Neo-Nazis aren't particularly big on intellectual honesty. For one, there are several strains of the disease (Russian examples: monarchists, pagans, Aryan brand-name followers of Hitler, Slavic pan-Russists, "moderate" segregationists, separate-but-equal segregationists, etc.), and individual people change flavors faster than neutrinos. I know a violently anti-Russia Belarusian guy who's very proud of having tricked a Russian sports team to have him on board to participate in (and win) an international event. As in "lolololololol, my victory is going to be preserved in the annals of history forever, no takebacksies". Except, uh, he's listed there as a Russian.

However, they actually make some internal sense at any given moment. See, they think Hitler was either absolutely correct regarding races/nations and their ultimate purpose (a war of extinction) or at least on the right track (a group of "separate but equal" nations exterminating everyone else), and they have to ensure their "race" wins or proves its right to be included in the privileged group with other purebred "races".

Hmm, a succesful uprising and the Ukranian opposition siezing control seems very slim to me, not as long as Putin is leader of Russia.
But yes if both camps are large enough and willing to go to the extreme this might as well spiral out of control and end up in bloody war.

An analysis by a former Canadian ambassador whom I've found generally has good insights on things like this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-the-west-and-vladimir-putin-failed-ukraine-1.2543937

He focuses on the political element, but it isn't difficult to see how it relates to the social, economic, and nationalist ones. Unfortunately, this isn't the kind of thing that has a quick or clean solution.

Well, I don´t think it applies to me, but just to put things clear: I´ve mentioned STALKER in a sincere way, demostrating that conficlt interest me since I care for Ukraine, which I reached knowlodge by the game. In any moment was a bad pun or sarcasm content, and I doubt monkeydelarge did something in this way too. That was spoken in most innocent way.

Recent changes are roll back to constitution before 2004. It was not changed, in 2010 the Constitutional Court just ruled that the amendments 2004 were null and void. So Ukraine before 2004 was like Belarus? It was sarcasm. I am referencing to US because US is the presidential republic (like Belarus:)), in which president have more power than in the semi-presidential republic like Ukraine now. A system of government is not a silver bullet, which solves all problems. Far from it. O, you can sleep well, Ukraine ruled by a group of people, not Yanukovych. How such clown can be viewed as dictator? Well, Stalin's constitution was very democratic. It was so helpful.:(
So point is a system of government or a constitution do not solve problems by themselves. A former Canadian ambassador who has good insights forget some tiny details like while EU offer advises and the closer economic relationship Putin give billions to save Ukraine from default.

Its pretty hard to be pro-russia or pro-ukrainian goverment, considering what they're doing....

Just look at the way russian reporters are portraying the situation - the protestors even went as far as to go to the place they broadcast from and start protesting against the false portrayal of the situation (the reporters are making them look like fascists / nazis).

I dont like the russian goverment. Just take a look at what happened in Georgia, or the goverment making bombings in their own country, setting it up as if it was Chechens doing (you know the reporter Anna Politkovskaya? well, she got killed because of speaking the truth; and there is a lot of other cases like that - eg. poisoning of Yushchenko - they don't fuck around when it comes to 'taking care' of people they dont like).

I believe you are misreading something in my post. I don't know what situation was in 2004 in regards to constitution.. The only thing i know is about recent changes. Drastic changes which increased the power of the president and reduced freedom to demonstrate. that's not a correct way for the country to go and if corrupted opposition goes to power they might be forced to remove those changes.
and before 2004 changes to constitution ukraine was not in great shape was it. it was not belarus but it didn't fare that well hence why orange revolution happened. going back to 2004 means a step back.

and you are right. problems of ukraine are deep can't be fixed with one thing or another. i can't comment on that as i don't have enough knowledge on political and economical situation of Ukraine. therefore i reserve my comment to criticism of recent changes and current action of government and opposition.

At the risk of sounding dismissive, I find this thread an interesting phenomena in itself. There's worse, and closer to a civil war, currently happening in the Central African Republic.

Now, for more background on the Ukrainian situation, I'll leave this link.
http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-diary/protesters-lviv-raise-stakes-ukraines-crisis

Clearly the situation escalated, and in the short term I don't see this escalation changing anything for the better, and low chances of the protestors winning what they desire.

I also don't think non-violent approach by protestors would have led to their victory. So I admit at least in propaganda and timing they grabbed the opportunity and are - through luck and/or skill, but for sure paying in blood - making the most of it.

In the long term who knows what may come out of it.

That it certain.

There already was a peaceful revolution in Ukraine - so called 'Orange Revolution', we can see how that turned out...

[there was a brief change, and now back to the regular russian bs, they're not gonna give up their zone of influence that easily]

Yanukovych is the same guy who was opposed to the 'orange revolution', and who lost at that time.

Now he's back, and look what's happening.

Sure there is a lot of bs in the media, but it is important to remember that dissmissing everything they say is just as bad as blindly believing in it.

There's a bigger picture here, and I urge everyone who thinks all this anti-russia etc talk is bs, to actually inform themselves a little bit more before finally dismissing all of it, calling it disgutsting propaganda.

So far one of the things the anti-Yanukovych types did that I support completely was start tearing down the pro-communist statues. Currently I tend to lean in favor of the demonstrators and opposition even though the EU agreement is crap as people mentioned already but this doesn't seem like an EU vs. Russia conflict as already stated.

That being said, I tend to support the Ukrainian nationalists and they don't come across as neo-Nazis for the most part since their main demands have included energy independence, right to own and carry weaponry, the destruction of pro-communist statues, and national sovereignty some of which the neo-Nazis might agree with but that doesn't make the nationalists automatically National Socialists.

All I wonder right now is who will come into office if Yanukovych gets assassinated or exiled. Hopefully one that will reject both partnership deals and I say this since many of these deals have less to do with actual trade and more to do with control.

No, pretty much everything I've seen in the way of impartial analysis says that the unrest is mainly about (bad) governance and corruption within Ukraine itself. There are certainly other factors, but arguments about Russia and the EU (among other things) are more symptom than cause.

Corruption and bad governance? Well, guess on whose side is this president (Yanukowych) ? Russian.

Guess against whom he was during the orange revolution? Against the people, pro status quo.

Guess who poisoned Yushchenko, who won against Yanukovych back then (russian intelligence).

So yeah, Russia simply loves to interfere in order to promote their interests (not that its a lot different than the USA which has a long history of helping abolish / sustain / establish various dictatorships / governments, depending on what suits them better).

Same thing is happening on Venezuela :(

That's the thing though: the impression I'm getting from the more thoughtful coverage is that the unrest wouldn't be erupting right now if the decision to align with Russia rather than the EU was seen as being "by the people, for the people", or at least "for the good of the nation", but the decision in this case (and in pretty much every other matter up to this point) is seen as being "by Mr. Yanukowych for the good of Mr. Yanukowych and his cronies", and that - along with the recognition that the opposition parties aren't any better and the expectation that the EU agreement would force political reform on an establishment that is otherwise unlikely to allow it (except perhaps to make things even worse) - is why the discontent has finally boiled over.