If the west wanted to do something (and I am not saying it should), the best it would be able to muster is to attack Russia economically, and covertly (as much as that would be possible). Military strength is simply out of the question.
No it isn't. Saddam was a dictator who mass murdered his own people, and had invaded, without any just cause, two neighbouring countries in the past. Assad was also a dictator who killed many of his own people. Ukraine government did nothing of the kind, and is up for election later in Spring. No Russians were killed in Crimea by the Ukraine government (the alleged justification for intervention). There is no comparison. Furthermore, Russia signed a treaty saying they would honour Ukraine's sovereignty. There was no such treaty about Syria or Iraq.
I agree but that was not the subject of my thread - which was rather how much Putin would be willing to risk, if faced with a significant raising of the stakes. No one has yet shown any evidence that he is willing to risk a serious conflict for a small bit of land of 4 million people, where he already has a treaty guaranteeing a naval base for decades. The fact is, he won't risk WWIII for Crimea.
No they wouldn't, because destroying them would be an aggressive act of war and guarantee reprisal attacks on Russia itself. They cannot be attacked without devastating reprisals, unless they attack first - and by the time Russia realises they are attacking (which is not a necessity - the threat alone is enough) it will be too late. Simply placing them there would ratchet up the pressure considerably, and mean Russia would have to think very carefully about potential consequences. The problem at the moment is the lack of negative consequences for aggression. Putin is clearly NOT thinking "I'll start WWIII for Crimea". Therefore if that is his choice, he will back down. Or, small chance, fight WWIII in which case he'll be quickly killed along with his entire government and most of his population.
The thread is not about what the west wants to do. It is about what Putin would do IF the west raised the stakes. The answer is that he would probably fold, and he would certainly back down considerably from what he would do in a situation where the west meekly folds its hand.
So you're mixing the moral argument with the pretense that was used to garner support for the invasion? When Bush invaded Iraq, it wasn't because Saddam murdered his own people or encroached into Iran and Kuwait. It was based on the "They have Weapons of Mass Destruction and we have evidence of it" argument. Additionally, the "evidence" that the US provided to support the claim Assad gassed his own people was sketchy at best. The US does what it wants when it suits it, and expects everyone else to fall in line accordingly.