Later sources reported that although the Ukraine may not be capable of creating a nuclear weapon in that time frame it could construct a dirty nuclear bomb, and in the UK Foreign Secretary William Hague tweets: "Russian Ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office over #Ukraine". But this from the man who spearheaded British involvement in the Egyptian revolution.
A little over a week ago unrest in the Ukraine burst onto mainstream media news reports but the protests are not new. Russia Today reported in December "By supporting protesters in Ukraine while previously ignoring huge last year protests in Turkey and Spain, EU officials have revealed that for them some protesters are more equal than others, journalist Neil Clark told RT."
The protests continued to grown in intensity for the last few months but days ago it is fair to say that all hell broke loose.
With protesters turning violent and using what weapons they had to provoke the authorities in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev a feared government security group responded by allowing snipers to fire live ammunition into the crowds.
Both sides suffered losses and the death toll was high.
In this tale of at least two sides discovering who is to blame is not easy. The west is already calling the new revolutionary council a legitimate government of the Ukraine but the whole country is not behind the revolutionaries.
Areas of the Ukraine closer to the Russian border remain loyal to that country.
There is a great deal of spin, propaganda and it has to be said, bullshit, surrounding the crisis.
US President Obama has gone on record to issue Putin a warning and say that there will be "consequences" if Russian troops enter the Ukraine but is any American President able to do this? The old saying about those in glass-houses not throwing stones springs to mind. With that in mind Obama and other western leaders are the last people who should offer such 'advice.'
Around the world there are numerous conflicts, spats, revolutions and wars playing out.
Saturday Obama reportedly said there would be costs if Russia sent troops into the Ukraine, and such a move 'would be deeply destabilizing.' Did he mean like western intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Libya? The Middle Eastern region remains in tatters.
The US, and its allies, has had involvement in many disturbances either directly or by using special agents. Then there are drones used by the Americans to police parts of the world by killing people viewed as possible insurgents or terrorists; yet Americans question why their country is disliked by many. And importantly too often civilians are killed in such drone action.
Western governments have done their damnedest to quash whistle-blowers such as Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, plus others. We know now some of the reasons why this was done. The truth about our governments and their spy agencies was kept secret as the truth was so shocking; an abuse of power.
Bahrain is in crisis and the people want change. Thailand is in crisis and the people want change. What is so different about the Ukraine?
Strategically the Ukraine will be useful for the west. The countries extremists in this case do not come by way of the Muslim religion but hard far-right fascists. In a Cold War mentality it will be "one in the eye" for Russia and Putin if the country moves into the crippled EU.
Saturday the Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said Russian forces have taken over two airports in Crimea and he accused them of “an armed invasion and occupation in violation of all international laws but it is surely not that simple? Who guarantees this minister is legitimate?
Russia claims it is protecting its interests in the region and it has part of its fleet stationed in the Ukraine. This according to Putin makes their actions legitimate.
In December the Washington Post reported "Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych escaped protests in his country last week with a state visit to Beijing, where he received China’s pledge to protect Ukraine under its nuclear umbrella. On Dec. 5, Mr. Yanukovych and President Xi Jinping signed a bilateral treaty officially pronouncing that China and Ukraine are now “strategic partners”."
It is all too easy to believe Russia Today or the Washington Post but news reporting on such events is rarely uinbiased. It is also easy to dismiss the view you do not like for the same reasons but we must surely be cautious unless we want dragging into more conflict, potentially on a global scale?
Who is telling the truth? Well there are always many shades of the truth.
The only given is the Ukraine is in crisis. Conflict is possible. The Ukraine could end up a divided country but the west does not want that too happen.
What do the Ukrainian people want? That is the big question. But there will be a bigger agenda for world leaders.
And for all of Washington's posturing they would act in a similar manner to satisfy their own ends.
This writer is left wondering where Syria may fit into all of this. In 2013 a western strike on Syria was counfounded. With Russia's help a chemical weapons destruction deal was made. That deal is behind schedule.
Is the Ukrainian revolution covenient for some?
Russian-Iran Oil Deal Could Trigger US Sanctions – White House
A Tale of Two Protests: The Ukraine and Thailand
And at TEK: