Some thoughts:

1. the police had the order to shoot in the legs of the armed people, not to kill them (confirmed by radio recordings),this doesn't exclude that there were also other directives, but sounds strange to me because Ukraine isn't a third world country where violent civil war is normal and barely causes reactions, Ianukovitch and the police surely knew that loose killing of demonstrants would have caused a complete mess.

2. the deaths weren't simply the result of the fights in the streets, but of snipers too. Same kind of (sniper rifle) ammunition was found on wounded of both sides. Therefore both sides had to have snipers using the same rifle, or somebody shot both people and policemen.

3. candidates in this case could be anyone: nationalists, EU/USA secret services, even russians if the doctor (allegedly with the manifestants) is actually with the russians, and shared false infos with the estonian minister. I'd vote for EU or USA in collaboration with the rebels.

4. in any case the new Ukrainian government/faction is behaving like shit: attempt to pass a law to ban russian language, beatings on russian orthodox priests and old deputees, and more I find out every day.

A comment on an italian online newspaper (http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/esteri/telefonata-urmas-paet-e-catherine-ashton-998883.html)

"La sorella della amica di mia moglie che ha un negozio di alimentari a Kiev aveva già raccontato alla sorella su chi sparavano i cecchini, quindi questa notizia è una conferma. Infatti venivano definiti " avanzi di galera " questi personaggi che " requisivano " anche viveri nei negozi e automobili da chi circolava, puntando il mitra e facendoli scendere. Bella gente, ma non tutti erano ucraini, vi erano serbi, rumeni e gente che parlava inglese."

(the sister of one of my wife's friends who owns a food shop in Kiev told already her sister on whom the snipers shot, so this news [the phone call] is a confirmation. As a matter of fact these characters were defined "jailbirds", and they also stole food in shops and cars from people driving in the streets, aiming at them with guns and making them get out. Nice people, but not all of them were Ukrainians, there were serbs, rumanians and people who spoke english)

Seems to me that right wing extremists from half Europe met there, and I'll assume from now on that those who support this rebellion are their sympathizers.

Nah, Putin wouldn't go that far. Those countries are both part of the EU and of NATO, so they would really HAVE to react, or they'd lose any and all credibility (I know, one might think they did so already).

Of course we're dependent on Russia's resources, but there's always a limit to what's permittable. I can only hope there won't be any full-fledged war going on over in Ukraine...

Well, these forces in the Crimea are armed with military vehicles and weapons... so, any violation (by a military force) of territorial integrity is considered an "armed attack" .. meaning a nation facing such "secret" troops can invoke article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty whether these troops shoot at things or not. Well, any member nation can.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

North Atlantic Treaty - Article 5 Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations can be read here
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

This should give you an idea why Putin does not like (new) Nato nations close to him. Not for no reason does it say Europe and North America exclusively in article 5.

Ps.: Phasmid

I agree that it was at least a very bad first law to be attempted to be established. It does not however, make the response from Russia any more reasoned. Certainly I agree that such a law would be seen as sign of things to come.

At least your goverment didn't invade Tibet...., okay they did invade Iraq.

Not particularly, though the Russians would certainly argue that they acted pre-emptively, at the first sign of trouble rather than waiting for things to get bad. If they were admitting that they've acted at all, at least. It's a pretext to act, certainly, but it is a real pretext rather than something entirely spurious like WMDs that could be launched at London in 45 minutes were in Iraq. They've got no reason to de-escalate. It's a game of influence for sure, but that works both ways. The gamble was made that Ukraine could be separated from Russia's influence and Russia would just suck it up rather than act. But Russia acted.

At this point they've won. They have zero reason to de-escalate in these circumstances, the status quo is in their favour.

It's not connected. Dalai Lama visits different countries frequently from his Exile in India.

By them being in EU and NATO there is North Atlantic Treaty Organization charter to be upheld. If nato countries don't do that then there is no more nato and also no defense against russia (then soviet union). Russia was the reason that nato was formed after all. Ukraine has only the bad luck that its not in Nato and/or EU.

I guess it's not the russians themselves but a certain kind of establishment, the people in power. With all the voting fraud going on and the poltically motivated law actions effectively handicapping and switching off real opposition, the dependent justice system as well as widespread corruption - the russian people are far away from deciding their own fate and it probably doesn't help to blame them a lot. It may be just Putin's megalomaniac visions which is causing all this (of cause he has a lot of followers as well).

Problem is we cannot let him have it his way because appeasement doesn't work and we are close enough to be affected. But we also cannot fight him, because war is a failure in itself and we are dependent on Russia too. So every possible policy will also look like a very difficult balancing act.

We must just hope that the other side acts reasonable too. However sending troops preparing an annexion is kind of credible threat enough to say that acting of the russian government is irresponsible. Now question is if they are really mad or just bluffing? I guess that was the feeling of cold war all time long which we were happy to not experience for the last 25 years.

There is the saying "desperate times call for desperate measures" and the unusual measures that are taken might indicate that desparate times are indeed present or forthcoming. I don't like it. How can strong lasting peace be achieved?

Russia probably had had enough of broken deals and promises to not expand into Eastern Europe, and enough was enough, they had to act. Crimea was Russian/Soviet until 1954 IIRC, with a majority Russian population, so this isn't exactly like the US invading <insert country of choice>.

That doesn't make it right of course, but lets not pretend Europe or the US hasn't had a play in this. They tried to push their hand once again, and hoped Russia would take on the chin, again, but this time they didn't. Now the US and Europe are p*ssed off, and their media have gone into full-on "Bash Russia Mode".

You're exaggerating somewhat, if Putin really had "megalomaniac visions" he wouldn't just be going for a tiny little peninsula at the bottom of Ukraine, he would be going for the whole thing.

If we put aside the moral vanity, the self-righteousness, and all that, you're left with some hard truth - the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based at Sevastapol, which is only leased to Russia from Ukraine on a very tenuous agreement which is politically fraught, combine that with the fact that majority of Crimea are ethnic Russians or Russian-speakers who on most accounts want to be part of Russia in some way, the fact that Crimea was Russian territory until 1954 when it was given to Ukraine (in the USSR) as a "gift", the fact that the Ukrainian maidan protests were in many respects leaning in anti-Russian directions and were being infiltrated with some nasty elements, put all that together and really Russia was guaranteed to intervene, just put aside the "BUT MY TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY!" melodrama for a second and realize that pretty much any country in the same position as Russia, would of done the same thing.

I'm sorry but I just can't buy criticism from the US on this, the stench of hypocrisy and double-standards is just too great. The same US which not very long ago said basically nothing when Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain to help crush protests there.

Russian were minority until 1944 when Soviet union performed ethnic cleansing on crimea by forcibly deporting Crimean Tatar, Armenian, Bulgarian, and Greek population to Central Asia where about half of them died from hunger and disease. Crimean Tatars were also banned from legally returning to their homeland until the last days of the Soviet Union. Crimea has also only been part of russia from 1783 (when Russia annexed Crimean Khanate) so it's russian history is very short.

Sure one can summon understanding for the situation of the russians on Crimea but I think this part of what you said is crucial. It's still not right. They feel disadvantaged but it doesn't mean that the reaction was adequate or appropriate. The vote will be a farce and not well thought through. It's nothing else but a permanent annexion, if it stays like this. Russia succeeded in making their neighbors also their future firmest enemies with taking the Crimea. It's a big break with past aims and developments. We know from the past that appeasement doesn't work. It's sad but I think we witness a turning point to the worse. It scares me.

Myth about a great Gift passed from one soviet republic to the other is fascinating. It was put under Ukrainian Soviet Republic mainly because it was close, water and elictricity were all (and still are) coming from Ukraine too. And there were actually lots of regions of peninsula with little population, gov't had to stimulate some population income from the north. Let's not forget famine and deportations, which left some lands with little ethnic ukrainians, which were the majority before on current so-called pro-russian eastern parts of Ukraine.

Many of complainers just want to be back not in Russia, but in USSR. That country is dead. Period.

Yeah appeasement has never worked before, The first time this was shown was with nazi germany when they tried to appease hitler. And Russia really does not have any right to be there even if they have in the time of Soviet Union relocated plenty of Russians to Crimea region, afterall they have more or less slaughtered the indigenous population of Crimea.