Quote Originally Posted by Firn
I actually agree with most of your first part but I think your view in the second part is too mechanistic and badly grounded. It is important to keep in mind that a lot of things can happen, even some unthinkable ones. Who would have imagined that Putin would pull off a old Soviet-style invasion in the Crimea? Who believed that his Ukrainian ally would flee to him and that the people would talk a walk in this palace?
I agree in part. Anything can happen, and it is a very fluid situation right now. But I disagree that the Russian military operation and Yanukovych's flight to Russia could be classified as unexpected. Six years ago, Moscow conducted a "surprise" invasion of Georgian-claimed territory but given the conditions, capabilities, and provocations, that too shouldn't have been surprising. Moscow has been clear from the beginning with its objections to Washington's interference in Ukraine's political process but was ignored. Washington was adamant on forcing the ouster of Yanukoych and apparently very little thought was given to the possible outcomes. And the collapse of the political deal negotiated by Brussels last month more or less sealed the fate of the country. There are reports that Russian consulates are busy handing out citizenship papers to ethnic Russians in Ukraine (don't know if it's limited to Crimea); there were similar reports in the South Ossetia War. When Moscow announced the military drills, activating aerospace and airborne forces, that was the signal that it was too late for Washington to act.

I think the current Ukrainian leadership got duped Mr Putin but it is acting surprisingly wise so far. Pretty nobody outside Russia and it's allies can accuse it to act aggressively or provocative and it has started to take the right steps. The idiotic language law has been vetoed, the reserves get finally mobilized, the UN, EU, NATO, EU etc are involved and it is clear who the aggressor is.
Medvedev has been clear that Moscow will not negotiate with the new Ukrainian government in Kiev because the new officials are viewed as illegitimate; he basically said that Moscow has no one with which to negotiate. Of course, that's also self serving to Moscow, but it has a grain of truth to it, given some reports of parliamentarians being forced from parliament at the point of a gun. And I think here's the point: both Washington and Moscow have interests, some of which are contradictory, in Ukraine; but Moscow is much better positioned to actually see their policies through. Is Moscow the "aggressor"? Yes - but only in one sense. Moscow is responding decisively to actions facilitated by Washington and by events in Kiev. Why would Moscow watch idly in an uncertain situation following the collapse of it's ally's government?