Now that Russia has invaded Ukraine (with vicious and false propaganda to spread fear among Russian-speaking Ukrainians who were not under any security or even linguistic threat despite the stupid resolution against the Russian language from the Ukr. parliament--see RT, for example), history is taking new directions. I just reviewed the history of both European and Russian economic negotiations with Ukraine (a good summary is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_relations ) On the one hand, Ukraine was negotiating free trade with the EU while it was also discussing joining a customs union with Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. An EU official said that Ukraine could not do both; however, the EU said that Ukraine's observer status in the custom union was not an obstacle to the free trade agreement. Putin verbally stated that he was OK with that; however, it seems clear now that he felt threatened. Note that his ambitions were threatened, not Russian speakers in Ukraine.
Putin was threatened in another way, too. In general, Eastern Europeans understood that the uprising was against corruption and economic failure in Ukraine. I know that there was a lot of popular support in Poland. There was even a sign of Russian popular support when Russian hockey fans chanted "Slava Ukraine" (one of the main slogans chanted in Kiev) at a hockey game. Russians, too, are victims of massive corruption and economic hardship with immensely rich oligarchs, although conditions are certainly not as bad as in Ukraine and Belarus (which has a dictatorship with even worse economic problems than Ukraine). If Ukraine were to be successful in eliminating corruption and removing its oligarchs from economic power (admittedly a very tall order but certainly the primary objective of the uprising), that would be very inspiring to the large opposition movement in Russia and some of its close allies, such as Belarus. In Belarus, Lukashenko just imprisons his opposition or makes it impossible or them to get jobs. Putin has been doing that, too, but had been walking a fine line since he doesn't want to be viewed as a dictator.
Let's not let the US and Europe off the hook here. They would like to draw Ukraine into their sphere of influence and control it. It's clear that the IMF would like to impose austerity on Ukraine in exchange for loans. Ukraine is in a much more difficult situation than, say, Greece, and austerity would cause much worse suffering. The US and Europe have made it clear that they have no interest in a democratic and prosperous Ukraine not under their control. It's also clear that they will only offer trade agreements and money to Ukraine to draw it away from Russia. Ukraine cannot break totally with Russia (and probably doesn't want to). It gets all its natural gas from Russia, for example, and there are centuries of ties, including trade ties.
Ukraine's economic crisis is partly a result of the huge corruption but also a legacy of its role in the Soviet economic system in which the various parts of the Soviet Union were assigned roles in the overall Soviet economy which were not suited to participation in the world economy as an independent entity. Indeed, the diversion of Ukraine's meager economic resources into the wealth of the corrupt oligarch's has made it even more difficult to reorganize the economy so there is a direct connection. Historically, Ukraine has been a breadbasket for Russia, but it also has very significant natural resources.
So, Putin has sent thousands of additional troops to Crimea and has seized control of the two airports. As I write, the new head of the Ukrainian navy has defected (to Crimea, he says), and Russian troops are taking over a Ukrainian naval base near Sebastopol. Without naval forces, the Ukrainian army will have great difficult in formulating a military response. The land connection to Crimea is over two very narrow passages. Odessa, where Ukraine probably has some forces, is a long way away. And Ukraine has a new and inexperienced government. In other words, Putin has massively superior armed forces (both generally and specifically in Crimea), and Ukraine is relatively helpless. A fighting war would go very badly.
There's another wrinkle to this, which I have only heard mentioned once in the media, by a Canadian member of parliament. When Ukraine gained its independence, it was a nuclear power with many nuclear weapons. There was a tripartite agreement between the US, Russia, and Ukraine in 1996 by which Ukraine sent all of its nuclear weapons to Russia in return for economic aid and promises of security. I have not yet found the details of those security assurances, but it seems clear that Russia has just broken them. That, too, has very ominous consequences. It sends the message that the path of North Korea is more viable than the path of Iran, for example, i.e., if you develop and keep nuclear weapons, you will be more secure than if you don't develop them or give them up.
In the space of a week, Ukraine has gone from some hope for a path for a better life for its citizens (admittedly a very difficult path with many dangers and risks) to a military arena. Ukrainians are very worried and very scared. They should be.
