Beware. History always repeats itself.

Weakness breeds adventurism. This is nothing new. But apparently a lesson that Barack Obama and his misguided children needs to learn...again. The parallels between Putin's adventurism today and Hitler's adventurism in the 1930's is mesmerizing. For those of you who slept through your history class in Jr. High, Hitler didn't devour Europe in one bite. Oh no, he took small nibbles. By claiming to come to the rescue of persecuted Germans living outside the motherland, (sound familiar?) he swept into Austria, occupied the Sudetenland, followed by Czechoslovakia before invading Poland in 1939. His original premise was to regain land that was lost at the end of WW I, which he felt should still be part of the empire. And he wanted to re-establish the borders of that empire. (Again, sound familiar?) At home, he played up National pride to a fever pitch - claiming that the "reunion" of these lands was not only just but a national right. (Are you getting this?) While he amassed a large army on the new expanded border, the World stood by doing nothing except lodging protests and proposing sanctions. (Now you getting it?) When it was obvious that the World would sit back and do nothing of any significance, he marched toward the English Channel and took France. In the year that would follow, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and the Netherlands would surrendered.

Fast forward to 2014.
Putin employs the exact (not similar but exact) same premise to acquire Crimea. His troops are on the eastern border of Ukraine, positioned to invade and "reclaim" land he believes rightfully belongs to Russia. He boasts Russian national pride on Russian TV and incites the people into believing he is restoring their lost empire. (Adolph did this on radio in the 1930's) Clearly, Putin is intent on re-establishing the Soviet empire circa 1989. And while he makes the moves necessary for his dream to become a reality, the west obliges him with pathetic sanctions. Crimea is now Russia's. It's a done deal. What remains to be seen is whether he will stop there (unlikely) or proceed into Ukraine. (My money is on the latter) At risk are also the Baltic countries. Perhaps he'd even be bold enough to pressure Poland.
What's done is done. But it was unnecessary. Led by a community organizer who believed he can change his adversaries minds with his shear personal magnitude - the United States was caught flatfooted. So naive was Obama, that he gave up defensive missiles in eastern Europe without getting anything in return from the Ruskis. Correctly, they saw this as a sign of weakness and inexperience.

Had Hitler been stopped early in his mad crusade, WWII may have been avoided, or at least the WWII we knew. But there were appeasers and those who found it easier to sacrifice everything for the illusion of peace. The Russian military though formidable, is no match for an alliance that America could amass. And I have to assume the Russian hierarchy knows this. I'm not suggesting that the United States should go to war over Crimea or even the potential annexing of eastern Ukraine. But the threat of using our power must be there. Much less provocative actions can be taken including training and arming potential Russian targets and re-introducing defensive missiles. To stand by and do nothing invites more adventurism. And if history teaches us anything, it's that evil prospers when good men do nothing.  As good men, what will we do? And with a President intent on "managing" such situations rather than dominating - we are likely to see the expansion of the New Soviet Empire.