Putin will do what he considers in the best interests of Russia and international opinion or previous western interventions (ie Iraq) are of no consequence. I did a tour as a Military Observer on the ceasefire line in Georgia following the Russian invasion in 2008, followed by a stint in a senior staff appointment in the UN mission's HQ dealing with the Russian occupation forces and civilian officials on a daily basis. The current situation doesn't surprise me in any way, forward action in order to defend her strategic interests is currently seen by the Russian government hierarchy as a legitimate tool. A deliberate policy of issuing "Ethnic Russians" (no such thing, being Russian is an issue of nationality not ethnicity) with Russian Federation passports enables the Kremlin to undertake "protective action" - as in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
The reality is that Russia could almost certainly achieve a great deal though economic action but, as with many immature/incomplete democracies, military shows of strength go down well with political strongmen. My prediction (for what it is worth): The UNSC will remain hamstrung. There will be a continuation of the current limited Russian military intervention, followed by a larger deployment in order to "protect" Russian citizens resident in Crimea as well as to secure the hinterland supporting the Black Sea Fleet. Lots of condemnation from the West but little (if any) concrete action. The Russians have de facto annexed two provinces of Georgia; a country with a pro-western European world view and which has been a willing military ally in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If we are able to do sweet FA in their case, why do we think Ukraine and Crimea in particular will be any different?
Last edited by Mahogany_Bomber; 1st Mar 2014 at 22:51.