Arming the Ukrainians

[ad_orientem]

The troops made a referendum possible, so the people could decide whether to go back to being part of Russia.

Do you know who absurd this sounds? The "referendum" was conducted at gunpoint.

[jeremyp]

The troops made a referendum possible

Occupying troops make referendums impossible.

, so the people could decide whether to go back to being part of Russia.

Whilst their neighbourhood was being patrolled by murderous bastards with guns. Yes, that led to a fair result /sarcasm.

[Outrider]

The troops made a referendum possible, so the people could decide whether to go back to being part of Russia.

Firstly - it's not Russia's place to hold a referendum on another country's territory's options about independence.

Secondly - it's not a reliable referendum if you've flooded the territory with non-native personnel, including but not limited to soldiers

Thirdly - Russia doesn't understand the 'One person, one vote' idea as is evidenced by its treatment of opposition politicians in its own country

Fourthly - undertaking such a referendum during armed conflict is against international law

Fifth - the selection by Russia of Russian-tied non-experts to be the 'international observers' belies their confidence in the impartiality of the whole sordid affair.

O.

[Spud]

They didn't recognise the sovereignty of Donetsk or Luhansk because a) it gave them a political veil of deniability, and b) they didn't need to because they had functional control already.

Neither of which, if true, prove Putin was planning a conquest of Ukraine. Also, the troops were there already, as well as others who came as a result of the insurrection in Kiev, not because of plans to annex other regions.

[ad_orientem]

This is how "elections" are held in occupied areas of Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/spooked75/status/1768160316779614478?s=19

[Outrider]

Neither of which, if true, prove Putin was planning a conquest of Ukraine.

The invasion of Ukraine proves that Putin was (badly) planning an invasion. We couldn't have proven it then, but we sure as hell can now.

Also, the troops were there already,

Russian troops? In Ukraine? That's, like, an invasion... does Putin know?

...as well as others who came as a result of the insurrection in Kiev, not because of plans to annex other regions.

There was not an 'insurrection' in Kiev. There was a massed protest that the authorities of the time attempted to quell with armed troops. That led to a political situation where the ruling party stepped down and new elections were held. I can see how the idea of protest leading to free and fair elections would confuse you, maybe you should Google the concept.

O.

[Spud]

The invasion of Ukraine proves that Putin was (badly) planning an invasion. We couldn't have proven it then, but we sure as hell can now.

Russian troops? In Ukraine? That's, like, an invasion... does Putin know?

There was not an 'insurrection' in Kiev. There was a massed protest that the authorities of the time attempted to quell with armed troops. That led to a political situation where the ruling party stepped down and new elections were held. I can see how the idea of protest leading to free and fair elections would confuse you, maybe you should Google the concept.

O.

Of course it was an insurrection, plus it was used by the US to get the people they wanted into government. Remember, "Yats is the guy".

[Outrider]

Of course it was an insurrection, plus it was used by the US to get the people they wanted into government.

My interpretation - and it seems to gel with a few quick checks - is that the difference between an insurrection and a protest is the use of violence against the state's operations and operatives. The Maiden protests which occured after Yanukovych defied the will of Parliament, turned his back on the Ukraine-EU agreement that had been negotiated and tried to tie Ukraine to Russia were peaceful until Yanukovych ordered their violent suppression, resulting ultimately in the death of over a hundred protesters.

Late February parliament votes to remove Yanukovych from office and within a month Putin has annexed Crimea. Given what we've seen of Russia's logistical ineptitude, do you expect anyone to believe that the invasion of Ukraine wasn't already planned?

The US had preferred candidates, so did many other nations. Russia had its preferred candidate, the one they'd already influenced after his election to turn his back on his election promises of further ties to Europe and instead pivoting towards Russia. That's what international politics is.

That the US's (and our) preferred candidates ended up winning is not indicative of any sort of undue influence; for balance, to date Yanukovych hasn't been convicted of taking any sort of bribe or such from Russia so far as I'm aware, just treason for ordering the killing of protestors.
O.

[ad_orientem]

Of course it was an insurrection, plus it was used by the US to get the people they wanted into government. Remember, "Yats is the guy".

Of course, because Ukraine has no agency of its own, at least according Russia supporters. It's highly offence and moronic.

[Spud]

My interpretation - and it seems to gel with a few quick checks - is that the difference between an insurrection and a protest is the use of violence against the state's operations and operatives. The Maiden protests which occured after Yanukovych defied the will of Parliament, turned his back on the Ukraine-EU agreement that had been negotiated and tried to tie Ukraine to Russia were peaceful until Yanukovych ordered their violent suppression, resulting ultimately in the death of over a hundred protesters.

Late February parliament votes to remove Yanukovych from office and within a month Putin has annexed Crimea. Given what we've seen of Russia's logistical ineptitude, do you expect anyone to believe that the invasion of Ukraine wasn't already planned?

The US had preferred candidates, so did many other nations. Russia had its preferred candidate, the one they'd already influenced after his election to turn his back on his election promises of further ties to Europe and instead pivoting towards Russia. That's what international politics is.

That the US's (and our) preferred candidates ended up winning is not indicative of any sort of undue influence; for balance, to date Yanukovych hasn't been convicted of taking any sort of bribe or such from Russia so far as I'm aware, just treason for ordering the killing of protestors.
O.

"You are free to join the EU, but we're not going to pay for it" - Putin to Yanukovich

So Yanukovich delayed signing the EU treaty. He agreed to hold early elections but the far right wanted him gone, forcing him out using violence. An insurrection.

[Outrider]

"You are free to join the EU, but we're not going to pay for it" - Putin to Yanukovich

"We heard, we still want to go with the EU plan rather than continue with the Russian-style corruption we have now." Ukrainian Parliament to Yanukovych.

So Yanukovich delayed signing the EU treaty.

Yanukovych defied the will of parliament - that he was bound by his oath of office to uphold - and tried to circumvent the legal process and sign up with Putin anyway. The public protested.

He agreed to hold early elections but the far right wanted him gone,

Parliament recommended new elections, and he was bound by the same conventions to abide by that recommendation; without Putin's explicit support at that point, he conceded. This was not 'the far right', it was a centre-right parliament and a wide range of centrist- to left-leaning organisations and a general populace that was fairly evenly split.

forcing him out using violence.

The generally accepted account is that the initially peaceful protests were put down violently by the police, and when the protesters took to arming themselves Yanukovych upped the ante by ordering gunfire.

An insurrection.

A corrupt president overstepping his bounds at the instigation of a foreign power and then escalating protests into violence by a combination of lack of control of an (at the time, I'm not sure about now) fairly corrupt police force and explicit instruction to the same.

Of course, none of this in any way justifies either Putin's first invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, which happened in the immediate aftermath of the protests, nor the second invasion and the annexation of further territories.

O.

[Spud]

"We heard, we still want to go with the EU plan rather than continue with the Russian-style corruption we have now." Ukrainian Parliament to Yanukovych.

Yanukovych defied the will of parliament - that he was bound by his oath of office to uphold - and tried to circumvent the legal process and sign up with Putin anyway.

Please supply the source for your quote?

Here's the transcript of Oliver Stone's interviews with Yanukovich and Putin in 2016, from "Ukraine on Fire" (around 26-29 minutes in).

Stone: November 2013... Ukraine is in bad economic shape. You have a trade agreement with Russia, and now you're seeking to make a better agreement with the EU, and you are negotiating. Can you bring me to that moment, and what you're thinking?

Yanukovich: It was, indeed, a very complicated period of time for Ukraine, and we had to find the solution for the problems in 2013. We had two partners. First of al, we counted on the IMF. But throughout the whole year of negotiations the IMF suggested to us unacceptable solutions: a significant rise in utility rates, first and foremost for the electricity and natural gas. This would mean a lot more expenses for the people, while their income would stay at the same level. We didn't go there. We suggested other solutions, but got an official refusal from the IMF in November 2013. This left us with Russia. Russia told us that it was ready for partnership if we took its interests into consideration.

Putin: The economies of Ukraine and Russioa emerged as a united economy. We had developed absolutely unique special economic relationships, Russian markets were wide open for Ukrainian produce as well as our custom borders. Therefore it would mean that the EU with all its goods would enter our markets without any negotiations.

Yanukovich: We started calculating the balances, we realized that the agreement, offered by Europe to Ukraine, required essential economic expenses, and Europe didn't provide any loss balancing, and in the meantime the Russian market would be significantly limited or even shut down.

Putin: We said: "of course, if Ukraine has come to this decision, this is its choice and we respect this choice. But we don't have to pay for it.

Yanukovich: Our negotiations with Europe didn't succeed so we decided to take a pause.

[Spud]

This was not 'the far right', it was a centre-right parliament and a wide range of centrist- to left-leaning organisations and a general populace that was fairly evenly split.

Yes, but the far right (by which I meant Right Sector) didn't give up once he had agreed to the early elections.

[Outrider]

Please supply the source for your quote?

It's a not a direct quote, I presumed (my error) that yours wasn't either, that the quotation marks were supposed to indicate putting words in someone else's mouth. The sentiment is the case, though.

Here's the transcript of Oliver Stone's interviews with Yanukovich and Putin in 2016, from "Ukraine on Fire" (around 26-29 minutes in).

Stone: November 2013... Ukraine is in bad economic shape. You have a trade agreement with Russia, and now you're seeking to make a better agreement with the EU, and you are negotiating. Can you bring me to that moment, and what you're thinking?

Yanukovich: It was, indeed, a very complicated period of time for Ukraine, and we had to find the solution for the problems in 2013. We had two partners. First of al, we counted on the IMF. But throughout the whole year of negotiations the IMF suggested to us unacceptable solutions: a significant rise in utility rates, first and foremost for the electricity and natural gas. This would mean a lot more expenses for the people, while their income would stay at the same level. We didn't go there. We suggested other solutions, but got an official refusal from the IMF in November 2013. This left us with Russia. Russia told us that it was ready for partnership if we took its interests into consideration.

Putin: The economies of Ukraine and Russioa emerged as a united economy. We had developed absolutely unique special economic relationships, Russian markets were wide open for Ukrainian produce as well as our custom borders. Therefore it would mean that the EU with all its goods would enter our markets without any negotiations.

Yanukovich: We started calculating the balances, we realized that the agreement, offered by Europe to Ukraine, required essential economic expenses, and Europe didn't provide any loss balancing, and in the meantime the Russian market would be significantly limited or even shut down.

Putin: We said: "of course, if Ukraine has come to this decision, this is its choice and we respect this choice. But we don't have to pay for it.

Yanukovich: Our negotiations with Europe didn't succeed so we decided to take a pause.

Except that it wasn't Putin's or Yanukovych's place to decide if the EU arrangement was acceptable, it was Parliament's. And Parliament did find it acceptable. And Yanukovych committed treason by trying to ignore the explicit will of Parliament and make his own arrangements.

However, this: "if Ukraine has come to this decision, this is its choice and we respect this choice." by Putin?

Was that exemplified by the unilateral trade embargo Russia put on the Ukrainian border in the August before EuroMaidan, in response to progress in the EU negotiations (themselves a result of a commitment by the Ukrainian government to improve the rule of law, including freeing the political prisoner Yulia Tymoschenko, Yanukovych's predecessor and rival)?

Or was it exemplified by the fact that it took a whole five days from Yanukovych's removal from office on 22nd February to Russia's invasion of Crimea on the 27th? Or was it the slew of pro-Russian propoganda and disinformation being disseminated into the vocal pro-Russian minority in Crimea from mid-January that shows their 'respect' for Ukraine's choice?

Yes, but the far right (by which I meant Right Sector) didn't give up once he had agreed to the early elections.

That they didn't give up doesn't make them far right. Putin alleges that Ukraine is rife with neo-Nazis, but nobody else corroborates that notion. There are far-right organisations in Ukraine, as there are across Europe and Russia, but they are not a significant element in Ukrainian politics, in Ukrainian society and they weren't a significant element of EuroMaidan either.

The only confirmed far-right group to have had any significant influence on any of the events is the few hundred members of the pro-Russian group that blockaded the Sebastopol parliamentary building and tried to install a Russian citizen as mayor until a few thousand Crimean Tartars organised a counter-protest and the pro-Russian neo-Nazis fled.

O.

[ad_orientem]

Spud,

Ukraine On Fire is a Russian propaganda piece and if you followed Twitter, you'd also be aware of the vile stuff Igor Lopatonok, the film's producer, says about Ukrainians. It's not to be trusted in any way, shape or form. How complicit Oliver Stone is in the film's lies, I don't know, but he has his own agenda.

[Spud]

The generally accepted account is that the initially peaceful protests were put down violently by the police

In the same film, Vitaly Zacharchenko who was minister of interior affairs in Ukraine during this period and chief of police, said that on November 24th 2013 radicals who had been spotted in the crowd committed the first act of aggression, attacking the building of Cabinet Ministers of Ukraine and the police officers guarding it. Then on 25th Nov they attacked the security service officers.

Then on Nov 30th the Christmas tree was being brought into Maidan square during the night, after which it was reported that police had beaten peaceful protestors.

During the Stone interview, Yanukovich said he was against using force against the protestors. So the question was who had ordered this? The Chief of Staff, Sergei Lyovochkin (who was friends with the US ambassador and Nuland), who had apparently discussed with opposition leader Yatsenyuk the clearing of Maidan on the pretext of installing the annual Christmas tree. Stone says, "it appears [from footage of the events] that the protestors were waiting for the police; there were dozens of journalists and cameramen from all the new public TV news outlets prepared to cover the events and most ominously a group of well-trained young men [the Right Sector] arrived to Maidan almost simultaneously with the riot policce. They infiltrated the crowd and began provocations with insults, stones and torches". The protestors came out the next day to vent their anger at the police actions. According to Yanukovich, serious law violations began in December. Bats, and metal bars were used, and bulldozers to run into riot police guarding the governmental and president administration buildings. Yanukovich said these techniques were planned well in advance.

[Spud]

So it appears the opposition leader and chief of staff planned to clear protestors from the square on the pretext of bringing in the Christmas tree. But Right Sector's provocation prevented this and turned the protests into riots.

[Spud]

Spud,

Ukraine On Fire is a Russian propaganda piece and if you followed Twitter, you'd also be aware of the vile stuff Igor Lopatonok, the film's producer, says about Ukrainians. It's not to be trusted in any way, shape or form. How complicit Oliver Stone is in the film's lies, I don't know, but he has his own agenda.

Not that long ago I posted a film of a leader of the neo-fascists admitting that they were the reason why the protests succeeded in ousting the government; he said without them it would have been a gay parade.

[Outrider]

So it appears the opposition leader and chief of staff planned to clear protestors from the square on the pretext of bringing in the Christmas tree. But Right Sector's provocation prevented this and turned the protests into riots.

Or, conversely, following escalations that turned into violent confrontations, heavy-handed police have tried to retrospectively claim violent intent, and Russian media has been over-emphasising the influence of Right Sector ever since.

It may never become absolutely clear who instigated the violence, although by and large the neutral press seems to be leaning towards the notion that it was police activity that escalated the situation, and the Ukrainian Parliamentary investigation put the responsibility for that squarely on Yanukovych, that's why he was prosecuted.

Even if that were a cover-up for an insurrection, which I don't accept... how does that justify an invasion from Russia?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting to see what if anything happens with Macron and Scholz here.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68573441

[ad_orientem]

Interesting to see what if anything happens with Macron and Scholz here.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68573441

Scholz belongs to the old guard of German politics. I'm not sure there's much that can be said to change his mind. I'm pretty certain that he's still hoping this will just all blow over and everything goes back to business as usual.

[ad_orientem]

More Russian double tapping.

https://twitter.com/U24_gov_ua/status/1768613574392340958?s=19

[Nearly Sane]

More Russian double tapping.

https://twitter.com/U24_gov_ua/status/1768613574392340958?s=19

I'm getting page does not exist for that.

[ad_orientem]

I'm getting page does not exist for that.

Try this. Browser version rather than application.

https://x.com/U24_gov_ua/status/1768625696258011324?s=20

Edit: Correction. It seems Twitter got the original post remived because it was "too graffic". Fuck them! Twitter works for Russia under Musk.

[Nearly Sane]

Try this. Browser version rather than application.

https://x.com/U24_gov_ua/status/1768625696258011324?s=20

Correction. It seems Twitter got the original post remived because it was "too graffic". Fuck them! Twitter works for Russia under Musk.

Got it to work but only by actually logging on (which I am loathe to do. Maybe a new Musk thing. Thanks.

ETA - must have picked up updated link in trying to access once logged in.