Crimea is To Russia as the Sudetenland was to Germany?

Russia is on the move to cement its control of Crimea. The Ukraine is not pleased to say the least. The US has begun implementing diplomatic penalties that Russia is largely laughing at. I guess the real question here is the title of this post. For those familiar with the lead up to WW II the justifications provided by Putin for Russian military movement into Crimea is eerily familiar. There are some other parallels in that Europe is relatively weak militarily having lost a lot of its Cold War capacity and the US while not in the same shape militarily as it was Pre WWII it is certainly in a similar war weary climate where public sentiment seems to strongly favor keeping our noses out of yet another foreign entanglement.

Should the US get involved? Well, other than the obvious implications of this being similar opening move to Germany's prelude to WWII, there is the little matter of the Budapest memorandum.  A quick reading of the wiki article shows this to be fairly weak in terms of commitments on the part of the US so there is no clear agreement that we would support the Ukraine militarily in the event of an incursion. However the memorandum is basically an agreement between the US, UK, Ukraine and Russia to not invade the Ukraine or threaten it with nuclear arms. In return for this agreement the Ukraine voluntarily coughed up the 3rd largest nuclear stockpile in the world which they inherited with the dissolution of the USSR.

Now you can argue all day and night and then all day again about the intent of the statements in that memorandum... and I have a seen some comment threads doing just that. But if we move beyond the question of should we do something for a moment I would like to look at what the situation is and what the options really are for addressing them. Though for the record... I find it hard to believe Ukraine defanged itself without believing they would have meaningful support in the event of a Russian incursion. I doubt US PNGing a few Russian diplomats is what they had in mind, or vague threats of economic sanctions. Presidents do have some leeway to respond via Military action to world events without a declaration of war, and the president is who signed us up. But really I am not sure that would do anything more than stir the pot at this point.

If Putin is resolved to Annex Crimea it is doubtful anything short of a full deployment of US and/or NATO military might backed by the political will to wield it would back off Putin at this point. And frankly if that is what it will take to call Putin's bluff I think he is going to do whatever the hell he wants. He is sitting on critical resources that supply the energy markets in Europe. Between that and the general economic crisis environment it is highly unlikely meaningful sanctions will stick for very long, if indeed they ever get put in place to begin with.

However it strikes me that there is another option. It seems Russia is going old school trying to put the band back together (lot of talk Putin is attempting to re-build the USSR by going after former WARSAW pact nations). So why not use an old school solution to the problem? One that has worked against them before.

M.A.D.

You want to back Russia out of the Ukraine? You want to do it without sending in troops that might die in amounts not seen since WW II? Lets have the US and UK jointly Re-arm the Ukraine with Nukes to replace the ones they had to give up. The reason the Ukraine is a non-nuclear power is because the US, UK and Russia agreed not to attack them in return for giving them up. Don't think it takes a genius to figure out who the Ukraine was worried about. Anyway, Russia is in violation of that agreement so the terms of Ukraine's agreement to remain a non-nuclear power have been voided. Only they don't have access to nukes anymore. But that is not to say we could not choose to arm them. Or perhaps offer to serve as their proxy and agree to launch a salvo on their behalf under the right circumstances.

Granted this only works if the threat is real. And this kind of staring match hasn't been engaged in since Khrushchev tested Kennedy's resolve in the Cuban Missile Crisis. 

It would go something like this. With the support of the UK and Ukraine (and ideally the support of the UN) We declare the Budapest Memorandum null and void due to Russia's actions. As a result we jointly declare our support to allow the Ukraine to develop and deploy nuclear arms. In order to provide for their security while they develop their own arsenal again we will loan them a quantity of nuclear munitions to deploy in the interim to provide them an effective deterrent against a newly aggressive Russia.

Now I doubt Russia would distinguish to much between a US nuke (or UK Nuke) launched by Ukrainian forces and one we launched ourselves. If the Ukraine launched such a provided munition it would produce a high risk of nuclear retaliation on any supplier. However, the equation governing how likely Putin thinks a launch is would be significantly different with a Nuclear armed Ukrainian government. And unless he is completely bat shit insane a nuclear armed Ukraine would likely send him scurrying back home, bluff successfully called. But to do that you have to go all in. You have to call. And that means risking a good old fashioned cold war nightmare scenario thermo nuclear war. Hey, they didn't call it M.A.D. for nuthin.

Apple, The Environment, and ROI

Here is an interesting story (http://m.slashdot.org/story/198835) from the recent Apple shareholder meeting in February 2014. Despite the fact I am quite deep in the Apple ecosystem I can say I do not think they are a perfect company. I have a serious love/hate relationship with the draconian measures they take to protect the App Store as the only source for iOS software for instance. But I find this story a slim ray of hope for corporate America. You see, the corporation is recognized as a legal entity ( More or less meaning as a person from a legal standpoint ). And yet many economic experts seem to feel they should only pursue profit (ROI, or return on investment). That they should operate on economic abstraction rather than as a member of the community. This seems to indicate for folks of this mindset there should be no moral basis in decision making. If there is a detrimental environmental method that legally allows the company to make more money than an environmentally friendly option, then adherents to this mindset believe it is required that the company pursue the option with the highest ROI. 

But what is a good ROI? Profits in the next quarter are hardly the only return on investment. Some are far more complex. How do you place a price on being a good member of the community? What is the value of Apple continually topping surveys for most highly regarded/trusted etc brand?

If Apple were at risk of going insolvent as a result of these decisions then Cooks actions would be reckless. However, seeing as Apple is setting record after record after record in their quarterly profits... And they hold massive cash reserves I think it is safe to say the can afford to make some decisions based on long term sustainability and or just because they make them a better member of the community. This is a generally prefferable mode of operation for any corporation, as opposed to being a soulless economic vortex hell bent on concentrating wealth for its share holders.