Does American government and the EU believe that can bring peace to this country ??? If they so desire this then why don't they step back and let Russia and Ukraine sort it out together. Most people know the government of Ukraine was put in place by a coup. to which my understanding is illegal and cannot be recognized as a ligament government, until general elections are had in the country. so the question is asked why is the America government and the EU supporting a government that doesn't legally exist. So what will happen in May when they have new elections and if a Russian is again made President??? what will The outcome be then?? The America government and the EU needs to remember sanction only hurt the less fortunate and other countries that are not involved in such a dispute, The cold war made Russians hard people so they know how to survive in bad times. Yet Europe will feel the full blunt of so actions because Russia is their main supplier in most natural resources. Surely the EU knows this and know that when this is all over they will pay a high price for being a pawn on a chess board\

ok thanks just wanted clear my head on this

Your first mistake was thinking ANY government works for the people any more

Corporatism (fascism) rules and the banks hold the middle ground funding both ends

The people and their soldiers are merely pawns in the financial/power scheme of things

It's the Kuomintang all over again. Corporate investors in defence and administration back whichever regime is offering them the best future business deals and/or suitable policy. Particularly where alternative parties/regimes are insular or isolationist.

The Chinese Communist Party was originally nationalist, based in the Yellow River Valley (ancient seat of Chinese government). The Kuomintang claimed to be nationalist but following internal strife, assassinations by their own and leadership disarray essentially comprised little more than pawns of the colonial (US and European sovereign) Treaty Ports. The Chinese didn't want them running dik by the late-20s, but they suited international western agendas. It was well known in China by then they had become corrupt individualists, not nationalists and hardly a viable government. The US even found this out when more than 80% of all financial backing (hundreds of millions) wound up in the pockets of corrupt officials who then ran off with it, whilst airbases were left for peasants to construct using hand tools under American direction. It was all a big joke.

Meanwhile the nationalist Yellow River Valley government, which did not want foreign control and certainly not foreign sovereignty of Chinese territories (which Treaty Ports are), had no choice but to accept Soviet war materiel to fight with, nobody in the west would give them any. The price was Stalin wouldn't give them anything unless they became Soviet, but would open the coffers if they did. So they did.
But they broke from Soviet status a few years after the war. Hereafter they have been known as "Chinese communist" as opposed to "Soviet communist", but in reality they are and have always been Nationalist, even to the extent of fascism.


This complete misrepresentation of foreign cultural affairs is thoroughly typical of modern governing systems. But rest assured, it's not misunderstanding, it's deliberate misrepresentation.

If the EU wanted peace in Ukraine they'd recognize the historic and quite ancient cultural schizm between Crimea but including Odessa and Ukraine shoreline to the Don Valley, and the northern and northwest mainland. One is ancient Greek in origin, the other is Slav. Even during the mediaeval period this area was divided with national borders as the Khanate of Crimea. It identifies as Asian, whilst northern Ukraine identifies as Slavic.

On top of that you've got a cultural divide between both these distinct regions and Russia proper. Ukraine is actually the russian word for frontier, to old school Russians Ukrainian independence, particularly in the northern and northeast mainland is like Texas declaring itself an independent nation. What's more part of what was once the Ukraine/Crimea, the Don Valley has been Russia proper for some time.

Then there's another issue, of national security and we all know how seriously the US takes that. Russia, as in the Kremlin does too. And the Kuban peninsula right next to Ukraine/Crimea is a primary military training area and defence district, Georgia and the eastern Black Sea, plus Crimea and Ukraine are the main guards against any potentially successful foreign invasion.
Think of it in terms of Germany in WW2, coming up through the Med to attack what Churchill called "the soft underbelly of Germany" actually worked very well. And that's what the area is to Russia, it's a national security nightmare. They don't want NATO in there, meaning they don't want anti-Russian, pro-NATO government in there either.
Closest you've got so far is Rumania and Bulgaria, on the western Black Sea, but you're still not technically allowed to put a carrier battlegroup in the Black Sea because UN Treaties prohibit it (Russians can because theirs don't have catapults so are called cruisers with air complement instead of aircraft carriers).
You can send the Tarawa or Euro helicopter-carriers with Harriers, but they're no match for sea Flankers on the Kuznetsov or land based air.
As it stands the closest you can get NATO warbird bases to Russian airspace in the Black Sea region is from Iraq or Bulgaria, meaning only very long range types with light loads, enough of a restriction to put NATO birds at a combat disadvantage against current Russian/CIS interceptors. Launching from Poland or Bulgaria, not even Eagles and Raptors have any chance to bombing anything important and nothing else is going to survive, B2 Spirits are very much into conjecture, but definitely nothing else at that range.
For best US strategic superiority: the combined arms and coordinated force initiative (used in Iraq with tremendous success), you need close bases, lots of things like Vipers and such, which are short range, high turnaround types. Can't do it at the moment, meaning any conflaguration with Russian Federation or the Kremlin has to go nuclear just like at the height of the cold war.

Bottom line, Russia doesn't want NATO there and considers nothern Ukraine an extension of Russia anyway. But there is argument for Crimean independence with the UN, but the UN peacekeepers are basically chaired by NATO and CIS. One doesn't want to recognize Ukraine independence, the other doesn't want to distinguish between Ukraine and Crimea, both have mostly their own national security issues at heart, which are genuine, but subjective and don't consider the peoples at all.