Jayjay writes:
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.
I have only seen the proposal of putting federalism on ballot from second hand source, in an opinion piece, so it might not be accurate:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...wer-to-Ukraine-s-pro-Russia-vote-on-self-rule
But the self rule and language rights are legit proposals.
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.
I'vm familiar with the transcript. It says absolutely nothing about Klitschko being EU's pick. If you think it does, it should be easy for you to quote the relevant part? (Also, I have to correct myself, Klitschko was elected in previous elections for the first time.)
Well, what was "fuck the EU" all about? I haven't reviewed the actual transcript, but she talks about keeping Klitschko out of the deal and then says "fuck the EU" so the context supports the conclusion. I may have heard that Klitscko was being put forward by the EU in a separate news story.
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.
The final negotiation was prompted by the violence on February 19th. The deal was reached hastily on February 21st. The main party leaders agreed to it, but their supporters on the street did not, so they reneged the deal afterwards. Nuland call took place in January, well before any of this happened.
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.
Ukrainian puppets such as Yanukovich (who incidentally was the first one to openly call for referendums all over Ukraine and the escalation of violence that ensued). Nor did RUssian state media move a finger to stop or delay the referendum, quite the opposite.
More propaganda! Yanukovych was the legally-elected President of the Ukraine, he was not a puppet. Yatsenyuk is far closer to being a puppet. He was put into power by force and violence by elements that were supported and financed by the US! As I've pointed out before, use of propagandistic terms do not enhance their argument since they are not convincing. If you've got evidence that he's on the payroll of the FDS or whatever the successor to the KGB is, then provide it. If you have that kind of evidence, of course, the you don't NEED to call him a puppet. So your propagandistic language reduces your credibility and is, in any case, totally unconvincing of anything.
Putin publicly asked the Ukrainian separatists to delay the referendum so I have no idea what you're talking about in you last sentence.
So you accuse Yanukovych of being the first to call for "escalating" the violence. Boy, that's a good one. That's simply a way of ignoring the point about who STARTED the violence in the first place, and somehow trying to pin the blame who asking for retribution. Here in the US we call that, "blaming the victim."
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.
Putin si doing what he's doing because of territorial ambitions in Ukraine, not because he's being provoked.
Nonsense! If that's the case, why didn't he act back in 05 during the "Orange Revolution" or even sooner? Why now. Remember that Yanukovych WON that election in 05, but protests broke out in the Maiden back then claiming the elections were rigged. Yanukovych was prevented from taking office and a compromise was worked out where neither Yanukovych nor Yuschenko took office and someone else was put in. But Timoshenko became Prime Minister during that period. You had anti-Russian governments in Kiev. But the situation was worked out peacefully. And then, when that term expired, new elections were held under international supervision and Yanukovych STILL won. So Putin has had provocations before, but he didn't intervene because Ukraine settled it's matters peacefully and, almost at least, constitutionally.
Putin has ONLY intervened when provoked. ONLY when Georgia attacked Russian peace-keepers did he intervene in South Ossetia. ONLY when an illegal coup occurred in Kiev did Putin act in Crimea, and ONLY if Kiev's "national guard" continues to shoot unarmed protestors in Donestz is he likely to intervene there.
The US has been provoking Russia at least since the Clinton administration with the annexation of Eastern Europe into NATO and the annexations of the Baltic republics. With the war on Serbia. With missile bases in Eastern Europe. And now we're even introducing troops into Eastern Europe.
