Alexa Thein source 4

Last week I stated that this week I wanted to look into Putins reasons for annexing Crimea, but as I was looking for that article I came across a different one. This one is more about the consequences of United States removal of support in the issue in Crimea. So, my question this week is centered around what is the worst thing that could happen if the United States remove themselves from the situation? 

Rostow, Nicholas. "CONSEQUENCES." Naval War College Review 67.4 (2014): 41-64. EBSCOhost. Web. 8 Mar. 2015.

This article gave some great background information before delving into the issue at hand, being that the United States needs to remained involved or else there will serious consequences. The article made the point that Russia should even be content to see America remaining involved and taking responsibility for the economic performance in Ukraine. Short term costs will be enormous, mostly the cost of oil and gas from Russia. One solution this article thinks of is to punish Russia by imposing high costs. Because Russia depends on the profit it makes from their natural resources, the United States is in a position where we could drive the prices of these things down to hurt Russia. Another reason the article gave for the United States to remain involved is that Putins policy in Crimea could be followed by copycats, and this would be very bad for the world. 

I thought that this article gave many good points that I didn't see in the others. This may be because the article was so much longer, but it had much more information in it than the others did. After reading this I wonder a lot about the author and his background, since this does seem to have some bias to it. I think that what the article is saying does make sense though, and this is the first time since I have started my research that I have felt like the United States needs to remain present in Ukraine during this crisis. It makes sense to say that American involvement will have significant influence on Russia's next move, and hopefully this is a move we as a global nation can support. If we just let Russia take Crimea then who is to say any other country won't do the same? The United States has the force and power to stand up to Russia and if we let down it just shows the world that what is happening is ok and that no one will come to stand between them and what they want. Russia has also broken a lot of commitments since this ordeal has rose, and that should not be overlooked either. I feel like a parent saying to their child that they can't do something "just this once" because then they will expect to always do it. We can't let Russia break commitments and do what ever they want, it will just show we are ok with this kind of global behavior. 

This article was very different from my other articles, but they work together nicely. So far I have read a lot about whether or not the United States should get involved in Crimea, and the consensus is about split 50/50. This article does a nice job of laying out how things will change if the United States doesn't continue to help, but other articles say that no matter what we do as a nation, getting involved will end horribly and could possibly contribute to another cold war. One of the article I read said that we, as a nation and even the globe as a whole, needs to let Crimea do Crimea and have them decide where to go next and whether or not they want to part of Russia, but this article, Consequences, said that this is just edging Russia on and rewarding them for bad behavior. After this read, my mind set has completely changed and I now believe that the United Sates needs to get involved and remain involved. 

Next week I hope to get back to the question I initially wanted answers on, what Putins motives for the annexation of Crimea are. I would also like to see some external viewpoints on the United States involvement and what other countries, specifically Crimea and Russia, think of us as a nation.