If you mean the "unconfirmed troops" that openly admit to coming from Russia then the answer is not much at the moment. If you mean the pro-Russian militias that are suspiciously well-armed and trained, then the answer is quite a bit.

Funny you mention "well-armed and trained" when a western reporter from the Crimean area, that was critical of Russia, said on NPR (on the subject of unconfirmed Russian troops) that the local militia were "rag-tag" and lightly armed.

And where did you get that confirmation of the troops coming over from Russia, into the Crimean? (presumably under orders, right?)

And I'm finding some amazing cognitive dissonance on the part of the west supporting a violent overthrow of a democratically elected government. (though given recent history, I shouldn't be surprised)

So if Georgians got tired of their chickenhawk leaders constantly trying to pick a fight with Russia and revolted, the US wouldn't have a problem with that, right? Or more likely they'd be throwing any weapons they could spare to the pro-government forces.

Confirmation that Russian troops have moved into Crimea: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10668357/ Russia-admits-that-it-has-moved-troops-in-Ukraine.html

Confirmation from Russian authorities:
http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/newsline/F2C86A40B49E817544257C8D0 0485C4F

With regards to the militia issue, some appear to be rather well-trained such as those who took the airport in Crimea (who were suspected of being Russian special forces as they were very well equipped), whereas others (who probably are legitimate militias from the population) are not. A prime example of a non-so-well-trained militia would be the one that detained the UN Representative in a coffee house and only allowed him to escape when he promised to leave the country. That would certainly not be the actions of a well-advised force, as it portrays their side in a negative light.

Sources: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-un-special- representative-seized-by-armed-men-in-crimeaukrainian-ministry-917 1405.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/05/ukraine-crisis-serry- idUKL6N0M21SN20140305

With regards to your second post, I do not disagree that self-interest is fueling much of the actions of the EU and NATO. If Putin were to bring the Ukraine into his desired Eurasian Union then it would significantly strengthen the proposed entity. The best thing for the Ukraine, on account of its deeply divided population with regards to either straightening European or Russian ties, would be to try to stake out a more neutral position with trade ties with both entities, as opposed to being subsumed within either one. However, current events seem to make such a settlement unlikely.

*strengthening, not straightening