Oh. According. To President Putin. In case. Russian army. Would take role in the action. It (army) will stand "not in front, but behind of woman and children". Dunno how to say it more clear, of course he's not in command of Ucrainian army yet.

it is the result of failures in the past. Usually you would anticipate such events and enable a more civil form (like the planned independence of Scotland or more autonomy or whatever) of dealing with it. Invading, a rushed fearful vote, no minority rights... this is not the optimal solution.

But what are the alternatives:
- more self defense forces on Crimea defending the Ukrainians there (Ukrainian forces) or the Tartars (international forces): this would lead to war (who wants that?)
- economic sanctions until a better solution is accepted: already done or threatened to do and will of course mean that the overall wealth of all involved decreases (much better would be a compromise)
- diplomatic negotiations (if successfull would be the best) but are very difficult because points of view differ greatly

So yes, occupation/liberation (however you want to see it) of Crimea will likely continue. And what if under the new regime minorities like Ukrainians or Tartars are mistreated? Chances are quite high (my estimation) for that.

Russia quite gained some ranks in the international badass competition here. They did more than what was justified and they did it by force. They will pay a price for it, I'm sure. But in the end we all pay a price for not being more clever before. And in the worst case we all pay a very big price. It's a difficult situation now. Appeasement doesn't work and screaming war doesn't either. So the best answer must be firm and soft at the same time.

I personally lost trust in the politics of Russia. I feel they are now more a danger than an opportunity to work together.

The most interesting question is probably not what happens this week or next week, but this year or the years that follow.

"Nobody caring" took years to sort out. Some debates managed to last up to this day, even after all the inspections, inquiries and stuff. And I'm actually surprised I have to remind about the information war waged back then.
"You're the king? Well, I didn't vote for you!" (MPatHG)
Do we paint all Germans evil for what happened in the previous century? If you met an American, say, in a cafe in St. Petersburgh, would you immediately ask him why he invaded Iraq? I don't believe we judge a person solely by him/her being a member of a certain group/ethnicity/whatever. It's never that simple

I was a little surprised when I found this article though. I'm curious about your opinions on the topic. Do those claims seem plausible to you or do you think that all of this is utter bul... lies?

On a side note: it's actually fun to read some of the western sites; gives me a fraction of understanding where all the apocalyptic moods here stem from. No, seriously, how can one remain calm when it's Cold War all over again, Russian bear cavalry is amassed in Crimea and a Kirov airship was sighted near the Turkish border. :-p

I believe that's about as balanced an article that you'd see from either the US or UK. I mentioned in a previous post that the UK media is barely reporting on developments in Kiev and Crimean regions. The BBC is the worst culprit of biased reporting and it's almost had the adverse effect.

That's exactly the reason why I was so surprised when I found it. After reading a whole bunch of more or less typical comments from western politicians, I didn't expect to come across something like this.
And that made me all the more curious what those who discuss the current situation in this thread would think of this. Would they dismiss that point of view altogether or would they agree that it's never as simple as we are told by the "public people"?

You perfectly understand what im talked about, there is some prejustice based on actions of nations. Usually they are generalized, and not have some certain guy as target, unless tensions between sides are really high.

Article as article, really puzzled to get any exitement or something about it. One from numerous "US started to discredit the international agreements first, so its fair to have a backfire for them from other side". With usual forgetfulness spell about what US wasnt first in the world history to discredit such agreements, and what this backfire will serve US very good way, as will even more untie a hands in the future. With "i dont want govt spend my taxpayer money on stuff i dont want" salt. Its entirely fair from the neutral side, one big country do whatewher it wants, so other can surely do too. The only problem what Russia is unable to do the same bad things with style, so looks as much more abomination than US now. From neutral side its ok, from side of Russia - no, as US regain its "good side" status its badly lost in recent years. They won ww2, and have a great chances to win ww3 via same scenario.

Bear cavalry etc. Check the losses of personnel and technic in Ossetia. And take into account what Georgians was lured and left alone versus vastly outnumbering side. Youll see what it wasnt so "small and victorous" as it trying to bo posed here. Oppositely, in some aspects it was a real shame.

First, there's an amazing level of apathy in the UK. People seem either afraid of offending or are in the mindset of "if it's not on my front doorstep, I don't care".

I can only refer to my group of acquaintances who are all very cynical of Western media and the political motivations of each. Of course, there are some exceptional journalists as well but it feels like you need to sift through the crap to obtain a balanced opinion.

I wouldn't dismiss it entirely. After all, spies are spies and politicians are politicians, no matter which country you look at. However, I certainly would question about how much influence the western side actually had. As much or more as the Russian side? Sorry, but no - I don't see the great western conspiracy / plot against Russia here.

Now you act as if Russia never had nor tried to influence Ukrainian politics and their direction - something which is pretty much proven as "the norm" for decades. How much the other side tried or even succeeded doing so during a longer timespan, is at best questionable.
And yes, sending troops into a country to "protect" people that aren't in danger, looks a lot more abominational then the US sending troops into Afghanistan or Iraq - even though at least the second one (rightfully) never came without at least a bad smell to it.
Turning away / not letting in neutral parties like a international group like the OSCE, just reinforces that impression.

You got me completely wrong, probably due to my bad english skillz. All i meant is what Russia pretended to have some positive agenda for a long time, opposing to West "false-positive agenda, what is just a curtain for agressive acts". And now its entirely obvious what Russia's agenda is at least equally false. And its bad for Russia, and good for US. We had a puppet govt in Ukraine (maybe you dont know, our orgranisation for "messing" in theyr country wasnt a spy agency, but our analogue of FBI, somthing what manage a domestic affairs), now we lost it, and feel cheated, so look at other examples of cheats to justify it. And well, the "bad smell" is huge enough, but if you follow this logic - its negative selection, whats is very non-productive in result. And from neutral side (say from Alpha Centaury), difference between those 2 sides are so slightly, so they could be dropped, if we didnt want to do some extremally deep study. Hope i managed to do it more clear now.

Thank you for the input. It's really interesting what people's reactions are when "mass-media battles" rage all over the I-net.
I won't question degrees of involvement of special services of USA/Russia/whoever simply because I have no data (like, you know, documents, photos/audios) on their activities in Ukraine. I do have a vivid imagination and therefore can imagine a lot of things, but I'll wait for history to sort it out.
"the great western conspiracy / plot against Russia", hmm. An interesting choice of words. Technically the US/NATO/EU/<insert your favorite side here> doesn't plot against anyone, they merely plan with their best interests in mind. Sometimes their interests clash with someone else's. What exactly happened here only time (and a good deal of investigators/unbiased journalists/Snowdens) will reveal. However, from some of the articles in western mass-media (and some posts in this thread) one could get an... interesting impression: "There was an independent state of Ukraine, it minded its own business, so nobody touched it. Its people decided that the president was a crook so they peacefully protested until he ordered to shoot them and fled to Russia. And when those peaceful people appointed their own government and just wanted to move on with their lives, evil Russia invaded their country". Meh.
I wish it all was that simple...

If you will remove words describing mere facts from it, and leave only journalist's opinion to discuss - youll get in result - "they claim what its was independent, while its not true" - doesnt change anytthing, as officially they are independent, and if we will sceptically say "there is no real independency in real world" - ok, true, even less problem then.
- "peacesful people, they really call it such way still?" - the fact they care about here is theyr position in global scale, those peaceful people didnt made a statement yet what they overthrown a govt, just because it cruelly prevented them from started a holy war versus US, EU or Zimbabwe, and now they will finally fulfill theyr goal. So obviously they see them as peaceful.
- maybe also "evil Russia", impossible to get without original context, could be a "Russia, what now act openly evil", or "Russia, what we knew what is evil dropped the disguise, etc" - its mostly wording here i think, and some source of pride for some "analytics", who had theyr "prophecies" looks valid. Those people can have theyr minute of glory too afterall, why not.

Now add the previously removed facts back and see if those "biased opinions" really matters that much.

Sad thing is history won't sort anything out. It is written by victors, and as the time passes, the truth is buried ever more deeper until the lies become the truth itself. These are sad times, which reveal only one thing - mankind doesn't change.

I read today that among the options offered on the upcoming vote on Crimea the option to stay in the Ukraine is missing. Not sure if this is true. But to me it sounds like an obvious option that must be present. The vote simply is a farce and not worth a democratic process. And that I can say apart from any political motivations.

But now I think that Crimea is lost for the Ukraine. Russia and the separatists on Crimea used the moment of weakness and seized their opportunity. Without the invasion from the Russian troops it would probably never have worked. They risked war and calculated only that the other side wouldn't want it.

But it's not worth to fight over it. Let them have it but do not forget - I say. The other neigbours including the remaining Ukraine will probably move together faster now. That's the price.

Maybe the non-russian minorities on Crimea will get into trouble now. But they are on their own. Bad luck that they are on the wrong side of history.

Its true.