Hey! What's happening in Ukraine, which has been out of the news for a week or so? Answer: nothing good. The alleged "cease-fire," you may recall, never even started, and the people of eastern Ukraine still are suffering.
The root of the Ukraine problem was the needless and provocative expansion of NATO into the former Soviet sphere of influence. What was the point? Well, it seems likely that western capital, seeking new markets, was hesitant to move into eastern Europe without its private army coming along. A NATO commitment to the former Soviet republics, no doubt, improved the "business climate." Ukraine under Yanukovych was looking eastward, and it's hard to believe that the Maidan "revolution" (coup) arose spontaneously.
Granted, the Yanukovych government in Ukraine was thoroughly corrupt — but there's not much evidence that the Poroschenko government is noticeably better. In the meanwhile, the Ukrainian conflict has provided NATO (read USofA) with ample justification for locating tanks, aircraft, and other weapons in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. It is understandable that the Baltic states feel threatened by Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, but it also is understandable that the Russians feel threatened by the plan to locate NATO missile batteries in Poland. Are the missiles "purely defensive" (and aimed at Iran), as advertised? (Can you kill a man with a deer rifle, even though he's not a deer?)
Why would anybody want to be president of the USofA these days? Socrates probably was right when he posited that anybody who actually wants power shouldn't have it. Whoever we wind up with, though, will be faced with a world of trouble, in large part created by his or her predecessors.