With Hitler and the Japanese militarists, it was never a question of fighting someone who said, "give me what I want or I will start a fight that will end human civilization in weeks." Now, it has come to that. With the 2016 election and Brexit, Putin has shown that he is clever enough to prefer winning his battles without firing a shot. However, he has no patience for those he wishes to conquer shooting back. The Ukrainian conflict was clearly a miscalculation, but not one he is willing to admit to. In a country where weakness gets leaders deposed (or worse) within a day of their supporters deciding to place their loyalties elsewhere, Putin isn't afraid to push things to--or beyond--the brink if he sees his own demise as the "one way or the other" end result.
No, we can't have a nuclear war here in Europe. But no, we can't be acquiescent if Putin decides on a first-use strategy, either. If Putin vaporizes Kharkiv or even Kyiv, and tells Berlin, Paris and London, "roll over and play dead for me, or you're next," they simply won't. The embassies of Russia and the major UK/EU/US group in Beijing will be on warp drive, as that will end up being who decides the ultimate victor of such a conflict, and Xi decides, in such a scenario, who takes orders from HIM, and not the other way around.
In Spain, on April 1, 1969, government controlled media extolled "30 years of peace." It was the 30th anniversary of the fascist victory in the brutal Spanish Civil War. Except for Franco's followers, in Spain, there was widespread talk of thirty years of victory, not peace. I lived and went to school in Spain at the time, and at the risk of losing their jobs and being jailed, my teachers openly discussed the subject, asking us to not use their names outside of the classroom. Victory is NOT peace. Germany in 1938 was technically still in a period of peace. Neville Chamberlain even called it "Peace in Our Time." Many Czechs, German Jews and Austrians saw things differently, but their opinion wasn't given a very high priority at the time.
The question of "when do you stand up to a bully, and yell STOP!, if he can destroy the world?" has never been put to the test. We can only hope never to need to answer that question, because I wouldn't know how to formulate an answer. I would never want my daughters and grandchildren to be denied life, but I would also never want Putin to be the one to control and dictate their lives, either. Hans and Sophie Scholl distributing their flyers in 1943 lasted days. Today, they wouldn't last five minutes.
Which leads me back to my original question. There are plenty of people to tell Putin, "That's enough." But what is the answer when he answers back, "who is going to stop me?"
A peaceful, prosperous, independent Ukraine would be at a trading crossroads designed to have flourishing commerce that would benefit the West, the Ukrainians, and the Russians. Does the world instead just let Putin take it, rule it with an iron fist, and dictate its life? And, if not, WHO is going to stop him? Is it not a moral imperative that we try? It is a clumsy, perilous, uncertain path, as we are in uncharted waters, dealing as nuclear powers who know what M A D means. But we can't be Chamberlain, because we KNOW what came of that tactic.
One ray of hope, if a cynical one. In 1939, Hitler was 50. Putin is now 70. Yes, Mugabe ruled Zimbabwe until he was 90, but Zimbabwe wasn't a world empire with nuclear weapons. Hitler saw himself ruling over the world for the next 40 years. Putin obviously does not, no matter how much fitness training he engages in. His chances of retiring on top are already wobbly as it is. I think that at some point, rather than destroy the world, he will make use of one of a number of escape strategies he is sure to have in place, and live out the rest of his days in the unimaginable luxury he can afford, and in (dare I say it?) peace. IF his current partners let him, that is.
= new reply since forum marked as read
