Obama wants a strict attitude of the European Union to Russia

The summit of the seven most industrialized countries becomes a diplomatic mission for Obama, who is afraid of the cracks in the attitude of its European allies on the issue of sanctions against Russia. There will be the leaders of Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Canada. Obama's concern is that the European countries, which have substantial trade relations with Moscow, make out their concerns and eroding so the US strategy. It is no secret, in fact, that the conviction of the instrument of sanctions has never been perceived as a winning strategy completely. In the European Union would prefer to conduct more marked by diplomacy, even though the countries now participating in Brussels, but from the Warsaw Pact are, even, for greater military involvement of Washington. But in a strategy based on economic sanctions the support of most industrialized states it is essential for achieving the objective. It is also important that does not leak out any discontent, as instead happens in various productive sectors, forced to stop the export to Russia, not to disrupt the image of unity and sharing the line dictated by the White House. Putin and his men are aware of European and discontent are using, through diplomacy and public statements, a tactical low profile to illustrate the reasons for Russia, which, as well as begin to bear fruit, start to encounter many shares also in European political circles. In contrast to Obama it would be important that the Western coalition had only one unequivocal attitude, with what is considered the Russian invader. On the other hand the US has some reason to demand a behavior without hesitation by Europeans, as the separatists have begun to attack the Ukraine, violating the Treaty of Minsk, with heavy artillery. The leadership of Kiev have specifically talked about the threat from the Russians, who are on the side of the separatists. For many American analysts mean the failure of the policy of sanctions and the non-applicability of the Treaty it was to stop the violence. However the Obama administration takes as an example the results achieved with the same tactics against Iran, warning, however, that it is a long way before they can be seen significant results. To this argument it may be objected that the cases are very different and not even comparable, because the Iranian case was not an urgent threat to regional stability, but a topic that lent itself to a long-term treatment, while the case has a Ukrainian situation of open conflict, whose priority would be to silence the weapons. If this is true, the tactics of Obama, at least, used alone, helps Putin, who despite suffering the effects of economic sanctions, has, in fact, hands free for fast action, enabling him to occupy the territory of Ukraine and create a situation from which it will be very difficult to go back. If the priority of Putin, at the expense of all the effects of the sanctions, is to create a safety belt around the country the Russian side of the border with Ukraine, to preserve it deemed excessive by the proximity with the Atlantic Alliance, then time plays everything in his favor and the sacrifice imposed by the trade sanctions will have negative effects on the budgets of many European businesses, without changing the policy of conquest of the tsar in Moscow. At this point, however, we must ask what you can do instead. European diplomacy did not get great results, and the US President seems stuck on its strategy without further countermeasures. A reinforced commitment of NATO is out of the question, but perhaps it would be appropriate to increase the level and quantity of arms supplied to the troops of Kiev, so you have a balance of forces in the field and clarify the availability of NATO to a greater commitment. At that point you could agree on new boundaries and close game weapons and to study ways of living together affordable to all.