Putin puts troops in western Russia on alert in drill 1.1

[Deleted]

It's not in Russia's power to allow or disallow what happens in a neighboring country.

The joke of it is that people like you keep insisting it is.

But more likely there will be no peacekeeping force. Ukraine will annihilate the astroturfed rebellion (as well they should), and Russia will pretend it was some crime against humanity (and otherwise do nothing), thus giving Vladmir Putin the exit he has been looking for in a conflict he charged into without thinking about.

This is what people like you always miss.... NATO works by consensus among the allies (allies who often disagree). It's discisions require unanimous consent. When it does something, that is because all member states agreed to it. If Ukraine invites NATO in and NATO agrees, that's an action done on the bases of this consent. That is how it should work.

What you're proposing is coercion. That Russia gets to do something because Russia has Russian interests. Well tough luck. Or is it not clear enough yet that this line of reasoning has no currency in 2014. Exactly how isolated does Russia have to become before you understand?

If DPR and LPR invite Russian forces and the Russian Federation agrees, that's an action done on the bases of this consent. Alright. Thanks for clarifying.

Coercion? What Ukraine does right now, thinking about stopping the gas as one of their "sanctions" (I wonder who told them to do that, Europeans certainly didn't) is nothing but coercion. Europeans talk with them about the reverse flow and they do "our friends behind the pond told us to stop the gas, so we can use it as a leverage against Europeans, so they help us end this war fast or they're without gas", they can go fuck themselves.

[Gangresnake]

Have you been to Chechnya? Propably not. It was the alpha project for creating a new muslim state (ISIS-like) on Russia territory. Most of the terrorists were brainwashed in Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, Georgia training camps. I guess there should be no secret who were behind the scene

- - - Updated - - -

It was essentially a republic trying to get independance, and Russia pretty clearly stated that the right to territorial integrity was above the right to self-determination, which is understandable. Too bad their stance changed abruptly with Crimea and East-Ukraine.
The fact you imply the US was "behind the scene" show your ignorance, since the Chechens have been almost unanimously condemned for their abuses, including by the US. So much for that evil west plotting against Russia.

[malgin]

It was essentially a republic trying to get independance, and Russia pretty clearly stated that the right to territorial integrity was above the right to self-determination, which is understandable. Too bad their stance changed abruptly with Crimea and East-Ukraine.
The fact you imply the US was "behind the scene" show your ignorance, since the Chechens have been almost unanimously condemned for their abuses, including by the US. So much for that evil west plotting against Russia.

Hah, as I said when your kind have no facts you starting with personal insulting but as we all know 'an uneasy conscience betrays itself'. Nobody wants strong Russia so US and allies use all methods they can to seize the country. If you deny this you either blind or paid (or something else).

[Cybran]

The fact you imply the US was "behind the scene" show your ignorance, since the Chechens have been almost unanimously condemned for their abuses, including by the US. So much for that evil west plotting against Russia.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/08/usa.russia

This harshness towards Putin is perhaps explained by the fact that, in the US, the leading group which pleads the Chechen cause is the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC). The list of the self-styled "distinguished Americans" who are its members is a rollcall of the most prominent neoconservatives who so enthusastically support the "war on terror".

They include Richard Perle, the notorious Pentagon adviser; Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame; Kenneth Adelman, the former US ambassador to the UN who egged on the invasion of Iraq by predicting it would be "a cakewalk"; Midge Decter, biographer of Donald Rumsfeld and a director of the rightwing Heritage Foundation; Frank Gaffney of the militarist Centre for Security Policy; Bruce Jackson, former US military intelligence officer and one-time vice-president of Lockheed Martin, now president of the US Committee on Nato; Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, a former admirer of Italian fascism and now a leading proponent of regime change in Iran; and R James Woolsey, the former CIA director who is one of the leading cheerleaders behind George Bush's plans to re-model the Muslim world along pro-US lines.

The ACPC heavily promotes the idea that the Chechen rebellion shows the undemocratic nature of Putin's Russia, and cultivates support for the Chechen cause by emphasising the seriousness of human rights violations in the tiny Caucasian republic. It compares the Chechen crisis to those other fashionable "Muslim" causes, Bosnia and Kosovo - implying that only international intervention in the Caucasus can stabilise the situation there. In August, the ACPC welcomed the award of political asylum in the US, and a US-government funded grant, to Ilyas Akhmadov, foreign minister in the opposition Chechen government, and a man Moscow describes as a terrorist. Coming from both political parties, the ACPC members represent the backbone of the US foreign policy establishment, and their views are indeed those of the US administration.

He is correct. Neocons have been key supporters to the Islamists in Chechnya and Degestan. Thank them for the Boston bombers.

[Morry]

It was essentially a republic trying to get independance, and Russia pretty clearly stated that the right to territorial integrity was above the right to self-determination, which is understandable. Too bad their stance changed abruptly with Crimea and East-Ukraine.

Incorrect. Chechnya got its independance and kept it until the end of 2nd war.

[Gangresnake]

Hah, as I said when your kind have no facts you starting with personal insulting but as we all know 'an uneasy conscience betrays itself'. Nobody wants strong Russia so US and allies use all methods they can to seize the country. If you deny this you either blind or paid (or something else).

I didnt insult you, I just pointed out you were wrong, and why you were wrong.

Neocons might have supported the chechens but their influence clearly wasnt enough because ultimately the US gov condemned them.

Incorrect. Chechnya got its independance and kept it until the end of 2nd war.

Russia actually never recognized their independance. Chechnya just happened to "get" their de-facto independance because Russia lost the first war, and then lost it the next decade because Russia won this time.
So in the end my point still stand, before Crimea and East-Ukraine, Russia used to put Territorial integrity above the right to self-determination.

[Talen]

And not so long ago like half a year ago there was one more solution - diplomacy, offered by Russia from the very beginning.

Russian diplomacy was for Kiev to effectively surrender control of its Eastern provinces.

What Putin should have done would be to accept that his puppet had lost, and then continue to do what it was doing - use its gas as a lever to get what it wanted. Just as its done before.

Instead, he pulled a reckless stunt that initiated a series of events that is harming Russia a lot more than most realise. He has turned a relatively friendly Ukraine into an enemy, Russias economy is in trouble, and hes making deals with other nations from a position of weakness - Chinas deal with Russia is an example. The Chinese got a GREAT deal there. Russia? Less so

While many did not like Putin and his policies, the way he reforged Russia at least ensured a degree of respect. But from the first, he has utterly mishandled the situation in Ukraine, and it is his people and the Ukrainians who are going to pay the price for his surprising ineptitude.

EJL

[Elim Garak]

Russian diplomacy was for Kiev to effectively surrender control of its Eastern provinces.

No, it's a blatant lie. Russian diplomacy was to negotiate the terms of Ukraine joining the EU that would be beneficial for Russia as well. EU said no. Then Russia made a counter offer to Ukraine that was better than EU offer. Ukraine chose Russian offer. EU topped the Ukrainian government and civil war broke out.

[Shalcker]

Russian diplomacy was for Kiev to effectively surrender control of its Eastern provinces.

No, it was to start TALKING with those provinces and try to reach some kind of compromise. But Kiev didn't want to talk with "terrorists"; so easy to say "screw diplomacy" if you can declare all who doesn't agree with you terrorists or Russian agents and ignore their legitimate pleas.

What Putin should have done would be to accept that his puppet had lost, and then continue to do what it was doing - use its gas as a lever to get what it wanted. Just as its done before.

And that's exactly what he was doing. Gas lever, Ukrainian food and industry exports lever, recent closure of Russian Airspace to Ukrainian companies, and many more.

At the same time rebels supported by more radical parts of Russian population still held Ukrainian East because Ukrainian army is in awful state not fit to fight even ragtag rebels. To dislodge them for Russia would mean putting their own military there, and Kiev is afraid of that much more.

Instead, he pulled a reckless stunt that initiated a series of events that is harming Russia a lot more than most realise. He has turned a relatively friendly Ukraine into an enemy,

It wasn't "relatively friendly" at least since first Maidan.

Russias economy is in trouble,

As is European.

and hes making deals with other nations from a position of weakness - Chinas deal with Russia is an example. The Chinese got a GREAT deal there. Russia? Less so

And that is simply delusional. It's a deal that is great for both parties, and price range is well within what was expected - there were no special concessions made due to perceived "weakness".

While many did not like Putin and his policies, the way he reforged Russia at least ensured a degree of respect. But from the first, he has utterly mishandled the situation in Ukraine, and it is his people and the Ukrainians who are going to pay the price for his surprising ineptitude.

So far his handling of situation in Ukraine is giving him ratings that are higher then ever even by "oppositional" polling organizations. Which means your perception has no basis in Russia.

[Gangresnake]

No, it was to start TALKING with those provinces and try to reach some kind of compromise. But Kiev didn't want to talk with "terrorists"; so easy to say "screw diplomacy" if you can declare all who doesn't agree with you terrorists or Russian agents and ignore their legitimate pleas.

Putin didnt look for any compromise, when the situation was unstable his first action was to invade and annex Crimea, undermining Kiev's authority before any elections happened, creating the separatists movement in East Ukraine and supporting them further, escalating the conflict.

Now tell me, why would Ukraine look for a compromise here ?

[Ravenblade]

No, it's a blatant lie. Russian diplomacy was to negotiate the terms of Ukraine joining the EU that would be beneficial for Russia as well. EU said no. Then Russia made a counter offer to Ukraine that was better than EU offer. Ukraine chose Russian offer. EU topped the Ukrainian government and civil war broke out.

Troy stood steadfast. Then Turkey sent a horse. Then Troy fell.
You see I can tell interesting stories as well and it's almost correct.

EU lost influence the moment some people decided that rejecting the EU's offer especially after years of cooperation. The EU's only fault was basically that they pokered too high by demanding freeing of Timoshenko as well, a move she herself was actually willing to forego. The association agreement might have gone through without it no problem, close but no problem. However to blame them for everything following after would require a distinctive and repeatable causal relation. They actually tried to mediate a peace after things escalated which actually established an agreement which was quickly ignored and denied by the more radical protesters. After that it developed its own dynamics. Could the EU have done more in distancing themselves from the more radical factions and moves? Without a single doubt, yes, but they were possible more afraid in creating more destabilization that they ignored everything from top to bottom which had a questionable nature and were only touched like Urmas Paet's inquiry into the Maidan shootings. However saying they outright toppled the Ukrainian government is as true as saying Putin shot down a civilian airliner. It is a fairly loaded statement.

[Elim Garak]

Troy stood steadfast. Then Turkey sent a horse. Then Troy fell.
You see I can tell interesting stories as well and it's almost correct.

Funny but irrelevant.

EU was offered a valid solution to the problem, they denied it. The rest is on their hands. They were shortsighted. They didn't understand the problem, and they rejected the advice of the only expert on that problem. Their tries to mediate a peace after hell broke loose is a solid proof of that. They were offered a peaceful solution before shit hit the fan.

[Shalcker]

Putin didnt look for any compromise, when the situation was unstable his first action was to invade and annex Crimea,

His first reaction was to make sure nothing happened in Crimea and set up situations where they could have talks with Kiev without having Right Sector squads rolling in to Sevastopol to threaten protests.

But Kiev said "OMG, talk?! No-no!!! Mobilization!!! Where is our military?! To arms!!!" ...and that hilariously failed and shown how both impotent and unwilling to compromise they are, and ALSO shown they do not actually have power to squash protests which led to escalation in Eastern Ukraine.

After that Crimeans said "Screw Kiev, we're going back to Russia!", and Russia said "Okay!".

undermining Kiev's authority before any elections happened,

Authority they didn't had as their coup was highly illegal according to Ukrainian laws. Check polls linked a few pages back to see how much "authority" people in Donetsk and Lugansk thought they had after Maidan; situation was even worse in Crimea for Kiev.

creating the separatists movement in East Ukraine

Which at that point was fully Ukrainian; and before they escalated was largely peaceful.

and supporting them further, escalating the conflict.

All escalation of conflict was done by Kiev. They were the ones who undermined their power by not following social contract of Ukrainian laws.

Now tell me, why would Ukraine look for a compromise here ?

Because they could skip entire disastrous civil war with minor concessions? Now they already lost more people then USSR lost in all their years in Afghanistan in just a few months of fighting...

And i wouldn't be surprised to see military coup in Kiev this year regardless of them winning or losing in Eastern Ukraine.

[Gangresnake]

His first reaction was to make sure nothing happened in Crimea and set up situations where they could have talks with Kiev without having Right Sector squads rolling in to Sevastopol to threaten protests.

But Kiev said "OMG, talk?! No-no!!! Mobilization!!! Where is our military?! To arms!!!" ...and that hilariously failed and shown how both impotent and unwilling to compromise they are, and ALSO shown they do not actually have power to squash protests which led to escalation in Eastern Ukraine.

Authority they didn't had as their coup was highly illegal according to Ukrainian laws.

Which at that point was fully Ukrainian; and before they escalated was largely peaceful.

All escalation of conflict was done by Kiev. As did "undermining their authority" - check polls linked a few pages back to see how much "authority" people in Donetsk and Lugansk thought they had after Maidan.

Because they could skip entire disastrous civil war with minor concessions? Now they already lost more people then USSR lost in all their years in Afghanistan in just a few months of fighting...

Make sure nothing happened to Crimea ? Then he failed because it got annexed by shady green men.
You're projecting, there was never gonna be any talk about Crimea, Putin was gonna take it no matter what and Kiev had to mobilize the military to make sure he wouldnt take anything more, which he didnt.

Maidan or "the coup" isnt the tipping point. Crimea is.
Elections were already on the schedule and the general opinion toward Russia wasnt bad. It would have been very possible to have a new pro-russian President in a stable country.
But Putin said no, and Crimea happened, and that's when Russia cut the relationship with Ukraine.

Crimea was a compromise. They were invaded and yet didnt fire back, probably thinking it was the price to pay to gain time and stabilize the country. Bad luck, it sparked the east ukraine conflict. It's not something they could avoid. It's something that was imposed to them.
When Porochenko got elected he offered the rebels to end the war, there was no response.
I think Ukraine did enough compromise for this decade, they have the right to want an end to this.

[Talen]

No, it was to start TALKING with those provinces and try to reach some kind of compromise

Compromise - in his terms - being federalisation of the nation to the point the provinces could dictate their own treaties with "foreign" nations.

That's not a solution any nation would accept.

And that's exactly what he was doing. Gas lever, Ukrainian food and industry exports lever, recent closure of Russian Airspace to Ukrainian companies, and many more.

Putins first move was to tell his soliders to take their insignia off their caps, invade Crimea by having them pretend to be "concerned locals", blockade the Ukrainian army and navy and then hold rigged elections to justfiy an illegal annexation and the abrogation of a Treaty Russia signed recognising Ukraines borders.

In doing so, he showed Russia doesn't honor its Treaty obligations, promoted nuclear proliferation by highlighting that Russia will not respect the borders and national integrity of nations without them, and stoked the fires of Russian nationalism to the point his options today are very limited.

It wasn't "relatively friendly" at least since first Maidan.

Noone at Maidan advocated cutting off ties with Russia. What they wanted was stronger ties with the EU. One does not exclude the other.

As is European.

Maybe...but the Russian economy is bad and getting worse. And sanctions aren't meant to hurt your own people more.

And that is simply delusional. It's a deal that is great for both parties, and price range is well within what was expected - there were no special concessions made due to perceived "weakness".

He got a price for the gas that isn't much more than the price it takes to produce it. That he expected the Chinese to drive for such a price isn't something he should take comfort in.

So far his handling of situation in Ukraine is giving him ratings that are higher then ever even by "oppositional" polling organizations. Which means your perception has no basis in Russia.

Ratings? How will his ratings look when Russia goes into recession and people start losing jobs? When the sanctions HE imposed strips Russia shops of food? When the people realise that Crimea is going to cost them billions to support? When his polices start to cause inflation to rise?

His options are already being limited by the nationalism he stoked.

EJL

[Ravenblade]

Funny but irrelevant.

EU was offered a valid solution to the problem, they denied it. The rest is on their hands. They were shortsighted. They didn't understand the problem, and they rejected the advice of the only expert on that problem. Their tries to mediate a peace after hell broke loose is a solid proof of that. They were offered a peaceful solution before shit hit the fan.

Well, the Ukrainian government could have as well delayed the agreement in order to settle the last issue regarding Tymoshenko which was basically her release and treatment abroad. But they have been through this once without conclusion. This was an ongoing issue since a long time. Interestingly enough she was offered treatment in Germany and Russia all the same in 2012 yet Ukraine rejected both(!) offers. There was this option to treat her where she was with accommodations provided by the Ukrainian administration effectively still leaving her imprisoned but they were more determined to physically punish her as well as having her serve her time. It was never picked up proving that this was part of the plan.

In the end due to pressure from ECHR and the EU especially her German doctor she was offered to be treated abroad but Ukrainian govt. was not actually willing to let go of their most favourite political prisoner. I mean she even realized it herself that she was only being used as option for a legit 'No' from her captors and was willing to forego that option, rather stay and let the agreement go through. The EU however wasn't willing to martyrize people just so they could get what they want and didn't drop it from the list. As a result the Ukrainian government used up their option for saying 'no' especially with the dangling carrot of a hefty lump sum of money in front of them Russia and suddenly decided for a three-way trade commission like the dealing with the EU of the past were just "about trade" which in truth was there but ongoing programmes with the EU like the vocational reforms and support of pro-transparency groups prove that they have not understood the nature of association agreements at all. It was also a sounding slap in the face of those worked for years on that on both sides.

Blaming the EU for their poker game is one thing, dismissing their position which was at that time not entirely the same one which the US was taking (remember that Nuland fauxpas?) is another. The previous governments were not saints, they were masters of stalling, delaying and sitting out things. The people who went to the initial protests on Nov 21st knew that, heck even the Russians knew that and they counted on it.

If the association agreement would have been an ad hoc one which just had come up say on November 20th and they had written down the terms on a napkin while on dinner then, yes, rejection of the equally ad hoc "three-way trade commission" would have been understandable. If they had concerns from the beginning which they were in their rights to have they should have just rejected the whole idea from the beginning and not been playing cat and mouse for years. You could say there should have been an initiative from all three sides but every side was just playing games until the Ukrainian government decided it's their time to score a full house and cherrypicking the best option at the wrong time. I mean in normal trade you have the option to take advices, read the terms and then make a decision, they basically mixed up the whole order. No, I don't think just blaming the EU solely is a right thing to do here, every side played their part in this and there were a lot of mistakes made. The dynamics resulting from this was surely not foreseen by any of the parties otherwise none would have made the decisions they had made.

[Shalcker]

Make sure nothing happened to Crimea ? Then he failed because it got annexed by shady green men.

It was declared independent by locals in their referendum, then asked for accession into Russian Federation (move also widely supported judging by polls). At no point did "green men" annexed it.

You're projecting, there was never gonna be any talk about Crimea, Putin was gonna take it no matter what and Kiev had to mobilize the military to make sure he wouldnt take anything more, which he didnt.

You're the one projecting here and skewing timeline. Every time we offered to talk and parties actually agreed to talk we indeed talked. This time we offered to talk, Kiev tried to mobilize and refused to talk, Crimeans shifted their referendum date to March from May (they wanted it to coincide with president elections initially), independence, accession.

If we would "take Crimea no matter what" it could be done long ago. There WERE other options on the table if Kiev would want to compromise. They didn't - well, their loss.

Maidan or "the coup" isnt the tipping point. Crimea is.

For Western powers sure... they got a bit too used to one-sided actions, so response to them comes as shock.

Elections were already on the schedule and the general opinion toward Russia wasnt bad. It would have been very possible to have a new pro-russian President in a stable country.

No, not really.

When Porochenko got elected he offered the rebels to end the war, there was no response.

His offer to end war was "surrender immediately" - such a compelling proposition, yeah.
Rebel response was "withdraw your forces and let's talk then".

I think Ukraine did enough compromise for this decade, they have the right to want an end to this.

They should not be surprised though that if they are uncompromising so will their "enemies".

[Gangresnake]

It was declared independent by locals in their referendum, then asked for accession into Russian Federation (move also widely supported judging by polls). At no point did "green men" annexed it.

You're the one projecting here and skewing timeline. Every time we offered to talk and parties actually agreed to talk we indeed talked. This time we offered to talk, Kiev tried to mobilize and refused to talk, Crimeans shifted their referendum date to March from May (they wanted it to coincide with president elections initially), independence, accession.

If we would "take Crimea no matter what" it could be done long ago. There WERE other options on the table if Kiev would want to compromise. They didn't - well, their loss.

For Western powers sure... they got a bit too used to one-sided actions, so response to them comes as shock.

No, not really.

His offer to end war was "surrender immediately" - such a compelling proposition, yeah.
Rebel response was "withdraw your forces and let's talk then".

They should not be surprised though that if they are uncompromising so will their "enemies".

It was occupied, then annexed by Russia after a referendum asking them if they:
Want to leave Ukraine/Want to join Russia. Get your facts straight, it was a landgrab.

You never offered to talk during Crimea, because according to Putin, there was no Russians soldiers in Crimea, and you actually believed it despite the overwhelming evidence. Then he said he lied and you didnt mind because that's part of abusives relationships after all.

They didnt have to do it before, they had a russian puppet in command, so no worry. But there was democratic elections ahead, and Putin didnt want to risk to lose it. So he just all-ined and created this war.

If you consider the whole outside world as "the west". Which you do. Then yes. It was the whole tipping point for "the west".

Yes really. Get your facts straights. They promised new elections as soon as they came into power. And that's when Putin invaded Crimea.

His offer was to forgive them despite their illegal occupation. Their offer was "Just abandon a piece of your country". I doubt his offer still stand today.

Actually Ukraine was very compromising, and that didnt do them any good. Unlike Russia who acted like a rogue state as usual.
So I fully understand their positions right now.

In the end as soon as Putin decided to fuck them they were fucked. But it was either a war with Russia or a war with Separatists. I think they played their card well by giving up Crimea to get a fight they can win, and they're winning it so hopefully it'll be over soon.

[Shalcker]

Compromise - in his terms - being federalisation of the nation to the point the provinces could dictate their own treaties with "foreign" nations. That's not a solution any nation would accept.

Yet there are plenty of nations where such solutions actually work. And in country as divided as Ukraine that seemed like the only solution that could keep it together.

It's sad that Ukrainians chose disintegration and economic collapse instead, but they had plenty of warnings. We couldn't support them indefinitely.

Putins first move was to tell his soliders to take their insignia off their caps, invade Crimea by having them pretend to be "concerned locals", blockade the Ukrainian army and navy and then hold rigged elections to justfiy an illegal annexation and the abrogation of a Treaty Russia signed recognising Ukraines borders.

No observers said that elections were rigged, nor are there any reasons to consider them rigged. If Crimea is illegal then so does Kosovo.

And treaty was about completely different matters.

Noone at Maidan advocated cutting off ties with Russia. What they wanted was stronger ties with the EU. One does not exclude the other.

Except we SAID many times how we would accept "stronger ties with EU" without cutting ties with Russia - by setting up tripartite talks. Was it offered? Was it done? Nope. Noone should be surprised that we act exactly as we said we would act then. It's called consistency.

Btw, tripartite talks were offered by Yanukovich. Only when EU refused them he was forced to go with Russian deal as the only realistic option.

Maybe...but the Russian economy is bad and getting worse. And sanctions aren't meant to hurt your own people more.

Those sanctions are just excuse to set up trade barriers that were undermined by our accession into WTO. Nothing to do with "hurting your own people".

He got a price for the gas that isn't much more than the price it takes to produce it. That he expected the Chinese to drive for such a price isn't something he should take comfort in.

It's multi-year project that among other things will allow to provide gas to multiple Russian settlements along the way and expand surrounding infrastructure. It's not just a "pipe to transport gas", it's huge project with many benefits.

Ratings? How will his ratings look when Russia goes into recession and people start losing jobs?

You do know that Russia still has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world? We can gain quite a bit of unemployment before it gets noticeable. We also had recession after 2008 crisis, his ratings didn't drop that much.

When the sanctions HE imposed strips Russia shops of food?

Which is never...

When the people realise that Crimea is going to cost them billions to support?

Which is well known and accepted cost, not something well-hidden.

When his polices start to cause inflation to rise?

Our policies were always aimed at keeping inflation in predictable range, and there doesn't seem to be any reason for sudden big surge of inflation at them moment.

[malgin]

It was occupied, then annexed by Russia after a referendum asking them if they:
Want to leave Ukraine/Want to join Russia. Get your facts straight, it was a landgrab.

You never offered to talk during Crimea, because according to Putin, there was no Russians soldiers in Crimea, and you actually believed it despite the overwhelming evidence. Then he said he lied and you didnt mind because that's part of abusives relationships after all.

They didnt have to do it before, they had a russian puppet in command, so no worry. But there was democratic elections ahead, and Putin didnt want to risk to lose it. So he just all-ined and created this war.

If you consider the whole outside world as "the west". Which you do. Then yes. It was the whole tipping point for "the west".

Yes really. Get your facts straights. They promised new elections as soon as they came into power. And that's when Putin invaded Crimea.

His offer was to forgive them despite their illegal occupation. Their offer was "Just abandon a piece of your country". I doubt his offer still stand today.

Actually Ukraine was very compromising, and that didnt do them any good. Unlike Russia who acted like a rogue state as usual.
So I fully understand their positions right now.

In the end as soon as Putin decided to fuck them they were fucked. But it was either a war with Russia or a war with Separatists. I think they played their card well by giving up Crimea to get a fight they can win, and they're winning it so hopefully it'll be over soon.

They did what the master told them to do. Original idea was to make a new orange revolution and get Ukraine under NATO/US. Something went wrong and now it's plan 'B'.

But they got what they deserved. Sold their country for 100-1000 dollars during maidan and the rest just sit silent and did nothing. Now they are crying rivers when their relatives got killed/forced to go into army.

Revolution is eating its own babies.

I don't see any way how Ukraine can make it. Sad but it's going to be Ygoslavia 2.0.