Are Western countries responsible for the crisis in Ukraine? Yes.

I would tend to agree that Western countries are responsible for the crisis in Ukraine.

Viktor Yanukovych had been fairly elected as the president of Ukraine. In 2013 he made a deal with the government of Russia so that $15 billion would be provided to Ukraine from Russia. This $15 billion was badly needed and, basically, would have helped Ukraine greatly. The $15 billion was a gift from Russia to continue good and peaceful relations with a neighboring country.

Only because Yanukovych signed this agreement, people from an anti-Russian (against Russia) political party began protesting every day in Maidan Square in Kiev.  Day by day the protests became more violent and 25 Kiev police officers were killed (many burned to death) by Kiev protesters. It also seemed that many of the protesters supported a neo-nazi ideology ('neo' means 'new'). Many of the protesters were Nazis.

Western countries openly supported the violent protests.  Not one leader of one Western country called for the protesters to stop the violence and to wait for peaceful elections. 

Many people who supported the illegal overthrow of Yanukovych say that he was corrupt (dishonest). I don't know - maybe he was and maybe he wasn't. There was an election which was just one year away. If everyone in Ukraine had waited for this election, there would have been no civil war in Ukraine. If Yanukovych had been as corrupt as his opponents say he was, he would have lost the election and there would have been PEACEFUL change in Ukraine.

The anti-Russian political party might have felt that it could not beat Yanukovych in fair elections, and this is why they chose the road of violence and not peace. The only choice now, obviously, is to divide Ukraine into two countries so that the violence ends.

Here is an article about this topic:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31289051?ocid=global_bbccom_email_09022015_top+news+stories

Vocabulary to help you understand the article:

conflict - this is both a countable and non-countable noun meaning a lack of peace or a situation in which there is fighting and struggle

to renew - to begin again

blame - to say that someone has done something wrong

Franco-German - French and German

pledges - promises 

amid - in the middle of

to deny - to say something didn't happen

accusations - claims that something wrong happened

rebels - those fighting against a government

claimed more than 5,000 lives - more than 5,000 people have been killed in a war that didn't have to happen

intense - very strong, fierce

fatalities - deaths

to adopt a tougher stance - to be tougher or stronger; but, basically, John McCain is a right-wing idiot who thinks the US military should be fighting in about 10 different places right now.

our correspondent - our journalist

a rift - a division, a disagreement

to revive - to bring back to life

collapsed - fell apart

a demilitarized zone - an area where neither country's army can go; this is an absolutely stupid idea which will not bring peace. Ukraine simply has to be divided into two countries.

renewed - begun again

hollow - empty, of no value

to prompt them - to cause them

a coup d'etat - this is when an elected leader is illegally and violently forced out of office. Putin is correct, there was a coup d'etat and it was supported by Western countries. This countries continue to make the situation worse while pretending to talk about peace.

ousting - forcing out

to annex - to take over

------------------

http://djg51qu.wix.com/gauss