By shifting gears abruptly from professions of eternal brotherhood with the Ukrainian people to what amounts to a trade war, Vladimir Putin effectively works at cross-purposes with himself.

While analysts are trying to predict whether Ukraine will go East or West, the country is standing still. On August 14, 2013 Moscow made Ukraine’s choice easier by starting yet another trade war.

Viktor Yanukovych can be expected to do his best to play with both giants, while Russia will proceed with its combination of pressure, threats, and promises; and Europe will struggle between losing Ukraine to Russia and compromising on its principles.

Vladimir Putin’s one-day visit to Baku on August 13 was fertile ground for Kremlinological speculation. The formal part of the negotiations revealed very little. It is more productive to focus on who was not in Baku and what was not said.

FEMEN is one of the most recognized Ukrainian cultural exports of the age. These topless protesters have been making headlines with their unique approach to challenging traditional patriarchal entities.

Viktor Yanukovych will try to balance between Moscow and the European Union. Continued hesitation would mean unavoidable crisis in Ukraine’s obsolete economy. Such crisis would be Ukraine’s moment of truth: either go begging to Moscow or start carrying out the painful reforms.

Ukraine is facing a choice: join with Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to form a Eurasian economic union, or associate itself more closely with the European Union. The Eurasian option carries strong emotional overtones of rich shared legacy and promises immediate economic benefits. The European option offers an association and “deep free trade” with the world’s biggest and richest economic entity.

Membership in the Customs Union may be extended to other former Soviet countries: Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Armenia. The changes resulting from such expansion will be minimal. To make a real difference, the union must include Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

“Returning to Europe” is meaningful for Georgia. The Russian option is but a threat.

Despite the similarity of their names, the European Union and the Eurasian Union are fundamentally different projects, one based on pooling sovereignty, the other on reasserting Moscow’s economic primacy in its neighborhood.

A Eurasian military alliance—even the potential for one—should trigger serious discussion about future armament policies, diplomatic relationships, and even conceptions of the world order.

The cancelation of the U.S.-Russian summit marks the formal end of Barack Obama’s reset policy. The reset may be followed by something which can be called counter-reset: a policy of applying more pressure on Russia.

How realistic are the plans to build the Eurasian Union? Countries unite in order to pursue common aims, and Moscow will come to the point when it has to use the stick and carrot approach to persuade its partners to stay under the common roof.

For the first time since the downfall of the Soviet Union, Moscow has embarked on a geopolitical project of its own, rather than trying to accede to others’.

Snowden is the tip of the problem which runs deep and was not addressed at all by the policy of the reset, even in its heyday. The problem is how to construct equal relations between Russia and the United States which are very unequal in terms of national might and international power.

Critics worry that Japan could stoke an arms race in East Asia with a policy of “remilitarization” and right-wing nationalism, but we should avoid exaggerating what the Japanese people will allow.

Europe is caught between conflicting feelings toward the Georgian-Russian rapprochement. For Georgia, this means it will have to manage relations with Russia on its own.

The new contender from the United National Movement, parliament minority leader David Bakradze has made this October’s election for president of Georgia something to watch.

Japan is back as a modern post-imperialist power. True, she has many problems, but they are no larger than the problems which other nations suffer.

Will the breakthrough model suggested by Shinzo Abe, that is the combination of financial stimulus, concentration of powers in his hands, new nationalism, military strength, and return to geopolitics, be successful?