yi]

Also, we dedicate 40% of the EU budget to subsidize our inefficient farmers just to guarantee we'd have a half-decent food production base in case we'd need it. The Ukraine would solve most of this wastage AND give us access to proper crops.

So that's the reason.  This whole time I had figured it was France finding a way to milk the system.

[Martim Silva]

So that's the reason.  This whole time I had figured it was France finding a way to milk the system.

No, France is just one country out of 28.

We cannot be dependent on East or West for our survival. We saw in WWI and WWII that if Europe gets cut from both sides, it starves.

A unified Europe would suffer from the same issues than Germany did, but on a much larger scale. And we can't allow us to be held hostage of the imports from other Great Powers, IF we want to be a Great Power ourselves.

[Beenherebefore]

I read an article in Norwegian agriculture's mouthpiece Nationen about some farmer here renting land in the Ukraine.

And getting a piece of land in the Ukraine was rather high on the scale of motives for joining the SS for young men back during WW2 here. The circle is complete, I suppose.

I have to say that the EU becoming a "superpower" is a ridiculous idea right now, though. Europe's relative decline has been steep, and will continue.

[Iormlund]

I'd be very surprised to learn that we cannot feed ourselves if needed be. Countries like France, Spain or Italy produce obscene amounts of food.

Then be surprised. Western Europe does not produce nearly the adequate crops we need, in particular to feed our livestocks. Also, we need to take into account the needs of all the other nations we're adding.

We've been trying to increase our agricultural production with our own means for quite awhile, but it's been quite expensive and not always successful.

Also, we dedicate 40% of the EU budget to subsidize our inefficient farmers just to guarantee we'd have a half-decent food production base in case we'd need it. The Ukraine would solve most of this wastage AND give us access to proper crops.

For some of our food data, see here:

http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/should_world_keep_feeding_europe-113562

That data doesn't support the notion that we would be starved if we were cut off. Just that we'd have to change our feeding patterns, which is perfectly fine. If food supply became an issue we could also switch from cash crops to edible stuff and there's plenty of abandoned villages over here where one might start cultivating again.