Politics: Ukraine Revolution, Corruption, & Crimea's Involvement

[silverwolfcc]

Let's talk Ukraine. Everything you never wanted to know, but didn't know you needed to know about the Ukrainian Revolution and multiple factors involved: aka why the West are not just the "good guys" and why Russia & Putin have some damn good reasons for "invading" -- even though it really shouldn't even be called that yet (as of Monday morning March 3rd, 2014) especially since no shots have been fired yet, and this is indeed, a war of words and politics.

I will even provide my own personal "where do we go from here" commentary without the song and dance.



Once upon a time there was a country that was part of the USSR. During that time it was given control of Crimea (a part of its peninsula that is cut off from the rest of the world geographically by the Black Sea and Azov Sea respectively.



When the USSR fell apart, Crimea rejoined Ukraine in independence in 1991. Even at that very time, there were a huge amount of ethnically Russians who viewed themselves as more Russian than Ukraine, and as such, it kept it's own autonomy from the rest of the Ukraine, and I cannot emphasize that enough, because it is extremely, EXTREMELY important.

A useful AFP article on the development of associations in Crimea as incidents began to spread.

It's extremely important to make note of the Crimean Tatars; an ethnically Crimean groups of Muslims who were pushed out of their homes by Stalin in 1944, in 1991 they were finally allowed to come back. As of 2014, they "only" comprise 12% of the Crimean population. In fact, the majority (58%) consider themselves Russian ethnically, and indeed the majority of Crimeans ONLY speaks Russian. This means that they get most of their news from Russia; which also allows for an automatic Russian slant. Even more than that, while there has always been a push to make Ukrainian the official Ukraine language, in 2012, there was a law to make any language where 10% of the population or more spoke it, a regional language! Reference link This meant that schools, government officials, and courts could use Russian, Molodovan, Romanian, or Hungarian where it applied! Crimea, of course, almost completely switched to using Russian, and while it's only been two years, this becomes more and more significant. Have some wikipedia - because there are not that many articles in English explaining Ukrainian language demographics given that English is not a majorly spoken language there.

In the early 2000s, the Orange Revolution, a series of peaceful protests took place in Ukraine, objecting to the obviously corrupt voter fraud that took place. The Ukraine Supreme Court looked into it and did its best to correct it. Nevertheless, in the wake that follow the Orange Revolution, while there was a collective push among Ukrainians to move away from Russian influence and into their own UNCORRUPT voice; players like Victor Yushchenko and his former ally Yulia Tymoshenko came into play.

Victor Yushchenko won the recast election that took place after the Orange Revolution, even though in 2004 the corruption had him seemingly lose to Viktor Yanukovych. Don't lose track of that last name!!! It'll become way more important than you'd think.

Unfortunately because of the international economic crashes of the 2000s, Yushchenko was in a very tight spot. He was very pro-Western ideologies and took a great deal of funds in IMF aid. Furthermore, because of his pro-Western stance and his desire for an independent Ukraine free of Russian influence, then president Medvedev took an aggressive dislike of Yushchenko and openly said he looked forward to working with the president after Yushchenko, and when Russian oil deals took harsh hits in Ukraine, Yushchenko was frequently blamed by his own people. Thank you very much BBC. He was poisoned by ingesting Agent Orange (believed to be not-a-subtle reference to his colors and actions in the Revolution) possibly by the KGB, possibly by his opponents, though it was never proven either way.

Which brings us to Yulia Volodymyrivna Tymoshenko. Tymoshenko was the first woman Prime Minister of the Ukraine, and love her or hate her, she's not going away easily. As she rose to power, she became an economic advisor and took control over much of the natural gas development, earning her the nickname "the Gas Princess." She braids her hair into a blonde "halo" presumably to look like an innocent child of the people, and her followers carry around a bust of her head wherever they go, which according to some Ukrainians is "incredibly creepy and [far too much] like a cult." She has something of a popstar persona. Something Hetalia cheerfully played upon, along with her anti-Russian, pro-European stance. Her own site.

In 2010, Viktor Yanukovych won the presidency. Yes, that is the same Viktor Yanukovych who was deemed the loser in the corrupt 2004 election he tried to steal. But if you thought he would only try to steal votes, then you don't know much about the depths he was about to sink to. He didn't open the square immediately after his election, in fact he kept it gated off rather than be reminded of the Orange Revolution that had ousted him years previously. He organized a probe with the Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov into Tymoshenko's finances, and it was deemed that she had illegally accepted bribes and other corruptions as her previous point of position. What was once a ban on travel was turned into an arrest. Tymoshenko's enmity of Prime Minister Azarov only grew when he insisted on holding the trial in Russian without a translator, and when she accused the man of corruption.

In just a few short years, Yanukovych embezzled somewhere upwards of $37 Billion to possibly much much more, something like $70 Billion which he later tried to pin on everyone else, which in total puts the man's thievery at least at $70 Billion, maybe even more. So just what can you do with over $70 Billion? A $225 million mansion was made from scratch, in only four years. He imported ostriches and peacocks, had gold golfclubs, and was rumored to purchase a $52 mansion inside Russia he probably fled to when he resurfaced. Meanwhile his son was given over 50% control of the major energy contracts in Ukraine, grew exponentially in wealth and was later not afraid to flex his economic might -- as best he could.

Yanukovych was always of a Russian bent. This came from growing up in Donetsk which is right on the border of Russia:

an area that would later go on to support Russian intervention, especially considering the coal mines where Yanukovych's son was responsible for hiring most of the workers, who feared losing their jobs under new chaotic administration.

In 2012, one of the (arguably) best things Yanukovych and Mykola Azarov held to their claim of fame, was instating the previously mentioned 2012 language bill. While this was intended to make it easier on those who can only understand Russian, some saw it as a step further into Russian influence, and away from Ukrainian independence and European influence. Particularly given the linguistic barriers involved geographically! Have an excellent map from BusinessInsider.com:



In November of 2013, Yanukovych, and the government of Ukraine, ran out of the capacity to continue his, frankly, insanely, lavish lifestyle. It became obvious to everyone, even him, that a loan from other countries was necessary just to keep the country running. Given Yanukovych's history with Russia in cutting them deals for oil, he figured that would be the best route. Aside from which, even though the EU also offered him a bailout package, it would have automatically delved into revealing his expenditures and unveiled the largest sources of his corruptions. As the Economist article so accurately put it, "[not only would he] lose his wealth, but also swap places with Yulia Tymoshenko," whom he'd been responsible for putting in jail only two years previously on corruption charges, which he had won his whole campaign as President by championing against corruption!

"Unwilling to launch economic reforms, cut spending or tame the appetites of his cronies, Mr Yanukovych proceeded to trade the country’s most valuable asset: Ukraine’s geopolitical position. “The talks with the EU were an auction. It was a position of a pimp who is offering Ukraine up for sale,” says Mr Poroshenko. Mr Yanukovych let it be known that, if Europe wanted a modern, democratic Ukraine, it needed to pay. His price was $160 billion by 2017.

European politicians were aghast at such blatant blackmail; Mr Putin seemed happy to haggle. It is not clear what he and Mr Yanukovych agreed during their secret meeting in early November—the deal is said to include cheaper gas, credits and lucrative business contracts—but not, it is rumoured in Kiev, a requirement that Ukraine join a proposed new customs union with Russia. Whatever the understanding, it has persuaded Mr Yanukovych to distance himself from the EU. Though nothing is ever final in Ukraine, Mr Yanukovych’s favoured option seems to be to preserve the status quo and refrain from joining either camp while continuing to milk both—hence his new proposal of three-way talks."

When news of Yanukovych's rejection of the EU proposal in favor of Putin's deal reached the public, they were not pleased. In a country where an average citizen might make $90 to $404 a month, it was a final blow. This time Kiev's Independence Square was filled again with protesters in what would eventually become known as Euromaidan. Have another wiki link on it.

Perhaps "learning" from the Orange Revolution, Yanukovych did not let this happen peacefully. Protests got violent, and soon, Yanukovych made it illegal for them be there at all, and labeled them terrorists and extremists, while Putin portrayed them as violent radicals who just hated everything and anything to do with Russia; along with further incitements by the West that were reacting negatively to Yanukovych's decision to go with Russia's trade instead of the EU's. And don't kid yourself, some of the protesters were very violent.

Now: let's talk about nazis. Yes. Nazis. Neonazis, to be precise, but certainly nazis complete with swastikas, violent beatings, sometimes shaved heads, and sometimes public orchestrations against World War Two veterans. These nationalist, hard right-wing people are vehemently anti-Russian, and view the encroachment of Russian culture & language as a threat to Ukrainian nationalism and Ukrainian identity independent of Russian and the history of the Soviet Union. And they are not a teeny tiny minority. They are fairly open and comprise such 'lovely' people as Dmytro Klyachkivsky, who was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Polish people from Volhynia.

As vehemently against Russian influence as they are, they too, got deeply involved in Euromaidan revolutions. What's more; they were the most organized of the groups, having already been organized at this sort of thing for years, and already thriving on chaos and ready and willing to stare death in the face; or cause it.

What followed was Russian television painting the protesters almost exclusively as violent radical terrorists, especially since Yanukovych himself did too. He fired his army chief -- unofficially the protesters almost unilaterally believe it's because the army chief refused to use more extreme force on the protesters the way Yanukovych wanted, but still things continued to escalate and many of the measures Yanukovych took were beyond cruel.

On February 20th, it seemed like Yanukovych would stand down from his aggressive stance against the protesters after strong pressure from the Western world, but no such luck. The next day, the mayor of Kiev, Volodymyr Makeyenko, resigned, saying as a quote from the NYT here, only ordinary people were dying. "No oligarch has died, no politician has died."

And while even back in 2012 the Ukrainians suspected Yanukovych was in deep with money laundering, the full scope had yet to be revealed. In meetings with the EU & Western world, the opposition leaders, including Arseniy Yatsenyuk, a former banker and economics expert, the opposition begged the Western world to place Yanukovych on trial for crimes against humanity, to freeze his assets and to investigate him on all accounts. It wasn't until Yanukovych left Kiev that the protesters took over government buildings and celebrated. Indeed, this is how his mansion was opened to the public in what the guards say they hope will one day become the world's first museum to corruption.

But how did Russia take it? It was widely believed that Yanukovych fled to Russia via boat in Sevastopol after failing to get an airplane flight from Donetsk. Indeed, Putin & Gazprom, the main Russian gas company that was planning to give the Ukraine financial breaks and deals in exchange for gasoline, refused to acknowledge the new government that the EU supported with Yatsenyuk and new elections.

Even when Azarov, the Prime Minister and Yanukovych's ally resigned, Yanukovych did not show up. The interim government began to return peace, but reports of right wing radicals choking their prosecutors and refusing to give up illegal weapons continued to persist, and drove fears in the Eastern parts of the Ukraine that spoke primarily Russian. Indeed, when the protesters were released from prison, the 2012 language bill was also removed and this further cemented the idea that the radical protesters were just anti-Russian. It also pushed the districts bordering Russia that much more into Russia's arms where at least they spoke the same language.

More than ever, such things deepened the gap between East and West Ukraine, of those who spoke Russian, and those who wanted distance from Russia. Of those who feared the chaos in Kiev, and those who embraced the change that Europe had to offer, and those who wanted to hang Yanukovich and those who would rather separate than follow what they believed to be radical violent terrorists who got away with holding up the government, and were only backed by Europe and the Western world out of a bias against Putin, and a financial deal in the EU's favor instead of Russia or the Ukrainian people's.

In a (nearly) unprecedented move, Switerland froze Yanukovych's accounts along with Austria and Liechenstein, and opened a case into his money laundering. This includes his son, whose custom vehicle was seized during the protests -- if it did indeed belong to the man.

In a surprise move, Yanukovych returned. At this point, he had no choice since his assets were frozen, and let me point out, Putin is NOT an idiot. Indeed, Yanukovych tried to back Putin into a corner, saying that he was surprised Putin hadn't spoken out earlier, and that Russia had to help him get reinstated to the position that was rightfully his; as earned by people's election until 2015. He went on to claim that he wasn't ousted, that he simply had to go someplace safe -- to Russia (jump to my own commentary on that) and that the missing $70 billion was the the theft of the rebels. He asked Russia for military support, knowing full well he would not be safe without them. Indeed, even the interim government hadn't fully stabilized Kiev and so Yanukovych pushed the idea that he was besieged by terrorists emulating mafia, and that the radical right wing hated him for his pro-Russian stance. Which, they did, but the majority of his own people also hated him for the obscene opulence, hypocrisy, and shooting his own people.

The Russians who entered Ukrainian territory, did so in areas that they were usually allowed to be. They did not openly carry anything to identify them as Russian. When asked, they said they were just there to protect the people and civilians. Russia & Ukraine have had joint control of Sevastopol so that the Russian Black Sea Fleet can use it as a port, but the majority of the people speak Russian, consider themselves Russian and do not, nor ever truly have, considered themselves Ukrainian. Even during the USSR, the people of Crimea spoke Russian, and they do not even understand Ukrainian. Crimea has its own autonomy separate from the rest of the Ukraine, and when the new government took place, Crimea was very scared. They believed that the policemen were innocent brave heroes who had been shot at, they held up Soviet flags! Their own leaders asked Russia to protect them.

Have a for instance: I am an outsider, but imagine if the United States truly fell part even worse than in the Civil War. What if Washington D.C. got so bad that there were terrorists and policemen shooting at each other and a new government from a part of the States that speaks exclusively Navajo took over? I'm part Native American, but I don't speak Navajo, I don't even speak Algonquain! What then, if the New England states asked Canada to help us because wtf is even going on down there, amirite? Do you really think Canada would refuse to even send us Mounties to back up our police? And what of Quebec? Remember how many times Quebec has taken votes on whether to secede and become its own little French speaking nation? Now multiply that by a billion, and pretend France is right next door.

Donetsk too, declared a separate government from the new pro-EU government and Ukrainian speaking government in Kiev, and welcomed Putin and Russian influence with open arms. Meanwhile, the protesters in Kiev were not ready to welcome their ex-President so easily. And ousted or not, can a legal President be replaced by an interim government no matter how hated he was? Perhaps as one final favor before stress or politics kills him, Yanukovych made a point to say internationally that while he wants Russian troops to help him, they must respect Ukrainian and Crimean autonomy.

As Russian troops unofficially took key points through Crimea, the Western world reacted in response, urging Russia back out. Acting Prime Minister: Yatsenyuk declared it a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, and said that the claim that Russian soldier presence was to protect Russian native was completely false. However, this also meant ignoring the Crimean and Donetsk governors who did indeed ask for Russian protection.

On the ground, truly in the heart of the situation, the war was waged with words, in which each side tried to maintain peace. The Russian soldiers did not carry live ammo, and the Ukrainian soldiers refused to

The Presidential delegation to the paralympics was cancelled, and the G8 removed Russia to form the the G7 and despite warhawks at home in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Unite States, who felt it was "all talk and no action," this did actually upset Russia.

Not all the Ukranian bases in Crimea went to Putin, but whoever shot first, would lose. Whoever shot first would prove themselves as the invaders, as the bad guys, and lose the hearts and sympathies of everyone around them. Some were not happy to see Putin but when Putin claimed to the UN he was protecting the people who asked him to against violent radicals still in possession of illegal guns he had facts on his side too. Even Putin's biker gang the Night Wolves joined in helping "protect" their Russian "brothers" in the Ukraine.

Sevastopol's government agreed not to acknowledge the new government led by protesters such as Yatsenyuk in Kiev.

Far right wing nationalists continued to give Russia standing by threatening Russians for being Russian. Racism solves nothing.

Furthermore, the repeal of the 2012 Language law was seen as oppression or at minimum, further purposeful ostracizing of Russian-only speakers in the Ukraine, and the Russian Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, pointed out the right wing radicals still in possession of weapons, the request on the parts of Yanukovych & Crimean governments to protect them, and the ban of Russia as a secondary language, the violent acts against the police by the protesters and the inflammation of the revolution by the West -- presumably in order to push an agreement with the E.U. Indeed, despite the agreement with the protesters to surrender weapons, even after the new government took control, the death threats on Yanukovych sprang up almost instantly on his return, complete with the chant, "We'll hang him like a dog."

Monday, March 3rd: The Western world prepares sanctions against Russia as Russia takes a strategic look at the Ukrainian submarines. However, the Ukrainian warships were allowed to leave without incident but several returned thanks to malfunction and Navy Chief rear admiral Denis Berezovsky pledged his allegiance to Crimea which got him fired from Kiev and Ukraine's main military, including pursuing a case of treason against him for it.

The U.S.'s ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power lambasted Russia for its presence in Crimea, pointing to the proof of journalists internationally everywhere (including Russian news) reporting no incidents of purposeful aggression against Russian ethnics, and saying as such, they had no right to be in Ukraine's sovereign territory.

Meanwhile Ukraine's acting President Oleksandr Turchynov wisely acting on sentiments abroad and internally agreed to keep the 2012 language law until it could be replaced with a better one that still allowed people to act freely. As for those other actions the past cannot be fixed.

How do you invade a country without ever firing a bullet? Very very carefully. A reminder again, that any soldier to fire upon people who are not shooting at them would be the aggressor, the aggressor who got his country massacred out of his own fear. Just as the soldiers and generals who refused to fire on their own citizens are viewed as heroes, those who shoot first in fright will be known to be cowards. And though Kiev & the European side Ukrainians don't believe that any of the soldiers would willingly give up and surrender, they are not there, they do not speak Russian, and they should know just as Crimeans don't believe they were peaceful, so the misfired communication continues.

In a show of support for Ukraine, US vs Ukraine soccer match was called back on.

And Russia insists it respects Crimea's status as part of the Ukraine.



Where do we go from here? Commentary & Analysis by CC

Point 1: Yanukovych: or the thief who stole a country!
- First and foremost: Was he a thief? Yes! Beyond a shadow of a doubt, there are literally tons of proof! Few people in Donetsk think he is not a thief, they just do not like the way he was removed! Did you see the video of his mansion? That's outrageous! He had solid gold golf drivers while his people were being gunned down on his orders because he didn't want to show his books the European Union!
- Should he be tried for crimes against humanity? Absolutely.
- Why did Yanukovych run away? The Crimean Tatars who did their best to return to their ethnic homeland can't understand it. They are very brave, and they are willing to die to fight to defend their homeland, especially should anyone try to take it from them by force again after what Lenin did in forcing them out. One interviewed Tatar spoke of how he couldn't understand Yanukovych's flight, but he had only been watching Russian news on the situation in Kiev. Imagine if, in response to the sniper shootings in Washington, D.C. George W. Bush had fled the city citing terrorists, and in his absence, the terrorists had taken control of the city and Northeast Atlantic regions. Even in Texas, Bush would have a lot of explaining to do. It doesn't surprise me that Yanukovych ran away. He was fighting a losing war and his idiocy was catching up to him one way or another. Not even Putin can save him from that. What's more shocking is that he came back.
- So why did Yanukovych return? When Switzerland and the others froze his assets he had no money money. The only thing he could do was try to push Putin into helping him retake his position, blame the "disappearance of money" on the rebels, and make it look good. And by make it look good; I mean look good for Russia. He sold over everything he reasonably could to Putin that Putin was smart enough to know he could feasibly get away with without either them getting hanged by Ukrainian radicals who'd had more than enough, and by the Western world at large who would likely view Russia acquiring more territory -- EVEN TECHNICALLY LEGALLY! -- as a very large threat.

Point 2: Putin has a motorcycle gang called the Night Wolves. I just want you to imagine that because it is awesome and deserves a movie.
- Does Putin have a leg to stand on in supporting Yanukovych? Actually? Yes. He really does. There are three rules of the world politics always in play. Law of Order; (Law, Treaties, Binding Contracts), Law of Chaos (When anarchy occurs: what becomes of law? Morality? Might? How do you reasonably enforce contracts or laws if you can't stop people from dying?), and the Law of Reality vs. Perception (I am standing in a dark room with no lights on, am I alone, or is someone hiding?). Let us first please agree that Putin did not gain all the political power he has currently by being a complete idiot; nor by thorough chance, and that indeed, let us assume that he is a very shrew political genius. Ever since Yanukovych went to Putin trying to acquire any financial deal he could; Putin has played the protesters as simply mad that their President went to Russia instead of the EU, and since that was indeed, a huge crux of the protesters' grievances, this played very nicely into his hand of Reality vs. Perception. A little truth is a lot better than a big lie, because your own enemy will wind up backing you up! I do think he made a big mistake in censoring the war crimes Yanukovych made -- but I'll get into that in a bit. Since I can't even prove it was Putin, or say for 100% sure censorship took place.

At the time, Putin and others believed the protesters would remain peaceful and go the way of the Orange Revolution. Pretty much everyone underestimated how deeply in debt Yanukovych was; and that much debt will make a man very desperate indeed. The worse the situation got, the more the extremists and neonazis showed off their willingness to fight back with force. In an effort to drain their support and show their misdeeds, Putin showed the protesters attacking the police and soldiers, but not the pregnant women or children killed. -- Was that a mistake? -- Politically, no, it wasn't. I'm always a champion for truth & facts, and as much true information as can be acquired or given (that's why I'm compiling this all), but Putin is smart enough not to want the far European side of the Ukraine that would kick up messes for him as much as possible! It'd be suicide!! It'd be insane!!! It'd be stupid, and we already agreed, Putin is not stupid, especially not politically. The far European side is where the hard Right Wing is, and there is nothing Putin could ever do to make them want to be Russian. Nor does he want them to be. Why should he? He wants people who will be proudly patriotic about Russia! He wants people who will sing his praises, who will throw him parades when he goes into their town! People like those Donetsk and Crimea, the majority of whom, do consider themselves Russian ethnically, and already watch his tv and believe him to be their savior.

So what's a good way to steal those people? Offer them better. And that is 100% what Putin is strategically and realistically doing.

What about the Putin vs. Western standoff? -- In a word? Bullshit. Yes, Yatsenyuk and the newer Ukrainian government still view Crimea & Donetsk as part of one Ukraine, but they literally do not even speak the same language. Crimea wishes to take a vote on whether to join Russia, and Putin says let them decide, because he's smart. He doesn't want people who hate him, he wants people who see him as their savior, their liberator, their defender. And that is, quite frankly, genius. How hard has it been stateside for Obama to get anything done with "just" the Republicans making his life hell? A good portion of Ukraine does not want anything to do with Russia! They want to cut as many Russian ties as possible, and all those neonazis hate everything to do with communism and Soviet Russia who they blame for repressing Ukrainian national identity. Putin used the Olympics to his best advantage in promoting how awesome he and Russia were, and what amazing world center stage things they can do together. Not just goodwill, but more importantly, in gaining his own people's support.

Politically, he toed as much of a line as he thought he could without actually pissing anyone off. Apparently he pissed off a lot of people though! Obama's "strong words" were considered too weak by Republicans in the U.S., but I cannot for the life of me fathom what McCain or other politicians think would have been "stronger." If anything, I personally raise an eyebrow at how strong Obama was. Russia has every right to defend Russians, and while no Russian ethnics are being attacked, the districts asked for his help, and legally, acknowledging a revolutionary government that took power amid violent fallout with police & military police can certainly seem suspect!

I'm a Westerner, I grew up and lived my whole life in the United States. Of course I support what I believe to be the people's own free will and voice in Kiev, but following reports, the Crimean government and replacement Donetsk government is not being given equal representation either, and there are some very good reasons for Putin & local authorities to claim they are only trying to protect the Ukrainian citizens' best interests!

Isn't that great though? Everyone openly at least, wants what they hope will be best for the stability of Ukraine and protect its people from harm. How many Revolutions or Invasions can take place without a single bullet?

So will Obama or Putin blink first? Warning I got a bit ranting and raving, I'll probably edit this later though. Blink at what exactly? I'd like to add again on a personal note, that seems like an entirely off base analogy for the situation. If the Russian soldiers at any point cross the obvious lines or hurt anyone who doesn't start something; then literally everyone in the world will dogpile on them. If the Ukrainian soldiers shoot at the Russians who are not even publicly identifying themselves as Russian, are not hurting anyone, are not DOING anything other than trying to wait for people to come to them begging amnesty and protection, then the Ukrainian soldiers would be responsible for the deaths of millions and a massacre, for no reason other than their own fears.

I think my biggest pet peeve in reading all the analysis and the biggest cue for me to skip right by an article or interview is when someone says Obama is being "weak" on Putin. What does that even mean? It sounds frankly propaganda-ish to me, and therefore, highly circumspect. Something I see over and over is that Obama's wording and lack of so-called "stronger action" "emboldens" Putin. I cannot emphasize this enough, but: buuuuuulllllsssshiiiit. Emboldens? Putin?! Who do you even think you are talking about? This isn't a child who is getting caught with his hand in a cookie jar when Papa Obama looks over his newspaper and says "put it back," and then when child Putin impudently takes a bite, Papa Obama just rolls his eyes and says, "Well, now you just have to finish it son." How woefully ignorant of the realities, how willfully blind to the facts, how pathetic does an analyst have to believe this situation, our President, and the two strongest political men in the world are to believe that the situation could be anything like that?!

First of all, do not overestimate Putin's concern about violence from the United States. Violence would be HELPFUL to Putin politically. Anyone with a dime of politically savvy in the year 2014, after the many recent wars, after the situation with Syria, after the world stage of budding global democracies, should be well aware of this. And let's talk Syria for a second. There are pundits claiming that because Obama didn't take strong actions against Bashar al-Assad, this somehow sent a message to Russia that he could ~get away with~ stealing territory from the Ukraine.

No.

Just. No.

Putin initially told Obama & the West that there was no way EVER that Bashar al-Assad would use chemical weapons or attack his own people -- because Putin knew that such an action would have been suicide for al-Assad. So together with Kerry they found a solution that pleased everyone; Bashar al-Assad could either truthfully or full of pretense lie and claim that he totally hadn't used the weapons on the rebels, it was other rebels who'd stolen the weapons and used them (which is actually possible and some people believe the chemical weapons were even provided by the USA's own CIA who did deliver lethal weapons) and in turning the chemical weapons over; it ensured no one would use them. Even if it was the rebels on other rebels, or Bashar al-Assad on his own people. First of all, I'd like to know what is weak about that? If anything, I'd call it damn strong, and politically savvy to boot.

Fine, let's talk the War of Roses & Rose Revolution what does that Georgian situation have to do with the one taking in place in Ukraine? Because I, for one, am genuinely struggling to see the similarities here.

So if you could see this coming from Alaska, how did it look from there? As bloody and charred as it does over here? I am loathe to truly "commentate" by and large on the events taking place because, I am not Ukrainian. I am not there. And the ways in which it affects me personally (on a deep motivational and spiritual level in which I, like many Americans want to support the free will of the people) are only because I allow it to. If you have not seen the Crimeans stand down, if you have not seen the the Kiev protesters stand up for what they believe in, if you didn't see things like this:

"Ukraine Rising (Part 1)" (Watch on YouTube)

and

"Ukraine Rising (Part 2)" (Watch on YouTube)

Don't say it's not enough. The pundits complain that Obama is all words and no action, but what does that truly mean? To take violence would be diminish everything Ukraine is fighting for, Ukraine doesn't need us to fight for them, they need use to let the truth and freedom ring. Let it. Truth will not ring with more coverups and lies by pretending that might = right. Truth will not come by punching Putin in the nuts, and only a coward would think that way.

The harder road is the one Ukraine has already begun. Towards true justice. Do you believe a government free of corruption and lies is even possible? Not even Kiev knows yet, but they hope so.

I've always considered myself pretty damn patriotic. My father was an army officer, my mother a park ranger. Both sides of my family have been in the States for more generations than even my parents can remember back, and both sides of my family have different Native American tribal blood in them. My favorite holiday is Independence Day on the 4th of July, and people don't have to known me too long before thinking of me as a hardcore Bostonian. But it deeply troubles me to see people of my own nation, compatriots, world leaders, people entrusted by my fellow citizens to protect and uphold our laws and liberties; to see them speak with such ignorant arrogance.

Speak not of ways to bring the President down, think not on ways to hamper progress. Instead, take heart from Ukraine's lead, and help. Protect. Help them prosper. Do not say "Obama is being too weak," such words are meaningless, such words are insulting, such words should be beneath you, for they are beneath me, and they are beneath him. Speak instead what actions you want taken. Speak instead, with the passions inflamed in your heart and what good you wish to achieve with them. Speak instead of democracy, of letting the PEOPLE of Ukraine choose for Ukraine! Speak instead of TRUTH! For if indeed, selective truth sways their minds, learn to be smarter to counter it.

Whoever fires the first bullet loses. I am a violent person. I like guns. I like violence. This side of me is troublesome, but I know where it comes from and how I must use it. I have not seen anyone smart suggest Obama should put troops in Kiev, but I have not seen anyone other than Obama say what he should do. Nay, Obama didn't even waste the words, he simply took action.

There are a lot of things my President is weak on. There are a lot of things my President could be stronger about, but "weak on Putin" doesn't make sense to me. These are the words of a coward, and they are beneath the brave Ukrainians. This is a war of words, use your words stronger. If you truly wish Ukraine's own people to decide Ukraine's own fate, help them by standing up strong for what you believe in, not by trying to kick someone else down.



Point 3: So about Putin's "mistake?"
- What mistake: Since, as I said, I don't fully consider this an invasion as much as drastic trespassing -- illegal, yes, rash? Maybe, but politically not a mistake. Politically Putin was obligated. Yanukovych begged him to, and while there are actually peace protesters in Russia expressing their displeasure with this act, the majority of Russians, whether through propaganda or otherwise, believe a lot of the stories of neonazi fascism which does indeed, push for strong anti-Russian sentiment. Keep in mind, the neonazis in the Ukraine do not want to side with the EU either, but they want a Ukraine that is independent on its own, and they truly hate Yanukovych's corruption and greed. Are they making current public threats against Russian nationals, ethnic, or otherwise? No. As Samantha Power of the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. put it, there have been no reports of violence against anyone in the Ukraine for being of Russian descent -- and as the Ukrainian rabbi himself put it: Putin is just using the neonazis as an excuse. This is true. The mistake, in my opinion, is that he cornered himself with that propaganda.
- But do the neonazis really exist? Yes. The hard right sector the Ukraine does have some neonazis. THAT IS A WELL DOCUMENT FACT. They have in the past gone after anyone they consider a "communist," and they are some extreme biases against Russian sentiment among them because of their hard push for Ukrainian nationalism and independence. That doesn't mean that they are a credible threat to the Crimean and Donetsk civilian safety. They ARE a good "scapegoat" for Putin to claim they are that threatening since not all of their guns have been retrieved, but they have been relegated to hammers and bats and they have bigger shit to deal with than giving Putin reasons to pretend he's a hero. That said; it further cements the idea that this is something where whoever is the most peaceful wins. As of Tuesday, March 4th, 2014, Putin is actually doing his best to save face and back down. He's starting to realize he fucked up and that if he pushes his position too much he stands to lose a lot more than he could gain, and you can in fact thank Obama & the G7 allies for that. If you don't want to thank them, at least swallow your tongue, because apparently what he's doing is working.
- So why was the propaganda such a mistake? I will concede again, I have my OWN personal bias in that I think the full truth is the best course because I believe in people's natural intelligence to sift through the facts and come to the best conclusions for themselves. I understand it can be confusing sometimes, and I know some people want to simplify everything the best they can, but even as a world dictator myself, I can show you why the propaganda here was a mistake and why.

- I assume/believe that Putin thought that using propaganda would help ensure 1) his own place in Russia. -> Having violent extremists nearby creates a sensation of ~fear~ and during such times people vote for who they believe is a STRONG LEADER and who will protect them best! Putin has made his job projecting that exact image since before he was in the KGB, he certainly continues it now. 2) Yanukovych came to Putin (after the EU) basically completely selling out his position in the Ukraine in order for quick cash considerations in order to keep his place. This also locked Putin into pretending he a) LIKED Yanukovych b) was FRIENDS with Yanukovych, c) Would totally help Yanukovych out against the RADICAL NEONAZI FASCIST TERRORISTS. -> I also assume/believe that Putin mistakenly assumed that Yanukovych was not weak and pathetic enough to completely let his own government fall. This was another faulty assumption in which he believed that the Ukrainian people had not been pushed well beyond their limits, and that Yanukovych wasn't incredibly stupid as he was.

- Being locked into pretending that the Kiev uprising was just terrorists REALLY bit Putin in the butt. Politically he locked himself into sticking with that. He cannot really come out and say that he forcibly chose what the Russian tv both in Russia and in the Crimean & Donetsk districts got to see on tv about the Ukrainian uprising, that would cause him HUGE problems for himself! Just look at what happened in Egypt when they found out that their government was doing that too with Iraq! Do you know how bad even a TINY Russian "Spring" equivalent of the Arab Spring would be? Suicide. Moreover; Putin can't just completely change his tune and suddenly SUPPORT the people he kept portraying as terrorists!

- He locked himself in.

- People seem to assume Putin is an idiot and that's why he's invading. That he's crazy and just wants to take over all of the Ukraine and the world at large. Not so. Putin wants his people to Love and Respect and Adore him, and to know how Strong and AWESOME he is. He's done a fabulous job projecting that for decades. He's very very clever, and he's very very shrew. He extended his own political image of strength to the entire Russian people. When he made the deal with Yanukovych for financial and political help, he was trying to send a message to the world that he is the best, that Russia is the best. And when he sent troops to help protect Russian people in the edges of Ukraine & to insist that Yanukovych was the rightful president, it wasn't because he's living in the past or as Obama & Samantha Power put it "a sore loser." (Although - politically I laughed at that, it was a good move on Obama's part, no matter what anyone says otherwise. It backed up the Western image of the Ukrainian revolution, and was a very GOOD slap in the face to the image Putin is trying to project.) It's because by this point, Putin had no more options. He could not backtrack, he could not just acknowledge the new Ukrainian revolution without casting doubt among Russians, among the Russian-speakers of Donetsk and Crimea & he could not afford to have that happen.

Sucks to be Putin, actually.

It sucks to lie to people and selectively make sure they only see the parts of the story you want them to hear? Yes. It forces you into a linear narrative. Once that happens you can't change your course to reflect new developments! It's a very bad, very risky gamble.

Can the U.S. & Western world learn from that? THEY REALLY REALLY OUGHT TO. If they are as clever as Putin, they will! If not, they'll be dumbasses and continue to project an idea that the Ukrainian rebels are just plucky little freedom fighters who were mercilessly gunned by a cruel cruel dictator and that Putin is just a terrible monster who secretly wants to take over the world.

Why is that message (above) bad? Because it forces a linear narrative. Just as Putin's mistake was casting the Ukrainian revolution in only the the light of terrorist neonazis, casting them in a totally pure innocent light is ignorant, and possibly quite dangerous! First of all, underestimating Putin as a madman who lives in the Soviet era and just wants all of the former Soviet states back under his control is wrong, stupid, and incredibly lethally dangerous. He doesn't. He wants the people to love and respect him. He wants the people of the Ukraine who speak Russian, consider themselves Russian, and therefore will help flood his own country with stronger support for him, stronger support for his ideals, and will help make Russia stronger. That is very very clever. It's not dangerous yet, but it certainly could be used that way, if he wanted to. Underestimate that is incredibly foolish and dangerous. If you want to consider Putin and opponent you must NEVER underestimate him for any reason!

Furthermore, as much as I personally respect Yatsenyuk, what about Tymoshenko? What about the neonazis in the Ukraine? Yatsenyuk does not want to stay in power long. He called his current government situation a kamikaze government! Can you blame him? And the Right Wing Sector of the Ukraine, DOES have SOME great ideas for Ukraine! And their sacrifices in the front lines of the revolution MUST NOT be forgotten, and OUGHT very strongly to be respected! They were heroes! Some of them ARE heroes! And that doesn't mean that none of them are crazy psychotic bigots who would not mind seeing certain groups eliminated from their country. Yes, we have some in America too, but the KKK has at most .01% of the population. The neonazis are estimated at closer to 10% (and many reports suggest 30% OR MORE of the Kiev rebels -- though I do not consider the entire Right Wing Sector neonazis, they are NOT publicly, or politically ostracized!) So what happens in ten years if the neonazis come to power? Whichever Americans don't know the full story of what's going on would be mighty fucking confused, wouldn't you say?

That the danger of linear narratives. And it should not be done in the 21st century when we CAN and SHOULD do better.

Putin's mistake backed him into a corner. I advice every other world leader to consider that and think hard on how not to repeat that mistake. His mistake wasn't just "invading" -- he made sure that Donetsk and Crimea and Yanukovych would ask him to. His mistake was in writing their hand so that they were nearly destined to just that. His mistake came earlier. Don't back yourself into that kind of corner. If you're smart, you can do better.


Point 4: So about Obama: Oh boy, this will be fun.

-What do Americans have to do with the Ukraine anyway? Good question. I can go into a long, detailed, account of America's stance internationally and the politics of the good and bad in that policy, of the history of international political development vs. the Libertarian and historical concept of non-interventionism, but if you don't know enough about those things already, I suggest looking them up since I cannot adequately summarize them without utterly derailing this. Whether you believe in non-interventionism or not, America does not currently hold that policy. America believes that where democracy wishes to ring true by the people, it ought to be upheld by the people who have the power to. Above and beyond moral obligations, America, the G-7, the U.N., and Europe have treaties to protect Ukraine's sovereignty, period. There are some international lawyers who dither over whether that means only from nuclear threats (because Ukraine agreed to not have nuclear weapons in exchange for protection from the United Kingdom, USA, and others), but either way, the world at large has a general policy of agreeing that invasions are not allowed by other countries. -> The exception being, when certain countries got to the U.N. with their grievances and the U.N. cannot work them out and the countries may declare war on each other, completely with the U.N. supporting whichever country tried to go the most legal route.
-------- SINCE that deserves a subnote explanation: In the case of Iraq, the U.S. did invade! They did it with U.N. permission and relative support (despite many countries who disagreed with the invasion and considered it premature and cruel and at minimum, hardly humanitarian.) The U.S. did NOT invade Iraq over the terrorist attack by Osama bin Laden on the Twin Towers of 9/11/01. The U.S. invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein after the Persian Gulf War was banned from having chemical weapons. He had a long history between 1999 and 2001 of constantly moving around the investigators sent by the U.N. to make sure he did not have chemical weapons, and thwarting them as best he could, including purposely pushing back deadlines, and doing everything in his power to actually look suspicious. At the time, nearly NO ONE in the U.N. or U.S. government thought that Saddam Hussein did not actually have chemical weapons. Which again, he wasn't allowed to. But, as the truth came out; he was trying to make it look like he had the weapons in an effort to scare his own citizens of a population majority, but a different religious sect from him. He conducted a number of oppressive and inhumane tortures on those people (which is why so many of them celebrated his downfall, and indeed why they were willing to help find him -- the $25 million helped too). Moral considerations aside, the above is all fact. If you want more, there are a huge amount of resources without the political double-talk, but if there are enough requests, I'll write an article myself too. --------

Right now, that whole U.N. thing is why Putin is trying to prove he has the legal right on his side. Before I mentioned that there are three laws always in play: Reality vs. Perception, Law & Order, and Law of Chaos. As they apply to Putin and the Ukraine there are a number of factors that must be taken into account. First of all, in the Law of Law: Putin signed what would normally by all international and legal U.N. treaties or otherwise, be considered legal. Immoral? Yeah, probably, but binding! Putin and his U.N. ambassador keep trying to point out this contract as their justification. They are trying to point to the legally elected President Yanukovych who ran away, as still being the TRUE legal ruler of Ukraine. So let's talk Yanukovych. Did he commit internationally illegal crimes? Oh yes. Should Yanukovych be tried for his crimes? Yes. If Putin was smart from the get-go, and had he NOT made the mistake of projecting Yanukovych as a pretty good guy who was just being ostracized from the world for his pro-Russian sentiments, Putin would have a VERY easy recourse in simply helping turn the man over for ordering his own people shot, stealing the entire government's budget, and running away like a pussy coward.

Putin can no longer do that for the reasons I mentioned above. Furthermore, it would have set a "troublesome" precedent making Crimes Against Humanity a reason for removing legally elected dictators! JUST IMAGINE, again what that might mean for Putin. Furthermore, push the idea that that he feels like the EU & Western world are looking for any reason to hate him (I'm not saying they are, I'm not saying they aren't but pretend either he thinks this or people have given him good reason to suspect it) and his own position would look very tenuous indeed! Instead, Putin MUST push the idea that the new government in Ukraine is illegal, and that the only reason the EU & Western society are backing it is out of personal bias against Putin & Russia and so that the new government will join the EU and help them financially.

So what does all that Putin stuff have to do with Obama? Everything. If Putin had legal ground to give Yanukovych soldiers, then the EU and U.N. have no right to respect Yatsenyuk and the new government in Kiev.

- Let us go back to the Law of Chaos for a second. In the Law of Chaos; when anarchy takes place, sometimes laws get thrown out the window. Under chaos; change becomes the most possible, and movements "forward" become possible. Like the entire revolution. The U.S. has a pretty long history with backing revolutions and the new governments that take place as legal -- especially if they come FROM the people For the people. This for the most part was very much the case with the Ukrainian Revolution. The U.S. and European stance is that the Ukrainian revolution was precipitated by some desperate measures taken by the people in order to ensure their freedom and take control of the unbearably situation enforced by a tyrant shooting their own people. Putin must prove (and the burden of proof is on him) that Yanukovych is still the legal president in spite of the revolution and that the revolution in Kiev were the illegal terrorists and continue to be a reasonable threat that require troops just to protect Russian-speakers or the new governors in Donetsk and Crimea (whom Kiev is not acknowledging yet, because legally only the President from Kiev can appoint those; and he did not. On the other hand; yes, refusal to acknowledge people that the people of Donetsk & Crimea support as representing their concerns, is just as alarming and questionably hypocritical. The general sentiment in Kiev is that they are only acting as Russian puppets thanks to being brainwashed by Russian news. This may or may not be the case, but there is good evidence for both sides.)

- In the Law of Perception vs. Reality, Putin is a master genius. He owns the world at this. His entire career has ALWAYS been based on his masterhood of this. Please accept that idea for a second, and if you can't, go do a google search of Putin. Realistically how much can the man benchpress? Realistically isn't Putin over sixty years old? Yet how many people consider him strong? How many people consider him sexy? How many people consider him suave, sensual, genius, powerful? Everything Putin does helps this image, and extending it to Russia also makes Russians feel that by projecting the idea that Putin is strong is saying "RUSSIA IS STRONG." At some point I'll go into an entire series about fandoms which is all about this concept, but for now, let's please accept the idea that Putin is the world's leading master at this Law of Perception.

Realistically there are facts in place. Facts are things you can physically prove. Perception is how it seems to people. Putin is a genius at this. And in my opinion, that's part of where his mistake was made. Putin KNOWS he's good at it, and as such, he didn't think twice about why it could be a mistake to manipulate the facts and write himself into a linear narration. He never thought he would need to. That is arrogant. And when you are the best at something, you tend to be a little arrogant about it. So: Putin (or at least those under his command, however far down, and he did not stop them -- which he could & would have if he'd realized) put out the perception of the Kiev protesters as violent neonazi terrorists. NOW he must stick with that and consider the perception that the only reason the U.S. & Western World are acknowledging Yatsenyuk and NOT acknowledging Yanukovych is a bias & hatred of all things Russia because we're the ones living in a Soviet Era cold-war mindset. He must convince his own people this, the people in Donetsk, and Crimea, and ANYONE ELSE HE CAN.

He's doing a good job of it too! The questions the Russian ambassador asked would be UTTERLY confusing if you didn't take the above into account. Once you do; it's like clockwork. Intricate, smart, but maybe a little stuck.

So what can Obama do? Many things actually!

Such as? Okay let's start with sticking by the truth. If he doesn't do that, he runs the risk of the same mistake Putin already made. Then let's stick with Sticking to the Truth. Russian people are not stupid. They may have been lied to, but they are, above all else, not morons. If the U.S. and Europe keep asking hard questions they force Putin to find ways to answer them, either by making us look COMPLETELY insane (which Russians themselves would view circumspect and as propaganda -- NOT to be trusted) or by having to find SOME sort of believable answer. I repeat, Putin is a master of Perception, but where his mistake came in is that he narrowed his options for Perception. That sucks for him! There are only so many options he can take! Obama has a billion OPTIONS, and that is why anyone who thinks "Obama has already lost" has flat-out no idea what they're talking about. Obama doesn't even as big a stake in this! Putin has the most at stake. The most Obama can lose is some public opinion polls at home. AND UH, if you've been following them??? I WOULDN'T WORRY ABOUT THAT IF I WERE HIM. And if it was my top concern? I sure as fuck wouldn't want to put troops in the Ukraine against international law, world sentiment, and sentiments at home. I definitely wouldn't invade Russia.

What CC thinks Obama should do: I repeat, I'm very very VERY hesitant to comment on that. I'm glad there are so many options. I think that gives him a lot of flexibility and if he wants to choose wisely, flexibility is an absolute must. I can tell you what he is threatening: Removal of Russia from the G8, removal of the Presidential delegation to the Paralympics in Sochi, Discussion of Sanctions, and so on.

As for their efficacy: well, they ARE working so far.

Should Obama do "more?" I sort of addressed this before, and it STILL makes me ready to rage. Literally it makes my hands tremble. IF ANYTHING, I wonder if the above is a little too far! What MORE do you think should be done? I LOATHE when people call these things weak! That is utterly contrary to their definitions! Weak would be to say and do nothing at all. Weak would be to tell Kiev that Russia can do what it wants! - (because we need the money from Russia!) WEAK would be to tell Russia that we won't do anything! I do not understand where these claims come from. I truly genuinely do not.

Should Obama put troops in the Ukraine to protect Kiev from Russia? No. No. No. No. No. No. No. NO. First of all, I will have to assume that if you ask that, you have yet to read all of this above and you are acting under some mistaken assumptions. Allow to me outline as best I can why that would be insane:

1) Ukraine & Kiev are not asking for U.S. troops and unless Putin advances, they do not want them.
2) The assumption that Putin just wants to completely takeover all of the Ukraine because it was once upon a time part of the USSR and Putin wants to take over the world (stop reading Sarah Palin until she learns to read world news and understand the full scope of situations she speaks out on) is mistaken to the point of idiocy. No, Putin has never said this. No, Putin has never acted on this. Yes, Putin has acted contrary to that desire. I'll repeat myself, Putin wants to flood Russia and acquire more territory WITH (AND ONLY WITH) people who love him, love Russia, consider themselves good Russians, will help boost his political image, and will help project a STRONG RUSSIAN IMAGE far into the future and forever more. I think this is a sentiment or concept many people can understand as true. Go read some more about Putin and you will find, everything Putin does is to this goal. Sochi was chosen as the location for the Olympics for that reason. Not because it was the best, not because it had the best facilities. He had to build all the facilities from scratch! Putin chose it because he wanted to show what Russia (and HE PERSONALLY) could do in such a short time and show off how awesome Russia (and he by extension) are. Period.
3) Some Russian troops have certain parts of the Ukraine they are allowed to be by treaty. Some of the treaties may no longer be recognized as legal. Maybe the new governors asking for Russian intervention are not legal, but there are NO PARTS of the Ukraine where American soldiers are legally allowed OR CURRENTLY ASKED TO BE. Remember that. Burn it into your brain.
4) The idea that if we let Putin have parts of the Ukraine; he will take over the rest of the world so we must stop him before that again assumes some RATHER FAULTY ideas. Please go back up and remember, parts of the Ukraine want Putin there. AT MINIMUM, Putin is playing the perception game where he is trying to get those people to LOVE HIM and JOIN HIM, and that the Western world is just full of jealous haters.
- Yeah but--

No. NO YEAH BUTS. None. Look, To bring up the Iraqi War again, I supported Bush going to Iraq to find the WMD's or Chemical weapons. The U.N. NEVER ONCE argued "There's no way the man doesn't have them, and isn't trying to build them against his agreement, and he's totally not pushing the investigators around!" Instead the argument was that he hadn't used them yet if he had them and maybe at best if they kept enough pressure on him to hide them they could find & confiscate or stop him from being able to continue building them. Seriously. That was it. THAT is why I said yes, we should absolutely stop Saddam Hussein from either having or building chemical weapons. He used them in his war with Iran, and not a soul in the world doubted that if he had them he'd used them again. And furthermore, he was given three warnings.

This is not the same. THIS IS A WAR OF PERCEPTION!!! If I can teach anyone ANYTHING with this article, that is what I want to stress the most. Putin is backed into his own corner by making sure that he HAS to continue making himself seem awesome (mistakes are never good -- and the longer he pushes it, the worse he makes it for himself) and as a consequence, that the Ukraine Revolution was just an illegal takeover by terrorists.

To show you how much this is not the same: Russian soldiers insist they are protecting the citizens of Ukraine. If any other country in the world had soldiers there, RUSSIA COULD ACTUALLY HAVE SOMEONE TO PROTECT THEM FROM.

Instead, Obama and Samantha Power are arguing that this is total bullshit, and those people (Russian speakers, and many of whom are shouting in the streets that they should rejoin Russia) are not in threat from anyone, neonazis, or otherwise. BOTH SIDES: RUSSIA & THE EUROPEAN WORLD WANT TO PROTECT THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE. Remember this. However, there are Ukrainians who speak Russian that Putin is most vehemently trying to protect, and hey, what language do U.S. soldiers primarily speak again? Yeah. Sending in English speaking soldiers to protect them from Russia? WOULD BE REALLY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE!

So should we invade Russia? What the fuck for? For "invading" Ukraine? How would that help Ukraine? How would that help the U.S.? HOW WOULD THAT HELP ANYONE. I refuse to believe that there is a single delusional person who could find this article and TRULY suggest that we should protect the world by invading Russia to send a strong message that we won't accept invasions. That's beyond rhetoric and right into the most illegitimate attempt to troll ever.

So what can we do to help Ukraine: Exactly what we are doing! It's a war of perception, remember? If you want to be hard on Putin, make it hard for him to lie. In Kiev they're back to the streets to protest. So long as they make sure to keep it peaceful, so long as they can keep any neonazis or warhawks from threatening all Russians (and again, yes, there are a few, not enough to be legitimate, but the more there are, the more of a "right" Putin has for his troops to be there) then they can't be shown as violent psychos. Whoever is the most peaceful wins. That is what the U.S. and Europe MUST realize if they truly wish to help Ukraine; West AND EAST.

Kerry is doing what he should in making sure that 1) he shows how much he respects and acknowledges the new Ukrainian government even at our expense. Remember! Putin is trying to make it seem like the only reason the West is supporting the new Ukrainian government is because of their financial deal with them. The U.S. does not have such a deal. The U.S. has nothing to gain. THE MORE WE SHOW WE RESPECT THEM ON PRINCIPLE, the more Putin is forced into a "they just hate Russia" rhetoric, and that forces his hand that much more! 2) He helps solidify our alliance with a new Ukraine 3) he stresses peaceful solutions 4) he stresses a Democratic future for Ukraine.

There's a lot of things the U.S. should definitely not do with Russia, Putin, and the Ukraine. Some, I just don't want to list because I hope that no one could be so shortsighted as to suggest them, and I know Obama is not!

However, I will stress again:
This is a war of perception.
If Obama helps Putin's rhetoric, if the European people, or American people, help Putin's rhetoric, they should consider themselves traitors to the cause for aiding Putin. Remember, his claim currently is 2 things: 1) that the Americans & Europe are supporting neonazis and just hate Russia & all of Russian language and culture for communism. 2) That the only reason Europe & the US support Yatsenyuk instead of Yanukovych is because Yanukovych signed a favorable trade deal with Russia instead of with the EU.


Prove Putin wrong. Don't help his rhetoric with idiotic claims that all of Russia is communist (facts and reality are against you, and hatred for communist Russians is exactly what Putin says he is protecting his people again), don't hide the the truth about any of this situation just to make it "favorable," that's what Putin did. And don't whine about Russian oil prices just because Obama is talking about a ban. That is exactly what Putin thinks Americans (and Ukrainians) will do. I think Americans are stronger and smarter than that (and I know Ukrainians are better than that -- they've already proven it).

If you want to help the Ukrainian people, support their democracy.

As far back as December United States & Canada set up local donations to get food, funds, and coats to Euromaiden protesters. They need this now too!

This is not a war that will be won with bullets! The more bullets fly, the more it's proof of the shooters being in the wrong! That's why Russian soldiers aren't carrying bullets. They have made it seem like Yanukovych NEVER fired on his own people, but that the "violent terrorists" just attacked the riot police and murdered them! If Russian soldiers attacked Ukrainians now, they would be shown as the bad guys! If other people attack them it supports Putin's claim! REMEMBER THAT!

Help the Ukrainians in Kiev. Don't do it with violence, do it in the most modern way possible. With truth. With Food, with Care, with Support, with AID. Ukraine has allies all over the world, not because we hate Russia and everything to do with Russia & Putin, but because we support their desire for freedom against tyranny. Now prove it! Speak the truth. Tell people the truth about the situation! Speak of the brave Ukrainians who were killed by Yanukovych's greed! Tell them why Putin is wrong, and that we don't hate him, we just support Ukraine's choice for freedom from a tyrant!

And don't give into rhetoric for anybody!

- I'm CC and as much as this article is rambling and sucks, feel free to use it however you want, just remember to give the links their credit too!

- I will also attempt to answer any questions to the best of my ability! (Even if you troll me, but I don't promise not to be a bitch back :P)