I agree, from a technical standpoint, this is how it's supposed to work. Putin now has a bargaining chip. He can make the gesture of "relinquishing" something he didn't have before. Net cost to Russia: zero. Also I think some people thought my recommendation for action was beating a war drum. Quite the contrary, done properly, it works exactly like chess. I am a big advocate of peace and negotiation, but negotiation from strength. People can see troops massed on a border. They can't see sanctions. Even if sanctions are as far as you are willing to go, you don't want your opponent to know that.

Here are some more reasons to hide your head under the covers, for those scared of the boogey man.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/science/earth/panels-warning-on-climate-risk-worst-is-yet-to-come.html?emc=edit_th_20140331&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=68247748

I know there will be immediate responses of "it's a lie", but that's ok. Hopefully there will be enough adults brave enough to face facts. We have no more powerful or insidious enemy anywhere, than we do with our own planet.

Let's cry and scream about abortion, while our living children starve to death. Whine about the government being too big, while our homes are being destroyed. Bitch about foreign policy, while our domestic policy leaves us all destitute. Know why even rich people are paying attention to climate change now? Because they know that there's no where to go to get away from it and all their money will go away. Now that's scary.

Russian military bases in Crimea were at risk of being told to leave when pro-Russian Yanucovich fled after the Kiev protest deaths. Post-protest deaths, popular sentiment was against Russia in Ukraine. The economic crisis and wealth of Yanucovich was blamed on the pro-Russian influence. This left the likelihood of a pro-west Ukraine leader to be elected with potential campaign promises of kicking Russian assets and military bases out of Ukraine. Now that Crimea has been taken, the negotiations will be about restoring the boundaries as opposed to vacating military bases. In order to pressure the negotiations, the troops are on the border and after the phone call a few days ago, they will stay with fairly good confidence the US and NATO will not reciprocate with an equal amount of troops. He'll have to give up Crimea and withdraw troops to remove the sanctions but he wants to delay those things to use them as a bargaining tool. Look to see him come out on top because Ukraine has the 3rd largest shale gas reserve but a recent 50-50 contract with Royal Dutch Shell can't get it up and running until 2017. Russia can seek to improve it's status in Ukraine, keep it's military bases in Crimea and get a long-term energy contract to delay Ukraine's eventual energy independence. Ukraine can get Crimea back, increase economic confidence with a stable energy price contract for a few years and get those annoying troops off it's border.

Every time an American signs up for food stamps in one of 23 states, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) adds to its revenue stream.

That because JPMorgan Chase contracts to operate as the processor of the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards in those states. JPMorgan earns a fee for each recipient, ranging from 31 cents to $2.30, depending on the state, every month for the term of the contract.

JPMorgan's seven-year Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, the official name for the federal food stamp program) contract with New York state, for example, brought in more than $126 million of revenue to the big bank.

Florida has paid JPMorgan more than $90 million since 2007. Pennsylvania's seven-year contract exceeded $112 million.

It brings a whole new meaning to "corporate welfare."
A Rising Source of Revenue for JPMorgan

A decade ago, servicing SNAP recipients wasn't nearly so big a business as it has become in recent years.

The number of Americans receiving SNAP benefits has more than doubled since 2000, to an astounding 46.6 million people as of 2012, according to government data. That's nearly 15% of the U.S. population.

So it's no surprise that U.S. government spending on food stamp benefits has grown from $18 billion in 2000 to $85 billion in 2012 - a steep increase that has given JPMorgan a nice boost.

"This business is a very important business to JPMorgan," Christopher Paton, managing director of JPMorgan's public-sector payments business, told Bloomberg News in 2010. "It's an important business in terms of its size and scale... Right now, volumes have gone through the roof in the past couple of years. The good news, from JPMorgan's perspective, is the infrastructure that we built has been able to cope with that increase in volume."

A study released last fall by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), a government watchdog group, estimated that since 2004 JPMorgan had collected more than $560 million in fees from just 18 of the states with which it has EBT contracts.

And the bank has taken steps to make sure the SNAP program remains a growing source of revenue. JPMorgan's political donations to the members of House and Senate agricultural committees, the ones with legislative responsibility for the program, soared from just over $82,000 in 2002 to nearly $333,000 as of 2010.

JPMorgan: Taking From the Poor to Give to the Rich

As if profiting from a program designed to help the poor were not bad enough, JPMorgan also makes money directly from the SNAP recipients......
Read more here:
http://moneymorning.com/2013/04/09/why-jpmorgan-wants-to-see-more-americans-on-food-stamps/

Okay the title is a little provocative. However the intent here is more clinical than polemical.

Vladimir Putin has the advantage (in furthering his agenda) that he is a "man of action." Notice I don't distinguish whether his actions are good or bad, just whether they are effective.

Sanctions could be active or passive. If they don't reach the desired audience with a strong message, they are more passive than active. Sometimes passivity is advantageous. Ronald Reagan made the request, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall." He did not make the more active claim, "We want that wall torn down immediately. If you don't do it, we will." However a more passive, but emotionally compelling, approach stood out among provocative cold-war-era actions and threats.

In an age of reflection, as we experience today, actions stand out more boldly than they would in a cold-war type era. I think Putin "wins" in today's world. The Crimeans are moving from a completely corrupt and crooked regime to a less corrupt and crooked regime, with better public finances and infrastructure. That the crooked regime was backed by their new president shows that the Russians are playing chess. Putin has already knocked off that piece and removed it from the board. We should write off Crimea and look ahead to the next move and what actions could be taken.