Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

muriel_volestrangler

(101,082 posts)
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:54 AM Jun 2014

Putin asks lawmakers to cancel authorisation to send army into Ukraine

Source: AFP

Moscow (AFP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday asked the upper chamber of parliament to cancel a resolution allowing him to send troops into Ukraine, a Kremlin spokesman said.

"In the aim of normalising the atmosphere and resolving the situation in the eastern regions of Ukraine and also in connection with the start of three-way negotiations on this issue a request was sent to the Federation Council to cancel the resolution," Russian news agencies quoted spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying.

Read more: https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/24311094/putin-asks-lawmakers-to-cancel-authorisation-to-send-army-into-ukraine/

31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Putin asks lawmakers to cancel authorisation to send army into Ukraine (Original Post) muriel_volestrangler Jun 2014 OP
now it would be nice Duckhunter935 Jun 2014 #1
It also would be nice Anarcho-Socialist Jun 2014 #2
Fascist paramilitaries? Tommy_Carcetti Jun 2014 #4
Tommy, c'mon, give us the scoop! Please translate or give us a location, okay? TIA. freshwest Jun 2014 #12
I'm just wondering if the irony is lost on that poster. nt Tommy_Carcetti Jun 2014 #14
Well, maybe he can tell us who those guys are later. Especially the one with encircled. freshwest Jun 2014 #17
That would be Grandfather Frost, Igel Jun 2014 #18
Thanks for the concise run down of the situation. Tommy_Carcetti Jun 2014 #23
Russia to cancel resolution allowing for military intervention in Ukraine dipsydoodle Jun 2014 #3
To be easily countered by Bolotov's observation. Igel Jun 2014 #19
Putin has demonstrated his rationality nyabingi Jun 2014 #5
If Putin hadn't rolled into Crimea one week after Yanukovych fled, Ukraine would not be in this mess Tommy_Carcetti Jun 2014 #6
Are you a neo-conservative or do you just nyabingi Jun 2014 #8
No, that is Dugin's view. joshcryer Jun 2014 #10
Yes. You got me. I'm a huge neo-conservative. Tommy_Carcetti Jun 2014 #11
I don't really see what posting Putin's words here nyabingi Jun 2014 #21
You alleged I was propogating some false neo-con narrative in asserting that Putin... Tommy_Carcetti Jun 2014 #22
That Putin saw Crimea nyabingi Jun 2014 #24
You can't just change the long-standing definition of words just because they don't suit your agenda Tommy_Carcetti Jun 2014 #27
Invitation from the Ukrainian government??? nyabingi Jun 2014 #28
Okay. Back up for a second. Let's go to the definition of the word "coup". Tommy_Carcetti Jun 2014 #29
The people of south and eastern Ukraine didn't nyabingi Jun 2014 #30
To the extent it was possible, they did. Tommy_Carcetti Jun 2014 #31
I wouldn't bother.. Xolodno Jun 2014 #13
You know, I'm just not a fan of begging the question. What can I say? nt Tommy_Carcetti Jun 2014 #15
Yeah, I'm seeing it's probably nyabingi Jun 2014 #20
Another failure of the weak Obama foreign policy! Oh wait. yellowcanine Jun 2014 #7
In the eyes of Republicans, it is a failure. Xolodno Jun 2014 #16
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Jun 2014 #9
Approved 153 to 1 and it only took 1 day. On March 1 the vote was unanimous to authorize Russian pampango Jun 2014 #25
Obama deffused the situation. Doubt he will get credit. applegrove Jun 2014 #26

Anarcho-Socialist

(9,601 posts)
2. It also would be nice
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:19 AM
Jun 2014

If the US, NATO and the EU can exert pressure on Kiev to get rid of the Fascist paramilitaries and to stop the violent attacks and murders of trade unionists.

I doubt it. But it would be nice.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
12. Tommy, c'mon, give us the scoop! Please translate or give us a location, okay? TIA.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:23 PM
Jun 2014

Because to those of us who can't tell the difference between the Russian and Ukrainian script, and don't know where that is, can't tell who and what that means.

Otherwise you'll leave the impression those could be the alleged 'Fascist paramilitaries' employed by 'the government in Kiev.' Give us something to work with here.

Most of us don't know the area and people as well as you do.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
17. Well, maybe he can tell us who those guys are later. Especially the one with encircled.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:08 PM
Jun 2014

Last edited Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1)



Igel

(35,173 posts)
18. That would be Grandfather Frost,
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:35 PM
Jun 2014

aka "Pavel Gubarev."

He spent the '90s as part of an organization called "Russian National Unity," which advocated "Russia for Russians." It openly called for a two-tier society, in which Russians had full rights and "ethnic minorities" were granted lesser freedoms and rights. He wasn't part of the militia, but was proud to be photographed with them.

He was affiliated with Strelkov (Girkin, another Russian, the one leading the "defense" of Slavyansk) and Borodai, who's something like the "people's governor" of the DPR. They both are firm advocates of a strong Russia, with Russians being special, with a dominant role for Orthodoxy. All Russians are to be gathered together; in milder variants, this includes the "triune" Russian ethnicity, the Great Russians, White Russians, and Little Russians (and they've resurrected this terminology). Under their rule in Donetsk Oblast' they've basically repeated some of the worst attitudes they decry. LGBT "spots" have been raided, they're into nationalization (because while capitalist, they firmly believe in a kind of state capitalism), and they've made no bones about the status of Ukrainian--it is to have no role in their federation. They've been supporting this since the '90s. Suddenly, out of no where, they and their "friends" in Crimea suddenly had a lot of armed people supporting them with very nice weaponry.

The good folk in the Lugansk PR are similar in many outlooks, but Bolotov is openly Soviet-style communist and has been actively trying to nationalize everything he can under his control.

In good news, the Levada Center (a public opinion polling center, one that plays as fair with the facts as it can and has been around for a couple of decades) said "only" 10% of Russians support the idea of "Russia for Russians." Imagine the uproar if "only" 10% of Americans answered a poll supporting apartheid in the US for all non-whites.

If you look closely but not very closely, you'll see that the new political party that Gubarev et al. have, "New Russia" (Novorossiya) has what looks like the Stars and Bars as their flag. It's not. It's a variant of the old Russian Navy jack--stars and bars minus the stars + a white +. The Novorossiya "flag" removes that extra white +, leaving the Stars and Bars minus the stars. (No, that's not the flag photographed in the VR in February; as far as I can tell, that really was the Stars and Bars, aka the Confederate flag.)

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,053 posts)
23. Thanks for the concise run down of the situation.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 11:55 AM
Jun 2014

I can only hope some people grasp the irony of the pro-Russian militants in Eastern Ukraine claiming they are fighting "fascist putschists" in the Ukrainian government.

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
3. Russia to cancel resolution allowing for military intervention in Ukraine
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:18 AM
Jun 2014

Source: Deutsche Welle

Russian media have reported that President Putin intends to revoke a resolution that allowed Russia to intervene in Ukraine. He originally requested the power in March in order to protect ethnic Russians in the country.

The Russian president's power to authorize a military intervention in Ukraine would end on June 25, according to reports published by the country's media on Tuesday. President Vladimir Putin reportedly requested that the Russian Federation Council to cancel the resolution, originally issued at the beginning of March, in a bid to regain trust ahead of three-way negotiations with Kyiv and the EU.

"In the aim of normalizing the atmosphere and resolving the situation in the eastern regions of Ukraine…on this issue, a request was sent to the Federation Council to cancel the resolution," Putin's spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, was quoted as saying by Russian media.

On March1, Putin had requested the power to deploy troops to the region "pending the normalization of the socio-political situation
Read more: http://www.dw.de/russia-to-cancel-resolution-allowing-for-military-intervention-in-ukraine/a-17733103

Igel

(35,173 posts)
19. To be easily countered by Bolotov's observation.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:38 PM
Jun 2014

That the Kremlin "respects" the result of the referendum and considers neither the LPR nor the DPR to be part of Ukraine.

Bolotov has also expressed disappointment at this request (which may or may not be acted on), which has led a couple of people to suspect maybe his initial response was off the mark. On the other hand, since he's openly called for having numerous other parts of former Novorossiya have a referendum (or stage insurrections, with Russian help), he may be merely disappointed in not seeing his revolution sweep across Ukraine and drive all those Jewish gay open-minded fascists back to Galicia (where the Subcarpathian People's Republic can exterminate them, no doubt).

nyabingi

(1,145 posts)
5. Putin has demonstrated his rationality
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:32 AM
Jun 2014

and desire to end the conflict there through concrete steps, yet all we see from the Obama administration and his neo-con infested State Department are more demands that Russia yield and behave as they're supposed to do.

I have yet to see the US and EU demand Kiev's new authorities crackdown on the violent fascist elements (namely Right Sector) who are itching to fight some ethnic Russians in the east of the country. I have yet to see the Obama administration ask Kiev's new president to actually talk to those in the east instead of sending in tanks and fighter jets.

To all the pro-US military defenders on DU, Putin is still the cause of the problems in Ukraine I guess.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,053 posts)
6. If Putin hadn't rolled into Crimea one week after Yanukovych fled, Ukraine would not be in this mess
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:56 AM
Jun 2014

Of that, I am certain.

Putin pretensed the Crimea action on bogus claims that ethnic Russians were being "persecuted", despite no such evidence that there was any such persecution or danger to ethnic Russians in Crimea or anywhere else in Ukraine.

And just as soon as the ribbon was placed around Crimea after the dubious plebiscite, suddenly you had unrest popping up in Eastern Ukraine, with armed seperatists there demanding annexation by Russia.

The seperatist strategies in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are different because circumstances demand it. (Putin could afford to be blatant and in your face with Crimea. Far less so in Eastern Ukraine) But no doubt they are deeply related.

Interestingly enough, a reputed Russian FSB agent Alexander Borodai appeared in Crimea to orchestrate the annexation vote. As soon as that was done, he reappeared in Donetsk and was immediately appointed "Prime Minister" of that region (without a vote, of course.) And then you have the military leader of the pro-Russian seperatists Igor Girkin, also believed to be FSB, who admits that many of the seperatists in Eastern Ukraine were trained in Crimea in the run-up to the rebellion.

All of this because Putin saw his chance to reclaim "historically Russian" Crimea (contrary to recognized treaty) and he knew Ukraine at the time was too weak to fight back.

All that followed rests on his shoulders.

nyabingi

(1,145 posts)
8. Are you a neo-conservative or do you just
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 01:25 PM
Jun 2014

happen to agree with their worldview? This whole "reclaiming historical Russia" storyline is straight from the Robert Kagan/Victoria Nuland handbook for neo-cons. If Putin were at all interested in reclaiming former Russian glory, he'd be amassing troops along all the former Soviet states' borders and invading.

The Crimean people overwhelmingly voted to rejoin Russia, yet you persist at using the neo-con propaganda that Russia invaded Crimea. Having troops in a welcoming country isn't the same thing as an "invasion", otherwise, the US would be "invading" scores of countries around the world (including Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc. all of which have a US troop presence to protect American "interests&quot .

Obama messed up by allowing the neo-conservative influence to carry over from the Bush regime into his own Cabinet, now he's made as much a mess of things as Bush and Cheney did.

I guess it now chic in some circles of the Democratic Party to cozy up to warmongering neo-cons nowadays? Maybe I missed something...

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,053 posts)
11. Yes. You got me. I'm a huge neo-conservative.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:12 PM
Jun 2014

I actually have a huge picture of a sneering Dick Cheney in front of my bed so that he's the first thing I see when I wake up, and the last thing I see when I go to sleep.

Okay, so here's the thing. Before you accuse me of being a neo-conservative propagating false narratives about Putin's motives in Crimea, you might want to--I don't know--check out Putin's own words:

"To understand the reason behind such a choice it is enough to know the history of Crimea and what Russia and Crimea have always meant for each other.

Everything in Crimea speaks of our shared history and pride. This is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptised. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilisation and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. The graves of Russian soldiers whose bravery brought Crimea into the Russian empire are also in Crimea. This is also Sevastopol – a legendary city with an outstanding history, a fortress that serves as the birthplace of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Crimea is Balaklava and Kerch, Malakhov Kurgan and Sapun Ridge. Each one of these places is dear to our hearts, symbolising Russian military glory and outstanding valour."


http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6889

Vladimir V. Putin, March 18, 2014

As to your question as to why Putin hasn't rolled into all areas that he deems historically as Russian, you might need to consider that while Putin's military is substantial, it is not unlimited by any means. He only has so many men, so many tanks, so many planes, etc. Then you have to consider that wars cost a substantial amount of money, and Russia isn't necessarily in top economic shape to pay for such wars. Plus you really have to think that if Putin were to simply blitz into every place to which he believed Russia was entitled at the same time, it would most likely start World War III and that might backfire dearly on him.

But Crimea in late February 2014 presented itself an opportunity. Yanukovych had just choppered out of Ukraine, oil painting collection in hand. There was a scramble to form an interim government before presidential elections could be held. Ukraine was in no position whatsoever to fend off any type of violation of its sovereignty. And so, thousands of men were moved into the entirety of the Crimean peninsula (far beyond the Russian naval bases where they were legally permitted). Only after these men moved in was a referendum on annexation hastily put together. (Extremely hastily--we're talking two weeks notice here).

You're timeline's all screwed up. Russia didn't send in troops after Crimeans "voted" to annex. Russia moved its troops in (subtly, without formally admitting their presence), the shady annexation vote was held, and then after all was said and done, Putin admitted to the invasion.

If you actually believe your posted narrative when it comes to Crimea, then talk about cozying up to warmongers....


nyabingi

(1,145 posts)
21. I don't really see what posting Putin's words here
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 11:16 AM
Jun 2014

served to do, but it was meaningless. I don't think anyone doubted that Putin openly welcomed Crimea's desires to rejoin Russia.

Putin hasn't started invading former Soviet republics because he has no desire to do so, not because of money and all the other things you mention.

The Russians saw the coup happening in Kiev and they positioned troops in Crimea (who apparently "invaded" their own naval bases there) to prevent it from falling into the hands of the right-wing thugs who took over in the capitol. The US/EU desperately wanted Crimea because of its importance to Russia's navy, and Putin wasn't about to let it fall under potential NATO control and cut them off from the Black Sea.

While you may not be an actual neo-conservative, you've absorbed their narrative of the Ukrainian situation fully.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,053 posts)
22. You alleged I was propogating some false neo-con narrative in asserting that Putin...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 11:50 AM
Jun 2014

...arranged for the annexation of Crimea by Russia based on an underlying desire to see areas he deems as historically Russian return to Russia.

I went ahead and posted his own words that show beyond a doubt those are his motivations. Surely you've heard his remarks about "Novorossiya"? Surely you've read his infamous speech about the "tragedy" of the breakup of the Soviet Union and why he saw it as such a tragedy (Hint: it has absolutely nothing to do with communism). If he could get it all back for Russia, he would.

Of course, he's also not an idiot. He's not going to start World War III by sending his regular army into surrounding countries left and right. He's much better served subtly stirring up dissent amongst ethnic Russian minorities in these countries and simply sending limited covert manpower and material support in the hopes there will be a strong enough rebellion and then these breakaway republics will all magically appeal for annexation. See Eastern Ukraine. See South Ossetia. Crimea was something of a special case in that it was an opportunity he simply couldn't pass up. He knew Ukraine at the time was in no position to resist, and he had the added benefits of already having pre-existing naval bases on the peninsula where he could homebase his invasion. But even there, Putin chose for his men to go in without insignias until everything was secured for Russia's taking.

You don't seem to understand the situation as it relates to Crimea and Russia and Ukraine. After the Soviet Union broke up, Russia and Ukraine (as well as the US) entered into a treaty called the Budapest Memorandum. It essentially said several things:

a) Ukraine would give up the leftover Soviet nuclear arsenal within its borders
b) Russia would be allowed to maintain its naval bases on the Crimean peninsula (read: Not the entire peninsula itself)
c) Russia and the US would respect Ukraine's territorial boundaries (which included all of the Crimean peninsula with the exception of the land for the Russian naval bases)

Russia violated the treaty by moving its troops off the naval bases and into civilian portions of Crimea, which was explicitly Ukrainian territory. This was not motivated by any "coup" (not actually a coup) in Ukraine except that with the recent shakeup in the Ukrainian government combined with a Ukraine military that had deteriorated over the years, Putin could swiftly secure Crimea with little to no resistance. You might not be aware that Russia has plenty of access to the Black Sea. Sochi, where the Winter Olympics were held, is right along the Black Sea. Russia already has hundreds of miles of coastline on the Black Sea within its natural borders. This was everything about righting a perceived "wrong" when Crimea ended up as Ukrainian and not Russian territory at the end of the USSR.

nyabingi

(1,145 posts)
24. That Putin saw Crimea
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:17 PM
Jun 2014

as part of historical Russia isn't the neo-conservative narrative - I think it's pretty clear that he feels that way. When he saw what happened in Kiev, he moved to prevent it happening in Crimea (and the people there didn't want to be ruled by unelected right-wingers, something the neo-con narrative conveniently omits).

The neo-con version of it is that Russia "invaded" Crimea and that Putin is responsible for the chaos that engulfs Ukraine presently, that Putin was the aggressor. That you can look at what happened in Kiev and not call it a coup means you've embraced the neo-con version of events - it would be labeled a coup if it happened here. That you can believe Russia is aggressively pursuing the expansion of its territory and waging war at whim (as the US has done non-stop since Vietnam) means you've embraced the neo-con narrative.

Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol would be proud.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,053 posts)
27. You can't just change the long-standing definition of words just because they don't suit your agenda
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 02:28 PM
Jun 2014

When one country's military enters the sovereign territory of another country without its consent, it is an invasion. And the facts are that yes, Russia did invade Ukraine as it relates to Crimea. As of February 2014, Crimea was recognized as being Ukrainian territory. Less than a week after Yanukovych had fled the country, Russian troops began moving into Crimea. This was done without any invitation from the Ukrainian government. For that matter, there was no evidence that ethnic Russians living in Crimea were being persecuted or subjected to any violence by the Ukrainian government that may have otherwise justified a Russian invasion. None. There was simply no justification for Putin's actions as it relates to Crimea. It was a land grab, pure and simple.

And no, when you have a leader taking three days to leisurely pack up his valuable belongings before flying away on his own willpower in his own personal fleet of helicopters, that does not constitute a "coup". Not in Ukraine, not in the United States, and not anywhere else. It was a regime change, but not every regime change is a coup. Far from it.

Since when has demanding honesty when it relates to important words become a neo-conservative hallmark?

nyabingi

(1,145 posts)
28. Invitation from the Ukrainian government???
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 09:41 AM
Jun 2014

You're working on the assumption that the coup-installed people who had just taken power in Kiev were a legitimately-elected body with the consent of the governed to call the shots. If I am having trouble with the definition of "invasion", then you are most certainly having a problem understanding "coup". The Russians, like the US in all it's military escapades, moved in to protect their perceived interests.

You seem to believe that what happened in Kiev was not a coup simply because you haven't gotten official word from Washington to call it such. If you're the type who waits for "official" word on a topic (because that it obviously the truth!) then I feel sorry for you.

When the coup happened and Yanukovich fled Kiev in fear for his life, there was no legitimate government in Kiev besides the parliamentarians aligned with the right-wing coup leaders who were eager to place sympathizers in positions of power. The country's government was in chaos, a virtual free-for-all. There was no one in Kiev with the legitimacy to extend an invitation to any other country, nor to forbid their interference.

The new government in Kiev has shown that it has no intention of trying to find a peaceful resolution to what's going on in the east, and have responded with military against Ukrainian citizens they openly label "terrorists".

The most rational and logical way to view the events in Crimea is that the people there did not want to fall under the authority of people who were openly hostile to their Russian ties and heritage.

I have yet to see you acknowledge the role that the US played in sponsoring and giving approval to the coup in Kiev, when all evidence points to US involvement (and the involvement of neo-conservatives in particular). Just admit you share the worldview of the likes of Bill Kristol and be done with it.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,053 posts)
29. Okay. Back up for a second. Let's go to the definition of the word "coup".
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 11:06 AM
Jun 2014
: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%20d'%C3%A9tat

First of all--if there was a coup, who exactly was the "small group" at issue? Certainly it wasn't the Maidan protesters. There were hundreds of thousands of those. So who is the "small group"? And how exactly did the pull off this "coup"? (And I'm looking for something a little more substantial than cookies and a phone call).

Now, let's consider the circumstances of Yanukovych leaving the country. He left in the very early morning of February 22nd. Here's the weird thing, though. He spent three days packing up his stuff. Three days. What did he pack up? Multiple truckloads of his most valuable possessions. Dozens of pricey oil paintings. Priceless antiques. Don't believe me? Check the film.





(The first video is rather long, but Yanukovych himself is seen at 13:45 in the video)

And this all took place over the course of three days, from February 19th until early morning February 22nd. That means Yanukovych started packing before the bloody sniper attack on protesters at the Maidan. It means he started packing before the tentative negotiated deal that would have left him in power for the time being but would have sped up elections. So clearly, he had already made up his mind.

And then he got in his fleet of helicopters and flew away. Without anyone kidnapping or forcing him to do so, he voluntarily left under his own willpower. Now, is someone who casually has valuable luxurious possessions packed up literally by the truckloads over the course of three days before getting into his own helicopter and flying away to the destination of his choosing really "fleeing for his life"? Honestly. For all intents and purposes, Yankoyvch abdicated his position. Had circumstances been different, he might still have wanted to be president of Ukraine, but he still had his money and his stuff and he much rather have that from the comforts of Russia than deal with the situation in Ukraine.

The interim government that followed after Yanukovych's departure was appointed by the Rada and comprised entirely of elected officials. No unelected junta seized power. It's a far cry from persons such as Pavel Gubarev, Alexander Borodai, Denis Pushilin, Valery Bolotov, and Vyacheslav Ponomarev, all of whom seized power by armed brute force and none of whom have been elected to a single position in their life.

Regarding Crimea, the Russians had no interests in the Crimean peninsula beyond their naval bases within which they were limited to operating. What legitimate interests could Russia possibly have had in the civilian portions of Crimea? Not to mention that the people of Crimea barely had time to fully react to events in Kiev in late February. Within a week of Yanukovych leaving the country, Russian troops started moving in. (Interestingly enough, there had already been a scheduled vote on Crimean independent before the change in power in Kiev. However, the forces that seized Crimea in late February/Early March didn't seem interested in holding that vote, and instead hastily organized the infamous March 16th Russian annexation vote, with its lack of oversight and dubious results)

And while I see the Ukrainian government deeming the armed pro-Russian separatists as "terrorists" as a bit of a rhetorical stretch, clearly they aren't the peaceful "protesters" that Russian state media so desperately tried to sell them as. And they've had multiple offers of amnesty and imposed cease fires to put down their weapons, and they've had no interest in doing so.

You're right though. I haven't acknowledged the supposed role of the US in "sponsoring and giving approval to the coup in Kiev". Namely because there was no coup. And insisting that there was a coup without providing any evidence to support that an actual coup took place is begging the question. Now, did the US have certain favorites within the Ukrainian government? Yes, they did. However, there's been no evidence whatsoever that shows that the US helped initiate a specific plan to forcibly remove Yanukovych from power and replace him with a government of its choosing. None.

nyabingi

(1,145 posts)
30. The people of south and eastern Ukraine didn't
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 12:56 PM
Jun 2014

have a vote on who was put into power in Kiev, and those in the parliament who were seen as sympathetic to Russia were also threatened. This is why they've decided to take up arms rather than accept the undemocratic rule of Svoboda and their Right Sector thugs. That's not how democracy operates, whether Yanukovich fled with armfuls of Van Gogh's or just the clothes on his back. He never announced that he was stepping down as president and he's therefore the legitimate president (there is no "all intents and purposes" involved here - he's basically in exile).

The US government has moved their regime change operations from the CIA to NGO's, namely USAID. I'm guessing you aren't well informed about them and what they do (despite the misleading and flowery rhetoric on their website), but I suggest you look into them. The "colored" revolutions didn't occur by chance. These NGO's have the veneer of humanistic, liberal groups with the goal of fostering the spread of democracy, but their real agenda is to support any opposition on the ground who is willing to protest and agitate against a government the US doesn't like (e.g., Venezuela).

So if you don't see what happened in Kiev as a coup, is there any coup that you can point to that you'd consider a coup? Was Morsi's ouster by the Egyptian military a coup? How about Aristide's forced removal (i.e., kidnapping) from Haiti by US forces? Was Mossadegh's removal from Iran in the 50's a coup? How about Allende's murder in Chile?

Now if you are just in agreement with the way the US "spreads democracy" by stoking internal divisions and violence in countries with governments we don't like, go ahead and say so. I can't tell, at this point, whether you just believe in American exceptionalism or if you are just a Democratic neo-conservative.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,053 posts)
31. To the extent it was possible, they did.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:19 PM
Jun 2014

Portions of Donetsk and Lugansk not controlled by the pro-Russian separatists were able to vote in the May presidential elections. They actually did send voting equipment to the city of Donetsk itself. The separatists destroyed the voting boxes and stuck placards on it marked "trash". Which is a real shame given that the majority of people in those territories have no desire to secede from Ukraine, no matter what misgivings they may have with the current government. But it wasn't the Ukrainian government that was suppressing the vote.

Your read on the situation in Ukraine is complete spin. Svoboda and especially Right Sector constitute a very small portion of the overall picture in Ukraine. Svoboda is a small minority in the Rada, they hold just 3 seats out of 20 in the Cabinet, and combined with Right Sector only mustered 2% for their respective candidates in the presidential election. Right Sector itself holds no seats in either the Rada or the Cabinet. And most importantly of all, the mere existence of Svoboda and Right Sector is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not there was a coup in Ukraine. All they serve is to be convenient bogeymen and red herrings for critics of the Ukrainian government.

Interesting though that you claim the separatists in Eastern Ukraine are motivated by a desire not to be lead by fascists who seized power illegally, when they themselves are in part lead by Pavel Gubarev, who was a member of a Russian ultranationalist neo-Nazi organization and who--along with his comrades--seized power of the local government by violent means. So you really do have to ask yourself what (or who) is the real motivating factor in Eastern Ukraine?

Yanukovych is completely out of the picture at this point. His own party, the Party of Regions, disowned him and ran another candidate in the presidential elections. The separatists in Eastern Ukraine aren't fighting to re-install Yanukovych; they're fighting because they want Eastern Ukraine to be ruled by Putin. Ukraine has moved on from Yanukovych. A new president has been elected in elections that unlike the plebiscites in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine were actually monitored by foreign observers and deemed to be fair and democratic.

I'm glad that you asked whether those other situations constituted coups. In fact, Egypt, Haiti, Iran and Chile were all textbook coups by definition. In the case of Egypt and Iran, the leader in power was removed via imprisonment. In Haiti, the leader was kidnapped. In Chile, the leader was killed. And yes, in multiple instances, the US had a bloody hand in the goings-on. But that proves absolutely nothing as it relates to Ukraine.

All you have in Ukraine is a leader leisurely taking his time to pack up his many belongings and then having his own helicopters take him where he wanted to go. There was no storming of the palace gates by the opposition. There was no arrest, kidnapping or assassination of Yanukovych. There was no military or paramilitary junta seizing control and dissolving the government. There were simply no classic markers of a coup as such a term has always been defined. You can never fit a square peg into a round hole, no matter how hard you try.

Xolodno

(6,311 posts)
13. I wouldn't bother..
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:26 PM
Jun 2014

...paying attention to TC.

If you engage him he'll make a South Park reference as if that invalidates all your arguments and then trot out a bunch of pictures of Yanukoyavich being proactive at a the possibility of him being removed from power....but somehow TC knows whats going on in his mind and the fact he wasn't pursued by people with torches and pitchforks and just barely escaping means it wasn't a coup.

He'll also refuse to believe that IMF loans to Ukraine (along with austerity) will severely hamper the country.

yellowcanine

(35,690 posts)
7. Another failure of the weak Obama foreign policy! Oh wait.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:02 PM
Jun 2014

Never mind. Mover along, everyone. Nothing to see here.

Xolodno

(6,311 posts)
16. In the eyes of Republicans, it is a failure.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:02 PM
Jun 2014

...it is a failure.

The fact that:

1. A solid pro west government wasn't installed.

2. The eastern populace wasn't bombed into submission.

3. Ukraine is not on a fast track to join NATO.

4. We won't be able to put in a "missile defense system" in the country.

5. American Contractors (such as Haliburton) will not be winning contracts for energy exploration.

6. Won't be able to kick Russian bases out of Crimea (and perhaps even establish a "US Lease&quot .

7. Can't dictate to the Ukrainian government how to run their affairs.

A nation deciding its own fate that doesn't obey the world police state? How dare they!!!!

pampango

(24,692 posts)
25. Approved 153 to 1 and it only took 1 day. On March 1 the vote was unanimous to authorize Russian
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:34 PM
Jun 2014

troops to operate in Ukraine. That only took 1 day from Putin's request, as well.

One would have thought that, if legislators were currently overwhelmingly in favor of canceling the authorization for the use of force in Ukraine, there would have been legislative movement to bring that about rather than waiting for Putin to tell them is was a good idea.

Quite a deliberative and consultative body that Russian legislature. I wonder who the 1 legislator was who authorized deployment of Russian troops in Ukraine and then refused to go along with canceling that authorization.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Putin asks lawmakers to c...