[annalex]

I am arguing reason and legality.

At this point we don’t know what the Crimeans would want, because the referendum was likely rigged and lacked every logical option. Besides, what they will want needs to be reconciled with the Constitution of Ukraine.

There is such a thing as civilization. When one country behaves like it just came out of a bear cave, that country does not belong to the civilized society; it should be isolated and encircled by NATO bases. What that nation would feel a hostility about is irrelevant there, till such time that they sober up and sit down and negotiate.

I don’t care where Crimea ends up. It may very well end up in Russia. The only way for Crimea to self-determine is to do so legally and slowly, and under international observers.

It is not in the national interest of any country of the West to allow the annexation of Crimea. If it is not dealt with resolutely, we are going to have a far worse crisis within a year. Crime that is not punished repeats.

[quadrant]

Do you think the outcome will be any different if self-determination is conducted “legally” (whatever that means) and “slowly”? Why put the people of Crimea through months and maybe years of suspense, if the outcome is going to be the same?
The longer this issue drags out, the greater the probability of bloodshed. I should think that events in Syria have taught you (and the world) the problems that arise with prolonged civil strife.
Isolate and encircle Russia? Are you mad? Do you really believe that such a geopolitical alliance could be constructed and maintained? Are you willing to bear the cost of such an alliance?