It is easy to understand that nations will want to be assured of some basic ability to self sufficiency given the fact that we are not yet confidence in an eternally peaceful future.



However, the tradeoffs bring real costs. It is a standard part of indoctrination in training in economics to learn simple demonstrations of how autarky does not stack up well against trade. However, this does not mean that ever more and ever freer trade benefits all, or even many, people.



Sanctions are a relative gains game, and theoretically they can only be effective in a relative sense if we hold some economic advantage, whether due to size, efficiency or other.



Assuming this is the case, Russia is shooting itself in the foot, but in so doing, signals a willingness to do so if we return to containment.



Knowing that Russia is willing to go down that road doesn't mean that we should immediately back off sanctions, but we should be exploring alternative strategies which do not lead down the road of containment, stalemate, and failure to exploit mutually beneficial gains.



The current strategy makes it easy to make a bogeyman of the West. Putin and other top dogs will not take the blame. As has been observed time and time again, sanctions are more likely to reinforce the influence and domestic authority of the very people whose influence we explicitly wish to reduce.



The current sanctions likely have greatest impacts on very wealthy, and few impacts on the population. Putin's sanctions are more likely to have negative impact wrt consumer prices of basic foodstuffs, but for a time they will buy it as necessary, and moreover this will stimulate employment in the rural economy.



How do we all back down without losing face or being suggestive that any of what anyone did was OK?



What started the revolution in Ukraine? Until there is a widely accepted answer to this question, I do not think there is a right and wrong. The president tilted towards Russia and decided not to sign the agreement to get closer with EU, in response to which other people revolted with backing of real guns and ammo, so far as to occupy Kiev and essentially hold the government hostage.



Are we moving towards an East/West Ukraine, or will we force Ukraine to continue to play buffer between major powers? Perhaps, post-1991, the lines were drawn excessively in reflection of who "won" the Cold War. Long sober thought should be given to the levels of autonomy that local populations should be afforded in self determination, with explicit consideration of that historical analogy.



Let us lead by example. Self determination of local populations is a real threat to Russia political oppression as a means of ensuring unity. But it will almost assuredly imply the return of many border areas into explicit Russian control or spheres of influence. Is it worth it? There is no need to answer that question definitively today, tomorrow, or even this year.