What does Putin want (and whatabout it)
ridski said:
You definitely read Gershman's op-ed Parry quotes there, didn't you? Because Parry seems to read the op-ed backwards. The op-ed is about Russia and former Soviet states. The crux of the op-ed is this:
"Russia has used economic and security threats to draw post-communist countries into its Eurasian Customs Union and to block the European Union’s Eastern Partnership initiative, which seeks the reform and possible eventual integration of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine into E.U. structures."
He goes to talk about Russian attempts to bring in Armenia (it worked), Moldova (didn't work), and Georgia (might happen). Then Gershman writes this: "Ukraine is the biggest prize, and there Russia’s bullying has been particularly counter-productive." Gershman is not saying that Putin is the target of an initiative, he is literally saying that Russia is the instigator. Ukraine is the biggest prize for Russia.
In the next quote from Gershman that Parry adds, he misses out the beginning of the paragraph that starts like this:
"Russian democracy also can benefit from this process. Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. There are signs of the emergence of a new Russian nationalism: the strong performance by opposition leader Alexei Navalny in Moscow’s recent mayoral election and polls that show greater opposition to Putin in the Russian provinces, his traditional support base. This nationalism is concerned not with the restoration of Russia’s imperial greatness, which would be inconceivable if Ukraine joined Europe, but with fighting corruption and addressing the severe economic and social problems of the Russian people.
Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."
Emphasis mine.
In case you're wondering why I decided to read the original op-ed instead of Parry's interpretation of it so I can see for myself what it actually says, see some of my earlier posts about second- and third-sourcing. Also see the obvious tell-tale phrase "In other words" which often means someone is about to tell you what they think someone actually said, instead of just leaving the quote to do the work.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your above discussion, you appear to ignore the primary purpose of op-ed was to persuade the US powers-that-be to actively oppose Putin's efforts to induce Ukraine and other Former Soviet Union (FSU) states away from "an association agreement with the European Union" and bring them into a Russian-based economic union. In that struggle to draw the FSU states away from Putin, Gershman sees Ukraine "as the biggest prize"
An interesting sidelight in Gershman's op-ed is the following:
That anti-Putin statement by Yanukovych happened in large part as the result of the efforts of Paul Manafort, who was serving as adviser to Yanukovych at the time. One of the most glaring lies of Russiagate was the claim that Manafort was "pro-Putin". Manafort attempted to debunk the lie by pointing out those efforts. But Russiagate media censored that information as it did with any information that challenged the official narrative, and very few Americans found out about it. I posted it here in my Russiagate thread.
paulsurovell said:
ridski said:
You definitely read Gershman's op-ed Parry quotes there, didn't you? Because Parry seems to read the op-ed backwards. The op-ed is about Russia and former Soviet states. The crux of the op-ed is this:
"Russia has used economic and security threats to draw post-communist countries into its Eurasian Customs Union and to block the European Union’s Eastern Partnership initiative, which seeks the reform and possible eventual integration of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine into E.U. structures."
He goes to talk about Russian attempts to bring in Armenia (it worked), Moldova (didn't work), and Georgia (might happen). Then Gershman writes this: "Ukraine is the biggest prize, and there Russia’s bullying has been particularly counter-productive." Gershman is not saying that Putin is the target of an initiative, he is literally saying that Russia is the instigator. Ukraine is the biggest prize for Russia.
In the next quote from Gershman that Parry adds, he misses out the beginning of the paragraph that starts like this:
"Russian democracy also can benefit from this process. Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. There are signs of the emergence of a new Russian nationalism: the strong performance by opposition leader Alexei Navalny in Moscow’s recent mayoral election and polls that show greater opposition to Putin in the Russian provinces, his traditional support base. This nationalism is concerned not with the restoration of Russia’s imperial greatness, which would be inconceivable if Ukraine joined Europe, but with fighting corruption and addressing the severe economic and social problems of the Russian people.
Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."
Emphasis mine.
In case you're wondering why I decided to read the original op-ed instead of Parry's interpretation of it so I can see for myself what it actually says, see some of my earlier posts about second- and third-sourcing. Also see the obvious tell-tale phrase "In other words" which often means someone is about to tell you what they think someone actually said, instead of just leaving the quote to do the work.
Click to Read MoreCorrect me if I'm wrong, but your above discussion, you appear to ignore the primary purpose of op-ed was to persuade the US powers-that-be to actively oppose Putin's efforts to induce Ukraine and other Former Soviet Union (FSU) states away from "an association agreement with the European Union" and bring them into a Russian-based economic union. In that struggle to draw the FSU states away from Putin, Gershman sees Ukraine "as the biggest prize"
An interesting sidelight in Gershman's op-ed is the following:In an Independence Day speech at the end of August, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych called association with the European Union “an important stimulus for forming a modern European state.” In short order, Ukraine’s parliament passed reforms required by the E.U. dealing with such issues as corruption, tariffs and prisons
That anti-Putin statement by Yanukovych happened in large part as the result of the efforts of Paul Manafort, who was serving as adviser to Yanukovych at the time. One of the most glaring lies of Russiagate was the claim that Manafort was "pro-Putin". Manafort attempted to debunk the lie by pointing out those efforts. But Russiagate media censored that information as it did with any information that challenged the official narrative, and very few Americans found out about it. I posted it here in my Russiagate thread.
you're kidding right? For years Yanukovych was pro-Putin and Manafort was right behind him. You think Yanukovych's reversal somehow erases all of Manafort's pro-Russian efforts before that?
You really need to dis-embed that Russiagate nonsense out of your head.
drummerboy said:
nan said:
tjohn said:
As a consequence of the Maidan protests and attendant violence , an agreement was signed on 21 February 2014 by Yanukovych and leaders of the parliamentary opposition that called for the creation of an interim unity government, constitutional reforms and early elections. Shortly after the agreement, Yanukovych and other government ministers fled the country. Parliament then removed Yanukovych from office and installed an interim government. The Revolution of Dignity was soon followed by the Russian annexation of Crimea and pro-Russian unrest in Eastern Ukraine.
It was not a coup.
How does this make it not a coup? There is nothing in what you wrote that makes it not a coup.
do you know what the word even means?
I think we need to nail that down before we can discuss it further, because I'm pretty sure you and paul share a definition that is peculiar to your world view.
(of course, I've asked this question many times and have yet to get an answer.)
Already answered.
PVW said:
nan said:
Also, yes there are some people, as in every regime (and Ukraine was known to be a corrupt country) who will protest on their own (or with just a small amount of help).
Estimates of 400-800,000 people in Kyiv, 50,000 in Lviv, 30,00 in Kharkiv, over 100,000 throughout other cities and towns. "Some people" I guess.
(source)
Out of a population over 40 million.
PVW said:
I'll give you a little help, Nan, should you want to try for a more convincing reply to me. Let's imagine that in 2013, Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych abruptly decided not to sign a long-negotiated trade agreement and instead decided to sign an agreement having Ukraine seek closer ties with the Russian-dominated Eurasian Economic Union, and that the people of Ukraine took to the streets to protest this.
How would we be able to tell this scenario from the one you are alleging, that actually the US used propaganda and various other tricks to create a fake uprising?
If you can answer this, pointing to the signs that would mark a genuine uprising and their absence in the actual events in Ukraine, you'll be making a much more convincing argument. If you can't - if there's no way to tell the difference, then your argument just comes down to "because I believe it to be so."
The "uprising" wasn't fake, but (a) it involved thousands of people in Maidan out of 40 million (b) there was a network of organizations funded by the US $5 billion "democracy" initiative that played a role and (c) the leadership of the demonstrators were controlled by the US.
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:
Three people? Their statements are credible but what's not credible -- with the evidence so far -- is that the bomb hit the mall and that there were 1,000 people inside. Even the article raises doubts as to whether the bomb hit the mall (probably because there's no crater) noting Russia's version "has not been independently verified" and this -->
Your desire to protect Vlad is very admirable. I wish you would do the same for Vlad's constant blaming of Ukraine for missile that didn't hit Vlad's objective. Never have seen you come to the side of the Ukrainians.
I have to remind you - the Russians have invaded and are decimating the county - do you agree with this?
The bombed out apartment complexes - was this part of the denazification or demilitarization aspect of his "operation"? Or has Ukraine been bombing their own housing units?
This WaPo article does a pretty good job of explaining why civilian facilities, included apartment complexes, are bombed-out, in most cases. I bolded the most relevant parts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/28/ukraine-kyiv-russia-civilians/
Russia has killed civilians in Ukraine. Kyiv’s defense tactics add to the danger.
By Sudarsan RaghavanMarch 28, 2022 at 11:00 p.m. EDT
KYIV, Ukraine — The suspected Russian missile hit the tall apartment building, engulfing it in flames and smoke. It killed at least four people, including elderly residents, and shattered the lives of a close-knit community. For lawmaker Oleksii Goncharenko, the tragedy was yet another example of potential Russian war crimes.
“They are just hitting residential buildings in these areas,” said the Ukrainian parliament member, who arrived at the scene shortly after the explosion two weeks ago. “You can walk around, you will not find any military targets, or any military people. This is just terror.”
Yet a few minutes later, the whooshing sound of Ukrainian rockets fired from a multiple rocket launcher startled residents staring blankly at their destroyed homes. Then, another outgoing barrage. The weapons seemed to be nearby, perhaps a few streets away, certainly well inside the capital.
Increasingly, Ukrainians are confronting an uncomfortable truth: The military’s understandable impulse to defend against Russian attacks could be putting civilians in the crosshairs. Virtually every neighborhood in most cities has become militarized, some more than others, making them potential targets for Russian forces trying to take out Ukrainian defenses.
What is a war crime?
The International Criminal Court said on Feb. 28 it is investigating possible war crimes in Ukraine. Experts tell The Post how the legal process works. (Video: Alexa Juliana Ard/The Washington Post)
“I am very reluctant to suggest that Ukraine is responsible for civilian casualties, because Ukraine is fighting to defend its country from an aggressor,” said William Schabas, an international law professor at Middlesex University in London. “But to the extent that Ukraine brings the battlefield to the civilian neighborhoods, it increases the danger to civilians.”
Ukraine’s cities — and civilian areas — have become the crucible of the war, where an intense struggle is unfolding between Russians who want to seize or control these areas and Ukrainians defiantly resisting. That has transformed the conflict into a largely urban war, forged more by aerial weaponry and bombardments than traditional street-by-street fighting in many areas. With Russian forces targeting cities, the Ukrainians have responded by fortifying civilian areas to defend Kyiv, deploying air defense systems, heavy weaponry, soldiers and volunteers to patrol enclaves. Civilian casualties are mounting.
There’s no doubt that Russian forces are behind the most horrific acts of the war as it continues into a second month. They have struck schools, clinics, ambulances, shopping centers, electric and water facilities, and passenger cars, among numerous indiscriminate attacks on civilians, according to human rights activists. In the southern city of Mariupol, a suspected Russian airstrike killed many people taking refuge inside a theater. It was clearly marked, with the Russian word for “children” in huge letters visible from the sky. Days earlier, a maternity hospital was hit.
But Ukraine’s strategy of placing heavy military equipment and other fortifications in civilian zones could weaken Western and Ukrainian efforts to hold Russia legally culpable for possible war crimes, said human rights activists and international humanitarian law experts. Last week, the Biden administration formally declared that Moscow has committed crimes against humanity.
“If there is military equipment there and [the Russians] are saying we are launching at this military equipment, it undermines an assertion that they are attacking intentionally civilian objects and civilians,” said Richard Weir, a researcher in Human Rights Watch’s crisis and conflict division, who is working in Ukraine.
Over the past month, Washington Post journalists have witnessed Ukrainian antitank rockets, antiaircraft guns and armored personnel carriers placed near apartment buildings. In one vacant lot, Post journalists spotted a truck carrying a Grad multiple rocket launcher. Checkpoints with armed men, barricades of sandbags and tires, and boxes of molotov cocktails are ubiquitous on city highways and residential streets. The sound of outgoing rockets and artillery can be heard constantly in Kyiv, the capital, the squiggly white trails of missiles visible in the sky.
“Every day, it’s like this,” said Lubov Bura, 73, standing outside the apartment building where she lived that was destroyed two weeks ago. Moments later, as the building was still burning, the sound of outgoing Ukrainian rockets was heard again. “Sometimes it sounds closer, sometimes it seems far. We think about it and, of course, we are worried, especially in the night.”
A police officer carries a piece of a suspected Russian missile that was shot down by Ukrainian forces earlier this month and landed on an apartment block in Kyiv, according to authorities. (Heidi Levine for The Washington Post)
A Ukrainian defensive position in a residential area of Kyiv on March 21. (Heidi Levine for The Washington Post)
The Ukrainian military has “a responsibility under international law” to remove their forces and equipment from civilian-populated areas, and if that is not possible, to move civilians out of those areas, Weir said.
“If they don’t do that, that is a violation of the laws of war,” he added. “Because what they are doing is they are putting civilians at risk. Because all that military equipment are legitimate targets.”
Andriy Kovalyov, a military spokesman for Ukraine’s 112th Territorial Defense Brigade, whose forces and equipment are positioned in the capital, scoffed at that reasoning. “If we follow your logic, then we shouldn’t be defending our city,” he said.
In response to written questions from The Post, Alexei Arestovich, adviser to the head of the office of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said the country’s military doctrine, approved by parliament, provides for the principle of “total defense.”
That means that volunteers in the Territorial Defense Forces or in other self-defense units have the legal authority to protect their homes, which are mostly in urban areas. Moreover, he argued that international humanitarian laws or the laws of war don’t apply in this conflict because “the main task of Putin’s military campaign is the destruction of the Ukrainian nation.” He said Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly denied Ukraine’s existence as an independent nation.
“Therefore, what is happening here is not a competition of European armies according to established rules, but a struggle of the people for survival in the face of an existential threat,” said Arestovich. “We cannot prevent our citizens from defending their homes, freedoms, values and identities as they understand them.”
On Monday, Ukrainian forces showed a group of journalists a military fortification in a northern residential neighborhood of the capital, near tall apartment buildings, a subway station and shops. The road was barricaded with lines of tires, concrete blocks, piles of sandbags, sharp metallic objects to stop vehicles and large metal tank traps known as hedgehogs.
There were also two lines of antitank mines on the road. To one side, a lush patch of greenery, an ideal place for picnics, was sealed off with a warning sign: Mines.
“If you want to protect the city, you should be ready to fight inside the city,” said Pavlo Kazarin, a territorial defense unit volunteer and spokesman for his battalion. “Unfortunately, we cannot evacuate all the city because there are still 2 million people. Still, we can stop the Russian army outside the city. But we all understand the risks. We cannot defend the city without risks or injuring the civilians, unfortunately.”
When asked if there was concern that Russian forces could view the residential apartments as a military target because of the fortifications out front, Kazarin agreed. “But I repeat: There are always some risks when you are trying to protect the city.”
He said the Ukrainian forces are trying “everything to prevent” Kyiv from becoming another Mariupol or Kharkiv, cities that were heavily bombed and besieged by Russian forces. “There is a very cruel logic to war when we are trying to protect the civilians,” Kazarin said.
Even if Ukraine violates its responsibilities under international law, “that doesn’t mean Russia gets a pass to do whatever it wants,” Weir said. If civilians are killed near a military position or equipment, Russia still can be held responsible for a possible war crime if its attack was indiscriminate and disproportionate against the civilian population.
Much depends on the size and importance of the military target, the type of weapons used, whether civilians were knowingly targeted and if the harm to them was excessive. For example, Russia’s firing of banned cluster munitions last month into three residential neighborhoods in Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, was a possible war crime, even if the Russians claim they were targeting Ukrainian military equipment or positions, activists said.
“Where an attack on a military objective may result in civilian casualties, the damage to civilians needs to be balanced against the military advantage,” said Schabas, the international law professor. “If there is no military advantage, then the violence is not justified, and it is reasonable to speak of war crimes.”
But the line between what constitutes a war crime becomes more blurred if residential neighborhoods are militarized and become battlefields where civilian deaths are inevitable.
“Ukraine cannot use civilian neighborhoods as ‘human shields,’” said Schabas, adding that he was not suggesting this is what is happening.
After every suspected Russian airstrike in the capital and elsewhere, the Ukrainians have dispatched teams to gather video and other evidence to use in a potential war crimes case against Russia at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, but many of those sites could be weak grounds for alleging war crimes.
“If there are military targets in the area, then it might undermine their claim that a specific strike was a war crime,” said Weir of Human Rights Watch.
There are plenty of places in Kyiv where military forces coexist within civilian enclaves. Offices, homes or even restaurants in many residential neighborhoods have been transformed into bases for Ukraine’s Territorial Defense Forces, armed militias made up mostly of volunteers who have signed up to the fight the Russians.
Inside municipal buildings and in basements, including one underneath a coffee shop, Ukrainians make molotov cocktails to be used against Russian forces if they enter the capital. Inside a large factory complex, nestled in front of a bustling main highway with shops and apartment buildings nearby, a paramilitary force trains recruits before deploying them to the front lines.
Security experts for Western media organizations have noted that Ukrainian air defenses are so centered in the city that when they hit incoming Russian rockets, missiles or drones, the debris has sometimes struck or fallen into residential complexes.
Ukrainian soldiers and volunteers warn journalists not to take photos or video of military checkpoints, equipment, fortifications or impromptu bases inside the city to avoid alerting Russians to their locations. One Ukrainian blogger uploaded a TikTok post of a Ukrainian tank and other military vehicles positioned at a shopping mall. The mall was later destroyed March 20 in a Russian strike that killed eight people.
There is no proof that the TikTok post led to the strike. On Facebook, a person supportive of the Ukrainian military urged that the man be hunted down for revealing Ukrainian military positions “for the sake of likes” on social media. “I pay $500 for any information about this author on TikTok. ID, residence address, contact details.” The Security Service of Ukraine later said it had arrested the blogger.
In other militarized neighborhoods, residents also expressed concern about hearing outgoing rockets and artillery. “It’s scary,” said Ludmila Kramerenko. “It happens three or four times a day.”
When asked whether she worried about having military weaponry and fighters so close to where she lives, she replied after a long pause: “I don’t know what to say. We are just hoping that everything will be all right and this will end soon.”
Like most residents interviewed, she expressed stoicism and loyalty to Ukraine’s military forces. She said she doesn’t like how the capital has been altered into a fortresslike military zone, but she understands. It was worth hearing the sound of outgoing rockets or living within sight of heavy guns to prevent the Russians from entering the capital, she said.
“We feel bad and saddened because of how our city has changed,” said Kramerenko. “But we understand the situation and believe in our Ukrainian soldiers. We Ukrainians have to fight back.”
Claire Parker in Washington and Volodymyr Petrov in Kyiv contributed to this report.
nohero said:
The disagreement here is - do the Ukrainian people have agency and aspirations, or is the U.S. a "puppet master" diverting them from their proper destiny as vassals of Russia.
In order to believe the latter, then you have to deny the agency and aspirations of East Germans, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and other Eastern Europeans (all of whom pulled at and eventually broke the chains that bound them to Moscow). I'm not so "U.S,-centric" as to believe that these weren't genuine public movements in all of these countries.
Whataboutism is OK now.
One major difference between these examples and Ukraine, is that Ukraine had a functioning democracy, with a President who was legally elected. Maidan was an undemocratic coup.
And in their cases, there were earlier insurgencies that were put down by force, but in the end ended peacefully, with the establishment of a new political order. Likewise, the Soviet Union broke up without a shot being fired.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
tjohn said:
As a consequence of the Maidan protests and attendant violence , an agreement was signed on 21 February 2014 by Yanukovych and leaders of the parliamentary opposition that called for the creation of an interim unity government, constitutional reforms and early elections. Shortly after the agreement, Yanukovych and other government ministers fled the country. Parliament then removed Yanukovych from office and installed an interim government. The Revolution of Dignity was soon followed by the Russian annexation of Crimea and pro-Russian unrest in Eastern Ukraine.
It was not a coup.
How does this make it not a coup? There is nothing in what you wrote that makes it not a coup.
do you know what the word even means?
I think we need to nail that down before we can discuss it further, because I'm pretty sure you and paul share a definition that is peculiar to your world view.
(of course, I've asked this question many times and have yet to get an answer.)
Already answered.
what was illegal or "by force"?
paulsurovell said:
PVW said:
I'll give you a little help, Nan, should you want to try for a more convincing reply to me. Let's imagine that in 2013, Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych abruptly decided not to sign a long-negotiated trade agreement and instead decided to sign an agreement having Ukraine seek closer ties with the Russian-dominated Eurasian Economic Union, and that the people of Ukraine took to the streets to protest this.
How would we be able to tell this scenario from the one you are alleging, that actually the US used propaganda and various other tricks to create a fake uprising?
If you can answer this, pointing to the signs that would mark a genuine uprising and their absence in the actual events in Ukraine, you'll be making a much more convincing argument. If you can't - if there's no way to tell the difference, then your argument just comes down to "because I believe it to be so."
The "uprising" wasn't fake, but (a) it involved thousands of people in Maidan out of 40 million (b) there was a network of organizations funded by the US $5 billion "democracy" initiative that played a role and (c) the leadership of the demonstrators were controlled by the US.
b and c beg for further evidence.
and re a - are you saying that only "thousands" of people protested in total?
Paul - if Russia didn't invade Ukraine - we'd have no problem at all.
I get the gist of the article you posted. But it also gives Russia permission to bomb anything that moves.
Rules of war shouldn't even be a thing in this circumstance since war was never declared.
This is a "special operation" can you show me the rulebook for that?
nohero said:
Two posters who are notorious for posts which other posters respond to with comments like, "That's not what it says", "You left something out", etc. have described something I wrote on the Twitter.
Note to Paul - If you tweet "I'm going to block you if you don't respond", and then block the person, it defeats the purpose.
Three chances to retract over a 24-hour period and then blocked, which achieved the purpose.
paulsurovell said:
PVW said:
Estimates of 400-800,000 people in Kyiv, 50,000 in Lviv, 30,00 in Kharkiv, over 100,000 throughout other cities and towns. "Some people" I guess.
Out of a population over 40 million.
That’s helpful context. It reminds us that equivalent crowds in the U.S. would be three million to six million in Washington and 250,000 to 400,000 in our big cities.
Yes.jamie said:
Paul - if Russia didn't invade Ukraine - we'd have no problem at all.
jamie said:
I get the gist of the article you posted. But it also gives Russia permission to bomb anything that moves.
Only military targets.
jamie said:
Rules of war shouldn't even be a thing in this circumstance since war was never declared.
They apply. That's why you can have war crimes.
jamie said:
This is a "special operation" can you show me the rulebook for that?
The rules of war apply.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
PVW said:
Estimates of 400-800,000 people in Kyiv, 50,000 in Lviv, 30,00 in Kharkiv, over 100,000 throughout other cities and towns. "Some people" I guess.
Out of a population over 40 million.
That’s helpful context. It reminds us that equivalent crowds in the U.S. would be three million to six million in Washington and 250,000 to 400,000 in our big cities.
Right if 3-6 million Trumpers showed up on Jan 6th, the Electoral College votes would still be certified, and Biden named the elected President. Trumpers wanted to Maidan Biden on Jan 6th.
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
PVW said:
I'll give you a little help, Nan, should you want to try for a more convincing reply to me. Let's imagine that in 2013, Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych abruptly decided not to sign a long-negotiated trade agreement and instead decided to sign an agreement having Ukraine seek closer ties with the Russian-dominated Eurasian Economic Union, and that the people of Ukraine took to the streets to protest this.
How would we be able to tell this scenario from the one you are alleging, that actually the US used propaganda and various other tricks to create a fake uprising?
If you can answer this, pointing to the signs that would mark a genuine uprising and their absence in the actual events in Ukraine, you'll be making a much more convincing argument. If you can't - if there's no way to tell the difference, then your argument just comes down to "because I believe it to be so."
The "uprising" wasn't fake, but (a) it involved thousands of people in Maidan out of 40 million (b) there was a network of organizations funded by the US $5 billion "democracy" initiative that played a role and (c) the leadership of the demonstrators were controlled by the US.
b and c beg for further evidence.
and re a - are you saying that only "thousands" of people protested in total?
(b) https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/understanding-ukraines-euromaidan-protests
(c) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSxaa-67yGM&t=9s
Re: (a) Yes. The size of the Maidan crowd had gone down from hundreds of thousands to about 15,000 by February 2014, making the comparison between Madian and Jan 6th even more relevant.
b. Open Society was funded by the U.S.?
c. sigh. as you know I lack the relevant super-powers to discern the conspiracies that you claim are in that phone call. Here's a transcript. Maybe you can point out the most damning parts. When you say leadership, are you referring to Yatseniuk?
a. kind of deceptive to ignore the huge demonstrations that started the movement, don't you think? also, to compare the 4 hour 1/6 riot to the many days of Ukraine demonstrations is sophistry of the highest order.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
tjohn said:
As a consequence of the Maidan protests and attendant violence , an agreement was signed on 21 February 2014 by Yanukovych and leaders of the parliamentary opposition that called for the creation of an interim unity government, constitutional reforms and early elections. Shortly after the agreement, Yanukovych and other government ministers fled the country. Parliament then removed Yanukovych from office and installed an interim government. The Revolution of Dignity was soon followed by the Russian annexation of Crimea and pro-Russian unrest in Eastern Ukraine.
It was not a coup.
How does this make it not a coup? There is nothing in what you wrote that makes it not a coup.
do you know what the word even means?
I think we need to nail that down before we can discuss it further, because I'm pretty sure you and paul share a definition that is peculiar to your world view.
(of course, I've asked this question many times and have yet to get an answer.)
Already answered.
So, not a "coup", then.
paulsurovell said:
The "uprising" wasn't fake, but (a) it involved thousands of people in Maidan out of 40 million (b) there was a network of organizations funded by the US $5 billion "democracy" initiative that played a role and (c) the leadership of the demonstrators were controlled by the US.
(a) and (b) are misleading, and (c) is just not true.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
The disagreement here is - do the Ukrainian people have agency and aspirations, or is the U.S. a "puppet master" diverting them from their proper destiny as vassals of Russia.
In order to believe the latter, then you have to deny the agency and aspirations of East Germans, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and other Eastern Europeans (all of whom pulled at and eventually broke the chains that bound them to Moscow). I'm not so "U.S,-centric" as to believe that these weren't genuine public movements in all of these countries.
Whataboutism is OK now.
One major difference between these examples and Ukraine, is that Ukraine had a functioning democracy, with a President who was legally elected. Maidan was an undemocratic coup.
And in their cases, there were earlier insurgencies that were put down by force, but in the end ended peacefully, with the establishment of a new political order. Likewise, the Soviet Union broke up without a shot being fired.
You can't even use the term "whataboutism" correctly, can you?
There is no "major difference", and your simplistic description doesn't demonstrate that there was.
The bottom line - I gave examples of popular uprisings against rule from Moscow. When the Ukrainians do the exact same thing, you call them puppets of the U.S.
[Edited to add] And with respect to this statement -
"And in their cases, there were earlier insurgencies that were put down by force, but in the end ended peacefully, with the establishment of a new political order."
It depends on how far back you decide to draw the line in history, as you well know.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
Two posters who are notorious for posts which other posters respond to with comments like, "That's not what it says", "You left something out", etc. have described something I wrote on the Twitter.
Note to Paul - If you tweet "I'm going to block you if you don't respond", and then block the person, it defeats the purpose.
Three chances to retract over a 24-hour period and then blocked, which achieved the purpose.
"Three"? I must have been blocked before I saw the last one.
Paul's adoption of arguments which justify Israel's military actions in Gaza is a surprising turn of events.
drummerboy said:
b. Open Society was funded by the U.S.?
c. sigh. as you know I lack the relevant super-powers to discern the conspiracies that you claim are in that phone call. Here's a transcript. Maybe you can point out the most damning parts. When you say leadership, are you referring to Yatseniuk?
a. kind of deceptive to ignore the huge demonstrations that started the movement, don't you think? also, to compare the 4 hour 1/6 riot to the many days of Ukraine demonstrations is sophistry of the highest order.
(b) Open Society is a US organization
(c) Another case of @drummerboy amnesia
(a) Started the movement but petered out to 15,000 when the coup took place. A "revolution" of 15,000. I think 1/6 was bigger.
nan said:
ridski said:
You definitely read Gershman's op-ed Parry quotes there, didn't you? Because Parry seems to read the op-ed backwards. The op-ed is about Russia and former Soviet states. The crux of the op-ed is this:
"Russia has used economic and security threats to draw post-communist countries into its Eurasian Customs Union and to block the European Union’s Eastern Partnership initiative, which seeks the reform and possible eventual integration of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine into E.U. structures."
He goes to talk about Russian attempts to bring in Armenia (it worked), Moldova (didn't work), and Georgia (might happen). Then Gershman writes this: "Ukraine is the biggest prize, and there Russia’s bullying has been particularly counter-productive." Gershman is not saying that Putin is the target of an initiative, he is literally saying that Russia is the instigator. Ukraine is the biggest prize for Russia.
In the next quote from Gershman that Parry adds, he misses out the beginning of the paragraph that starts like this:
"Russian democracy also can benefit from this process. Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. There are signs of the emergence of a new Russian nationalism: the strong performance by opposition leader Alexei Navalny in Moscow’s recent mayoral election and polls that show greater opposition to Putin in the Russian provinces, his traditional support base. This nationalism is concerned not with the restoration of Russia’s imperial greatness, which would be inconceivable if Ukraine joined Europe, but with fighting corruption and addressing the severe economic and social problems of the Russian people.
Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."
Emphasis mine.
In case you're wondering why I decided to read the original op-ed instead of Parry's interpretation of it so I can see for myself what it actually says, see some of my earlier posts about second- and third-sourcing. Also see the obvious tell-tale phrase "In other words" which often means someone is about to tell you what they think someone actually said, instead of just leaving the quote to do the work.
I don't know why you are changing the topic.
We were talking about austerity related to the EU deal; I used that quote to show it was the IMF who attached the auterity to the EU deal. Yanukovich did not want the Ukrainians to suffer that and in the end they did when he was disposed.
Because you presented Parry’s article as evidence of this and Parry’s article is inaccurate.
nohero said:
Paul's adoption of arguments which justify Israel's military actions in Gaza is a surprising turn of events.
In all wars, the question is whether a target is a military target is whether it is hosting military equipment or activities. When Israel is attacked by rockets from Gaza it is justified in retaliating against military targets as defined above.
Edited to add: Israel comes up in this telling interview with the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany:
In case the widget doesn't work, here's the link: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1543221160187502596?s=20&t=JWasTPZUUoTLH3MkcO5JtA
When you watch Ukrainian officials lovingly interviewed by CNN or BBC, they often have photos of national hero Stepan Bandera on their wall.
He's a Nazi collaborator who mass-murdered Jews and Poles.
Watch German journalist @TiloJung interview Ukraine's Amb to Germany on this
paulsurovell said:
Right if 3-6 million Trumpers showed up on Jan 6th, the Electoral College votes would still be certified, and Biden named the elected President. Trumpers wanted to Maidan Biden on Jan 6th.
Score one for American exceptionalism. Pooh-poohing the sizes of those crowds remains the self-defeating exercise that it was.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
Right if 3-6 million Trumpers showed up on Jan 6th, the Electoral College votes would still be certified, and Biden named the elected President. Trumpers wanted to Maidan Biden on Jan 6th.
Score one for American exceptionalism. Pooh-poohing the sizes of those crowds remains the self-defeating exercise that it was.
Subsequent this post I noted that Maidan had dwindled to about 15,000 at the time of the coup, in case you missed it.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
Paul's adoption of arguments which justify Israel's military actions in Gaza is a surprising turn of events.
In all wars, the question is whether a target is a military target is whether it is hosting military equipment or activities. When Israel is attacked by rockets from Gaza it is justified in retaliating against military targets as defined above.
Nice try. I cannot recall you ever defending an Israeli strike on Gaza, the same way you defend Russia here.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
Paul's adoption of arguments which justify Israel's military actions in Gaza is a surprising turn of events.
In all wars, the question is whether a target is a military target is whether it is hosting military equipment or activities. When Israel is attacked by rockets from Gaza it is justified in retaliating against military targets as defined above.
Nice try. I cannot recall you ever defending an Israeli strike on Gaza, the same way you defend Russia here.
I've always called for Hamas to renounce violence as a strategy to oppose Israeli aggression.
paulsurovell said:
Subsequent this post I noted that Maidan had dwindled to about 15,000 at the time of the coup, in case you missed it.
Thanks, I didn’t miss it; that’s why I wrote “those crowds,” referring to the post that was the source of my reply. (For the record, I’m not impressed with the subsequent pooh-poohing, either, but I can be a finicky audience.)
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
(No Fees) Hire A Baby Nurse Here for Your New Borns! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
(NO FEES) Hire A Fresh Energetic Nanny/ Housekeeper Here ! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
(NO Fees) Hire Housekeepers Here! ( 732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
(No Fees) Hire Home Health Aides Here! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
Summer Private Speech Therapist
Apr 26, 2024 at 9:12pm
-
Apr 26, 2024 at 1:58pm
-
(Classic Painting and Materials) Fair Prices. Spring and Summer Specials
Apr 25, 2024 at 5:14pm
Help Wanted
-
Part Time help for special needs young adult
Apr 27, 2024 at 4:43pm
-
Apr 25, 2024 at 6:15pm
-
PF504 FT Companion/FA for 16 Year Old (ASAP Start)
Apr 25, 2024 at 4:05pm
Lessons/Instruction
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
is this what Putin wants?