Tyler Cowen has suggested a number of ways to model the Crimean crisis.
I do not have a model, but I do have an analogy: The Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961. Just as Russia has always had an interest in Crimea, the U.S. has always had an interest in Cuba. Some differences between the two events:
1. The Russian takeover was better planned and executed.
2. The Russian takeover seems to have had more popular support among those affected.
3. The Russian takeover involved fewer casualties.
4. There were no sanctions visited on the U.S. for the Bay of Pigs (although some versions of the history of the Cuban missile crisis suggest a link between our invasion and the decision to install missiles).
5. In 1961, there was no European union, and its predecessor The European Coal and Steel Community made no claims of wielding “soft power” in world affairs.
On the Crimean crisis, I find myself quite out of synch with the harsh rhetoric of the Republican right and even the Obama Administration.
The goal of the Bay of Pigs invasion was not to annex Cuba for the USA.
Obviously thoughts can vary on whether that is a significant difference.
Another difference is that Kennedy and Johnson were not threatening to invade half a dozen other countries after Cuba. Russia has a lot of neighbors with significant Russian populations that are now threatened.
In fact, Johnson did invade the Dominican Republic. The U.S. has invaded other Latin American countries over the years. It is true that we have not formally annexed them. There is certainly not a complete moral equivalence. But in terms of the “sphere of influence” concept, there may be some symmetry.
Ultimately isn’t it the 2nd point that matters above all else?
Saarland went back to Germany in 1955 because its residents wanted it, how is this any different?
And the moral equivalence of the 4 million that Russia murdered in the Ukraine? It was so bad that Ukrainians initially welcomed Hitler’s invasion.
I think Russia’s relationship to Crimea is more analogous to the Panama Canal than Cuba. Like Crimea, the Canal is an essential strategic asset that we will never allow to fall into hostile or unpredictable hands. Just look what happened to Noriega.
Some analogies for sure, but the question is, even if you took the motives for both sides as ultimately obtaining maximum possible power/control- who do you want wielding that power more? This isn’t just about a power grab- the person making the power grab matters
Exactly. One can surely find symmetries in the actions of allies and axis during the world war. Both were concerned, it seems, with power. Yet there still seems a consensus of sorts about who was ‘right’.