A Ukrainian Civil War?

Simon Shuster thinks things are moving in that direction:

As the sun rose, it became all too apparent that lethal weapons – not merely stun grenades, rocks and Molotov cocktails, but rifles and pistols – had entered the fray on both sides. The conflict appeared to be spiraling toward a civil war, as deadly clashes between armed protestors and police were also reported in at least three other cities. Both sides blamed each other for the escalation.

But Keating sees civil war as unlikely:

Ukrainians may be split almost down the middle on whether they support the protests, but few support the use of force against them. Also, despite the country’s clear split between the Catholic, Ukrainian-speaking west and Orthodox, Russian-speaking east, support for the country’s independence has actually increased over the years, even in the east. (Crimea, which is majority-ethnic-Russian, may be something of an outlier.) And while the general ideological sentiments of the two camps are clear, it also seems like actual enthusiasm for Yanukovych is fairly thin, even among government supporters, and the opposition’s leadership is divided between three men—Vitali Klitschko, Oleh Tyahnybok, and Arseniy Yatsenyuk—all of whom carry some fairly serious flaws as potential leaders of a long-term nationalist uprising.

Fisher weighs in on the prospect of civil war:

The government’s talk about “anti-terrorist” operations doesn’t bode well. And Yanukovych fired his army chief on Wednesday – an extremely bad sign. We don’t know why he did it, but speculation has immediately turned to the possibility that the army chief had refused orders to bring the military out into Kiev’s streets. If that’s the case, then this is worrying both because it implies that Yanukovych may have been pushing for military involvement and because it hints at possible splits within the military leadership. All very bad signs.

Masha Lipman warns that “Ukraine is balancing on the brink of a large-scale armed conflict”: