kwsteve;370390 wroteThe country is pretty closely split between pro-West and pro-Russian factions. They elected a openly pro-Russian Prime Minister in 2010 in elections that were scrutinized and deemed to be fair. When this democratically elected leader, Yanukovych, decided to ally his country more closely with Russia, as per the mandate given to him by the voters, the pro-West faction took up arms to try and overthrow the government.
Who is in the wrong? The pro-West people lost the election. They didn't like the result and used force to try and topple the government. Do they think they can just keep having elections until they get the government they want? Do they think it's ok to use violence to further their political agenda?
I think Yanukovych just did what any Western leader would do in the same situation. Especially since he was very clearly at risk of getting killed or at least thrown in prison. Just look at what happened at the G20, a relatively peaceful demonstration.
And you know what else? In 2011, Harper sold Yanukovych $80K worth of small bore weapons. It's probable that some of these weapons were used on the rioters.
What I see happening is the Crimea will go back to Russia, along with Eastern Ukraine. And West Ukraine will side with the West. What happens to get to that point I don't know, probably just a civil war, but maybe a more regional war.
I think it's a lot more complicated than that.
He was the one throwing people in jail including the former president.
20 questions: What's behind Ukraine's political crisis? - CNN.com