Eastern Europe itself has been in a state of socio-political flux over the past few thousand years. That isn't to say that flux it is inevitable, that it is the way of things. Nor is it to say that flux is preferable to stability. Indeed a bedrock of stability is empirically provable to be better for humanity than constant flux. To see how much benefit stability brings us, we can compare Eastern Europe to Western Europe over the past 500 years and see what the benefits bring to the people living there: Spain, Portugal, France, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark (and to a lesser extent Germany/Holy Roman Empire) have all been (in territorial terms) politically stable since ~1500. These are also the countries that produced revolutions in industry, science, culture, art and other fields. As well as allowing them the opportunity to travel overseas and establish colonies. Unless a man (or a nation of men) is allowed some peace and quiet, then thoughts cannot develop. To allow those thoughts to develop even more, they require politically stable environments (try thinking about something in a place where you are constantly disturbed, it's not easy!). Which is why a stable framework/foundation is preferable to an unstable one.
Moving on from purely physical to vaguely spiritual matters, we should also recognise that the situation in Ukraine is a largely corporeal event - it doesn't dominate our spiritual side. We could tilt our heads up even further, beyond the context of history & time, and remember that we are spiritual beings as well as physical ones. And if re-incarnation is true, or some similar view of the world is true, then we do live on past these events, and they will seem like just another day in a long and varied lifespan. Hopefully taking on a view like this will make events like this become more like water off a ducks back.
The video below shows how geo-politically stable Europe has been over the past five thousand years.
 The situation in Ukraine doesn't need as much media coverage as it's getting; of course that's not to say that it isn't important, because social upheaval is very important to the people who are experiencing it, rather that the media has a proclivity of giving saturation coverage to single issues. This is evident in news stories like the British Royal Wedding, or the Arab Spring, or the trapped Chilean miners. There is a tendency amongst the media to give saturation coverage on a single news item for a fortnight or so and then ignore it completely thereafter. Hence the derisory term media circus. Ideally, the MSM should take the amount of time that they give to a single story (however many minutes), and stretch it out over a longer period of time (like aerobic exercise regimes which are low intensity but last for long periods of time, versus weight lifting which are high intensity but last for short periods of time). Important stories could be given follow up reviews six and twelve months after the main story kicked off.