Replies

you are both right and wrong. Yanukowych was freely elected and was tossed out by a people's movement (not a coup) which in strict legal terms, was illegal and not the view of the majority of the electorate

BUT, Y was a symptom of the deep divide in the Ukraine with the east and south consistently voting pro-Russia candidates and the North-west consistently voting others. This matches evenly the linguistic split (Russian-speaking and Ukrainian-speaking)

What we are witnessing is the creation of a nation -- Ukraine, in the west and northern parts of current Ukraine.

There is no real ethnic difference between Russians, Ukrainians or Belarussians. Linguistically also, the languages are more or less comprehensible to each other with nearly everyone there speaking Russia thanks to centuries of Tsarist and soviet rule.

As I described above, Russia is a continuation, in my mind, of the Mongol empire merged with it's own spiritual sense as an heir to the Byzantine Empire. Ukraine and Belarus had no chances to differentiate their sense of nationhood -- they were surrounded by or penetrated by strong cultural entities -- Muscowy, Poland, Germans and Jews. They never stood a chance. Whenever they tried to rise up, either they shot themselves in the foot (see the Cossack pledge to the tsar) or were crushed mercilessly

Western Ukraine can be a real "Ruthenia" but it will be a Ukraine of Banderas, it will be right-wing in the fascist and anti-semitic sense -- why do I say anti-Semitic when they have so few Jews? Because Jews are the eternal bogeyman since Tsarist times.

Western Ukraine will force people to only speak Ukrainian, will cut off it's Church from Moscow and will be stridently (and I hope not, but may be violently) anti-Russian.

Russia is creating the Ukrainian nation by giving them "the other"

To answer the big question -- "should the US intervene or not" -- my belief is that there should be a move to split Ukraine in return for Russia to get the land in the east and south.

Is it a "good" option -- NO. But it is the only real option. The US can not and will not be involved so close to the Russian heartland. It cannot send in troops, it cannot send in weapons. It can help with money, but Ukraine is so chronically endebted to Russia and so unable to develop itself (it's industries are in the Donbas, in rebel held lands) that it is an utterly lost cause -- AND REMEMBER, these are people without a strong national identity, YET, so these hopeless odds are made more hopeless (this would not be the same if, I don't know, Korea were threatened)

Partition the country as per the election polls in 2010

or in 2004