President is AWOL. Fled no rights. nada.

America is just supporting international law.

When we orchestrate the overthrow of a democratically elected head of State, and then hand-pick his successor, that is kind of illegal. Just because we can get away with whatever we want to do, that does not make what we do legal.

.... we educated the people of Ukraine about human rights, the right to free assembly and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

The rest was all up to them.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/there-are-no-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-and-the-obama-administration-does-not-support-fascists/5370269

That's where any who really want to understand what happened can find them.

that could only be believed by the Putin First or Hate America crowd

Still, the record exists for anyone to see:

And I have done so on more than one occasion. I really don't intend to redo all of that, however, you can refer to my replies to the same question over the last two months. You can also find many online sources, if you really care to, such as my all time favorite:

Note that the very man who Nuland says should be President Yanukovich's replacement is currently the head of Kiev's "interim goverment."

What that shows me is that the U.S. was attempting to work out an acceptable post Yanukovich government. There is NOTHING there to suggest that the U.S. Orchestrated the Maiden, or forced Yanukovich to use snipers against the Maiden protesters (which is, after all, when many of his supporters abandoned him).

You're manufacturing massive conspiracy theories out of the thinnest of evidence.

Perhaps I have more experience reading between the lines in this kind of context. The fact remains that we orchestrated the overthrow of Yanukovich's government by a cynical manipulation of what was in the beginning a sincere anti-corruption protest movement.

You can either check what I have replied to others, or just wait a few years until our still largely covert actions in Kiev become public knowledge. Either way, you will see I was telling you the truth.

the parliament and voted to oust Yanukovych without adhering to constitutional processes???? Before fleeing for his life, Yanukovych and the EU had an agreement to push up the elections so Yanukovych could be legally voted out of office; the 'new' parliament wouldn't recognize the agreement. I think what happened is a coup.

control of parliament and set their heinous agenda into action. The parliament speaker Volodymyr Rybak was beaten, shot at in his car and replaced in parliament, for example. Please read, and I hate to ask anyone to do this, but The Nation has an article explaining the agenda of the extremists groups in control now.

http://www.thenation.com/article/178619/threat-military-confrontation-grows-ukraine

even some people from the President's party voted to kick him out.

The parliament and all government buildings were occupied by armed neonazis and fascist thugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_parliamentary_election,_2012



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan

Kind of hard when the protests happened after the elections and the presidents own party representatives voted to remove him and schedule new elections in May.

The Crimea vote happened after Russia broke its agreements and invaded with armed troops and Russian based armored vehicles posted in the streets.

were intimidated. Please see what went on in the early days of the 'new' government is you want to call it that.

http://www.thenation.com/article/178619/threat-military-confrontation-grows-ukraine

... it would have been VERY easy to prove him guilty of corruption and put him behind bars.

back rent-a-mob coups before you think it's slightly more likely than not that a coup that brings in a government that is compliant with Western banks, Wall Street, and/or oil companies isn't part of the same pattern?

I wonder how many of his stated demands Lavrov would be allowed to drop for a peaceful conclusion? For that matter, I wonder how much Ukrainian sovereignty Secretary Kerry is empowered to give away if he has to?

I know Lavrov won't drop the NATO demand. Would formation of a federation cause oss of sovereignty? I don't think so....Russia is a federation. ????????

What you suggest does overlook the possibility that making Ukraine into a "Federation" might only be a first step in a process which would end with independence for the eastern provinces. That prospect has to be foremost in the minds of our puppet leadership in Kiev.

Lukashenka, hardly a fighter for freedom from Russia, even said so. Federation is prelude to breakup.

He's the same one that said, more or less, "How can you think of Crimea as Ukrainian soil? What kind of Ukrainian soil is it if no Ukrainian was willing to fight for it, if the government didn't think it was worth fighting for? I'd die to defend Belorusian soil."

Guy's an oaf, rather hates Belorusian and does nothing to protect the endangered language because of politics and cultural allegiance to another country's culture, but from time to time he has a point.

The fact is that the original Kerry proposal (that Putin responded to) included input from the EU countries and the Ukraine. It obviously was approved by Obama, who likely set some overall parameters before Kerry gave it to Lavrov.

If you use the Syrian chemical weapons negotiations as a guide, both sides are likely not giving their real bottom line in public. (no more than you would if buying or selling a house) before negotiations. What resulted was something that met the basic outline that Kerry demanded - with the time line longer, but defended as as fast as the experts reasonably thought possible.

This is more complicated, because it is much more personal for Russia. However, given that outside experts have said the sanctions have had a negative impact on the value of the ruble and the strength of Russia's economy - I would take Lavrov's comments on them with a pretty big grain of salt. In addition, his comment that the G7 could not throw Russia out as it was an informal group with no membership is laughable. It was a big deal when they were invited it -- and they wanted the G8 conference in Sochi.

Ukraine is preparing for new elections that I think are in less than 2 months. I suspect that in these negotiations, Kerry will almost have to act as not just Obama's representative, but will have to negotiate something that the current Ukrainian Parliament will agree to.

I doubt the Ukrainian Rada, as currently constituted, will complain about almost anything we agree to in their name. They already stand to get a twenty-billion-dollar-plus payday from us and our allies. For men who have nowhere else to turn, that is a great deal of money to throw away. I guess you must have more trust in their integrity and independence than I do.

There would have been no agreement if Russia could not insure that Syria agreed.

Here, it is trickier as the US/EU/Russia should not be acting to redesign the government of Ukraine - and like with the Syrian deal - without their agreement - even if it is grudging, there can be no agreement. You do remember that a few weeks ago, the demand was for Ukraine (backed by the US/EU) and Russia to negotiate this.

It does seem that some things could be agreed on without much trouble. For example, having Russian as a second official language - while controversial - is not different than Quebec province having both French and English as official languages. Only people far better versed on Ukraine's government than me could say what a potential compromise on the "federal" demand is. I don't know if this is similar to the US power of the States vs power of the US. If they already have "states", this could be easier than otherwise. As to precluding joining NATO, that is something the US/EU can state will not offered (possibly for some time period.)

The current Rada is the last elected Rada - This would be like saying the current Senate does not have the independence and integrity to make decisions. ( It is dysfunctional, but it does represent the country.)

It only includes those representatives who are members of political parties not yet "outlawed" by the coup government.

Let's call it what it is, OK?

It shows tallies through March 24, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Ukraine Note that the ousted President's party still controls more seats than anyone else.

Do you have a different link?

Is it now? Anyone who dared to vote against the coup would have been in the hospital long ago, not in the Rada.

Add to that the fact that wikipedia page was last updated on 2/27/14, and your point is moot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politics_of_Ukraine&action=history

- as I pointed out before.

Again - what party do you see as excluded from the Rada? You have STILL not provided a link to back up your comment. Instead, you simply say that the ousted President's party is not his any longer - which is pretty sophomoric. Were the Republicans no longer Nixon's party after many of them backed removing him?

The figures for Rada party membership in your wikipedia source are simply those of the members who were elected in the last election. Several parties of the ruling coalition were outlawed wholesale and no longer even have recognition by the coup government.

as recently as March 24.

You have STILL not provided a link that ANY members of the Rada were expelled.

That was one of the coup government's first actions.

Are you trying to deny that even happened?

outlawed some parties LOCALLY. I read nothing about the RADA kicking out members and the source I gave you seems to show that at least up to March 24, there are not parties eliminated. In fact, I did look at the numbers as well, and there do not appear to be any huge changes - suggesting that there was no movement from banned parties to acceptable parties.

You have STILL not provided a link - not even rt! I will not respond again unless you have a link speaking specifically of the RADA kicking out members due to their party.

http://nsnbc.me/2014/02/23/ukrainian-parliament-drops-mask-reveals-fascist-nature/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-road-to-moscow-goes-through-kiev-how-the-protests-in-ukraine-transformed-into-a-coup-that-could-target-russia/5370479

http://www.thenation.com/article/178619/threat-military-confrontation-grows-ukraine#

The only thing said in the first link - from Montenegra - not a source that I know anything about - is that "The parliament also considers

To outlaw the Party of Regions, led by President Yanukovich as well as the Ukrainian Communist Party. Both parties have elected MPs"

Note it does not say they banned them - and their elected MPs are still included in the March 24 counts in my link - this is a February 23 article. The most logical conclusion is that even if it was considered, it was not done.

The global research article is mostly opinion, not reporting - and as others have said is just Russian talking points. Examples include their interpretation of the Nuland tape, where discussing who the opposition is equated to regime change. In addition, arguing that the RADA was invalid because only 239 parliamentarians were there when it opened - which is more than the 226 needed. If the Republican Senators in 2010 had all boycotted the December ACA vote rather than all voting no, would that have made the 60 vote passage of both the procedural vote (that needed 60 votes) and the vote on legislation invalid?

The Nation article is good, but like the first link speaks of resolutions INTRODUCED. That does not equate to having passed. It also gives too much weight to right sector and it ignores that the ousted President had unilaterally changed the government to take power from the RADA and consolidate it under him.

NONE of these articles say that Rada members were kicked out or that the parties were actually eliminated from the Rada - and my link shows them still there.

Google offered several more pages of links, but just to be clear on what we are discussing here:

If you are trying to say the pro-Yanukovich coalition parties which were in opposition to the protesters' coup against his government are still a majority in the Ukrainian Rada, I disagree strongly. Their representatives were early on either driven out of Kiev or forced to change their party affiliations. If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that parties which now may be carrying the names of those parties many of them belonged to are still represented in the current, pro-coup Rada, and that some of the actual individuals in some of those parties now serve as Rada members in support of the coup government, that is a different matter entirely. On both of those latter points, I do not disagree at all.

What you seem to resist saying is that some in Yankovitich's party DID turn against him. Not to mention, you seem to imply that the current version of those parties are just "carrying the name".

This is an extremely complex situation. There were (and are) bad elements in both sides. There has been no Ukrainian government that has not been seen as have wide spread corruption - whether West leaning or Russian leaning.

If you look at the numbers in all the votes, what seems clear is that many are not voting. Presumably, all or most of these would be no votes. However, what seems clear is that enough of the people from the Yankovitch aligned parties have shifted to support the current government. This has led to votes like 380 to 0. Note that had all the remainder voted, it still would have been a lopsided yes vote.

There will be elections in May with international observers and of now not under military occupation under the point of a gun. So far I have not seen the Ukraine forces fire on international observers to keep them out I am curious how the vote in Crimea will be held since Ukraine still thinks it is part of the country.

I have no doubt that Crimea would rather be under Russia but it sure would have looked better if they had not invaded and fired on observers and threatened the press to keep them out. I just hope Ukraine is more open to scrutiny.

under the presence and control of foreign troops. Otherwise Russia will try to use that tactic again and again in various other parts of Ukraine, and who knows where else, if we accept it as legitimate. Glad the UN pissed on Putin's Crimea parade.

CIA's Ukraine coup on behalf of oil companies and the Saudi-Qatari regimes is a lost cause.

No one except Russia has an appetite for war and it will be hell of a lot easier for Russia to fight a war in Ukraine than us.

Our military is primarily good at beating up small defenseless countries anyway and not something the size of Russia or China. Russia is not Granada, Panama, Iraq or Afghanistan.

Let's make a deal with Lavrov, put Ukraine in the "lost" column and move on.

Not true. In the absence of the nuclear deterrent, our military would run right over either Russia or China. Both at the same time would take a few more days.

when you said "our military would run right over either Russia or China. Both at the same time would take a few more days."

It is mind boggling somedays.

.. . it is my understanding that it is our strategic defense objective to be able to effectively fight two major conflicts in two sepeate theaters simultaneously. And that objective was established under the cold war regime with China and the USSR being the two obvious opponents.

With as much as we spend I hope we are meeting our objective.

now it is to win one, while holding our own in the other until we win the first and can switch troops.

At the time, both Napoleon and Hitler were militarily far far stronger than Russia but look at what happened.

defending one nation from Russia is a far cry from trying to take over all of Russia.

...but I'd say Napoleon is irrelevant, and Hitler is more to the point. The USSR didn't exactly kick Hitler's ass, but they did beat him to a bloody stand still and gave the Western Democracies the chance to get into the fight and tip the balance. Ironically, a vehemently anti-liberal, authoritarian regime fought a vehemently anti-liberal, authoritarian regime to a stand off and saved Western liberal democracy.

However, Russia now seems to be just what Obama said it is... just a regional power. They don't have the industrial or economic strength to be more than that.

China doesn't even have the were-withal to field a (real) aircraft carrier capability. (They bought a second-hand, out of date model that isn't really functional as a carrier.) We can park a carrier in the Taiwan Strait, and have, and they can't (yet) do anything about it.

objectively our military is light-years ahead of Russia in almost every area.

Quality of troops
Quality of equipment (both in upkeep and tech)
Quality of sustainment/supply
Ability to move troops and equipment
Command and Control
Intelligence and Commo

The only advantage Russia would have in Ukraine is proximity and quantity.
If they were so unafraid of us, they'd have already rolled into E. Ukraine. They have more than enough there right now to seize that area in a couple of days, if that.

The only part of your post that is correct is that Russia is the only one with an appetite for war right now, but even their appetite is limited by what they know at best will be crippling sanctions from the West and at worst would be direct military confrontation (plus sanctions) if they do more than snatch up Crimea.

That's the benefit of having a President Obama, as opposed to a President Bush/McCain/Romney. It has little to do with "strong" or "weak" to Obama, and everything to do with long-term US strategic interests. The US could certainly take on Russia and win, in a conventional fight, if it had to. But it may not STAY conventional (the biggest fear), and it wouldn't just be the US, it would be the US + NATO. Russia knows that. Russia won't directly attack a NATO country, unless it likes to pick fights it will lose--instead it's grabbing defenseless neighboring semi-friendly territory in a bid to salvage the loss of Ukraine from its sphere.

You may have missed the whole point of my post.

I DO think we and NATO would defend them.

IF it's just E. Ukraine, I think we would send troops to protect the rest of Ukraine but not necessarily to take back E. Ukraine.

to fight in Ukraine. I also don't see Russia trying to take over the entire country, either--that would be an extremely unwieldy proposition that would bankrupt them. If Russia did, we'd almost certainly arm and provide support to Ukraine, however--just to make it that much harder on Russia. I think the most likely way this will play out is Putin trying to destabilize Ukraine as much as possible, with troops at the border, covert agents, provocateurs, and economic punishment, in order to win new autonomous regions (at least industrial/valuable ones) that will become part of Russia--OR, in the event he doesn't get that, then he wants Ukraine to fail in its bid to become a West-friendly, economically viable neighbor. That would set a bad precedent for other former Soviet neighbors--and they might decide to start protesting, too.

There is no scenario where the U.S. and NATO can fight for Ukraine....or any part of it.
The U.S. has done its best to destabilize Ukraine. Read about NED and USAID.

to impeach Yanukovich for a few billion and cookies from Victoria Nuland. The fact that the US supported Ukraine in its bid to join the EU doesn't mean we destabilized or staged a coup. If Putin couldn't buy Ukraine for 15 billion, we sure as hell weren't going to do it with 5 billion and cookies. The US actually does not have vital interests in Ukraine, though diplomatically we would obviously support them in joining Europe.

you were on topic. My mistake.

to join EU instead of Putin's Eurasian dealie.

be stopped?

...apart from as a federation," he said.

Meaning the rest of Ukraine needs to be part of Russia as in their takeover of Crimea

Crimea petitioned the Russian Federation for annexation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia#Letter_of_invitation

LBJ.

...in terms of naked aggression and illegality of it all?

You're right about Vietnam, the disgraceful chapter in US history. But, to repeat, that means you admit Putin's actions are disgrace and illegal and wrong?

And you go so far as call LBJ a dictator, comparable to Putin? Really?

Please explain yourself

He drafted me and sent me to Vietnam. If a guy can put my life in danger against my will, he is a dictator.

Ukraine has no draft, Russia does, compulsory service actually. So there's that.

Where did I say I supported Russian conscription?

You are attacking a "straw man." Please attack positions I have actually taken.

Does your anger about Vietnam make you support anti-American dictatorships? What's up? Just explain

Do me the courtesy of attacking a position that I actually take.

Check the link you used to confrim.

Be clear and stop with the confusionist tactics

I did no more than read the link which you posted. In doing so I made a basic assumption that you had read it too but I may have been wrong.

might revolt against other parts of the country and decide to vote to join Russia. Sounds like a method to establish a patchwork of groups within nation states to have more civil wars and moving the lines on their territorial maps.

While it might logically end up as you say, I don't see his statement as 'openly threatening.' It was a confused stateement, perhaps it was translated badly. But the precedent could be replicated as was done in Crimea. I think the truth of the matter is Russia and many countries hold a lot of disparate groups together in their Federation or super state, often by conquest, which is a bad basis.

Russia and other nation states have forced groups to get along by force. Not unlike colonial powers did to consolidate land and resources with no regard of the will of the peoples forced to live with each other. It's a recipe for continuing conflict without a strong national vision that all would accept.

In lieu of that, the unifying power of religion is used to persuade all the groups to work together. This is what the Christian Natonalist movement in the USA is about. Or why nations are called 'the Islamic Republic of blank,' and why there was a 'Holy Roman Empire, and that religion was Roman Catholicism. Religion is the default when nations break up, and sometimes, it is the cause.

I am not in possession of all the facts in this, and I think most of us are not. As ugly as Nationalist groups are, they do unify enough people to oppress or eliminate those they dislike. It's hideous.

This conflict, like most of them over in that region, goes so far back in history Americans can't grasp who is right and wrong, other than what media tells us. We try to freeze time and say that the way we think of things with our less than 250 years of history is what the world should do. We are said to be a nation state of people who all voted to join into it, without allegiance to other countries such nations who have been invaded and conquered not just once, but many times like Ukraine.

In your view, is Putin really so dangerous and powerful that we should attack Russia?

I want our country to act with restraint on this matter. I don't think it's a TEOTWAWKI.

Their authority ends at the border. They can express an opinion on what happened in the Ukraine, but it has as much legal force as my opinion.
Crimea, OTOH, violated international law.
The false equivalency he's promoting is beyond ridiculous.

Should be solely Ukraine's concern which is as it was prior to protests there..

I don't know what you're even attempting to say, but there is no comparison between what any other country has done here and Russia, at all.

"They can express an opinion on what happened in the Ukraine, but it has as much legal force as my opinion."

And I'd said "exactly the same applies to all other countries too." i.e everyone should keep their noses out.

A totally irrelevant observation. Lavrov is attempting some sort of equivalence between Ukrainians vs Ukrainians and Russia invading. That is all. Stop trying to distract with BS.