Putin does not hold all of the cards; the US has options.

Stephen Cohen from NYU stated that Putin holds all the cards and the US has no options available.  Listen closely to his commentary and you'll notice that he's focused on the fear of an expanding war.  He's completely off base and narrow in thinking, but not alone, as many other people have expressed a similarly narrow view.

Parallel Asymmetrical Intervention, metaphorically.

So, Russia deemed it their duty to respond to the pleas of Crimean Russians to intervene.  Parallel to their asymmetrical intervention, the US and other western countries now have the capacity to declare its goal to immediately split Syria into two, with one-half a protected land that operates independently from Bashar Al Assad.

The key to this card is to preempt the actions of Putin by offering the counteraction as seeking the same justified outcomes as Russia is seeking through its actions in Crimea.  In other words, if it's okay to Russians to use force to intervene on behalf of Crimean Russians, then it's okay to intervene on behalf of millions of Syrian refugees.

It's not that the US would have to put boots on the ground, but that Putin has to deliberate the risks of granting the US the implied right to land boots on the ground, around the world.  With the threat of a Russian intervention, the US has been given the right timing to make this parallel asymmetrical intervention threat.  One should take advantage of it, not to cause more war, but to establish that Russia's actions have long-reaching consequences.

But let's say that Putin tries to call what he thinks is a bluff.  Well, it's not a bluff, because now the US can call on the Arab league to take the lead, and offer logistical assistance to demarcate Syria into two zones.

Parallel Reconstruction and Reinforcement of borders

Somehow or another, many people are upset at the idea that Russia is able to redraw the map at their whim.  These people seem lost at the opportunity for NATO and the West to participate in reinforcing this border (and others) with its own bases and infrastructure to delimit future border movement.

Russia wants to hold Crimea and be held responsible for its future?  So be it.  NATO should step in and negotiate with its own base just outside of Crimea, assuming it is invited by Kiev, and provide reinforcement of the reconstructed border.

Will Russia protest?  Surely!  But the retort is, that if it's acceptable to delineate Crimea separate from Ukraine, complete with Russian soldiers, then it's no less reasonable to expect that NATO would want to cooperate and indeed help Russia maintain that border.

Economic Sanctions are counterproductive

I am personally against economic sanctions against someone that we consider to be an important nation.  It sends the message that we are applying Cold War mentality.  We need to extricate this Cold War mentality permanently.

Economic sanctions create incentives to become more independent.  What did the US do, following the oil embargo of the 70s? We most certainly did not embrace the ethos behind the embargo.  No, instead we chose to find pathways towards energy independence.  There is one basic premise for all this: Nationalism.  You cannot beat back Nationalism by attacking someone directly; you have to undermine their desire to support Nationalism.

The Good Message

Going forward, the solution to any difficult answer is:

• Tacitly accept the actions of the other side;
• Offer your unilateral actions as a sign of good faith to cooperatively assist the other side in reaching their desired outcome;
• Use the other side's tactics in other areas of conflict, as a parallel to reaching a desired outcome;
• Avoid creating incentives towards greater independence and a build up of Nationalism.