While I do think Ukraine had a legitimate change in government it's funny how over-the-top Western reporting is about how solid and legitimate the new government is. The transition was shaky on legal grounds at best.

So much bias on both sides in the media. US media tries to act like Russian propaganda machine is so disgusting yet they're borderline just as bad, even without being state-run.

While government transition was not precisely legitimate, it was the only way to stop the bloodshed. And "kudos" to our incompetent internal forces for not being able to do the only important thing they swore to protect - freedom, rights and lives of the people.

Border posts from Kerch Crimea report new russian troop buildup over ther border. Sighted troops appear to be mostly tanks.

For sure, a vote to impeach is about as good as you can get in such a situation. Still the US media is glossing over the political situation in Kiev pretty broadly.

Impeachment is a long procedure. And when time is of the essence it is not a choice. Procedure is:
- no less than 226 parliamentaries initiate impeachment
- temporary investigation commitee is formed, which includes attorney general and special investigators
- commitee conclusions are reviewed in parliament
- if conclusions have enough evidence, no less than 300 parliamentaries are needed to charge the President with violations
- Constitutional Court gives his own conclusion about whether the investigation was according to law
- Supreme Court confirms national treason or any other violation that was investigated
- no less than 338 parliamentaries are needed to releave the President of his office and all his responsibilites are temporarily passed to Prime-Minister

P.S. Attorney General, Constitutional and Supreme Courts were all under former President's control.

The protestors can't just violently eject their head of state/govt that the Ukrainian people themselves elected because they don't like his recent actions, there's constitutional requirements that have to be met, it's the same in every country.

If Yanukovych was so unpopular, then he and his party would have no chance of being elected to power to Ukraine, so why the need to act outside the law? Unless of course what Russia says is right, and the Maidans represent an urban minority - as opposed to a regional majority who supported Yanukovych.

What happens if Ukraine has elections this year and Pro-Russian President wins again? Will the Maidan go back to the streets and say it was rigged and call for NATO intervention?

If you want to know why Russia "invaded" Crimea, just pull out a map of the region and see where and how Crimea is located in the Black Sea.

The US and EU wanted to control Crimea by absorbing Ukraine into the EU, thereby denying access of most of the Black Sea to Russia. Crimea is the choke point that is blocking Russia's water pathway to the western waters. Of course Russia would not allow the US and EU to gain Crimea.

IMO, the US and EU overstepped boundaries and played with fire in Russia's backyard, and Ukraine got burned. That is why Putin has just sent a warship to Cuba, as a reminder that, "hey, Americans, you can't just come to our backyard and take a dump here. How would you like if we crap right in your backyard Cuba?"

Being in Ukraine I can say, that even waiting for the next election would be suicide. National currency exchange rate had been being held artificially on the same level for years, continuous credits from other countries and no considerable reforms. Judicial reform made courts dependent from the president. Just giving the russians Sevastopol for their fleet till 2042 in exchange for 100$ gas discount is a treason in my point of view.
And believe me, he would get elected again, whether by vote or by vote count falsifications. The Eastern part of the country are inert and would silently agree that he got re-elected. FFS, in his young years former President was sentenced for stealing hats.

But isn't that democracy? I mean I don't like the current conservative govt in Australia, and I didn't vote for them, but you know I can still accept that they won the vote, and they have a right to government, just as the opposition has a right to ~oppose~ within the legal system.

If the majority of Ukrainians clearly wanted their President out, I guess I can accept that - though doing it legally would be preferable, but if it's just a minority of protestors in the capital city, that's a coup not a revolution.

You are assuming that the upcoming elections would have been fair.

Well, these type of things are rarely black and white, if he was truly that unpopular then I don't any amount of electoral fraud would sway the result, especially in at least a marginally democratic country. Large-scale voting fraud would show up immediately given the amount of foreign press and the like in the country, it isn't North Korea after all.

Either way, from what I have read Yanukovych or whoever his party will put up will still win because the East of Ukraine is mostly pro-Russia and will vote for that candidate.

People just can't overthrow their own elected heads of state or governments, no matter how much they hate them, the civic thing to do is to wait for elections. I don't think that the Maidan understand that they themselves have done far more damage to their countries political system than Yanukovych ever did, because it has destroyed the authority and credibility of the state, and now that it's prestige is lost Ukraine will probably tumble into a long period of short-lived governments that come to power as quickly as they are thrown out.

And this isn't even mentioning how this thing with Russia turns out.

Right. I believe that most people in Maidan were just tired of crooks and thieves in the government.
I don't think anyone here (in Russia) really believes in "fascist" stories. Don't think people are stupid.
But revolutions create great opportunity for questionable people to pass unnoticed into interim government.
Trading old thieves for the new ones.
"Citizens, we have reason to fear that the Revolution, like Saturn, will successively devour all its children, and finally produce despotism, with the calamities that accompany it." was said so long ago, and yet here we are, in 2014.

Any revolution needs to defend itself. That's a utopia that have never come to life in the history. True idealists are led to gallows pole right after the overthrown kings, in order to set a new one.

First, i will post something out of topic. And i apologize for it. But i cannot help but say it, because above, i saw the word democracy, and my allergies reacted to it badly. As well as all the misunderstanding and misconceptions all people bear concerning it.

Democracy, means that the people are responsible for ruling, they themselves vote for major decisions like governing matters, and they all gather daily to discuss and decide for everything. At least, at the point of history that as a system, it was conceived, invented and practiced. Ancient greeks, for example. Yes, they too elected representatives, but they were only coordinators, without any real power, authority, or saying, at least any more beyond simple proposals to the masses of the people, who had total control over everything.

And even then, democracy had nothing to do with *true* equality, rights, justice, minorities and their rights, and so on. Especially concerning minorities, the entire social structure and functionality, revolved around slaves, slavedriving and exploiting captives of war, legally, under the democratic law, for free labor and construction of these *wonders*, that still resist the passing of time and are worldwidely viewed, respected and researched upon.

Modern democracy has nothing to do with the real, original, historic democracy, first and foremost. Modern democracy is akin to feudarchy, and closer to tyranny, through the ruling of the elite few, capitalism, and empty, fake words, promises, etc. The people NEVER have a saying concerning serious national or international politics, affairs, goings and events, they only elect powerhungry mongrels to do whatever they please, or whatever their hidden agendas dictate. Under the protection of the law, since it is they who are responsible for making/altering laws. They rule not *for* the people, as they say or should, but *in the stead* of the people, *without* them, their vote, opinion, agreement or disagreement upon ANY matter. And that is why usually chaos errupts, protests, stirring of events, unrest and accidents, like riots, killing of innocents, etc.

People use empty words. They overassume, misunderstand, are full of misconceptions. WHAT is "democracy", that everyone pronounces daily, like bread and butter, and only has some random, abstract conception about it in mind? Why doesn't someone first give us a definition of the terminology, first? Then try to present its characteristics? So we can all understand WHAT is democracy, WHAT are its goals, WHAT are the means it employees for realizing its aims, and finally, if democracy is democracy at all, in and by itself? So we can all see clearly what to expect of it, what it is all about, and then communicate correctly?

Sorry for the out of topic thing. And again, best wishes to the people there.