[xnull6guest]

In the world where the February 21st deal to keep Yanukovych in power until end of term [1] was reneged on with support by Voice of America and funding and training to Euromaiden groups from the West, prior US knowledge of the ouster and discussions about a suitable replacement [2], and a world where US policy makers suggest covert arming of the Ukraine [3]. It's also important to keep the broader context - that the nine former Warsaw Pact nations have in the past decade joined the EU of NATO and that the very aggressive terms and a near NATO deal with the Ukraine caused the original crisis that led up to the Feb deal. That the West and US armed other conflicts in the region (Moldova and Georgia). That US anti-ballistic missile battery systems have been installed along the Baltic that denies Russia it's anti-nuclear interception capabilities and directly violates Cold War treaties. Russia, too, plays dirty. But we can't pretend the West doesn't.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/agreement-on-th...

[2] http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine... (25:00)

[3] http://csis.org/files/publication/150129_Mankoff_RussiaUkrai...

[geoka9]

> the February 21st deal to keep Yanukovych in power... was reneged

It wasn't. The annexation of Crimea started before the deal was signed (Feb. 20) and Yanukovich decided to close shop and flee soon afterwards[1].

> and a world where US policy makers suggest covert arming of the Ukraine

With Ukraine undergoing a not-so-covert invasion, and Russian leadership having already laid a claim to half of Ukraine, no less[2], defensive weapons to help stop the aggression are hardly too much to ask.

> and a near NATO deal with the Ukraine caused the original crisis

European association agreement is hardly a "near NATO deal" and Ukraine had laws that precluded it from becoming a NATO member - so that wasn't even in the plans. The people took to the streets when Yanukovich abruptly reneged on his promise to sign the association agreement after visiting Moscow.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-leade...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya

[xnull2guest]

AFAICT we don't disagree on any points. Regarding support for Yunukovych, the deal was signed and not followed up on. It's true his authority was fading fast - these things are not mutually exclusive. The Feb 21 deal was struck to resolve the standoff discussed in your linked NYT article - can you point to where it says that annexation began before Feb 21st (the earliest I can find it mention is March)?

Similarly with covert armaments - the discussion of 'too much to ask' or 'right or wrong' is orthagonal to whether the West takes covert action in the Baltic to achieve policy objectives. My claim is merely that it is done - not that it is wrong.

And similarly wrt the association agreement - it has to do with the context of EU and NATO encroachment and Western action in the Baltic (I would have to admit that it was EU membership, not NATO, in this case).

The grandparent may have anti-European or -NATO sentiments. I don't. But I will defend the idea that the West, having heavily polled Ukraine and called for its own elections, and having discussed options for replacing the leadership, and training and funding groups in the Ukraine, and having controlled the election process in Kiev (calling afoul when Russia performed the same in the Crimea) absolutely is not above influencing its own support. Again I am not calling this bad.

[geoka9]

> the deal was signed and not followed up on.

Yanukovich left the country (illegally, BTW), before the deal could even be followed upon. There wasn't anything for the parliament to do, but appoint an acting president and call for new elections.

> can you point to where it says that annexation began before Feb 21st (the earliest I can find it mention is March)?

Not in the article, no. But there are plenty of sources showing that. The Girkin interviews[1] or the Crimean annexation medal[2], among others.

> I would have to admit that it was EU membership, not NATO, in this case.

This is a big difference. Finland and Austria are both EU countries, but they've never been NATO members. EU is a political and economic union, not a military one. Russia's claim that Ukraine becoming a EU member poses a military threat to them is dishonest at best.

> and training and funding groups in the Ukraine, and having controlled the election process in Kiev (calling afoul when Russia performed the same in the Crimea)

What groups? There wasn't any paramilitary training or funding, contrary to what Russia would like us to believe. The West may have supported some NGOs, but that was perfectly legal (and acceptable) way of trying to sway the public opinion, as opposed to capturing the Crimean parliament building with commandos and herding the MPs into it in the middle of the night to force them to vote for a farce referendum[3][1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcCqrzctxH4

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_%22For_the_Return_of_Crim...

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUH-A3IF3h0

[xnull2guest]

There were other options like keeping the current administration solvent - Yanokovych himself said that he was still wanting to fulfill his duties - and the parliament didn't have enough votes to remove him from office (it was done anyway).

All of the sources I can find including Girkin's own testimony put him in Ukraine in April at the earliest. Can you point to something specific?

Certainly there is a big difference between NATO and the EU. The point stands that several former Warsaw nations HAVE joined NATO. The Ukraine was only set to join the EU under extremely hostile conditions to Russia (the deal with the EU would have precluded close economic ties with Russia).

Russia's claim was that the threat was to national security - and this is true - especially if they were to lose the port accesses in the Crimea. Furthermore the Ukraine controls the pipelines that deliver gas and oil from Russia. This powers 70% of Europe and is the main export and national income of Russia. The EU deal would have severely undercut Russia's ability to negotiate oil prices, which absolutely poses a national security problem. This is common among nations; for example The United States considers the Trans-Pacific Partnership key for national security concerns and interests in the Pacific region and into the future. The TPP is not a military deal.

Academi (Blackwater) was in Ukraine as early as January (this can be confirmed with Google image searches). The NGOs you mentioned made up large numbers of the Euromaiden protestors that occupied Central Square - it's also important to name names: the support of these NGOs included the CIA's USAID. Legality is questionably relevant - at least to this conversation where we are discussing whether or not it was done. Acceptable to us, yes. Not to Russia.

Russia definitely responded with direct military force. We aren't talking about that though. We're talking about installing juntas and influencing politics. As I mentioned in an earlier comment I'm not interested in whether this was right or good or bad. Merely that it was done. It was done.

[geoka9]

> and the parliament didn't have enough votes to remove him from office (it was done anyway).

It would be kind of irresponsible not to appoint an acting president, considering that the incumbent one has just been removed from the country by the military of a country that's just invaded a region of yours, don't you think? I mean, even if the Ukrainian parliament accepted Yanukovich's escape as reasonable, it would have to assume that he was being held hostage by the aggressor?

> All of the sources I can find including Girkin's own testimony put him in Ukraine in April at the earliest. Can you point to something specific?

Sure, straight from the horse's mouth: Girkin himself tells the date of his arrival in Crimea: February 21 (his interview I posted above).

> The United States considers the Trans-Pacific Partnership key for national security concerns

Well, the US does not go around invading the countries that refuse to sign the deal. They negotiate politically and economically, and Russia should have done the same.

> Academi (Blackwater) was in Ukraine as early as January...

Can you point to a source? Also, in what capacity? For the most part, the protesters were unarmed, and those that were had wooden shields, clubs, and hardhats - hardly a Blackwater style operation?

> The NGOs you mentioned made up large numbers of the Euromaiden protestors that occupied Central Square.

Again, can you point to the source? It's not an abstract thing for me, as some of my friends were actually on that square.

> We're talking about installing juntas

Poroshenko's cabinet is not a junta, by any stretch of imagination (or the meaning of the word). And he hasn't been "installed".

> ... and influencing politics.

That's perfectly acceptable, as long as it's legal (which it has been, AFAICT).

[xnull2guest]

> It would be kind of irresponsible...

I'm not sure they would need to assume that he was being held hostage (his communications would not imply this). I mean, it was clear which direction he leaned which solutions and state partnerships he preferred - this was known before the agreement not to hold an election to replace him. You can see how it would be considered 'irresponsible' to remove him from office (without enough votes from the parliament to actually do so) one day after finalizing a ceasefire conditioned on the agreement not to.

Yanukovych was going to be replaced and Russia knew this. He was going to be replaced with someone more friendly to the West. (I'm not saying any of this is bad.) Russia made the ceasefire conditional on his not being replaced immediately, so it would have time to explore options to protect its interests including those of the non-military variety. She got the agreement but not the promise. Yanukovych, under pressure from a Western supported uprising, was replaced during Western supervised and organized elections by a Western sympathetic administration outside the regular legal framework of the government. [If you believed that the uprising was Western supported] you can see Russia's point.

> Girkin himself tells the date of his arrival in Crimea

First, the original claim was that he was there before the 21st. Second, Girkin was in Simferopol on the 21st. Simferopol is in the Crimea, but it in the part of the Crimea that is not part of the Ukraine (its national membership is disputed). Ukrainian intelligence has him entering the Crimea within the Ukraine on the 26th (the day the Ukrainian parliament was seized).

> US does not go around invading the countries that refuse to sign the deal

If you are talking about invasions regarding stability, national security purposes and territory... The Philippines, Cuba, (cough originally all of North America, but we don't have to count that cough), Hawaii, Panama, Grenada, Dominican Republic, Haiti, ... and if you mean in a larger context the US most certainly invades other countries...

But I won't quibble. I understand what you mean to imply - the US uses justified force and invasion while the Russians do not. I'm afraid I see this as a matter of perspective. It's difficult for me, colored by being a patriot of America, to determine 'right' and 'wrong'.

But the larger point being made here that I think you missed was that trade and membership deals ARE considered around the world by all nations matters of national security. I just used the TPP as an example from the US.

> Can you point to a source? Also, in what capacity?

The reports are of their role in training small civilian brigades (TASS says "marksmanship, operations by assault groups in urban conditions, ... combat, and logistics support for the battalion.") and for a show of muscle. The Russian news firm TASS reported planned Blackwater involvement in late December [1], you can see Russian citizens discussing Blackwater (aggressively) in a comment section here (January 22nd) [2], German political consultant Luders discuss Blackwater presence in Ukraine (January 20th) here [3], videos (March) of US regalia carrying US weaponry (someone shouts "Blackwater!") [4], (April) official Foreign Affairs Office with a formal complaint about Greystone (Blackwater) [5], (May) pictures posted on RT [6], and original December estimates agreeing with a Der Speigel report in May [7].

> Poroshenko's cabinet is not a junta

I would agree with this. I used the term in reference to the top comment that originally launched the discussion of whether the US and allies use covert means to install its own policy objectives. You must understand though that Russia, a historically extremely xenophobic nation, with an extremely complicated and sour relationship with Germany does not react well to a German led union taking half its sphere of influence and battalions like Azov fighting on the behalf of Ukraine under SS and Nazi heraldry. And when the loan packages that fund Kiev's side of the war come from organizations headquartered in Washington DC and Europe... to them, a junta (not Ukraine, but the West) isn't farfetched. That is, it is the European encroachment that informs the sense of nationalistic military political control. It misses the point to think about Poroshenko's cabinet. Russia isn't worried about Poroshenko.

> That's perfectly acceptable, as long as it's legal

I prefer when things are legal, so long as they are acceptable. Were Russia to fund, inform and train the members of Occupy Wall Street or the Tea Party what do you think Washington would do? Would they think, hmm, that's technically legal so I guess it's okay? Or what if Russia convinced Cuba to turn it's politics against the US?

Anyway, I'm not trying to make a 'good' or 'bad' point here. I'm trying to make a point about consistency. Law is a finicky thing. For a long time slavery was legal. Plus, I'm not a lawyer (are you?), and this seems like an awfully complicated area of international law. So I'd rather not discuss legality in favor of more grounded and informative deliberation.

> Again, can you point to the source? It's not an abstract thing for me, as some of my friends were actually on that square.

Here's an offhand (pro-Ukraine/America) mention in early 2014 [8]. I could enumerate a number of sources (I don't have a compiled list on hand.)

It's getting quite late - perhaps we can follow up if you deem it necessary with the best enumeration of groups that we can find along with their associations. I will link in the meantime to USAID documents itself... "The primary goal “to strengthen and assist leading pro-reform Ukrainian [CSOs] to sustain and consolidate democratic gains” was difficult to achieve, and, even if realized, the results may not be directly attributed to the project.", "Ukraine gained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 and established diplomatic relations with the United States. U.S. policy has focused on helping Ukraine become a democratic state “more closely integrated into the Europe and Euro-Atlantic structures.” Since 2007, the European Union (EU) and Ukraine have negotiated agreements designed to support reforms for political association and economic integration. The negotiations ended in 2012, and the EU established requirements that Ukraine was to follow so the agreements could be signed during the third Eastern Partnership summit in November 2013.3 However, days before the summit began, the Ukrainian Government announced that it would suspend plans for agreements with the EU and instead pursue closer ties with Russia. Protests and civil unrest ensued. Civil society organizations (CSOs) have taken part in some of the recent protests. These organizations play an important role in keeping government accountable, citizens engaged, and democratic reforms on track. USAID/Ukraine’s Strengthening Civil Society in Ukraine (SCSU) project’s5 primary goal is to “strengthen and assist leading pro-reform Ukrainian nongovernmental organizations to sustain and consolidate democratic gains.” To accomplish this, it aims to work with local partners as equals in implementing all project activities" [9] [10] [11]

USAID is known for toppling governments and causing and supporting revolts and revolutions. It spent $5 billion dollars supporting Ukraine and NGOs over the past 20 years.

George Soros is known for using networks of NGOs to "open up" countries (his words), particularly in Eastern Europe. Soro heavily funded and supported Spilna Sprava, for example. (You can also see the Open Society Foundation listed along with other groups that heavily participated in the revolts and their organization on the UNITER partners page.) Anyway, to be continued.

[1] http://tass.ru/en/world/770048

[2] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-22/its-just-tactical-w...

[3] http://www.neopresse.com/politik/der-ukraine-kaempfen-blackw...

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2uVyaKTQoU, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2uVyaKTQoU

[5] http://mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/e78a48070f128a7b43256999005bcb...

[6] http://rt.com/news/158212-academi-blackwater-ukraine-militar...

[7] http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-krise-400-us-s...

[8] http://wrongkindofgreen.org/tag/euromaidan/

[9] http://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/audit-reports/9-121...

[10] http://uniter.org.ua/eng/about.html

[11] http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1863/USAI...

[classicsnoot]

Cannot everything you are saying about The West[sic] be applied to what Russia has done/is doing in E.Ukraine as well as Dagestan/Ossetia?

[xnull2guest]

Yes.

It is not good versus evil nor is noble versus savage. It is power versus power.

[guard-of-terra]

What about Dagestan? Maybe you mean Abkhasia?

[classicsnoot]

in addition to, yes, but upon review of a map, i mean Dagestan.

[guard-of-terra]

Okay, but what's with it? It's a kind of problematic region but not in the warfare sense.