There has been no 'invasion' of the Ukraine, yet our M$M seems to want everyone to believe there was

[pampango]

3. I don't think that state/provincial governments get to invite foreign armies in.

Do western planners truly believe that Russia will let an long time ally's government be violently over thrown, and walk away when assistance is requested to keep the peace?

How do you figure that Yanukovych was "violently overthrown"?

After months of massive, sustained public protests through a Ukrainian winter, he agreed to remain in office until early elections in December and to use security forces to protect public buildings.

What did he do? Rather than remain in office and do his job with the protection of the security forces but likely lose the election, he decided to pursue a different strategy.

Within hours of signing the agreement with the protesters (with the police, army and security forces firmly under his control), he hastily abandoned his residence and left Kiev. Before leaving he ordered security forces to not protect public buildings. Why issue an order contradicting the agreement he had just signed? He (and Putin?) hoped that images of mobs burning and looting public buildings would create an image of lawlessness and violence that could be used to justify military intervention. Of course the looting and burning did not happen (much to the surprise of Yanukovych and Putin), but that did not change the spin.

If he had simply lived up to the agreement he signed with the protesters 8 days ago, he would be sitting in Kiev running the government pending elections in December.

I don't think so, and so I am really curious where our planners think they are taking us with all this saber rattling.

What saber rattling have you head. I have not heard one government official say one word about using the military to respond to Russia's use of the military.