A good article.

Crimea, the base for Russia's Black Sea Fleet, is certainly a major Russian interest in the Ukraine that Putin wouldn't want to lose.

I think its understandable that Russia, with only one all year round major naval base (in Crimea) wants to hang onto Crimea. Significantly Russia has leased the Crimea-Sevastopol naval base from Ukraine until 2042.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol

Then Russia probably also expects to maintain unobstructed road-rail access from Russia proper, through eastern Ukraine to its Crimean naval base.

Hopefully that's all Putin wants.

Pete

@James O'Neill
I agree that today's Australian had a typically Murdoch response to this unfolding crisis, but how about today's Guardian?
I especially liked their statement, (Acting Ukraine President) Turchynov, speaking to the parliament in Kiev, described the attackers (in the Crimea) as "criminals in military fatigues with automatic weapons".
And who, pray tell, does he think put him in his new very unofficial office? He certainly wasn't elected to it!
We are so very poorly served by our mainstream press, especially in foreign affairs.

James, I would reckon that the Prime Minister of the Laughable Country could no more locate the Ukraine on a world map than his Foreign Minister.

Australia is becoming much like North Korea. It is a land of whispers and furtive meetings, of clandestine decisions and unprotected sex.

The back-stabbings will come soon and that will be followed by our troops going to the Ukraine or Syria, wherever the U.S. or our fearless, feckless leader decides.

Weren't we the Lucky Country once? I must've been asleep!

Yep - we would have been an Unlucky Country if we were forced to speak Japanese from 1942.

Thank God the US protected us. No other power did.

Pete

Pete, you need to bring your history books up to date. The only reason the Americans were here in 1942 was because they had been kicked out of the Philippines. We know from Japanese documents that they had no intention of invading Australia. the supply lines would have made that impossible.

In any case, what does that have to do with the Ukrainian situation? You are surely not suggesting that because the Americans were here in 1942-45 we should overlook their current (i.e. post 1945) behaviour.

There are strong indications that what is happening in the Ukraine owes more than a little to the ongoing policies of Operation Gladio. Your history books may have missed that also. Read Ganser's NATOs Secret Armies, or Richard Cottrell's Gladio. Or if you really want to pursue the theory of American altruism read Turse's Kill anything that Moves and Scahill's Dirty Wars.

The world is a less nice place than you might imagine.

Giday James O'Neil

You would have noticed that twas me mate David G who brought up the US:

"The back-stabbings will come soon and that will be followed by our troops going to the Ukraine or Syria, wherever the U.S. or our fearless, feckless leader decides."

You will excuse me for giving you historical instruction. Of course the US has its own national interests. In the WW2 case the American need to defend Guadalcanal and fight the Battle of the Coral Sea coincided with our interests of avoiding Japanese blockade.

About Ukraine me mate Davo's suggestion of an armed intervention by the US is as wrong-headed as Poobah.

Cheers

Pete