A federation is likely the best possible resolution and would likely benefit ordinary Ukrainians by giving them more direct democratic control (for example giving them a veto over IMF deals or economic union deals with Russia or the EU). The country is a hodgepodge of regions thrown together at the end of the cold war by the same powers that are now fighting over it.

While Russia has been made into the bogeyman in western media the fact is that neither Washington/Berlin nor Moscow has the best interests of Ukrainians at heart. The IMF package is a very bad deal for most Ukrainians other than the oligarchs (who control of the interim government). One of the few things that has maintained some level of stability in Ukraine has been the retention of some part of its Soviet era welfare provisions including its pensions. IMF restructuring would destroy much of that as well as selling off public infrastructure and national assets(almost certainly at fire sale prices - like the sale of Royal Mail in UK) to foreign buyers. It is the austerity agenda that is being pushed in much of the EU and the growth in the far right has resulted directly from it. Yanukovych for all his faults (and they were many) rejected this deal (although he left the door open to further negotiations) back in November because he feared what would happen when he tried to impose the conditions of the deal on Ukrainians. The deal has never been popular in eastern or southern Ukraine because their industry will be sold off and dismantled.

There are still protesters in the Maidan, and many of them are not fascists. They are still their because they aren't happy with the interim government, stacked as it is with Oligarchs and members of Tymoshenko's party. The real hope in this situation is that Ukrainians will be able to develop a movement independent of western or Russian influence that can break the hold of the oligarchs and put the country on a path to development that isn't just a neoliberal's wet dream.

Unlike NATO and the U.S., these days (post Chechnya, Georgia) Mr. Putin uses military force very intelligently and sparingly - only when it has a high chance of success. He doesn't want a military quagmire in Ukraine. So I don't think he'll invade unless the country descends into total chaos or unless NATO tries to make it a member.

He has the energy, economic and political levers he needs to bring Ukraine to heel. This week Gazprom has nearly doubled the price of gas to Ukraine. Putin's going to get his way in Ukraine, one way or another. He's seems willing to wait it out over the next several weeks / months and patiently orchestrate Ukraine's full return to Russia's sphere of influence.

NATO is talking loud and making mostly symbolic moves (the money simply isn't there to rebuild a severely weakened NATO). Russia will use diplomatic 'stutter steps' and 'head fakes' to try to slow down any rebuilding of the alliances military muscle. But failing that, Putin could well decide to completely dump the petrodollar, coordinating with other key exporting states, and throw an economic 'bomb' into NATO members' laps. There are already hints of this. It is thus dangerous to back Putin into a corner - he's liable to come out swinging in ways that the West isn't prepared to handle.

He very slyly caught them off guard in Crimea. He can do similarly in other dimensions in which they are vulnerable. He has studied these vulnerabilities for 15 years and has effective strategies to exploit them.

Russia doesn't get much respect - that plays into Putin's hand because the West maintains an extremely inflated view of their own power and simultaneously it grossly underestimates Russia's ability to hit the West where it really hurts.

clear language clear thought , understand well by SPEAKERS OF English AS SECOND LANGUAGE

Lavrov's proposal has already been rejected. Kiev has indicated they will take steps grant further autonomy for certain regions. If any kind of federalization does occur I can't imagine it will happen till after the upcoming electoral cycle.

Mostly hype and fear mongering probably, but NATO CINC is warning that Russia could take the Ukraine in 12 hours.

From CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/02/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html...

I presently have no idea whether or not Putin has a plan to take the East. Though I suppose if they do, NATO will continue to whine and do nothing at all. And the US military is too preoccupied with other things, like determining how to properly incorporate transsexuals into their ranks. Never mind taking on an opponent who actually fights back and hits hard.

Which means there is really no good reason for Russia not to take more of the Ukraine.

Especially if it only takes 12 hours.

Here is a lesson to learn from Putin: play to win or avoid the game.

The game in the Crimea saga was not decided on the validity of Russian claims about fascists, danger to minorities or the UN General Assembly's proclamations. These things play a role, but only in as much as they actually play a role. That extent varies between moderate and nothing. In no case are they an overwhelming consideration.

Putin set an achievable, definable goal - annex Crimea. He preplanned a strategy which focused concentrating on things that actually matter first. Part of that plan was to move fast. Would that the US had such gameplans in Afghanistan or Iraq.

The US (and certainly if you consider an EU-US alliance) is still more powerful, wealthy and even liked than Russia is. They have more to trade with. They are just terrible at playing those cards.

So s--t or get off the pot NATO. Either agree with Russia on the neutrality of states bordering Russia and "appease" Russia or make them real members and clearly mark them as pawns that cannot be touched without triggering total war. One or the other.

Ukraine is the public face of this now. If Ukraine is rushed into the EU and/or NATO, then a new cold war begins.

If a new cold war is inevitable, the US needs to start planning how to win it. If it is avoidable, they need to try and prevent it. maybe that mean Russia gets Ukraine. Being undecided is a bad option.

"Putin could well decide to completely dump the petrodollar"

That would not be healthy...

"Will Ukraine become a federal state?" ... "The IMF package is a very bad deal for most Ukrainians other than the oligarchs (who control the interim government). "

I don't think wars happen when you’re busy making other plans. We might be seeing more Geneva Accords...The defeat of the French, lead to the Geneva Accords,that led to the American invasion of Vietnam** : "Diệm declared himself president of the newly proclaimed Republic of Vietnam after a fraud-ridden referendum vote: Campaigning for Bảo Đại was banned, while Diệm's election campaign focused on attacks that included pornographic cartoons of the head of state..."

** JFK might have been able to stop the invasion - Obama has the advantage of being broke:
http://www.thenation.com/article/177332/jfks-vietnam-withdrawal-plan-fac...

I believe Eric's comment is more to the point of the real issue than Gwynne's commentary. The Ukraine issue is not really about future geopolitical alignment but rather it is about national economic policy. Euro-American capitalists via the IMF are trying to exploit the Ukraine's economic distress to their advantage. The Ukraine is yet another example of the ruthless techniques of "Disaster Capitalism" to buy distressed economic assets on the cheap. If the IMF policies are legitimated then it's Western Predator's [1]-Ukrainians [0]. Game over!

Russia is ruled by a petro-oligarchy, and Crimea is a prize: large gas deposits under the peninsula, and oil and gas deposits within the offshore territorial limit. Prior to Putin's imperial irridentist adventure, foreign investors were interested in exploring these resources. But a gas-exporting Ukraine would be a disaster for Russia's energy clique and Gazprom. The fear, uncertainty, doubt sowed by Russia's military action in Georgia also had the effect of kyboshing any investment in pipeline infrastructure for Azerbaijani crude.

Because of Soviet industrial politics, Russia's military is critically dependent on Ukraine for components (engines, avionics, etc.) for its military vehicles and ballistic missiles, many of which are nearing the end of their life cycles. Morale in Russia's military is poor, and conscription is unpopular. Russia never really recovered from the 2008 global recession, and, before this started, growth was in the 1-2% range. And energy export-dependent Russia will suffer, as Europe and Japan look for LNG imports from North America and the Gulf. During 2011-12, there were huge anti-Putin protests in Russia; as the economy deteriorates further, and citizens are conscripted into this petro-war, Russians may find that there is little to lose in fighting Putin's authoritarian kleptocracy.

1) US President George W Bush and Britain pushed strongly for Ukraine's admission to NATO at the 2008 Bucharest NATO summit --but that motion was blocked by Germany, France and Spain. However, Washington is still pushing
that initiative. Why else spend $5 billion on subversion/overthrow of the government of a bankrupt country 4500 miles from the USA?
2) NATO in Ukraine means nukes about 300 miles from Moscow. It would also allow Washington to destroy Russia's nuclear defenses in a single, surprise strike with stealth fighters/drones if the strike was launched from Ukraine.
(The two Russian ICBM sites out of range of Ukraine are within range of US bases in Afghanistan.)
3) Washington is trying to conquer the world. The leadership of Canada, EU, and Britain are too dim to think ahead to what that will mean. Compare the military budgets of the USA to Germany, Britain and Canada to get an idea.