Is Putin really the puppet-master?

• Jill Dougherty: The popular image is that Putin is manipulating the Ukraine crisis


• She says the reality is that Yanukovich is to blame for avoiding economic and political reform


• The turmoil in Ukraine is a major headache for Putin's regime, she says


• Dougherty: Putin not eager for an epic battle with the West over Ukraine

Editor's note: Jill Dougherty was CNN's Moscow Bureau Chief and Correspondent from 1997 through 2005. She also served as White House Correspondent and, most recently, as CNN's Foreign Affairs Correspondent covering the State Department. She is a fellow at Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, where she is researching recent developments in the Russian media.

(CNN) -- As Washington pundits watch the carnage in Kiev, images of a rapacious Russian President Vladimir Putin, puppet master of Ukraine and of its president, Viktor Yanukovich, stalk the headlines. Putin, the theory goes, is willing to stoke a civil war in order to keep Ukraine from turning to the West.

America's obsession with Putin, however, does not explain the complex realities fueling the uprising in Ukraine, or the uneasy relationship between Putin and Yanukovich. Long before the uprising began, if Yanukovich had carried out real economic and political reform, he would not have been caught between a long-term promise of a closer relationship with Europe and an immediate hand-out from Moscow, and with it the Kremlin's demand that he toughen up and put down the opposition's demonstrations.

But Yanukovich, up for reelection in 2015, was not willing to bite the bullet and carry out the measures the West was demanding.

Yanukovich tried to play both sides against the middle.

"Yanukovich has played Putin against Europe and the United States quite masterfully. So there is no love lost between them and no trust there," says Eugene Rumer who, until earlier this month, served as U.S. national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the CIA. He's now director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.

"The quality of the discussion here in Washington has really been appalling," he adds. "A lot more has been said about Russia and Russia's role ... but it ignores the fact that Ukraine has had an independent life for the last 25 years and this crisis is really a domestic political crisis in Ukraine. Not that the Russians haven't helped, but it is a Ukrainian domestic political crisis."

Opinion: Can Ukraine sustain fragile peace?

Putin does have interests in Ukraine: a desire to keep NATO and U.S. military bases out, ties with Ukrainian aircraft and shipbuilding enterprises closely linked with Russia's military-industrial complex, his own Black Sea Fleet, in Ukraine's port of Sevastopol on the Crimean peninsula, as well as ensuring unimpeded transit of natural gas to Europe.

What's more, Harvard University's Simon Sardzhyan says, Putin and his advisers essentially see Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians as one people and "therefore, seek to draw Ukraine into Moscow's orbit."

"The size of Ukraine's population and, to a less extent, of its economy would make it a valuable asset in the Eurasian Union, which Putin is building in the post-Soviet landscape."

Ukraine's dependency on Putin exposed

McCain: Sanctions needed against Ukraine

Yanukovich, however, "has never been Russia's man," says Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center. "I think it's a myth. He's been a very difficult partner for Russia, a very unreliable partner, someone who let the Russians down on many occasions. Someone absolutely not to be trusted."

Yanukovich's only goal is to stay in power and to protect his wealth and the wealth of his family, says Trenin. "With Yanukovich vacillating between Russia and Europe and always having his own private interests in mind, it's mind-boggling. So the Russians have long given up on Yanukovich."

Putin's envoy to Kiev refused to sign the latest truce between Yanukovich and the opposition, in which they agreed on early elections and a return to a constitution that would shift more power from the president to the Parliament.

"I think the Kremlin feels cold-shouldered," Trenin says. "I think it feels betrayed by Yanukovich. Betrayed may be too strong a word, but certainly Yanukovich has managed to play the Europeans off the Russians."

Putin is not rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of an epic battle with the West over Ukraine. In fact, says Carnegie's Andrew Weiss, who worked on policy toward the region in the Clinton and George H.W. Bush administrations, "I think if you're sitting in the Kremlin the prospect of a Yugoslav scenario in Ukraine is quite scary."

"As much as the political narrative in Washington and the West is that Putin, the puppet master, has guided all of this," he says, "I think there's reason to believe that he's more worried and more cautious about how dangerous this is. He's set a policy framework which, obviously, has made the situation worse but at the same time, the really scary stuff that's out there as possibilities, I think, scares the Kremlin no less than it scares Europeans and Americans."

Weiss calls it a "four-way political fiasco" involving the Ukrainians, the Europeans, the Russians and the United States, where "people didn't want to get engaged in the early stages of the conflict and events were quickly hijacked by politicians and self-interested actors on the ground."

The Partnership agreement, in which the European Union offered Ukraine eventual economic and political cooperation, was too long-term to solve Ukraine's immediate financial problems. Russia, angered by the move, stepped in to offer $15 billion.

In the anti-Putin narrative, that is depicted as "blackmail," but if the Russian President, angered by Yanukovich's deal with the opposition, does not follow through with aid for Ukraine, then the ball will be back in the court of the United States and Europe, "who are not willing to dig deep in their pockets like the Kremlin has," Weiss says.

The Yanukovich government must pay back more than $15 billion in debt payments to creditors over the next two years. And without Russia's money, the U.S. and the E.U. would be forced to come up with some form of emergency support.

"I don't believe there's any receptivity in Brussels or Washington to do a major financial bailout for the Ukrainian government," Weiss says, "which has a terrible track record on economic reform, a completely unsustainable currency peg, and its long track record of cozy deals for tycoons."

Clan struggles among Ukraine's oligarchs, social and political crisis, regional differences between western and eastern parts of the country -- Ukraine's home-grown problems are deepening, even without meddling by Vladimir Putin.

"What we see in Ukraine is, unfortunately, in the 20 years of independence, Ukrainian leaders have done little or nothing to create a single Ukrainian nation," says Trenin, "and the divisions within Ukraine have persisted and they have also become much more pronounced in the last few months."

Keeping Ukraine together is a priority for the Obama administration but, says Trenin, it's also a Russian policy priority. "Despite what you may hear from various Russian figures," he says, "it's very much Mr. Putin's preference, in fact, priority, that Ukraine stays in one piece. Otherwise, a civil war very close to home, next door, essentially, could be too dangerous for Russia itself."

Russia would fight to protect the ethnic Russian population and Moscow's base in Crimea, says Harvard's Saradzhyna, quoting a senior Russian government official who told the Financial Times, "If Ukraine breaks apart, it will trigger a war...They will lose Crimea first [because] we will go in and protect [it], just as we did in Georgia."

Tenin isn't so sure. "I don't think the Russians are about to invade Crimea," he says. "What I think is more likely is that, in the future, the various regions of Ukraine will present their own claims and may go in different directions on a number of issues. And attempts by Kiev to clamp down on those autonomous or regionalist tendencies could lead to a new spike in tensions in Ukraine."

Kiev is burning and Ukraine is unraveling.

Yanukovich -- or the leader of a new government -- will have to find a new way to keep the country together. Vladimir Putin will not simply stand by and watch it happen, but he is not the puppet master of Yanukovich -- or of Ukraine.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion .

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion .

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jill Dougherty.

It's a Pachyrhinosaurus!

Researchers have discovered a massive, mostly intact skull of a Pachyrhinosaurus, a dinosaur seen in the 20th Century Fox film "Walking with Dinosaurs" (left).

• A University of Calgary paleontologist shows off a Pachyrhinosaurus skull


• It's one of the biggest, if not the biggest, of its kind at 2 to 2.5 meters, she says


• The discovery is also remarkably intact, though there's still more to reveal


• Pachyrhinosaurs lived about 70 million years ago in Calgary's Alberta and Alaska

(CNN) -- This Pachyrhinosaurus can go to the head of its class.

It's not often, after all, that you can see and touch a skull that's about the size of a Smart Car, about 70 million years old and looks like a mutant blend of a triceratops and giant parrot.

University of Calgary paleontologist Darla Zelenitsky first made the mammoth find in Alberta's Badlands, then revealed it to the world Thursday.

"It almost looks like some sort of mythical beast," Zelenitsky said. "Because it is so big and (mature), it makes for a very strange-looking individual."

Construction crew unearths mammoth tusk

Dinosaur footprint found on NASA campus

Real dinosaurs scarier than ones in film

This isn't the first Pachyrhinosaurus discovery -- that came in the mid-20th century -- and there have been other notable such finds since then in Canada's Alberta province and Alaska.

But what makes this one unique is how well preserved the skull is (75% to 80% complete, which is remarkable for a dinosaur), the fact it's from an older Pachyrhinosaurus (therefore more can be learned from it than a younger version), and, of course, its immense size.

Not that Zelenitsky's team knew all that when they spotted a bumpy rock in mid-October while exploring exposed southern Alberta's Drumheller -- a town that calls itself the Dinosaur Capital of the World for a reason, given the outcrops that make it a paleontologists' dream.

A little digging led to more digging and, after about three days, the realization that they'd found a gigantic dinosaur skull. It took several more months (and the removal of 5 tons of rock) to unearth it in three pieces and show it off to the world. Still, a lot of work needs to be done to peel away remaining surrounding rock and examine the skull in more detail, not to mention see it in full.

"It was really exciting because, when we started, there really wasn't much there," Zelenitsky, an associate professor in the University of Calgary's geoscience department, said. "Then, the skull was not really ending it was so big."

Even with more to peel back, Zelenitsky already calls this skull one of the biggest, if not the biggest, of any Pachyrhinosaurus ever discovered. Given its distinct nature, she and fellow paleontologists will be trying to determine if it is part of its own species or just a big version of an existing one. (There are three known species of Pachyrhinosaurus as is.)

Even if it's part of previously discovered Pachyrhinosaurus species, there's no doubt this skull is quite a sight.

The herbivore's beak at the front of its snout was likely used to crop vegetation. Behind that are rows of teeth that finished off whatever greens made it into the mouth.

Then there's what Zelenitsky describes as a "huge, almost platter-shape structure" and the dinosaur's frill. Instead of pointed horns like a triceratops, Pachyrhinosaurs have masses of bones atop their heads likely used in head-butting rituals to compete for mates or perhaps for combat.

The entire skull is about 2 to 2.5 meters (6.5 to 8 feet) long; the entire animal is only 6 meters, meaning this Pachyrhinosaur (as well as its kin) was very top heavy.

"These animals had huge skulls relative to their bodies," said Zelenitsky.

A shocker from figure skating judges?

Gold medalist Adelina Sotnikova of Russia, right, and silver medalist Yuna Kim of South Korea take part in the flower ceremony after the women's free skating program in Sochi, Russia, on Thursday, February 20. Some are questioning the scores given to the skaters since Kim seemingly had a better overall performance.

Kim, performing February 20, finished with a total score of 219.11.

Sotnikova, performing February 20, finished with a score of 224.59, beating Kim by 5.48 points.

Kim, competing February 20, hoped to win her second consecutive Olympic gold.

Sotnikova's program had seven triple jumps.

Kim, left, and Sotnikova were accompanied by bronze medalist Carolina Kostner of Italy during the flower ceremony.

• Amy Bass: Questions over fairness of figure skating judging at Sochi likely unfounded


• Bass: Controversy surrounds the event due to odd scoring and a history of shenanigans


• The judging lineup this time also is questionable, Bass says


• Bass: If skating wants a credible scoring system, it should use credible judges

Editor's note: Amy Bass, a professor of history at the College of New Rochelle, has written widely on the cultural history of sports, including the book "Not the Triumph but the Struggle: The 1968 Olympics and the Making of the Black Athlete." She is a veteran of eight Olympics as the supervisor of NBC's Research Room, for which she won an Emmy in 2012. Follow her on Twitter @bassab1.

(CNN) -- Oh, figure skating. Not again. Didn't anyone tell you? The Cold War is over. You are supposed to be reformed.

At the Olympics in Sochi, Russia, on Thursday, South Korea's Yuna Kim, a 2010 world champion, skated an ethereally beautiful and outwardly perfect long program in the ladies free skating competition. She then lost gold to Russia's Adelina Sotnikova. Few saw that coming.

On paper, Sotnikova had one more triple jump than Kim, including the triple loop, which Kim does not do. Although Sotnikova had an awkward moment on her own double loop, her spins were faster, her jumps higher, and unlike Kim, who looked exhausted at the end of her gorgeous skate, Sotnikova flew across the ice with great speed and then looked like she could do it all again.

It should have been a great moment in Olympic sports: champion dethroned by a rising star, an upset, a shocker. Instead, it was controversial water cooler fodder the next day because the results raised so many questions: Did the youngster, a bit rough around the edges, deserve such high marks? Was she really better in just about every element, including her components mark, which was an astonishing 4.81 points higher than at the European championships last month?

Setting aside her extreme margin of victory, there are reasons to think the judges got the podium right. Three-time world champion Elvis Stojko, for example, who had always accentuated an aggressive style over artistry, praised the marks, pleased that the judges rewarded Sotnikova's athleticism and degrees of difficulty over Kim's elegance. Figure skating is, after all, a sport.

But if it wants to be treated like one, it has to act like one.

There is a long history of controversy and scandal that continues to hang over the International Skating Federation, particularly as Russia's first individual female gold medalist (and on home ice, no less) brings familiar echoes of the Cold War. And during the team competition, there were murmurs, to be sure, over Evgeni Plushenko's high marks. It appeared to some that the judges bolstered his score based on his dynamic presence and the sentimental drama of the legendary champion's return to the ice to lead the home team to gold, rather than the difficulty of his program and his execution of it.

Further, the sport had changed its scoring system to avoid this very situation. After the controversy that went down in Salt Lake in 2002 over the pairs competition, in which French judge Marie-Reine Le Gougne tearfully confessed she had voted for the Russian pair in order to gain an advantage for the French ice dancers, the ISU revamped its scoring system. Gone were the days of the perfect six.

Surprising skating win spurs controversy

2002: Infamous Olympics scoring scandal

With the new system, too, judges are now anonymous, in hopes of relieving the sport of its former biases. Back in 1994, for example, when Oksana Baiul took gold over Nancy Kerrigan, the scores broke down along familiar lines: Judges from Ukraine, China, eastern Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic went for Baiul. Canada, Japan, the United States and Great Britain put Kerrigan first. Although she skated cleanly, Kerrigan had doubled a triple jump; Baiul, considered the superior artist, did a two-footed landing, and performed no triple-triple combination.

Four years later, while an East-West split wasn't apparent in the battle between Tara Lipinski's triple loop-triple loop combination and Michelle Kwan's ability to make judges weep, it remained unclear who favored technique and who performed artistry.

While few can say they actually comprehend today's scoring system, it was designed to yield more balanced results supported by more intricate math. But the ISU needs to back these efforts with ethical and responsible judges.

For the ladies free program, the panel included Russian Alla Shekhovtseva, who is married to the general director of the Russian skating federation, and Ukrainian Yuri Balkov, who had been suspended for attempting to fix the ice dancing competition in Nagano in 1998. And this after rumors had dogged the ice dancing competition, with accusations that the Russians and the Americans (maybe the Cold War is over!) had colluded to shut out Canada.

There is likely little truth to the ice dancing gossip, but the ISU has done nothing to make us think otherwise. If the governing body wants us to talk about figure skating as a sport, it needs to ensure that it behaves like one, with credibility and transparency. Because while the ladies podium may have been right, with scoring this complex and judges this questionable, why on earth would we believe it?

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion .

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion .

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Amy Bass.

Arizona bill would let businesses pick their customers

• NEW: Not sure this needs to be a law, governor tells CNN


• Bill allows business owners to deny service to gays, lesbians


• Critics say the measure sanctions discrimination


• Proponents of the bill say it protects people against activist federal courts

(CNN) -- Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.

The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service.

"I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don't work with," Brewer told CNN in Washington on Friday. "But I don't know that it needs to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I'm not interested. That's America. That's freedom."

Arizona Rep: Law would not shield waiter

Arizona passes bill seen as 'anti-gay'

As expected, the measure has drawn criticism from Democrats and business groups who said it would sanction discrimination and open the state to the risk of damaging litigation.

On Friday, the LGBT group Wingspan staged a protest march to the governor's office that drew about 200 people. Some carried signs with messages "God created us all equal" and "Shame on Arizona."

Tucson-based Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria posted a photo on its Facebook page of a sign with a message for state lawmakers: "We reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators."

"It's a ridiculous bill," pizzeria manager Evan Stevens told CNN on Friday. "Arizona has much bigger problems than allowing businesses to discriminate against people."

In a statement, Anna Tovar, the state senate Democratic minority leader, said: "With the express consent of Republicans in this Legislature, many Arizonans will find themselves members of a separate and unequal class under this law because of their sexual orientation. This bill may also open the door to discriminate based on race, familial status, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability."

The Greater Phoenix Economic Council, in a letter to Brewer on Friday, urged the governor to veto Senate Bill 1062, saying the "legislation will likely have profound, negative effects on our business community for years to come."

"The legislation places businesses currently in Arizona, as well as those looking to locate here, in potentially damaging risk of litigation, and costly, needless legal disputes," council President Barry Broome wrote, adding that four unidentified companies have vowed to locate elsewhere if the legislation is signed.

He added, "With major events approaching in the coming year, including Super Bowl XLIX, Arizona will be the center of the world's stage. This legislation has the potential of subjecting the Super Bowl, and major events surrounding it, to the threats of boycotts."

On CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican, said the bill would not allow hotel clerks or waiters, for instance, to turn away customers, unless there was a "substantial burden on their sincerely held religious beliefs."

The bill is being pushed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative group opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage. The group has justified the measure on grounds that the proposal protects people against increasingly activist federal courts.

"As we witness hostility towards people of faith grow like never before, we must take this opportunity to speak up for religious liberty," the group said on its website, asking people to contact Brewer and urge her to sign the bill. "The great news is that SB 1062 protects your right to live and work according to your faith."

Cathi Herrod, the center's president, told CNN on Friday, "The Arizona bill has a very simple premise, that Americans should be free to live and work according to their religious faith. It's simply about protecting religious liberty and nothing else."

Herrod said the bill's opponents are "showing unbelievable hostility toward religious beliefs."

"America still stands for the principle that religious beliefs matter (for) something in this country, that we have the right to freely exercise our religious beliefs," she said.

But Robert Boston, a spokesman for the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told CNN the legislation would "fling the door wide open to discrimination, not just against gay people, but basically to any class of individuals that a religious fundamentalist decides he or she doesn't want to deal with."

He added, "A woman who is pregnant out of wedlock, for example, 'Well, out the door, you don't get served in my business.' "

The Arizona legislation was passed as conservative states work to counter laws legalizing same-sex marriage. Arizona voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage as a state constitutional amendment in 2008.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona called the bill "unnecessary and discriminatory."

"What today's bill does is allow private individuals and businesses to use religion to discriminate, sending a message that Arizona is intolerant and unwelcoming," the group said in a statement.

Some Republican legislators have defended the bill as a First Amendment issue. Democrats dismissed it as an attack on gays and lesbians.

"It's a very bad day for Arizona," Rep. Chad Campbell, a Phoenix Democrat who voted against the legislation, told CNN Friday.

He added, "Let there be no doubt about what this bill does. It's going to allow people to discriminate against the gay community in Arizona. It goes after unprotected classes of people and we all know that the biggest unprotected class of people in the state is the LBGT community. If we were having this conversation in regard to African-Americans or women, there would be outrage across the country right now."

The right moves?

• Both Obama and Boehner dropped high-profile initiatives to keep base happy


• For Boehner, his commitment to immigration reform was sacrificed


• Obama dropped his idea to tweak inflation adjustments for Social Security


• Both moves show a shift to election-year positioning

John King and a panel of top political reporters look at how Washington is shifting from any environment of compromise to election-year positioning on "Inside Politics " on Sunday at 8:30 a.m. ET.

Washington (CNN) -- We now know President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner agree on at least one thing: In 2014, keeping the political base happy matters more than advancing once-critical policy initiatives.

For the GOP speaker, a personal commitment to big immigration changes, including a path to legal status for millions of undocumented workers, was sacrificed after it became clear there would be a conservative revolt. The argument from the right: turning out conservatives is the key to 2014 midterm success, and big immigration changes would anger the base.

And now the President's counter move: dropping from his new budget an idea he said was essential just a year ago -- a more modest calculation of inflation adjustments for Social Security. Then, it was a critical piece of entitlement reform and deficit reduction. Now, the calculation is simple: liberals hate the idea, and pushing it in 2014 would anger a base the Democrats need in November.

When Boehner retreated on immigration, it was the White House and its allies who said he was being shortsighted and putting politics ahead of the national interest.

Inside Politics: Boehner says 'never mind' on immigration

A Democratic civil war?

Obama: GOP scared of immigration blowback

Boehner: Wage increase will hurt people

Now, the flipside, from Boehner's office: "The President has no interest in doing anything, even modest, to address our looming debt crisis. ... With three years left in office, it seems the President is already throwing in the towel."

A bit of hyperbole in that last part -- and the speaker has his own immigration flip-flop as a lesson in context: the President on Social Security, just like the speaker on immigration, is only throwing in the towel for this year, hoping it puts him in a stronger position politically next year.

A lot can happen between February and November, but the best bet at this early juncture is that Republicans keep their House majority. The battle for control of the Senate is the big 2014 struggle, and the President has made clear protecting the fragile Democratic majority there is his top priority.

Organizations focused on deficit reduction and structural budget reforms applauded Obama when he embraced the Social Security shift last year -- it is estimated to save $233 billion over a decade. Those same centrist organizations were quick to criticize his decision to abandon the Social Security change this year as a clear political shift left.

"The withdrawal by the President on this specific issue, and his general pivot away from focusing on the nation's medium and long-term fiscal challenges, reflects a dangerous trend," the Campaign to Fix the Debt said in a statement after the White House outlined the budget proposal.

CNNMoney: Obama drops controversial Social Security proposal

The so-called "chained CPI" shift for Social Security will likely return as a debating point next year anyway, but Obama could face even more choices anathema to liberals if the GOP manages to take control of the Senate.

What's the big deal about 'chained CPI'?

Mindful of the stakes, it's clear leadership in both parties is moving away from any environment of major policy compromise and toward full scale-election positioning.

To that end, Obama on Tuesday attends a 2014 Organizing for Action summit. The organization is the grassroots offshoot of the 2008 and 2012 Obama presidential campaign. The summit goal: try to defy the midterm historical odds and protect Democratic seats.

Can Ukraine make fragile peace work?

Protesters gather in Independence Square in Kiev, Ukraine, on Friday, February 21. Ukraine's President and opposition leaders agreed Friday to a deal meant to end the country's political crisis and end the fighting that has left Independence Square a war zone.

A protester aims a gun in the direction of suspected sniper fire in Kiev, Ukraine, on Thursday, February 20. Violence intensified this past week in Independence Square, which has been the center of anti-government protests for the past few months.

Police use water cannons against protesters in Kiev on February 20. Thousands of anti-government demonstrators have packed Independence Square since November, when President Viktor Yanukovych reversed a decision on a trade deal with the European Union and instead turned toward Russia.

An injured protester is carried away from Independence Square on a stretcher February 20.

A protester gives directions before throwing Molotov cocktails on the outskirts of Independence Square on February 20.

Captured police officers are led away by protesters in Kiev on February 20.

A woman on February 20 mourns over protesters who were killed during clashes.

Protesters rebuild barricades in Independence Square on February 20.

Riot police face protesters in Kiev on February 20.

Protesters man a barricade on the outskirts of Independence Square on February 20.

Activists pay their respects to protesters who were killed in clashes with police in Independence Square on February 20.

An injured protester is evacuated from Independence Square on February 20.

A priest walks with a cross and shield during clashes in central Kiev on February 20.

Medics embrace in the lobby of the Hotel Ukraine on February 20.

A high-ranking police officer, left, and a representative for the protesters speak with each other near the Cabinet of Ministers in Kiev on February 20.

Protesters light Molotov cocktails in Kiev on February 20.

Activists reinforce the barricades in Kiev on February 20.

Protesters clash with police in Independence Square on February 20.

Protesters move up an embankment in Kiev on February 20.

An injured demonstrator is carried away from Independence Square on February 20.

A protester shouts during clashes with police on February 20.

Protesters run from a burning barricade in Kiev on February 20.

A protester rolls a tire toward burning barricades on February 20.

Protesters advance to new positions in Kiev on February 20.

Fireworks explode over protesters near Independence Square on February 20.

A protester holds a crucifix as he prays in Independence Square on February 20.

Fireworks explode over protesters in Independence Square on Wednesday, February 19.

A protester throws a Molotov cocktail in Kiev on February 19.

Protesters clash with police in Independence Square on February 19.

Protesters use a compressed air cannon to launch a Molotov cocktail toward police lines in Independence Square on February 19.

A protester hurls a Molotov cocktail toward police on February 19.

Police take cover behind shields as fireworks go off in Kiev on February 19.

Protesters prepare a barricade in Independence Square on February 19.

Police form a barrier in Independence Square on February 19.

Protesters throw rocks at riot police in Independence Square on February 19.

Independence Square smolders during protests on February 19.

A protester throws a cobblestone at riot police during clashes in Independence Square on February 19.

Riot police officers rest against a column in Independence Square on February 19.

An injured protester is moved out during clashes with riot police in Kiev on February 19.

A protester uses a slingshot to throw a rock at riot police February 19 in Kiev.

Protesters put on gas masks near the perimeter of Independence Square on February 19.

Protesters protect themselves with shields as they clash with police in Kiev on February 19.

Protesters sleep on the floor inside a Kiev monastery on February 19.

A protester rushes through a broken door in the regional prosecutor's office in Lviv, Ukraine, on February 19. Police said the unrest has spread to western Ukraine, with protesters attacking police and local government offices in a number of regions.

Protesters in Lviv burn papers from a government building on February 19.

A protester aims a weapon in Kiev on Tuesday, February 18.

A protester runs during clashes with police in Kiev on February 18.

Violence between police and protesters escalates February 18 in Kiev.

Protesters burn a car in central Kiev on February 18.

A protester stands atop a barricade in Kiev on February 18.

Protesters clash with riot police outside Ukraine's parliament in Kiev on February 18.

A rainbow forms over a protester ducking for cover in Kiev on February 18.

Riot police protect themselves during clashes in Kiev on February 18.

A protester is engulfed in flames while running from the clashes in Kiev on February 18.

Riot police detain a protester in Kiev on February 18.

Protesters invade the main office of the ruling Party of Regions in Kiev on February 18.

Riot police shield themselves during clashes with protesters on February 18.

Protesters throw stones toward riot police in Kiev on February 18.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

• Ukraine's president and opposition have reached a deal to end violence


• It's fragile, says Steven Pifer, but it is the best deal available to Ukraine right now


• The deal restores the 2004 constitution and calls for a new unity government


• Pifer: Russia may undermine the deal, but the U.S. and EU must work to bolster it

Editor's note: Steven Pifer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 1998 to 2000.

(CNN) -- After three days of horrifying images from Kiev, February 21 brought tentative good news from the Ukrainian capital. President Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leaders Vitali Klitschko, Oleh Tyahnybok and Arseniy Yatsenyuk concluded an agreement on a political settlement. If it holds, it offers Ukrainians a peaceful path out of the crisis that has gripped their country for the past three months.

But the agreement is fragile. It will encounter opposition from within Ukraine. Indeed, protestors on the Maidan are already calling for Yanukovych's immediate removal. The Russians may try to undermine it. But the United States and European Union must work to make it succeed; it is the best bet that Ukraine now has.

It comes at a moment when the crisis had reached the brink of chaos. There had been three days of violent clashes between demonstrators and police, the threat by Security Services of a nationwide "anti-terrorist operation," and images, splashed across the media, of Berkut riot police firing on demonstrators. At least 75 died and hundreds were injured in the capital.

The Polish, German and French foreign ministers arrived on February 20. Their mission was bolstered by reports that the European Union later that day would impose visa and financial sanctions against Ukrainian officials responsible for the use of force (this came a day after Washington announced that it was banning visas for 20 regime officials).

The EU foreign ministers met with the opposition leaders, then with Yanukovych. All came together for discussions that ran through the night. They were joined by Vladimir Lukin, the former Russian human rights ombudsman, hastily dispatched to Kiev by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Yanukovych and the opposition leaders reached and initialed a tentative agreement the morning of February 21. After the opposition leaders consulted with a council representing the protesters, the agreement was signed. Among the key points:

-- Adoption of a law to restore the 2004 constitution, which will provide for more of a balance of power between the Rada (Ukraine's parliament) and prime minister on the one hand, and the president on the other. The current constitution favors the president.

-- Formation of a national unity government within 10 days.

-- Further constitutional reform to be completed by September.

-- Early presidential elections, to be held once the constitutional reform is completed, but no later than December.

The agreement provides a road map for Ukraine to move forward to normalize the country's political life. The result would be a greater balance in power between the legislative and executive branches of government, and between the prime minister -- who presumably will come from the opposition ranks or will be someone acceptable to the opposition -- and the president.

It likely means that Yanukovych will be a one-term president. His poll numbers already were severely sagging last year. The events of the past three months will make it all but impossible for him to win reelection in a free and fair process.

The settlement also may mean that Ukraine will move to sign an association agreement with the European Union. It was Yanukovych's decision in November not to sign that triggered the initial protests; they morphed into an expression of broader public discontent with the government corruption and authoritarian trends that have characterized Yanukovych's four years as President.

The Rada wasted little time in acting on the settlement. Members cast 386 votes in favor of a proposal to return to the 2004 constitution (a constitutional majority requires only 300).

But the deal remains vulnerable. Some in Yanukovych's inner circle will see it as a threat to their personal political and economic interests; they may seek to undo it. Many demonstrators will question why Yanukovych, whom they hold responsible for those killed, should remain in office another day, let alone perhaps until the end of the year.

And a particularly ominous note came from Russia. Lukin joined the Polish, German and French foreign ministers in initialing the draft agreement as a witness. However, after reportedly consulting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, he did not attend the signing ceremony and did not sign the final agreement. What that says about Moscow's view of the agreement remains to be seen, but it is hardly a positive sign.

Should the agreement put Kiev back on course to deepen its relationship with the European Union, expect the Kremlin to look for ways to undermine it.

The European Union, whose engagement on Ukraine has often appeared frustratingly cautious, deserves considerable credit for its role. Having foreign ministers from three major EU member states in Kiev -- backed by a threat of EU sanctions -- undoubtedly helped bring the Ukrainian sides to agreement.

The European Union and Washington must now do all they can to bolster the agreement and to work with Ukrainians to pursue its implementation. The alternative -- a return to the violence of earlier this week -- in unthinkable.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion .

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion .

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Amy Bass.