Not to oversimplify the complex history, but for the past 200+ years, the Crimea has been ethnically Russian, and literally part of Russia. It was basically an accident of history that it ended up with the Ukraine. In the 1950s Nikita Krushchev "gave" it to the Ukraine when it was merely another republic - another state, essentially - inside the Soviet Union. Ironically, this was done (supposedly) as a gesture of good will. The entry in Wikipedia sums up the situation fairly well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

It was not 200+ years. Stalin was the one who "moved" the locals out of Crimea.

argument as to how this is a threat to the USA, or why it is any of the USA's business. They don't talk about that, for good reason. Because there is no argument to be made.

Ukraine got to watch what happened to Georgia. The Georgians resisting the Russians gave Putin an excuse. Now there are two chunks of Georgia where the people will fire upon Georgian troops.

So let's pretend the Ukrainians shot back. Putin claims they shot first at troops legally stationed at Russia's Crimean bases, and sends in the army to restore order - to all of Ukraine. And he can use the fighting as international justification.

Ukraine doesn't fire back, and Putin loses his excuse.

Ukraine can't possibly defeat Russia militarily, so Ukraine needs that international pressure to not follow Georgia's fate.

Historically, Ukraine was where Eastern Slavic culture originated, dating back centuries to the days of the Kievan Rus.

There's a Ukrainian language, Ukrainian culture, Ukrainian food, Ukrainian folklore. Ukraine is real. It is not "Little Russia", as some Russians derogatorily refer to it.

Crimea was complicated by the fact that the region was intensely Russified during times of Russian/Soviet dominance. There were Ukrainians (and ethnic Tatars) in Crimea but they were made to be a miniority. However, Russia is overplaying its hand if it thinks that it can creep similarly into portions of Eastern Ukraine. The fact that many speak Russian in that region does not mean that they don't consider themselves to be ethnic Ukrainian. For decades, the Ukrainian language was forcibly repressed by Moscow and Ukrainian children had no choice but to be raised speaking Russian.

Crimea is also complicated by the fact that Russia has a much more powerful military than Ukraine and sadly it's just a matter of Russian bullying, with might making right.

They were a pre-Muslim Turkic people.

....you can date the indigenous population even before the Tatar days. Just like we can date our indigenous population here long before the days of European colonists.

I think the greater point is that Russia's claim that Crimea is inherently "Russian" and therefore it has an automatic claim to it is ludicrous. It's not even connected to the Russian mainland in any way.

Most of the population in Crimea appear to want to be a part of Russia, not Ukraine.

In the process, they suggest, erroneously, that the native population was displaced by the conquerors. Instead, their was a process in which the conquerors, mostly Turkic and Asian, melded together with one another. It was only with Russia that attempts were made to re-engineer the population.

1. The Ukrainian government does not have much of a stomach for a very bloody war that they would likely lose and would deepen ethnic divisions.

2. The Ukrainian government understands that it has gained international currency by not pursuing a military solution.

3. Thanks to the policies of Russian governments for centuries--settling ethnic Russians and expelling Tatars--a loyal population was installed.

4. The presence of the Russian Navy encourages pro-Russian sentiment.

5. The referendum, conducted under duress, was the easy part. Separating from Ukraine will prove to be much harder: making changes to infrastructure, utilities, banking. As many experts on the area have noted (almost unanimously), absorbing Crimea will cost Russia greatly over the next two decades, and will require at least some cooperation from Ukraine. And then there are sanctions to consider.

but if they don't have the will to fight for their own country, regardless of the odds, I don't see how the west can give them that will.

The way I see it now, if Russia wanted to, they could easily march to Kiev with little or no problems from the Ukrainian citizens. This, in and of itself, does not bode well for supporting the Ukrainians.

At this point, I don't even think the Ukrainians know what there goals are. It's an extremely ambiguous situation and I hope that cooler heads will prevail.

They should protest under the watch of Russian sailors and Crimean militiamen?

They should set up sniper points in their homes and businesses?

They should mark their Russophone neighbors doors with Xs.

What level of disobedience do you think they feel safe with?

ETA: Let's not forget that they are rudderless because their corrupt president stole away in the night and left them in the lurch, and Russia is taking advantage of the situation. A temporary government doesn't have the legitimacy to act in the way you suggest.