>>One discussion of the Ukraine since 1991 is at http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/09/underachiever-ukraine-s-economy-since-1991/a1nf?reloadFlag=1
>
>Hosted by a robber baron's foundation? No, thanks.
>
>>Russia fears losing its only significant warm-water naval base at Sevastopol and as a result has taken de facto control of the Crimean Peninsula. They are also ratcheting up both military and economic threats against the country as a whole.
>
>The contract allows them 25000 pairs of boots on both bases (there's an airport as well) and they're still below 15000. What they seem to be doing is driving some trucks between the two locations just to throw some candy to the cameras. Some asset movement on their side of the russo-ukrainian border has happened, some troops are on the move, but that's the usual saber rattling that we've seen so many times around the world. Having 6th fleet in the nearest sea always helps clearing people's minds - well, this is the land version.

I don't imagine the contract allows Russians in the Crimea to disenfranchise or take over Ukrainian military assets.

>>My understanding is Ukrainians are the majority in all parts of the country except Crimea.
>
>It's gradual and mixed up. There are Russians, then there are russian-speaking Ukrainians, then there are Ukrainians, and then the hardcore natives who claim that they are better Russians than Russians, because the northern brethren were historically mixed up with all those asian invaders and have lost most of that slavic mentality, while they themselves are the pure ones. So there are all colors in the picture, but let's simplify it by saying that from the Harkov-Odessa line to the east, it's mostly Russian or at least leaning in that direction.
>
>>Disregarding "protests" in the "Russian" south/east, I have not seen any evidence of counter-revolutionary activity, the deposing of Yanukovich seems to have widespread popular support.
>
>The "revolutionaries" aren't better. Actually, the revolution, if it can be called that, was hijacked. In december, the protests have massed 200-300 thousand people daily. When these have abated during january, they were gradually taken over by several extreme right-wing organizations, with perhaps 30 thousand well equipped (read: armed) and trained street warriors, bent on provoking bloodshed. There's evidence of a few snipers who shot at both sides. The police didn't have orders to shoot, even to defend themselves. There are videos of these right-wing extremists smashing cops' heads with cobblestones, yet the police didn't shoot. That was the time when Yanukovich didn't know what to do, and the orders for counterattack never came.
>
>These guys openly boast of their months of training in various camps, mostly in the east of the country (can't say I heard of any being trained abroad, but that's not entirely excluded). There are a few bands of mercenaries on their side (who's paying?).
>
>So when Timoshenko was released, her speech didn't extract much warmth from the masses - she's as dirty as Yanukovich, if not worse.
>
>Supporting these (borderline?) nazi groups just to spite Russia seems to be the blunder of the same kind and rank as Brzezinsky's alliance with Afghan rebels, which then turned into the taliban later...

Hmm, haven't seen the Kyiv protesters characterized as Nazis, or anything like it, over here. There was media coverage of protesters there taking head and neck shots from snipers. The impression over here was that rather than not knowing what to do about it, Yanukovich unleashed some unaccountable secret police cadre (not the regular police) who were given carte blanche to bash heads. When that didn't work, then he didn't know what to do, so he fled. It seems he is wanted for mass murder.

Over here we're still not hearing of any significant country-wide opposition to Yanukovich's fall.

>>The overall impression is that Ukrainian people want to transition to a (more) Western-style democracy. Russia in general and Putin in particular doesn't want to lose its satrapy. "The West" wants to help "democratic reform".
>
>They already had it. Yanukovich was the third or fourth democratic shift in power. Sure, in a wholesale empoverishment, tycoonization and dismantling of economy (which happens everywhere, but has its extreme forms in the so-called "transition" countries), you can't expect anything resembling an at least half-honest politician (as in "once bought, stays bought"), the stage is reserved only for rough and dirty players. Perhaps after six or seven democratic changes the situation may beget some party which would put state before their own pockets and plan for more than two years ahead, but don't hold your breath.
>
>The trigger for this whole shebang was that Yanukovich promised this shift West, but economy had to come first. With about half of the economy surviving on trade with Russia (including that heavily discounted gas), the EU was supposed to put some substantial carrot on the table. When the proposal came, it consisted of empty promises, no money offered and not a single word sounding like a hint of "membership". The shift turned out to be the shaft. On the other hand, Putin promised 32 billion right away, with just a few stipulations (like "our bases remain on Crimea" and "our contracts should not be void, no matter what EU says"). He made the reasonable choice, but obviously wasn't vocal enough in explaining who offered what and how. And anyway, the machinery was ready to drown whatever he had to say with lots of noise, mostly gun-powder propelled. He was way out of his depth there.

What will Ukraine give up if they accept 32B from Putin?