Jayjay writes:
The parliament itself was also voted in democratically. And whining about minor deviation from constitutional procedures is a bit hypocritical compared to the referenda in Crimea and eastern provinces and basically rejecting the legitimacy of the constitution altogether.
You've got to be joking. The parliament was surrounded by armed neo-Nazi street thugs. Yanukovych himself had to flee for his life, but the parliament didn't even have that option. They didn't follow constitutional procedures because the didn't have time to. They had to please the thugs right away. Yanukovych's own party held a majority, but they voted to oust him because they had to. Is that your idea of democratic process? The Crimean referendum pales in comparison to that.
The Kiev regime has to know that their actions in east Ukraine risk provoking a Russian intervention so I think they definitely do need some goading. What should we do? That's the first question they have to ask. What about offering the east autonomy? That might settle the matter peacefully and guarantee the Ukrainian government's tax base in the east. But they haven't taken that course. Instead they're taking the very risky hard line. Meanwhile, the US is supporting that and refusing to discuss Putin's proposal for a federated Ukraine.
The Kiev government has offered autonomy, guaranteed language rights, and even a referendum on federalisation. But of course the separatists have rejected every overture.
If that is truly the case, then why hasn't the US approached Putin to help in the negotiations since he has been calling for federation from the very beginning? And if not the US, then why not the Kiev regime? And why are we trying to trap the Russian Deputy Premier in Moldava when we should be pursuing a diplomatic course here? Without Russian support, I doubt that the separatists would be following the course that they are. So we should be working with Putin. If Putin is insincere and his proposal for a federated Ukraine is just a smoke screen, then we should smoke him out. Personally, I have not heard of this offer. Do you have a source? I'd like to see the actual story.
How many Ukrainians are even going to participate in the upcoming elections? The Kiev regime doesn't control half the country? Certainly, it can't produce a reasonable representation of the Ukrainian people as a whole. The questions of legitimacy and of sovereignty have to be resolve BEFORE a meaningful election can be held.
But the haphazard referendum yesterday was perfectly legitimate? Please.
Did I say that it was legitimate? I said I wasn't even going to get into that because all we have is propaganda from both sides.
The EU agreement was in place! The coup d'état occurred the day before it was supposed to take effect! The Nuland phone call made it clear that she was opposing Klitchko as the leader of the Western Ukrainians. Klitchko was the man being proposed by the EU. She wanted Yatsenyuk, and Yatsenyuk wound up as premier. The agreement also would have kept Yanukovych in office as president, but as a result of the coup, he was ousted and had to flee for his life.
Bullshit. Where do you get the idea that EU proposed Klitschko? Why the hell would they propose that the most junior of the opposition leaders who's never held a government office or been elected should have become the premier. Even EU isn't that incompetent.
I got it from Nuland's phone conversation! Do a search. It's on the internet. She called him "Klitsch" and she called Yatsenyuk "Yats." Apparently, Klitscko is some kind of national hero. I think he was a professional boxer so he was more of a non-partisan figure than the other prospects. Of course, Nuland is an idiot. She was talking to the American Embassy in Kiev. We have secure diplomatic lines, but she was so stupid that she discussed this on an open line that the Russians were obviously intercepting.
AS for the timing of the EU agreement, it was a last ditch effort after the violence already broke out. And it happened about one month after the Nuland call. There was no agreement in place.
The agreement that finally was reached may not have involver Klitchko. I don't know what it was, but it was supposed to go into effect the next day. Was it arrived at AFTER the violence broke out? I don't think so. None of the reports that I have read said that, and my own memory of that period is that I had heard that an agreement was reached to end the protests with no reference to any violence.
But even if had occurred after the violence broke out, why wasn't it adhered to just the same? That's exactly the point that Lavrov made to Kerry when he said we need to work something out. Lavrov said, "Why don't we go back to the agreements that have already been made?"
I don't know how you can know that Putin's offer wasn't in good faith. At any rate, its certainly was done in better faith than any US offer because we have done absolutely nothing to propose any kind of settlement that might prevent violence and bloodshed.
Really? What about the Geneva agreement? As for why I think Putin's suggestion was not in good faith, I already gave my reasons: Putin did not actually do anything to prevent the vote. He did not tell his Ukrainian puppets to send the same message. He did not stop the Russian media from advertising the vote and telling where to find polling places. I find it naive to think that he couldn't have told the separatists to hold the vote off. Far more likely, his message was just for PR for western eyes.
What on earth did we do to implement the Geneva agreement? As I recall, we ramped up the rhetoric even more. What "Ukrainian puppets" are you talking about? Cut the propaganda. If you have evidence present it, and present the specific evidence of what kind of Russians doing what kind of things. You don't need to use loaded words. They're not convincing anyway.
For the most part Putin has done nothing at all. He didn't "invade" Crimea as John Kerry claimed in the media (but not in his Senate testimony). It was the Crimean government that started their secession movement, and it is Ukrainian separatists who are proposing the Donetsk separation. Aside from making the Russian treaty troops in the Crimea available for the Crimean government, Putin hasn't done a damn thing. But if you listen to the Western media, he's invading Ukraine and plotting to invade Western Europe. It's all nonsense. Putin isn't doing anything.
His request for a delay in the separatist vote came after a conversation with the Swiss president so it sounds like there might have been a window of opportunity, but it needed an immediate response and none was forthcoming.
Will he send Russian troops into eastern Ukraine? I doubt it. But if we provoke him enough, of course he will, which is why it is mind-bobbling that we insist on provoking him.
Next time, do a fact check before you post.
I think you should practice what you preach. It doesn't sound to me like you got your facts right here at all just the propaganda.
