There are several scenarios for ending the crisis in Ukraine. The most extreme calls for war, but another scenario, extremely popular in Ukrainian political circles recently, points to finding the formula that satisfies all the sides: On May 25, Ukrainians will vote in general elections, which will allow the West to celebrate the democratic/electoral achievements won in Independence Square. The new team that will lead the country after the elections will have no choice but to continue working with Moscow, which will not rush to release its grip -- even the unofficial one -- on the Crimean peninsula. The Russians will of course discard ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, who is simply a burden to them, to the citizens of western Ukraine to do with as they please. In this scenario, the result of the Independence Square revolution will be very similar to other revolutions of its kind: There will be no change. This scenario is currently being mulled in Kiev because the leadership of the new government is extremely disappointed over how the West has responded to the crisis to this point. Western hesitance versus Russian determination is abundantly conspicuous. The West cannot even decide the nature of the sanctions it wants to impose, and as an answer to the $15 billion Moscow has offered Kiev in November, Washington is prepared to donate $1 billion in March. What does this indicate about the balance of power between Russia and the United States and how much each side cares about what is happening- Germany even opposes barring Russia from the G-8 Summit. Why? Because the world today does not know how to cope with the challenges posed by rogue states such as Iran and Syria. Russia offers an alternative to the West's ineptness. How can the West, without a shepherd of its own, abandon the Russian partner which time and again extricates it from tricky situations? Perhaps one day someone will write about this period: "In those days there was no king in the world. Every man did that which was right in his own eyes," (a modern-day version of Judges 17:6). History books are full of empires that rose and fell. There were Persians, Greeks, Romans, and there were Ottomans, and many others that simply vanished. Their collapse did not happen overnight, rather following a process spanning years. It could very well be that our generation is witnessing the beginning of the collapse of the Western Empire. The crisis in Ukraine is testimony to this. Countries like Russia, China, Brazil, Turkey, India and even South Africa are observing this process, and are waiting in the wings. Each wants a bite of the pie in a world devoid of leadership and direction. Meanwhile, in turbulent and unclear days such as these, as the world wavers between war and peace, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in Washington. His meeting with the U.S. president was reasonably pleasant, despite the familiar disagreements. The meeting, suffice to say, could have gone more swimmingly had Netanyahu forgone Israel's security interests in these tempestuous global waters. The world does not provide a compass and Israel cannot lose its bearings. It is unclear where things are headed, it is unclear what we can expect here in our region, and it entirely unclear whether those who are supposed to provide us with guarantees can even provide their own stability. These are not the days for risk taking, even if we are threatened with boycotts. Regardless though, since the days of Gershom ben Judah (otherwise known as "Our teacher Gershom the light of the exile"), we have shown the ability to do some boycotting of our own. In general, the crisis in Crimea has proven that in the Wild West in which we live, it does not hurt to respond to threats in kind (see Putin and sanctions). Israel's big problem is that Washington needs results, and it expects them in the Middle East of all places. With all due respect, we can ask them: But what about us-
