Would those with an expert knowledge of history like to comment on the idea that while we need to show that we can back up words with actions, there is a limit to how far we can hurt Russia if we don't want to repeat what happened in Germany after the end of WW1. A crushed society learning to resent the rest of the world makes bad choices.
I agree that it's not good to push Russia in a box or corner. It’s simply not smart and not wise. Russia is a big country and you simply can’t ignore like Belarus. If the West wants Russia to change its policy towards its neighbors and/or minorities you must give Putin a reason to do so. Sanctions are most promising means to reach that goal.
Putin is not an irrational radical like Hitler was.
Putin is politically flexible and rational. Putin plays a game yes, but he doesn’t have a “must obey” ideology behind like Hitler had. Hitler was a) driven by his own irrational world-sight and b) by the dynamic power of the Nazi-movement.
Hitler informed the major generals there will be a WW2 four days after he became Chancellour (Liebmann protocol 1933/02/03
http://anonym.to/http://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1538 )
Therefore the comparison “Czechoslovakia 1918 = Ukraine 2014” is only valid at first sight. Hitler wanted a war already then and was very unhappy with Goring and Mussolini raining in his parade.
As for the comparison Russia to Germany: yes and no. There is a theory about the “European civil war” from 1914 – 1945. But that is misleading in some ways, f.e. in the way that Hitler was the consequence of the mistreatment of Germany at Versailles in 1919. That’s not true.
There were strong anti-democratic movements in Germany (nationalsocialistic and communistic) and there were no real democrats in Weimar. But there were also enough things that could have make history a different turn.
Gustav Stresemann and George Briand f.e. Also the appeasement policy of the British started in 1925 (and not in 1938 as many think).
There are similarities between the "offical mindset" in Russia and German history. But the idea, that Germany or "being german" is something different from the "corrupt West" and unique didn't came up
after WW1, it was acutally all there
before WW1.
I’ve mentioned it before: Vaclav Havel said it would take two generations to make the communism forgotten and heal the wounds it caused. Yesterday I spoke to a friend from Lviv in Ukraine he said they would need a “real” liberal party. But you need “real” liberals for that and those are normally people who grew up in a state of freedom without fear of the state. He answered that a party like that - when it finally comes - would get much support.
You don’t have those "born democrats" in Russia too – you very often hear of the “soviet type man”.
The Nazi movement (and other fascist and communist movements in Germany and other countries) were dynamic movements coming “from the bottom”.
The Russian “new conservatism” is something from the top. Of course there are strong nationalists in Russia but they are not an "unstopable force".
So I don't think the new-conservative attitude in Russia is a "natural" force. It's a political scheme.
Putin is in power for 12 years and then suddenly finds out that he must stop gay propaganda? I can only explain this with a scheme to keep him in power.
If I remember correctly Putin had the constitution changed several times to be able to be in charge longer. So I don't think there is a strong "street movement" demanding anti-gay-laws or the ban of high heels or sexy underwear.
As said: Therefore Putin is not an irrational radical like Hitler was. Putin is politically flexible and rational (The NS irrationalism had its own logic too but that’s a different thing). Putin plays a game yes, but he doesn’t have a “must obey” ideology behind like Hitler had. Hitler was a) driven by his own irrational world-sight and b) by the dynamic power of the Nazi-movement.
If there is the chance to catch Putin by his ratio it's not by pushing him in a corner. There has to be a way out.