Kremlin: Russia will retaliate to attack on its interests

[karynnj]

55. "Russia's interest" - I think this suggests the root problem here

When they speak of defending the pro-Russian separatists or Russian speakers, they are really speaking of trying to re-establish their sphere of influence. Ukraine, on the other hand, has tried hard to NOT give them genuine cause. Their actions against people taking over buildings and declaring they are mayor have been as cautious as anyone could have wanted. However, the stated "fear for the Russian leaning" is, IMO, a euphemism for rejecting Ukraine not being squarely in the Russian sphere of influence.

It was when pro Russian President rejected the improvement of ties with EU, that the protests started. The interim government came to power AFTER the President left after agreeing to a brokered deal to establish ties. One account said that the Pro Russian President left knowing that he could not win a fair election after the brokered deal. His running away and calling for Russia to invade can be seen as a strategic Russian move. Had he stayed, ties to EU would have improved and in all likelihood, Ukraine would have moved to some degree away from Russia.

That time period was fast moving and Ukraine was left leaderless. The Rada, the elected Parliament, voted to oust the President and call for elections in 90 days. In the interim, they named an interim President. Where things are confusing is not that the Parliament can impeach a President, but that the procedure was not followed as written in their Constitution. Their justification was leadership was needed.

If this is true, the Rada was left with a dilemma. How do you implement the changes agreed to by the departed President with no executive. The Rada choosing an interim President, who was NOT running in the election, set up what was probably the fairest way forward.

It may be that the differences in the believes of Russia and the US, stem from what they are seeing as the "start" of this problem.

Russia looks back to when Ukraine was part of the USSR or clearly its ally. This included the recent point when they had a pro-Russian President who rejected the EU offer because of Russian opposition and a competing Russian offer. They see any western effort to reach out to their former states as "meddling". This includes even outreach that no one in the US would consider questionable. Think of many Americans - including the SoS - arguing that Moldova can have economic ties to both Russia and the west. To Russia, this diminishes their sphere of interest.

The US sees the start either as Crimea or, at best as when the Rada called for an interim government. If you start with Crimea, ignoring anything before that, it is obvious that Russia is the aggressor. Russia has without question lied - when they said they would not take Crimea and now that they are not pushing rebellion in Eastern Ukraine. The RT equivalence of the self appointed Pro Russian separatist mayor to the Ukrainian Kiev government is beyond strange - on the order of equating Obama's authority to that of Cliven Bundy on his ranch.

It is hard to see how Russia and the US can meet on a common narrative. Looking at the Russian view, it is clear that even if there could be a fair election with both sides having completely no opposition to running or voting (yeah, a level the US does not meet), the Russians would very likely not agree. The reason is that around half the people of Ukraine (including Crimea) want ties to the west. If Crimea is excluded (because it is annexed by Russia), that proportion has to increase. That is why they had the proposal for a federation that even allowed each province their own foreign policy!