Is russia justified in its actions in crimea?
A revolution in Ukraine took place in February 2014 after a series of violent events in the capital of Kiev culminated with the ousting of the then President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. This was followed by a series of changes in quick succession in Ukraine's socio-political system, including the installation of a new improvised government, the revival of an older version of the constitution, and the request to hold spontaneous presidential elections within months. Before the revolution, Ukraine had been mired by years of corruption, mismanagement, lack of economic growth, currency devaluation, and an inability to secure funding from public markets. As a result of this, Yanukovych sought to create closer relations with the European Union (EU) as well as Russia in order to bait the capital necessary to maintain Ukraine’s standard of living without significantly affecting the local population. One of these measures was an association agreement with the European Union which would provide Ukraine with funds contingent to several reforms in almost all aspects of Ukrainian society and break its economic ties with Russia. Yanukovych, at first, considered the contingencies to be fair but ultimately refused to sign the agreement considering it too grave and detrimental to Ukraine. Instead, he signed a treaty with Russia which sparked civil unrest in Kiev that ultimately led to violent clashes between protestors and law enforcement officers under unclear circumstances. As tensions rose, Yanukovych fled the country and has been granted safe refuge by Russia. In late February 2014, anonymous armed forces began to take over the Crimean Peninsula. Ukraine and Western commentators branded the gunmen as Russian Special Forces and allied paramilitaries. Russia, which has various strategic interests in and historical ties to Crimea, insists that the forces did not