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'm 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.
Maybe you should actually read the transcript before pretending to know what it contains. Here it is:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
First, she and Pyatt say nothing about keeping Klitschko out of the deal, but what roles "the big three" should have. Nuland thought Klitscko shouldn't be a deputy premier due to his inexperience, but that he should be talking to Yatsenyuk daily. And no reference to EU in that context whatsoever: EU is mentioned later, when they are talking about having Dutch diplomat and former ambassador to Ukraine Robert Serry to help seal the deal. If anything, US was at least doing something to resolve the situation, though in retrospect those efforts didn't work out. But neither did EU's inaction.
Nobody ever suggested that Klitscko should be the prime minister, or that he would have been EU's favourite. The idea that Yatsenyuk was in power only becuas of US meddling is ridiculous, as he had plenty of political clout all by himself being the leader of the largest bloc in parliament.
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.
Yatsenyuk was allegedly about to resign, but then changed his mind after talking to his "advisers". He now resides in Russia. I don't think we need to have a payslip frm KGB to tell that he's pretty much acting on behalf of Putin right now.
Putin publicly asked the Ukrainian separatists to delay the referendum so I have no idea what you're talking about in you last sentence.
Putin may have made one comment saying requesting postponement of the referendums, but not only was this proposal not widely broadcast on Russian state TV channels that are watched in Ukraine, those same channels actively promoted the referendum by telling people where they can vote and so on. Furthermore, in Moscow there were polling places for expatriates that were not only tolerated but received official protection from Russian army. Putin's actions with regards to the referendum speak louder than his words.
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."
I misspoke. I meant that Yanukovich called for the referendums, and that lead to the escalation of the violence when the separatists started taking over buildings. My original wording was a bit jumbled and I apologize for that.
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.
Again you're playing fast and loose with the facts. Yanykovych didn't win the election in 2005, though he did accuse the other side of cheating. Also during the election there was the small matter of Yuschenko being poisoned with Dioxin, largely blamed on Russia. It's pretty naive to think that Russia did not intervene even then.
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, but even if you talk about overt military intervention, it's rather absurd to say that Russia should be commended for graciously not militarily invading another country, as if they had that right to begin with.
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.
School yard bullies like putin get "provoked" if you look at them the wrong way. Those countries rushed to join NATO because they wanted to get away from Russia fucking them over for the better part of a century, and you twist this to be "provocation" that somehow gives Russia
carte blanche to do whatever it can get away with, including military action and annexations? Please.
