So a day or so ago some large fraction of Ukrainians, who have not been at all happy about the overeach of the Ukrainian president, decided to protest either more progress being made on an agreement with Russia or the failure of an amendment to limit presidential powers. And then it turned into riots, firebombing, and gun battles with the police.

At this point I think it's a bit more accurate to call it a civil war than protests, especially after both sides came up with assault weapons. The only good thing is that AFAIK the Ukrainian army has declared this a civil matter and is staying out of it.

Link to some relevant articles: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/19/world/europe/ukraine-protests/
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/02/19/world-reacts-to-ukraine-violence/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/18/world/world-protests-explainer/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-18/ukraine-fighting-leaves-at-least-18-dead-as-kiev-barricades-burn.html

pictures

I thought this had been going on for more than a few days.

The massive violence seems to have started Tuesday. Political tensions and protests have been going on for longer, but since Tuesday they've apparently been firebombing and using assault weapons.

It's disgusting how the western countries (including Germany) are fuelling this conflict just because the current government is Russia-friendly and the opposition is more towards the EU and promises big business for the the western big companies.
German media are so full of anti-Russian and anti-Ukrainian-Government propaganda its really hard to get facts and to form one's own opinion.

That's funny. I thought the older people hated Russia too. THEY were the ones that wanted to be independent to begin with...

This sounds like an old experiment. It didn't end up well, except for some lovely ruins full of graffiti.

I dunno, the BBC suggested it was kind of a youngins vs. oldins thing where the youngsters want to have their own Ukrainian identity while the oldins want to stick with Russia-associated identity. (something like that anyway)

To quote one of the OP's linked news:

"What are protesters' demands?

Who's a better economic ally, Europe or Russia? That's the key issue at the heart of Ukraine's protests. Demonstrators want the government to forge closer ties with Europe and turn away from Russia.

But the dispute is also about power. Many in the opposition have called for the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych and the ordering of new elections. And both on the streets and in parliament, they've also pushed to alter the government's overall power structure, feeling that too much of it rests with Yanukovych and not enough with parliament."

I ofcourse do not know anything about the whole matter, but if its "EU vs RUS", well i dont really wonder about it then. There is lots of money (and power) to be made if youre pals with either side. Ukriania has long and close history with Russia (whether for good or bad) and that naturally means there are lots of ties between both countries - some wanting to strengthen them and some sever them, either way conflict is rather "natural" i suppose.

Wish there was someone from Ukrane to comment this here on the thread :)

Update: Apparently the Ukrainian president has just announced new heads of the army and navy. Obviously, he wants the armed forces on his side.
That would be interesting. But I posted this because I think the people in Ukraine are too busy trying to get through the day to post on an obscure internet forum. This is very probably day 1 of a civil war in UKraine. They've got more important things to worry about.

It's far from civil war. LA Riots were not civil war, the Paris riots more recently likewise, even Egypt and Tunisia I'd not call civil war. Lybia and Syria yes. This not. I personally don't think it will escalate so far, the resources available are too lopsided. Even if it goes that far I see no scenario in which Russia would not intervene, which would mean Georgia in larger scale.

For the geopolitical chess involved read this, which is cold analysis, but has a western and US lens in what it considers important to point out about the powers at play:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/new-dimensions-us-foreign-policy-toward-russia

The situation on the ground is of course more nuanced, as always when one looks at micro - the summary version is of a deep ideological division, with ethnic, generational and geographical components.

As for the comments not understanding of motivations - there are a lot of people that prefer the old system, even if they are materially better - which is by no means guaranteed. There are always winners and losers with change, especially on short term. As mentioned, this side of the conflict is typically older (but they have sons and families - how old do you think the police are?) and are more ethnically russian, they support getting closer to Russia politically and economically, and live mostly on the eastern side of Ukraine - which is geographically and infrastrucutre wise closer to Russa already. Not sure about Crimea, although Crimea is a special case anyways.

The other side is typically younger, more cosmopolitan, live in the western areas, which have a complicated history but have less in common ethnically with Russia (polish, slovakian, romanian influences are strong - but far from dominant) and honestly, I'd say more idealistic. Some would say it's expectation of material and economic benefits that fuels them, and of course, geographically and infrastructure wise the connections to EU countries are there, but I don't buy it in this case. The ones moved by that are waiting to see, like the ukrainian oligarchs, the real powers in the country, which have a tough dilemma - support one side and risk russia oligarchies becoming more powerful than them. Support the other and risk bottom driven political changes that will undermine their power as well.

It's a shame that an independent Ukraine doesn't seem to be a viable outcome.

i do not know the numbers, but if "the protesters" are counted in few thousands - then i wouldnt go calling it civil war.

In civil war the people are typically very divided and actively war/kill each other on larger scale - atm it seems more some sort of coup against the government or so.

It's hard to tell at a distance. My take is that it seems like it *could* be day 1 of a civil war, but it also could easily descalate from here.

Both sides have pulled out firebombs and assault rifles. The protestors have managed to occupy and hold some parts of cities and kept a firewall up for most of the night across a section of Kiev AFAI heard. The only thing we lack for the civil war designation is time or numbers. If this keeps up at this level of violence for much longer, or more people get actively involved, I think it could easily erupt into that kind of a situation.