Civil War In Ukraine? ...and Venezuela?

The Crimea was part of Russia 'til the 50's, so they've a legitimate beef about citizens there, especially given the Ukrainian nationalists.

I'm surprised no one has so far sat the Russians and Ukrainians down and suggested Russia provides an economic package (x billion now, interest free loans for the next 5 years with long term repayments, and a ceiling on gas prices for the next decade) in exchange for the Crimea and an agreement that the Ukraine does not join NATO, but is free to join the EU. Everyone can spin that into a win, and Russia's only problem is having lost the Ukraine from it's USSR-lite, which was increasingly likely anyway.

The West are not in a good position here, nobody wants to push Russia, but equally looking weak and leaving the Ukraine out to dry after wooing them is hardly going to go down well.

Actually, that's part of the reason why all of this is happening. The Eastern part of Ukraine has much of its economy tied to Russia, while the western part is tied to Europe and Putin's essentially told the Ukrainians before this that if they join the EU, he's no longer doing business with Ukraine.

well, that got out of hand fast. the russians are pretty much invading the crimea right now. the local gov't has called to russia 'for help' - after the fact, soviet style. the US and the EU are rather not pleased but whatchagonnado.

sure a quarrel full of potential and yet another conflict where neither side is preferable. money grabbing soviet union loving dictator vs. nationalist nuts with pseudo european aspirations (irony, anyone?). it's a tiny little bit like georgia a few years ago, with the slight difference that the west cares now since we all have interests in ukraine. european banks alone are hundreds of billions deep in the doodoo there.

So at this point Obama has managed to undo what, a quarter century of US progress? More?

What the shit does Obomney have to do with this?

nothing. it's the same as many europeans are blaming the EU for everything between the backstreet boys reunion and volcanic activity on venus: lack of education and insight.

WTF has Obama to do with any of this? He hasn't got many cards to play here.

While it is about 23 years since the U.S.S.R collapsed, I think you could probably characterize it as only about five years of progress on the average.

Remember the incident in Bosnia (or was it Kosovo)? With the Russian paratroopers and U.S. General Wesley Clark (and future presidential candidate) trying to order British soldiers to go in an "oust" the Russians from the airport?

FTFY. Remember, she was running the State Department until recently, and is likely going to run for President in '16, so you really need to up your blame game to reflect that.

Putin has taken Obama's measure and knows he can more or less ignore the man. The Russians would likely not have done this move when Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Reagan was President.

And as has been noted the region in dispute has a pretty good case for being part of Russia, not Ukraine. Still and all, Putin could have been more diplomatic about the whole deal. Something like what ecky suggested.

The USA has shown Russia that it's ok to invade a country that poses no threat to you.

You fuckin Iraq cheerleaders shouldn't be whining about this.

Need I point out that North Korea had no problem testing nukes while W was in office? If Bush wasn't a powerful enough figure to stop a tinpot dictator like Kim, I doubt if he'd have stopped Putin from invading Ukraine, if Pootie Poot wanted. What exactly should Obama do? Sanctions? They've done wonders with Cuba. Bomb them? Yeah, I think we all know where that would wind up. Send Pootie-Poot a strongly worded letter? That's what he's going to do, and will be blasted for it.

It's literally impossible for you to know that. Well done though.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

That happened under Carter's watch, thus proving that Obama is Carter. Except that Obama managed to get re-elected, successfully rescued hostages, blew up Libya, killed the leader of a international terrorist organization, and so on.

As Georgia so clearly demonstrated. And Georgia was much closer to the US than Ukraine (I flew into Iraq with Georgians).

We can actually know it's bullshit. Bush didn't scare the Russians off from doing the exact same thing in Georgia back in 08.

Obama's fault. Also, after Obama withdrew troops from Lebanon, that encouraged Khadaffi and OBL to engage in terrorism.

not entirely true. europe at least has very high stakes; US involvement is quite likely too.

сука путинской does have a certain ring to it...
(That's 'Suka Putinskoy' for you Cyrillic illiterate types)

If the recent Olympics has taught me anything, it's that all of this can be solved with some rainbow colored workout gear. #amiright

Yeah, we couldn't really say too much about it, especially since they used the same exact reasoning to do it as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Using terrorism as an excuse for things has sure worked a lot better than drugs ever did, that's for sure.

Does anyone else have a hard time seeing where all this is coming from? Did I miss an important article somewhere in the past few weeks explaining why the protests began in the first place and how that's pretty much led to a civil war? Here's how I see it, someone correct the parts with a ?? or that are wrong.

1. Ukraine elects pro-Russian parliament(??) and President.
2. ??
3. President scraps trade deal with EU in favor of one with Russia.
4. Pro-EU protesters start protesting.
5. President bans protests.
6. Protests turn violent.
7. ??
8. President is ousted(??), and an interim pro-EU government is installed.
9. ??
10. Protests continue in Kiev (why?? It's not in the Russian parts of Ukraine)
11. Russian-speaking paramilitaries start patrolling ethnically Russian areas of Ukraine (why?)
12. Russia possibly sends troops to Crimea, far from the fighting. (why??)

My bad for not keeping up with current events, but can someone help me out here?

that's pretty much it, yes. but the EU deal was only the spark that set the powder keg ablaze. point is, the east is heavily influenced by russia while the west sees itself as part of europe. they have been at odds all the time, this time it turned violent and led to the revolution/coup (depending from which perspective you see it).

CNN has a few nice infographics that show the division by how people vote.

I get the lead up. I don't get the results. Why are the protests continuing now that there's a new government? Why is the Crimea, so far from Kiev, under threat of invasion by Russia? It doesn't make sense to me.

He has some cards, but blaming him for this is crazy.

In his boots I'd be offering the Chinese and Indians something to go mobilize and play wargames near their disputed territories with Russia. Then I'd offer the Ukrainians a raft of things, including some Western tech and some, ahem, volunteers (much like Russia has had volunteers taking airports) - in the advent of a Russian incursion - in exchange for them joining NATO and allowing all kinds of things, like the ABM defence systems, listening posts, military bases... And ensure it keeps out of the public eye, but very much gets to the Kremlin.

Then offer Russia a face saver similar to my previous suggestion. Right now, Putin knows he has all the leverage. Take that away and give him a chance to walk away, Russian pride intact, he'd be an idiot not to take it. And he is not an idiot.

Like most of the ex-Soviet states, Ukraine is heavily controlled by oligarchs and riven with endemic corruption, and the protesters are sick of that, hence the curious sight of the government parading potential members before the protesters to be vetted rather than simply declaring A, B and C are now minsters of X, Y and Z. They're tying to ensure the revolution stays honest.

Were Russia not quite the kleptocracy that it is, and Putin's new economic bloc not quite so autocratic and corrupt, they may have not been bothered about joining. However no one who isn't a Moscow puppet has a vested interest in Ukraine joining. The EU may be pretty corrupt, but it's through governmental mechanisms like funding blocks or the CAP, rather than polonium-laced canapes, and the people do actually benefit in many ways.

As for the Crimea, it's population is mainly ethnically Russian, and until the 1950's was part of Russia. Imagine the US ceding Maine to Canada back then, do you think the people there would have stopped thinking of themselves as American? Especially if Brunswick was kept as US territory for naval reasons. And if Canada decided to join the USSR-lite, and the population - having made Red Dawn their Sunday family movie for the last few decades - would be happy about that? Or do you think they'd be screaming to rejoin the US? That is the Crimean situation in a nutshell

Russia is not going to let go of Crimea. They either want a Russian yes-man in charge of Ukraine or they will take Crimea by force. Western meddling has ticked off a sleeping giant in Russia and the Ukrainians are going to bear the brunt of this. Or did the EU think Russia would simply allow them to take Crimea while much of the Russian fleet is stationed there, and has been for centuries?

The Crimea is where the Russian Black Sea fleet is headquartered, so it matters more to them than elsewhere. Second, it is where they have actual forces in place, so intervention there is easiest. Whether they use this to consolidate that position, or more aggressively expand in to other regions is still an open question.

As for the continuing protests in Ukraine, I read one interview with a protest leader in which he basically said the new government was there at the pleasure of the protester, and they needed to remain in place rather than cede power to the folks in parliament. I take that to mean the new government will be week and most likely very transitional. Reality: the protesters probably have no clue what they are doing at this point, so they just keep doing what they've been doing.

So... shouldn't we just let Crimea go? I mean, under the principles of self-determination, if they want to be Russia, let them, no? Why do we (the US) care what happens to it? As if we wouldn't be sending troops into Maine under this analogy...