Protestors have taken a stand in Ukraine after their President reversed the planned trade deal with the European Union and turned to Russia instead. Things only got worse when an anti-protest law went into effect.
Thus far, the military has yet to be involved, and the Obama administration has vocalized its approval of the decision and strongly encourage the military to stay on the sidelines. Obama has also expressed his hopes that the Ukrainian government will be able to resolve the situation without using any violence, especially after the unrest killed 26 people.
The United States' attempt to intervene was by issuing visa bans to 20 Ukrainian government officials who were responsible for the violent crackdown.
In my personal opinion, I don't see any significant development in the situation, certainly not enough to write an article. I understand that Obama's opinion is opinion and heavily reflects the popular opinion for the nation. However, his opinion is an obvious one. Of course he advocates nonviolence! If he approved of the protests and military intervention, we would all be terrified of his true intentions!
On the positive side, this article does a great job summarizing the situation thus far for those of us who don't necessarily keep up with the news. But I am left wondering, what was the articles purpose? What message was the author trying to send? Why was it written? More than anything, it gives a brief summary, and the only information It adds to the current situation is Obama's view that violence is bad... Duh. The article even mentions that the United States has limited options as far as helping out. So why are we trying to force ourselves in there by asserting our opinions on the Ukrainian government?
Read the full article here