The current protests from western governments, including the Obama administration, against Russian military moves in Ukraine surprise me. Ukraine is not Czechoslovakia or Hungary; it is a region in which Russia has always claimed a vital interest. Ukraine as an independent state has existed only since 1991; prior to that it was economically and politically bound to Russia since the late eighteenth century, when Russia defeated its long time rivals, Poland and the Ottoman Empire, for control of the region.
The name "Ukraine" ("Украина") means "at the edge"; it describes a border region long disputed among powers to the north (Russia), west (the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), and south (the Ottoman Empire). It was here in 1709 that Peter the Great won one of his greatest victories, at Poltava (over the Swedes); and suffered, two years later, his only major defeat (by the Ottomans) in the Battle of the Pruth. Later in the century, in the time of Catherine the Great, Russia achieved a series of decisive victories aganist its rivals, leading to the abolition of Poland-Lithuania and the acquisition of all of its Ukrainian lands but those in Galicia (which went to Austria), as well as the Crimea and the northern shores of the Black Sea. Russian domination of the region would last two hundred years, interrupted only briefly during the two World Wars.
In 1920, following the Polish-Soviet War, the western Ukrainian lands long held by Austria became part of the second Polish Republic, while the area known as Subcarpathian Russia that had belonged to prewar Hungary went to Czechoslovakia. These did not become part of Soviet Ukraine until 1939 and 1945, respectively, and comprise the heartland of Ukrainian nationalism. During and after World War II, a guerrilla movement known as the Ukrainian Insurgent Army ("UPA") was active, led by Stepan Bandera; it fought implacably against the Soviets and intermittently also against the Germans and both Communist and anti-Communist Poles. Bandera's movement sought to come to terms with Hitler, and was branded as "fascist" by the Soviets; its legacy may explain much of the current ill feelings between east and west in the Ukraine.
Finally, western policy toward eastern Europe since 1991 needs to be considered. U.S. promises to the Gorbachev regime not to expand NATO eastwards were systematically violated by the Clinton administration, which even welcomed Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, former republics of the USSR, into the alliance, the latter two including substantial Russian minorities. The second Bush administration denounced the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, made noises about stationing missiles in Poland, and promoted anti-Russian regime changes in Georgia and Ukraine itself. The Obama administration's insistence on the sanctity of national sovereignty rings hollow in the wake of U.S.actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere; surely the American pot is no less black than the Russian kettle.
In this crisis, the Russians seem to be justified in protecting Russian interests in Ukraine, and the Obama administration and its allies strike me as clueless. The Russians have shown since 1991 that they are more than willing to tolerate an independent Ukraine that respects their interests; why can't the west and its Ukrainian allies come to terms with Russia on that basis?
Does no one in Washington -- or in the American media -- study history any more?