I’ve been arguing with people on Facebook that if they’re going to blame Obama for what’s going on in Ukraine, they need to offer an alternative or at least offer a specific criticism.
Here, The Washington Post editorial board does neither. In fact, they go out of their way to say the USA shouldn’t be using the military to solve these problems. So the only specific they mention is exactly what Obama is not doing.
And it’s exactly the sort of armchair ivory-tower nonsense that makes people resent newspapers. They’re arguing for the president to be tougher without even showing the guts to make a point. Or sign their names.
Mostly Modern Media 
And elsewhere in the Post, solid reporting and interesting analysis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-putins-error-in-ukraine-is-the-kind-that-leads-to-catastrophe/2014/03/02/d376603e-a249-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html
I respectfully disagree to this extent: I first would like to see what a Washington Post editorial page would look like and could do under the leadership of someone more talented, dedicated and aware than Fred Hiatt. Hiatt’s worldview is so blinkered that, like the people who run the Wall Street Journal editorial and op-ed pages, it is clear that he does not read the reporting of his own co-workers.
If someone else, someone with a lick of sense, couldn’t make the editorials worth reading, then, yeah, I’d say ditch the unsigned editorials.