As Americans, we approach everything with a moral narrative. This is one of the reasons why we produce smug observers like Pacer and Ras, who, here in the US are actually taken seriously, while, elsewhere, in places like Russia, China, or central Asian small-timers would probably just be shot.
We have the great fortune of space.
In Russia, in particular, despite its size, you don't.
I don't blame Russia for behaving the way it has in Ukraine, although I do wish it would finally admit its behavior officially and stop skulking around like a kid in a ****ty city park. Honestly, I would want the US to behave the same way, albeit openly. Keep the threatening influences at bay by making said threatening country on your borders basically neutral at least. Of course Ukraine doesn't threaten Russia existentially, but Russia has a lot at stake in Ukraine (warm water ports, food, and pipelines not the least of which).
I totally get Russia's reaction and, in many regards, I support it.
I still, however, cannot stomach the seizure of Crimea and what I will officially call the "Weasel War" (you heard it first hear - don't copyright it) sanctioned by Russia in eastern Ukraine. I understand interests, and I think the US needs to cooperate more with Russia on this, but I cannot stomach border change. Russia is currently the only country on Earth changing borders, and it's not just in Ukraine.
Our country needs to get serious about foreign policy again. W. (not necessarily his pappy, who was tutored correctly under Reagan, who was a master of foreign policy, despite the mujihadeen debacle, which was Russia's fault, and not ours, anyhow) led us down a very, very bad path. I don't necessarily blame him. In many ways, he was a victim of America's great fortunes, but he also cost us dearly. Well, President Dick, more exactly.
We need to get back to the days of Reagan foreign policy, who learned a great lesson from Teddy. You carry a big stick, and you swing that stick very mightily, but you don't use that stick in circumstances when it either no longer benefits you or you go limp.
In the Ukraine, we are not limp. We need some pressure. But we are very much restrained. And, to carry the Roosevelt sexual metaphor of foreign policy and natural interests further, we should, at no point, sport a full hard-on erection, no matter how much that girl tempts us. Don't do it. Don't even think you can get by with a condom on. Just maintain flirtation, but don't go all in. You can't compete with Russia's handsomeness and big, fatty, at least not here.
Russia, for the time being, seems satisfied with frozen conflict. Then let them be.
Keep it that way. Don't move any further. Certainly don't arm Ukraine. (What the ****!)
Move economic interests into western Ukraine. Make it a viable country, the west at least.
Grant liberal political rights to the east so that Russia doesn't feel immediately threatened.
Ukraine may never be a "country" ever again and, this is partially explainable due to its geography and history, but some Ukraine will survive in a solid form at the very least - it's too strong to disappear, especially with Western backing. And Europe and Russia will both live with it as long as neither encroaches too far upon the other's interest, which, to both parties' interests, has seem to be the case thus far (Russia's shadiness in the east aside).
Just leave it be. Support economic interests in the west, remain firm against conflict-expansion, and hope that the economic and moral liberalization of the area will eventually trickle through to the east and, most importantly, to western Russia.
In the meantime, just chill the **** out.