I think that US does not have the money for another cold war anymore. Afterall it is now only financed by China owning over 60% of us treasury bonds. And US army is now being reduced.

Hey, look at the bright side: all you Fallout fanboys out there will not get another chance to live out your post-apocalyptic fantasy in real life if everything goes bad. Yes!

Edit: Oh wait... the country that attacked the US in Fallout is China, not Russia. Nevermind.

No, no, no, no! China <span class="bold">sues</span> Ukraine, not invades it.

As a Chinese in America, this new development is actually a good new for me.

The fact is Americans always have to have an enemy. Americans always have to hate on some foreign "evil": the Russians, or the Muslims, or the illegal Mexicans, or Chinese. Americans also have very limited attention span, so they can only focus on hating one particular enemy at a time. Just before 9/11 happened, China - and Chinese by association - were the main target for American hostility. The US media was hating on China. Everyone in America (the white majority) was bashing China. Chinese in American -- even Chinese who were born outside China and had never been to China -- often felt under siege. I often had to pretend to be Korean so I did not have to deal with the hostility and suspicions, (and because my last name is "Chong", which could also be a Korean last name, so I could get away with telling people that I was Korean.)

On 9/11 when Muslim terrorists flew a plane into the Twin Towers, I actually felt... relief. I immediately knew Americans would redirect all their hatred towards Muslims and Arabs, which was good for me. That meant Americans would be too busy hating on Muslims/Arabs to be bothered with with China/Chinese. And I was correct. For years, America has focused their hatred and hostility towards Muslims and Arabs, and they have mostly left Chinese alone. However, in the past two to three years, America has started shifting its attention back to China again. Which has really made me feel uneasy.

Now that Russians will become America's enemy no. 1 again, I feel like Chinese in America have dodged another bullet. So yippie for me. It will suck to be "Ruskies" in America, but that won't be my problem. Hey, as long as it's not me.

I have not met one single American all my life who hates Chinese people or fears them. I think you encountering Americans in this country who hate you or fear you because you are Chinese could be you just having some bad luck in your life. And you sound like a sociopath for saying "On 9/11 when Muslim terrorists flew a plane into the Twin Towers, I actually felt... relief." A lot of innocent people died in horrible ways when that happened... Burned alive or forced to commit suicide by jumping out of windows and falling to their deaths to avoid being burned alive... Of course, if you go around talking like a sociopath, a lot of Americans are going to fear you or hate you. Yes, a lot of Americans hate Muslims. Yes, a lot of Americans hate Russians. But Chinese people? No way. In fact, several big American movies were edited to prevent the Chinese from looking bad. In fact, no anti Chinese propaganda is made here in the USA because the USA doesn't want to piss off the Chinese market. For example, the latest Red Dawn movie. In the original story they had, the villains were the Chinese. They decided they don't want to piss off the Chinese market so they picked the North Koreans to be the villains of the story. Making the movie extremely stupid because North Korea could never invade the USA.

Ok, so cynical view. Civil war in Ukraine? Pretty much impossible now. With Russia involved, although it's not "war" war, it will for sure not be civil war even if it gets to the point where tanks start shooting.

Also, the western powers will very likely do nothing significant. They will not support partition. Will not provide significant economic support. For sure will not put any troops on the ground. And also for sure will not streamline process for Ukraine to join the EU.

Unless provocations or accidents escalate, we are pretty much on the road to a new status quo. Hello Abkhazia and South Ossetia 2.0. Hello turkish Cyprus... Now I guess opinions may vary, but I'm not sure the likely new status quo one is better than the old one. Still roll up your sleeves and make it so I guess... sovereignity and independence can not truly be gifted, and it can be created in what start as pretty artificial borders.

Finally, considering the civil and national element of this situation is now completely swamped by the international and geopolitical, here are the two main changes I see, an the two trends reinforced.

1st Trend - That brute force and hard power is increasingly shown as apparently efficient versus diplomatic soft power is obvious, and yet I disagree. But well, like the world trundling along to WW1 the tragedy is not yet large enough to cause a strong reaction.

2nd Trend - That US geopolitical strategy is non-existent (feel free to say ridiculous if you'd prefer) since the collapse of the USSR is again demonstrated clearly and I think undisputed. Shortsightedness, emotional overreaction, confusing goals for strategy... you name it, you've seen it. With hardly any counter-examples.

1st Inflection should be accelerating Russian isolation, reversing their recent integration gains. However much as the noises will happen, I'm not sure if the deeds will match the rethoric. Russia may not be blessed geopolitically (rather the contrary I'd say) but you sure can't say they make many strategic mistakes. I expect the comparisons, justifications and rationalizations to come thick and fast. And likely there will be no shortage of useful idiots willing to help out for whatever reason.

2nd and most worrying to me is how this kills nuclear non-proliferation. Obama admin efforts to progress on that? Better forget it. Defense guarantees done in exchange for giving up nukes? Not worth the paper they are written on. Implications for countries near Iran? For countries near China? For countries near Russia? Obvious. Here as well I expect a lot of noise but the actions to speak louder in the next 5 to 10 year horizon.

If Polish leaders, for a close to the flesh example, are not seriously considering at least a push for nuclear power and trying to organize something along those lines with the full Visegrad group and Scandinavian countries... well wishfull thinking is pretty fashionable nowadays. Myopically, as such would anyway be a win win from energy independence side, as well reducing the subsidy to Russian geopolitical efforts through natural gas and oil purchases.

Recommended reading despite US domestic consideration:
http://www.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2014/03/03/putin-invades-crimea-obama-hardest-hit/

And on a lighter note:
http://remarok.net/card/view/9487
My colleagues actually tell me this one is an old joke. Color me surprised... not.

Can't wait for China to invade Philadelphia because of Chinatown!

Hey, New Zealand is on Australia's doorstep, why not invade it before it gets a better relationship with China?

You should also check the definition of 'coup', ousting him from office after hundreds of people died by government forces won't be it. And while you are at it, please provide evidence that Maidan protesters have been by the EU/USA.

The Ukraine is a sovereign state and so can decide for itself. They didn't want a bad relationship with Russia, they wanted both a good relationship with Russia and Europe.

More bad examples? Ease up on the strawmen. Russia isn't Australia and Ukraine isn't NZ, completely different countries, completely different politically situations, completely different regional calculations and everything else.

The point is, everyone in the world knew Russia would react this way after having their strategic interests hurt so badly, so complaining about it is just pointless moral vanity. Nope that sounds exactly what happened in Ukraine. Who can say? But at the diplomatic level they were certainly supported by Western diplomats, in words, that's on the public record. So protestors were obviously emboldened because they thought foreign governments were behind them. But they did, Yanukovych was democratically elected, so if the Ukrainian people wanted him gone - then wait till elections and elect someone else. Instead he was ejected from office illegally when out of the country.

Who is to say that the Maidans don't just represent a radical minority and that the new "interim" govt in Ukraine doesn't want new elections because they would lose?

The new government of Ukraine wasn't elected by it's people by vote so how is it legitimate?

And Ukrainians (or any group of people) do not get to overthrow their government to make a political point. You wait till elections like every civilized country. Everyone lives under a social contract to live in a country, which includes both rights AND responsibilities.

"Revolutionary" and mob-rule bullshit is a cancer on humanity.

Dang, I wanted to make the same joke when responding to mg1979 yesterday but then changed my mind. Now I regret it.
It's hilarious that you actually suggest democratic means considering the whole conflict started with people standing up to a corrupt government. And the presence of Russian military in Ukraine sure is a good start for a democratic process. :P

Also, going back to your Czechoslovakia analogy - note that that nation was divided into two, not parts of it just given away to an already existing and huge nation infamous for its corrupt government and insane agenda harmful to their own people (btw, right now my brother's Russian wife is over there saving her family's savings before this insanity going on makes it worthless and shatters their whole economy). Anyway, if the greatest concern was getting Russians to live in a pro-Russian nation they should just be fucking moved to Russian territory - but this conflict is not about that. It's about Russia clinging to its imperialistic ideas, a psychopath on top trying to continue an agenda and executing it with means that have no place in the modern world.

These are stupid examples, they are a relative minority there and probably happy otherwise they would go back home. Here we're talking about lands with a majority of a certain group.

You are proposing to support a coup d'etat (not democratic) and you're ready to defend it with weapons if necessary (even less), in a country were the previous leader was regularly (maybe) elected. If he's corrupt that's an internal problem. We also had Berlusconi in Italy (we still have him), some people hated him, a guy even threw him a statuette in the face and he was hospitalized, but people voted him and any threat or aggression to get 'rid of the corrupt' from somebody else that wasn't italian would have been seen as an attack to our sovereignty. If Ukrainians voted Ianukovich and he's corrupt, it's an internal Ukrainian problem. If he was elected it's maybe because the russian faction isn't that small, and if you push for a democratic solution, it should be taken in consideration, corrupt or not, because it's not your country, and if EU (or you) takes one side in this matter it's because it has an economical and political interest.

Other empty talk, that's because Slovaks didn't have a country of their own, while russians have. Please use some logic. And again, you say that russians should be f*** moved, as if Ukrainians had right to have their lands and russians didn't. You don't realize that not because the name of the country is Ukraine, only Ukrainians have a right to live there, or non-russian Ukainians have more right to dispose of the land than anybody else that's also living there, and that aren't recent immigrants. Russians have been living there (east side) for a long time, and the current borders result from the dissolution of the SSSR, when having one border instead of another wasn't a problem since they were part of a federation (Crimea was actually a gift of SSSR to Ukraine). I'm not defending old SSSR (I read that the famine of the '32-33 was maybe intentional), and I'm not defending corruption. But if you stand from the side of civil rights, you have to respect the rights of all the people living there, not just the side you like the most. I guess I'm talking to a wall, since you'd like that russians were driven away from the lands they inhabit.

Ukrainians nationalist can have a right in the western part of the country, but not where mostly russians live. I won't change my opinion unless it's demonstrated that the russians living there have taken lands (by force) that were previously inhabited by Ukrainians. And if you say again that it's not a question of ethnicity and language, how is it that russian protests are being heard in the east, and the rebellion started in the west? I think ethnicity plays a big role here, whatever you think. New Ukrainians leaders want to abolish russian as an official language (even if it's being spoken by a good part of the population, and by the majority in many regions of the east) and I read they even want to abolish the ban for nazi propaganda: I hope it isn't true because if it were, would be for me reason enough to support Russia however corrupt it is, and in Europe nazi propaganda is illegal, at least in Italy and I think also in Germany and should be in every civil country.

Yes the world is full of psychopaths. Like you, if you think that russians should be f*** moved because you like the idea.

I really think russian should remain official language, at least in all regions where it is spoken by at least a considerable part. But I wonder what the term help means here, when calling russian forces for help? Helping them keeping russian an official language? As long as nobody is killed we can talk easily about this. Let's hope it stays like that.

I believe the overthrowing of the government probably has a majority in the ukrainian population. They are genuinely feed up with their former president and want to put him in prison for corruption. I believe he doesn't have a majority of people behind him anymore.

But new elections are most important to really establish this fact. Maybe they even go back to the russian friendly stance - everything is possible but democracy should as soon as possible again be the basis of decisions. On the other hand four years is a long time and if you really fuck up during this time there should be a possibility for the people to demand new elections or taking back really bad decisions. I guess that's what happened.

I also believe that the country is deeply divided into an eastern and a western part. But is this enough reason to question the integrity of the country? The call for help is mostly a pretense. Something like a division is best be prepared in years of discussions and realistic estimation what it all means. It's a far ranging decision. At such a situation with all the violent threats and the imminent crisis - how can people make an informed decision? How can they realistically weigh all the (economical, political, ...) consequences of any vote? How can one make sure that noone is too intimidated to go and vote? And how large should the seceding area be?

If the russian government had the best fate of the people there in mind, they would mostly insist on a schedule to a referendum in let's say at least one year, better two or three in the future. In the mean time there could be a broad discussion what it really means.

So, is it still double standards? It may be a simple idea to balance one bad deed by another, but does it make the situation any better?

I would actually advocate the ukrainians to respect the strong russian minority and to come to good terms with them, if this is still possible. A government of national unity might be advantageous. Because if you cannot make compromises, if you cannot have a peaceful schedule for maybe a secession, the country will break apart violently. The russian help isn't really helpful there and my guess is that the strategy of the russian government is to break the Ukraine apart and take the pieces that you can get. The invasion was extremely well organized because it was planned for quite some time. It won't please all the other neighbours of russia, fear might make them move closer together, except China probably who doesn't care and rather buys the world.

We could make the thought experiment and speculate how the crisis would have played out if Yanukovich wouldn't have left and Russian troops wouldn't have entered the Ukraine. I guess the economy would have collapsed sooner or later and then Yanukovich would have been released anyway with new elections and everything. But who knows. Maybe Russia would have paid some more billions instead to buy some more time? Maybe Ukraine would now be in the middle of a civil war?

Good grief. Russian military forces INVADED Ukraine. This isn't a revolution. This is one nation deciding it wants part of another nation and attacking. We're not using double standards. We're judging 2 completely different situations differently. Because they're different.

It's just as stupid for Russia to claim part of Ukraine because some former Russians live there as it is for Ireland to claim part of the US because ethnic Irish live there.

P.S. Russia is doing this to get a port city. Putin does not care one whit about the Russians living in Ukraine.

People who come from a Russian background but are now Ukrainian citizens *are Ukrainian*. They *are not* Russian. Ukrainians *do* have a right to the land that Russians don't. It's *part of Ukraine*. Just like Ukrainians don't have any right to the land around Moscow, Russians don't have any right to parts of Ukraine.

Suggesting that if someone wants to be Russian they should move to Russia is perfectly reasonable. If someone wants to become American, they move to the US and apply for citizenship. If a person wants to live somewhere else they should move there.

Elections only work when the government isn't skewing votes. If the voters cannot trust that elections are run well, they will change the government forcibly. There is no doubt that the Ukrainian government was irredeemably corrupt. Hopefully elections are held soon and the Ukraine can recover from this.

No. Sorry to disappoint you.
I don't watch TV, at least my opinion is not formed on that, but on Russian internet media, Ukrainian internet media (including youtube channels, btw) and Western (EU, UK, USA, China) media. And on my personal knowledge of History.

But it seems that it's a popular trend that people in Russia are thinking in labels such as "fascist", blindly believe in anything that's on TV and support anything Putin is doing.

I assure you, there a lot of people (in media) who call Putin bloodthirsty tyrant who wants to start a war (well, you can check that yourself).

And on language: there's difference between "de-facto" and "de-jure".

i can't help but to wonder if related to this Crimea situation, is the u.s. antagonism of China. Just today His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, gave an opening prayer in the u.s. senate. For days China has been protesting his visit. Now he symbolically participates in our governdent. Maybe it is unrelated, but maybe it's another level to all this. i don't know, but my governdent is nuts. Who knows what it'll do.