NATO massed its forces on the eastern border of Poland and Romania, put several carrier battlegroups and submarines in the Black Sea, and then got invited by the Ukraine government to come in and secure their territory against foreign armed forces? My suspicion is - he would do nothing, then pack up and go home. He will not risk WWIII over Crimea - or even risk permanently losing the Sevastopol naval base, which could be vaporised in a few hours along with its fleet. Putin is bluffing and needs to be re-raised all-in.
So what you're saying is that we'd risk WWIII over it, but not Putin? You don't know the Russian mindset very well, that much is painfully obvious. The time it would take for NATO to mobilize (for a contingency they have admitted they did not plan on) would be greater than the half-life of this event. The Russians beat NATO to the punch, end of story. It's a lot easier to deter behavior than it is to reverse it once done. The Russians can sit on the black sea and then go "let's talk it over". Stall, delay...it's over. I also find some of the comments from Kerry rather hilarious. He was saying how "invasion of another sovereign nation over false pretenses is very 19th century and not how civilized nations behave." Ah, I see. So invading Iraq over bullshit about WMD, that's ok. Trying to invade Syria under some horseshit story about how they hit their own people with chemical weapons, that's ok. It's ok when we do it, but we don't want others doing it.
He said what would Puketin do . . . '' IF '' he presented a hypothetical . . . for debate or discussion.
Yes, I get it, kid. And I'm telling him (and you, now that you've inserted your whiny, uneducated ass into the fray) that only someone who has no knowledge of Russian history, politics, behavior and philosophy would think Putin would back down in his backyard.
If you know it, then why are you surprised when I point it out, jackwagon? Or are you just trolling again?