Azrael wrote:
*one could say the whole thing started with the West's lures of economic support, i guess, but at least (assuming it wouldn't all slip through the cracks of corruption) that would've accomplished something had Russia not gone crazy
Economic support was a major lever the West used in 1990 for trying force Gorbachev's hand over the German question. He had to eventually cave over the issue of united Germany thanks to his own weakening position in the collapsing USSR, and the desperate promise that Western aid would come to the rescue to keep the Soviet Union afloat.
The USA dictated the end of the Cold War when Russia was too weak to shape the peace. The problem started there: Gorbachev and his supporters thought everyone 'won' the end of the Cold War, but NATO expansion eastward made Russian perceive that only the US won, and that it was trying to punish Russia for losing. Miscommunication occurred during the united Germany negotiations in 1990, with Gorbachev and some within the Russian delegation claiming it was promised "NATO would never move eastwards" while the Western delegation thought they were just promising that NATO troops would not be moved into East Germany.
Regardless of who was right, the creeping expansion of NATO eastwards in the past two decades was seen as a major affront to Russian national pride. The last American ambassador to the USSR, Jack Matlock (really nice guy, btw), pointed out that the USA was just responding to E. European countries requests, but he also agreed with Gorbachev that NATO should have been dismantled somewhere along the way and something different should have replaced it. Should Russia have been invited? I think so, though after the Russian free market economic collapse in 1998, and further humiliation over NATO intervening in Kosvo it was probably too late to make that move, even before Putin took over a few years later.
To answer your question specifically Azrael, I do think the West should have done nothing regarding Ukraine. Since they are already doing something though, I'd still advocate winding it down. Any sign of helping Ukraine is just be used for Putin's propaganda purposes and makes Russia dig in further. Putin's power is already severely limited by Russian structural and economic weakness, and attempts to gain further ground in Ukraine are just an expensive distraction for his frustrated domestic constituency. Polish and Baltic leaders can whine all they want, but I'd argue those countries are just as much to blame for inflaming the crisis. They can talk all the want about the Russian threat, but Russia simply has no capacity to actually invade them without self-destructing considering their economic weakness,
and Putin and his leadership are very much aware of this.
TLDR;
Ukraine does (and should) matter more to Russia than it does to the USA and Western Europe. Getting involved in Ukraine speaks to the dangerous power of small countries with traumatic but outdated memories leading the larger countries towards potential confrontation. The unending expanse of NATO, which has no real purpose for existing post 1991 except as a flashpoint for inflammatory rhetoric, does not make Europe safer, and it should been replaced long ago.
Included a few links below if you were interested (1st and 2nd ones are Gorbachev and Matlock remembering the 1990 negotiations very differently, but agreeing NATO remaining was a bad idea. 3rd one is Gorbachev today blaming the West for messing relations between the two. If Gorbachev fundamentally agrees with Putin on foreign policy than the West and Russia fell out a lot of farther than just blaming it on Putin's personality.)
http://sputniknews.com/russia/20090402/120879153.htmlhttp://jackmatlock.com/2014/04/nato-exp ... a-promise/http://rt.com/news/221367-gorbachev-nato-war-russia/