How many land grabs in the last decade? Uhh, one?

Crimea was the first international land-swap since Macao in 2005, the first annexation since either the West Bank by Israel or Irian Jaya by Indonesia (maybe India's seizure of parts of Kashmir post-dates it. Not sure).

Anyway, the Crimean situation is insanely far down Americans' list of priorities. 2014 is all about the Affordable Care Act, where the Republicans unfortunately seem to control the optics, but the numbers are beginning to move the democrats' way (enrollment goals supposedly being met).

Are there actually people out there that think that Russia is looking to take over all of Europe? Some guys on Fox News are trying to compare this to the damn Hitler invasions.....ridiculous.

Eh i'd disagree on both counts.

It was the first brazen annexation.  However the whole Georgian thing more then qualfies as a land grab as well.

Also, enrollment goals aren't being met on Obamacare.  Milestones are being hit... behind schedule, but pretty much has to happen...

and even then the milestones being hit are using a bit of slight of hand, as originally the numbers they were looking for was insured people through the exchange, when now they're citing people who sign up for insurance. ( of which anywhere between 10-20% of people will never get insurance because they won't be able to pay their premiums).

That said, I don't even think 2014 is about Obamacare.  I mean, it's being done pretty incompetantly, and people will complain and stuff, but it's similar to like... your DMV at this point.  It's there, and it's going to take longer then it should and be a giant pain int he ass, but it's just part of the machinery now.  At the end of the day people will care more about if they're employed/feel like jobs the economy is on an upswing.

I see you premise -- if there's no motive, there's no crime -- but that's just wrong. If you don't see a motive for a crime, there's only one conclusion you can draw from that -- you don't have full understadning of the situation. Your assumption that disrupting energy transportation to Europe might be the biggest part of the reason for interference seems believable to me. Hence why you see the topic of replacing gas exports from Russia with exports from the States being raised during speech in Brussels. If the events would have went a different route, Obama might have had more leverage to actually proof his words, while now it's jsut a chit-chat about nothing.

So if there's no motive and no proof... assume there is a crime and a secret motive.

That is a very russian perspective I guess.

The whole natural gas thing would make sense for say... the Europeon Union, since by getting further US exports then things eventually stabalizing to normal it lowers their prices... but again....

there's just no benefit.

To just assume the US pulled something with no benefit and no proof is silly... espeically when there are other, closer actors on both sides with actual motives.

No, the crime has happened already, dead body is lying just before you and you have a culprit and multiple evidences against him, the fact that you might not know his motive won't discharge him. Besides you've just proposed a viable motive for a crime already. But enought with metaphors.

In term of evidences, even if we ignore the background behind the relations of the US and Ukrainian nationalists that lasted for decades, there's still a lot of  things to talk about. For starters I've brought Yakimenko into the discussion earlier, among other things in his interview he accused Nalivaychenko in handing personal files of SBU employees to CIA, effectively impying he's working on some other parties than he should have given the position he holds.

Well, this is Pulcinella secret for whoever followed the events in Ukraine. Nalivaychenko has been caught on video in one of the Trizub training camps few years ago, while being the head of SBU. So the fact that Ukrainian nationalists and SBU are somehow affilated is almost a given. For the same reason I believe they affilated with Crimenian Tatars nationalists, Majlis people, namely Dzhemilev and Chubarov, who for the last few years were playing in the favor of people from Batkivschina party (half of current authorites in Kiev) and scheeming their provocations now in Crimea for the sole reason to make it to the headlines (I suggest you googling Mili Firka's Abduraimov interview on the matter). For the same reasons SBU turned a blind eye on the activity of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Crimea, even though it's their direct responsibility to oppose radical or terroristic groups. Before "polite" people appeared all over the place in Crimea, the situation was rather intense -- there were clashes of Majlis and Hizb ut-Tahrir people with the rest of population of peninsula -- how long do you think violance would have lasted without the dead bodies starting to pile up?

The situation would have turned into Yugoslavian scenario very fast not only in Crimea, probably not that bloody but enough for "peacekeeping mission". I wonder who'd have lead that mission, hm?

The situation is absolutely not in favor of the EU. Yes, they've played that game for you for some time, but the further we into that crisis the more inclined they will be to accept the position of Moscow. Why there's a huge lobby groups in the EU that are strictly following Washington scenario of events, undermining the EU, --  that question should have been asked by Europeans.

The thing is... if Yugoslavian scenario would have been a reality in Urkaine, i.e. peackeeping misson with zones of responsbility, say, Russian and American, the leverage of Obama would have been in saying "hey, we could diversificate gas exports" in the situation when "unknown terrorists" are blowing up gas pipelines in the Western Ukraine, that would have made these statements more belivable.

The idea here is not to replace Russia on the gast market of Europe, the idea is to keep that card and play it with other to undermine EU's energy security. Granted Ukraine might not be enough here, since even for Russian gas it's not the sole way of transportation in Europe, plus there're other suppliers, but a card that worth investing into. Because under no cirmustances American gas would be better for Europe than Russian, these are false promises in any situation.

Ok....

So the former head of state security... Yakimenko knew that Nalivaychenko was working witht he CIA, giving over secret information etc....

and his response was to do absolutely nothing with that information, he didn't arrest him, accuse him, limit the SBU's power... didn't even say anything, until after he gets forced out of power.

This is the arguement you are making.  

Or did he not find out about this until after he got pushed out of power?

He's referring to the period when Nalivaychenko was the head of SBU, i.e. during Yuschenko presedential term, afair he didn't even work at SBU during that time. His carrier begun just after Yanukovich came into power, Yakimenko was in charge of SBU for like two weeks or smth.

nobody in America really cares about this,just the news media. Putin doesn't care about any little sanctions. It's never made a difference in anything. it's pretty much a joke on every level,in my opinion.