From the editor: Not fighting words

Ah, another ignoble spectacle.

On one end, President Barack Obama appears helpless as Russia envelopes the Crimean section of Ukraine, at least to impatient eyes. The volley of words from the White House is reminiscent of Obama’s response to the crisis in Syria, now in its fourth year.

On the other a predictable assortment embraces the leadership style of Vladimir Putin, despite its blatant anti-humanitarian, anti-democratic stance. This group consists mostly of knee-jerk opponents of anything Obama.

Not that the president’s stern verbal warnings don’t leave room for ridicule. His orations have done little to mobilize this country and our allies, let alone frighten the Russians.

In the middle—and it’s not a healthy middle—“experts” line up to offer sure-fire solutions. Conveniently, this group is free to speak without fear of consequence. Lacking real political power and not being subject to the actual ripple effects caused by, say, sending American troops into the peninsula, they can sketch out the most implausible ideas.

How’s this? We counter by encouraging the Japanese to assert ancient rights to land and occupy Sakhalin Island, displacing Russians along the way. If Putin persists, there are certainly lands in Siberia once owned by Mongolia for others to exploit.

It’s a tit-for-tat plan and it’s one I came up with after a few martinis one weekend evening. Feel free to suggest it, critics.

Of course, those brave few who compare Putin’s move to those of Adolf Hitler in the years before the official start of World War Two (and who do so with the correct caveats) have a point. The Reichsfuhrer’s “concern” for ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland of what was then Czechoslovakia, for example, caused vocal leaders in Britain and France to exchange that section to Germany in favor of a lasting peace … in 1938.

Both rightly and wrongly we are haunted by that act of appeasement. No one wants a repeat of what followed. Yet in the post-Cold War world we are hesitant to apply military force against an opponent well topped up with nuclear weapons. Indeed, we are justifiably reluctant to throw troops at first world problems.

Second and third, no problem—unless it’s as messy as Syria.

But there’s another little issue often ignored by the loudmouths. Despite the pleasure that would be derived by putting Putin in his place, by teaching the shirtless tyrant a lesson, we have no treaty agreement to protect Ukraine. And that nation’s interim government has yet to formally invite American or NATO troops in to help out.

So we are in a tricky situation in which we must allow a reprehensible act, at least on the ground. We must evaluate our true interests and those of our NATO allies. To violate air space, to deploy ground forces across the border of Ukraine without an explicit request would be to follow in Putin’s footsteps.

Some pundits would be proud. But they don’t have to deal with the result of such a move.

Instead, we are left to slash left and right at the Russians with razor sharp sanctions. We are left with something called diplomacy.

Unfortunately, diplomacy is slow, awkward and rife with issues. It is also just as likely to fail as succeed. Oh, and it hardly suits the ranting, Tweeting, easy answer, instant gratification age we live in. But it is also inexpensive, generally bloodless, legal and leaves room for maneuver.

Answering a distasteful military incursion with hemming and hawing is hardly satisfactory. But under the circumstances, faulty old-fashioned diplomacy may be our only possible response.

And so Obama will wallow in words and those paid to analyze will let us know how ineffective he is as a leader and offer up all manner of muscular solutions. They will do so without fear of bloodshed, without fear of being proven wrong, as they are also just spewing words.