Here is an article by a former EBRD head that just makes me scratch my head and wonder what is going on. IMHO the author peddles the Kremlin line. I wonder why - the omissions are just glaring for a supposedly intelligent and well informed person:
1. The referendum in Crimea was done almost under a gun point. If one can say so, the other side was discouraged of promoting their views, as this article shows.
2. in 1994 the US, Russia and GB signed a treaty with Ukraine that in exchange for Ukraine's nuclear stockpiles guaranteed to protect it's territorial integrity;
3. Crimea is as Russian as Congo was Belgian or Morocco was French. Tatars were deported en masse after WWII, and were replaced by Russians then;
4. Appeasing Russia will hardly work. N. Sarkozy appeased Mr. Putin after taking over of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia; Trans-Dnestria is run by Russia even though it is technically in Moldova; one should surely remember Chechnia which now is run by thugs hand-picked in Moscow after unsuccessful decades long independence war (with numerous and documented human rights abuses). And where are we now?
So if nothing is done now as the author suggests, how one can one be sure that East Ukraine will not follow? How about Moldova?
P.S. here is an Op Ed from Washington Post by the Estonian President T.H. Ilves.