Russia sent troops in even when denying they had, sank a ship blockading the Ukraine navy against international law, stormed Ukraine bases and ships invading a sovereign nation breaking the signed agreement. After the fact Even Putin said he in fact did send troops in breaking the signed agreement.

Russia still invaded a sovereign nation and broke the agreement. If they felt a problem they should have gone the legal route not sending in troops and vehicles without markings breaking international rule, Blockading the Ukrainian navy by sinking a ship, breaking international law, then storming ships and bases taking part of a sovereign state again breaking international laws.

But the one thing that Russia did: They did without a single death, while our own Machiavellian machinations have resulted in hundreds of lives lost including many innocents.

In a world where we actually respected boundaries instead of using shadow means, you would have a point.

We all know what Russia did, but exactly what did the US directly do as it relates to Ukraine?

If you scroll down in that article there's a video of the US - Russia Forum on June 16 that Ray McGovern references in speaking to the claim that it's all Russia's fault. McGovern states:

In this video, at approximately the 30:00 mark is the beginning of Prof. Stephen Cohen's remarks (about 30 minutes long). Prof. Cohen explains quite candidly how he has been, in effect, slandered, for saying that Putin is not the bad guy in all this. He goes on to give a detailed narrative of the truth in the matter that culminated in the illegal putsch that put "Yats" in power.

I don't know how many people have to be thrown under the bus here on DU before it's understood that there are "gatekeepers" here whose task it is to ensure that the true narrative of what happened in Ukraine is not available to those who ONLY read DU. They do this by engaging in ad hominem attacks that lack any substantive argument. People need to expand their horizons. I would assume it's not forbidden to read widely and make up one's own mind.

experts discussing the situation and all the long term considerations, generally diplomatic experts who have been involved for many years, it is an excellent watch in general.

So because there's been some US investment in various NGOs over a two decade period, it totally takes Putin off the hook for a blantant, in your face military invasion of Crimea when Ukraine's government was in its most vulnerable state?

Bull to the shit.

Also, regarding the February 21st agreement, you know that Yanukovych had no interest in abiding in that, don't you? He had already been packing his bags for two days at that point.

Another predictable opinion piece pushing the false "coup" narrative.

and discuss as well. I already know the stance that you and DH take as you both make it clear that you see everything through a cold war lens. Which is fine. But there are a lot of other bright people here who can benefit from additional information and we have an intelligent community that can make their own conclusions.

As for your analysis: Despite your claim to the contrary, the Author is much better qualified than either you or I.

He is easily as qualified, if not more qualified, than the vast majority of pundits and strategists that one sees on the mainstream media.

Basically your point is that because *you* are invested in the forced narrative, then his far deeper research and knowledge must be bullshit. OK. Not convincing. But we are all entitled to our opinions.

The Cold War's but a chapter in terms of Ukrainian-Russian relations.

My view goes way beyond the Cold War, both before and after that frame of reference.

And what I say on Robert Parry works for Ray McGovern as well. I don't care what his past credentials are. If he insists on peddling a demonstrably false narrative about the situation in Ukraine in order to pander to conspiracy minded Westerners (and both he and Parry are extremely guilty of that behavior), he needs to be called out on it.

You know what he was thinking? And you know what he was doing, how?

The agreement would have required Yanukovych to submit to NATO, militarily. Watch Prof. Cohen's 30 minute talk. He addresses each point in the unfolding narrative, in turn...myth, fact; myth, fact; etc.

What Prof. Cohen attests to is entirely consistent with what a plethora of credible observers have been saying since this whole mess began.

Your dismissing it as bullshit does not make it so.

And how do I know this?

Well, video surveillance of Yanukovych's estate from February 19 until early morning February 22nd (when Yanukovych choppered off in his own fleet of helicopters) helps.

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

And here's footage from February 19th:



&feature=player_embedded

And February 20th:

&feature=player_embedded

So why do I need to watch Cohen's talk when I can see for myself what Yanukovych was doing?

The accompanying article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/12/what-did-yanukovych-take-with-him-as-he-fled-his-mansion-paintings-guns-and-a-small-dog-according-to-new-video/

which Prof. Cohen discussed in detail.

For those, other than yourself, who will be reading this thread:

If you want to know what's really happening in Ukraine -

Turn off your TV
Read DU
Read other sources on the internet
Read what people whom you consider credible are saying and if they appear to be in agreement, generally
Look for consistency over time
Ask yourself if what you're hearing (reading) makes sense in terms of what you know about how the world works
Research to fact-check what you're not sure about.


'bye

Because in order for such a narrative to survive, one has to believe that Yanukovych was forcibly removed from power against his will, thus rendering all subsequent government in Ukraine illegitimate.

So if you see that Yanukovych casually packed up his belongings over a three day period, including a vast amount of luxury items, it pretty much throws a sledge hammer into the entire argument. He wasn't assassinated. He wasn't arrested. He wasn't kidnapped. He didn't frantically flee for his life. He had all his fancy stuff packed up and then he flew away in his own fleet of helicopters.

There simply was no coup. Thus, anyone who attempts to frame the situation as if there was a coup immediately becomes suspect as to their credibility and impartiality.

see the post below

to Kyiv should not be bombing it's own populations in this situation.

You think that people posting here are supporting Putin. But if you have been a progressive for any time you would note that these are consistant positions for people who are "anti-war" (or in other words war is the very last resort and only when there is no other alternative).

And those are just two reasons. There are others. You are after all on a liberal board. We tend to think in more than one dimension (unlike some Republicans)

I love the part about "some US investment in various NGOs." Foreign investment of that sort in this country would be highly illegal and would invoke enormous outrage, even assuming that's all that American spending in Ukraine consisted of. I'm not certain, but I believe it was you who said once that Victoria Nuland was "handing out cookies" in Ukraine. Chocolate chip? How many innocuous phrases can we dream up to sanitize our actions?

Rhetoric is all they have.

We've heard about the $5 billion figure bandied about, never mind that the significance of that number has been vastly overstated, as demonstrated in the "Pants on Fire" rating from Politifact. '

The Catherina Crowd here at DU is the one obsessed about Victoria Nuland handing out cookies at the Maidan. I've only brought that up because it pretty much epitomizes the lack of any substantial factual narrative behind those alleging a western-sponsored coup.

I've never seen so much muddled thinking and lack of any sort of cohesive narrative amongst people alleging something so huge and yet actually delivering so little.

to ANY of the points laid out with great clarity by Stephen Cohen in the video referred to above, or that you even bothered to watch his talk (it's only 30 minutes; surely you could spare that much time for something that you seem so sure is of no relevance).

Calling something muddled thinking or lacking in cohesion does not make it so. Your claims have no substance whatsoever.

I wish I could obtain a transcript of Prof. Cohen's remarks at the US-Russia Forum. I have not been able to find one, and I simply do not have the time to go through the video and reduce his quotes to text. I don't type that fast.

Furthermore, everything Prof. Cohen said has already been reported on by numerous credible sources, including the influence of neo-Nazis in the current junta that rules in Kiev.

The U.S. set these shameful events in motion by allowing psychopaths to control our foreign policy. It's sickening!

Half of it is him wallowing in self-pity for other people accusing him of being a Putin apologist. The other half is him basically repeating what he's written in his column, including his claim that there was a coup against Yanukovych on Feb. 22nd, following the tentative Feb. 21st deal.

You've now seen the video evidence which clearly belies such a narrative--Yanukovych had already been packing for two days as of the Feb. 21st deal. And there was no coup.

If you have actual evidence of a coup itself, by all means, bring it forward. I have yet to see anyone actually do so.

his moving possessions is not in any way evidence he intended to leave office. It is only evidence that he did not want to risk losing his personal effects and felt there was a threat. As it turned out he was correct.

Come on now, really?

And you don't need "evidence" it was a coup. IT WAS, by definition. Just because you *choose* to believe it was a "good revolution" does not change the meaning of words.

coup d'état
noun \ˌkü-(ˌ dā-ˈtä, ˈkü-(ˌ dā-ˌ, -də-\

: a sudden attempt by a small group of people to take over the government usually through violence

It meets that definition.

And as far as the attempt to legitimize the coup afterwards, the vote was unconstitutional by any Ukraine constitution. You simply cannot make up your own rules.

I wish people would at least become honest in their discussions. There are things that are arguable, but that is not one of them.

Make the argument that what happened in Kiev did not justify what happened in Crimea or the east (though I would disagree); But please stop with the intellectual Semantics. It is really frustrating to see this on a "liberal" board.

I've been asking that question over and over and no one--I mean no one--has ever given me a straight answer.

But I will try again. Right Sector were the primary component of the "small group" (by the way, small group is a relative term if English is not your primary language)
They surrounded the government buildings wielding clubs (and some guns) and threatened business.

You seem to possibly prefer to call it a "revolution". I have yet to hear anyone call it that in any media, but it really does not matter.

And if that's the case, why isn't Right Sector in charge of Ukraine right now? Typically, the people leading a coup are the ones who end up in charge when all is said and done. Right Sector got bupkis out of the deal. And all your other bogeyman/paper tiger Svoboda ended up with was a couple of cabinet seats.

At all points, the former leader Yanukovych controlled his own fate. No one shot him. No one came in and arrested him. No one kidnapped him and took him away. No one stormed his palace and stuck a gun to his head and made him take three days to pack up his valuable possessions and then fly away in his fleet of helicopters. You've seen the video. You know how it went down. And nothing in those videos ever suggested a coup.

As for what the regime change is labeled, yes, it has been commonly referred to as a revolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution#20_February

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ukraine-sign-eu-deal-sparked-revolution-24293022

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/ukraine-russia-explainer

The only people calling it a "coup" are either the Russian government, its state media and its sympathizers, or conspiracy-minded westerners who see secret government plots behind anything and everything.

Perhaps had Yanukovych stuck around, his military may have gotten tired of him and there may have actually been a coup. But that never happened. He left the country with relative ease and on his own terms.

As I said it doesn't matter what you call it (well except to you). But at least you have now admitted it was an overthrow.

I will again post what you deny. Since you keep insisting on an alternate reality (that Extremists don't have power):

Of course you will say it is untrue, but then people can follow the link and learn for themselves.

Neo-Nazi's in executive positions in Ukraine's government:

Andriy Parubiy - National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine - Co-founder of Social-National Party of Ukraine together with Oleh Tyahnybok
Dmytro Yarosh, second-in-command of the National Defense and Security Council - Right Sector neo-Nazi commander
Oleksandr Sych is one of three Vice Prime Ministers member of neo-Nazi Svoboda
Oleg Makhnitsky Prosecutor-General (Attorney General) member of neo-Nazi Svoboda
Education Ministry Serhiy Kvit member of neo-Nazi Svoboda
Andriy Makhnyk Ecology Ministry, member of neo-Nazi Svoboda
Ihor Shvaiko Agriculture Ministry, member of neo-Nazi Svoboda
Tetyana Chernovol, chair of the government’s anti-corruption committee, UNA-UNSO (half of the organization founded Right Sector)
Dmytro Bulatov, Minster for Youth and Sports, UNA-UNSO

This does not include lower level but still powerful positions which are reported to have many right sector and svoboda members as well.

Ihor Tenyukh was Minister of Defense until he resigned for unknown reasons the day after Oleksandr Muzychko was killed - Svoboda

Poroshenko has replaced Oleg Makhnitsky (Svoboda) last week, so hopefully Poroshenko may be working on removing the majority of these guys. Unfortunately severe damage has been done and it will be difficult to re-unite the country.


Foreign Policy: Yes there are "bad guys" in the Ukraine government
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/18/yes_there_are_bad_guys_in_the_ukrainian_government
Today, Svoboda holds a larger chunk of its nation's ministries (nearly a quarter, including the prized defense portfolio) than any other far-right party on the continent. Ukraine's deputy prime minister represents Svoboda (the smaller, even more extreme "Right Sector" coalition fills the deputy National Security Council chair), as does the prosecutor general and the deputy chair of parliament -- where the party is the fourth-largest. And Svoboda's fresh faces are scarcely different from the old: one of its freshmen members of parliament is the founder of the "Joseph Goebbels Political Research Centre" and has hailed the Holocaust as a "bright period" in human history.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=835803


Here is a video of the extremists in action. They terrify the more moderate rightests in office who understand what they are capable of. This is a scene from a protest which included a battalion, because they were inpatient to get out and kill more people. Regardless of who they wanted to kill (militants or Russians as a whole), this is BLOODLUST. Not a nice thing to have running rampant in a country.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5176192

Because "coup" insinuates that it was a small, tight knit group that came in and forcibly removed the individual who was previously in charge from power. (And if there's actually a coup, it gives the opposing side extra ammunition to question the legitimacy of those in power who followed the former leader.)

That never happened. Nothing you have shown indicates that it did happen. The video evidence I've shown you on multiple occasions clearly indicates that what happened wasn't a coup.

So instead, you just throw out a bunch of red herrings about Svoboda and Right Sector, anything to distract from the fact that you've completely failed to prove the "coup" you insist occurred. Because--face it--they aren't particularly sympathetic folks and thus they make a nice easy target to distract people from your initial failed assertion that what happened was a "coup."

So of course you'll cut and paste the same list for I believe the fifth time now (most of which I've already pointed out as being highly inaccurate) and call it a day. Got it.

There was a regime change. On that we can agree. What you seem not to understand is not all regime changes are coups.