From what I have read, Ukraine’s economy has been in the shitter for the last few years since the 2008 crash, much like many other countries. Over the last several months the USA and EU have been making vague promises to Ukraine in return for greater allegiance to the EU and the West more generally. Over the last few months there has also been growing civil unrest in Ukraine, largely on the back of ever greater difficulties ordinary people are having with the basic cost of living, All the usual stuff in other words (or at least, usual these days). When the Ukraine government decided to do a significant economic and trade deal with Russia, the USA and EU took the hump and decided to back and/or partially orchestrate a coup-de-ta in Ukraine, disguised as a kind of Ukrainian "spring". The trouble was, in order to do this, they had to get into bed with some pretty unsavoury political movements in Ukraine ranging from the merely extreme right to outright fascist thugs. Those fascists are now more or less in charge in Kiev. All the while, this has been portrayed in Western media outlets as the "will of the Ukrainian people. I, however, have seen little evidence of that apart from a few pretty staged-looking congregations in Kiev. Meanwhile, across much of the Eastern flank of Ukraine, all hell is breaking loose (again, barely reported in Western media). Severable cities have thrown the existing administrations out and have declared autonomy from Kiev. And, of course, in Crimea, where there has been the greatest unrest, outright defiance of Kiev has occurred and has led to Russia sending in the troops and Crimea voting for independence in a referendum.
The USA administration and its cronies have f***ed up royally with their public (and almost certain covert) backing of a fascist coup in Ukraine. Instead of being able to portray it to their own populations and the rest of the world as a Ukrainian "Spring" they have, instead been left floundering on the propaganda front and are frantically engaging in double-speak damage limitation. All the while, Putin is no doubt laughing his tits off at the perfect excuse to grab a part of Ukraine back into the Russian fold.
In terms of the results of that referendum, it might help to understand the demography of the Crimea:
Given the history of greater Ukraine and Crimea one might expect the ethnic Russians to vote for independence and the Tarters to be the least inclined to do so and a mixture of responses in the other ethnic groups. What those demographics mean is that, if we accept the referendum numbers of 95% of 81% of the population voting for independence (and we have no reason not to since even the USA has not seriously contested them) and we further conservatively assume a minimum number of Tartars voting for independence, then we may makes some reasonable inferences: namely that the vast majority of non-Tartars must have voted for independence for the numbers to stack up. The only alternative is that they did not vote for independence in such vast numbers, which could only mean that a significant proportion of Tartars voted for it. Either way, the result is utterly unambiguous. The only way to avoid that conclusion is to try and argue that a monumental electoral fraud has taken place. However, there is no credible evidence for such a fraud.
Also, I would note that I have just discovered that whilst the Russians vetoed military observers, both they and the Crimeans invited international electoral observers in to monitor the elections. But the USA politically vetoed such an observational team. One can only speculate that the reason was because they knew well enough what the democratic outcome would be and did not want to be placed in a position of having to corroborate and validate that outcome. By not having electoral observers, they are better placed to make fatuous accusations of electoral fraud/electoral intimidation. Not that I am suggesting that these will not have occurred to at least some extent.
I should also make clear I am not cheering Russia and Putin here. Obviously, there is a larger geopolitical game being played in the Ukraine. Quite apart from the historically strategic importance of Crimea and greater Ukraine to Russia (being, as it is, on its borders), it is also about the valuable undersea oil and gas reserves off the Crimean peninsula. I hardly need to tell folks on here that we are entering a very dangerous phase of international relations and that much of the so-called political "Springs" and various conflicts that have occurred around the world in recent years (many of which have been USA inspired/orchestrated, as it happens) are a part of that unfolding crisis. Ukraine being just the latest development.
There is another possibility, though. It is at least possible that the West has deliberately engineered losing the Crimea from the start in order to fully incorporate the rest of Ukraine and that Russia may even know and understand this and all the major players are simply going through the motions. Also, it will certainly benefit the Kiev administration to not have to appease all those ethnic Russians in Crimea in any future elections. I see no obvious evidence for the above being deliberately orchestrated, but I do understand the logic of the argument.
Anyway, that's where I am currently. Anyone has differing views, I'd be glad to hear them
