[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...

[geoka9]

> You can see how it would be considered 'irresponsible' to remove him from office

Again, the country was in a political crisis. The president has just been snatched by the military of the aggressor who was invading the country at that moment. The country seemed to be falling apart. I don't see how the parliament could have done anything differently.

> First, the original claim was that he was there before the 21st.

No, the original claim was that annexation started 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).

At that moment it wasn't disputed even by the Kremlin. The "disputing" would come a bit later.

> tass.ru, mid.ru, rt.com

Come on, man. TASS and RT would claim that the Ukrainian military is crucifying infants in Donbass and drinking their blood for breakfast. I'm sorry, I can't trust anything that comes from them about Ukraine. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (mid.ru) is just a propaganda front for the Kremlin.

I've seen the video with commandos in Donetsk. To me they looked like an SBU (Ukrainian Security Office) counter-terrorist unit. They do seem to have Western equipment, but that's plausible because Ukraine does not produce that type of weapons/equipment locally (of course, I'm just speculating, and may be wrong here. I highly doubt that the Ukrainian authorities would send foreign mercs to clear a local government building when they have a number of world class CT units in the SBU).

> Civil society organizations (CSOs) have taken part in some of the recent protests.

I'm sorry but that's beside the point. I was doubting your claim of "The NGOs you mentioned made up large numbers of Euromaidan protesters". I don't see any evidence of "large numbers". And from my personal (subjective) experience, it was not the case.

[xnull2guest]

> No, the original claim was that annexation started before the 21st.

Sorry. Yes. The original claim was that the annexation started before the 21st. Girkin's presence in the Crimea before the 21st (which didn't happen) was supposed to be evidence of that. Much of how to interpret the dates depends to some understanding of territorial sovereignty, and also of course whether Girkin et al should count as active military personnel (we agree yes only on the second).

The other evidence was the metal for the return of the Crimea, but I can not find any source indicated it awarded or existed before February 21st (can you?).

> At that moment it wasn't disputed even by the Kremlin. The "disputing" would come a bit later.

It's status has been disputed in modern history since at least 1991 when Crimea declared itself an independent autonomous state. I would agree that if you believed that the Crimea was not an autonomous state that it was an invasion of Ukraine. Named "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and recognizing its history it's hard to argue that - and it fact it was the Crimean Parliament (not the Ukrainian Parliament) that was seized. But the issue is of course incredibly complicated and obviously closely guarded and considered by both the Russian Federation and the Ukraine. The jury ("international community"), unfortunately, is one that is led by powers with a direct interest in a result that benefits their objectives.

Bubbling up, though, I want to mention again that while this is an interesting area of international law, it contributes only little to the main deliberation.

> Come on, man. TASS and RT would claim that the Ukrainian military is crucifying infants in Donbass and drinking their blood for breakfast. I'm sorry, I can't trust anything that comes from them about Ukraine. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (mid.ru) is just a propaganda front for the Kremlin.

Could you expound on how the Ministry of Foreign Affairs [1] is a propaganda front for the Kremlin, while the State Department is not a propaganda front for the Executive Branch? (If you were to agree that the State Department was, in fact, a propaganda front - something we could have a very serious and evidenced conversation about - I could understand what you mean. Or maybe I don't understand how the institutions are different [school me]). Similar to what I will write below, propaganda outlets almost always tell some form of the truth (just truth that is beneficial). There's tons of propaganda on both sides. Maybe we could find some nonpartisan criteria for entering in information from sources that have been known to propagandize?

Can you show where TASS or RT have claimed such ridiculous things - the danger here would be putting words into a straw man's mouth. I totally get that TASS and RT run stories that directly benefit Russia and that, like many Western news organizations, spin news for their people. I get that you may not trust it for this reason. But this would be a reason too not to trust many sources I bet you would be willing to enter into the web of evidence to find consistent evidences narratives from.

Regarding RT/TASS: like any good propaganda outlet it needs to use almost exclusively white propaganda - you'll get the same from the Washington Post and Voice of America. In any case, for this particular story its numbers match funding and deployment numbers confirmed later by sources you do trust almost exactly - it would be a kind of strange coincidence for something like that to happen. There's also still the other reporting, for instance from Luders, which you haven't replied to I think need to be called out again lest they disappear into the ASCII tide.

> I'm sorry but that's beside the point. (regarding CSOs)

UNITED and USAID (and Soros, etc) are NOT besides the point and made up the vast majority of the content here. Please do not reply only to the CSO section. The documents all speak quite a bit about funding and cooperation of NGOs. You may consider CSOs another (sister) point that is evidence of Western support of political coup that needs a response of their own, not evidence about NGOs.

The enumeration of NGOs seems to be of interest to you. As I specified in the previous post this would take some time, and may even be a doomed project. Perhaps you would like to help in an enumeration?

[[Because I'm sure the conversation needs this at this point]]

The meta argument (all the way at the top) being made here is whether the West played any significant role in encouraging political disruption and installing leadership that benefited its policy decisions. It may be interesting for both of us to review the branches of argumentation therein and include important pieces of the argument that were silently dropped by the other, and to reform and submit larger arguments where the details have reached a consensus.

I do think the answer is most assuredly yes. I think you may too - though you'll specify that the way it was done was legal or primarily nonviolent. If this is the case, please let me know whether you would still like to continue discussing details and controversial topics, as I am willing to.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairs_(R...

[geoka9]

I apologize in advance since I'm a bit short for time at the moment and I'll just post a short(-ish) reply to the questions I can answer from the top of my head (more or less).

> Girkin's presence in the Crimea before the 21st (which didn't happen) was supposed to be evidence of that.

The medal forged by the Russian Govt. itself is the most damning evidence[0] (it's basically a confession).

> Much of how to interpret the dates depends to some understanding of territorial sovereignty

There's nothing to interpret: at that time Crimea was recognized as part of Ukraine even by Russia (see below).

>> At that moment it wasn't disputed even by the Kremlin. The "disputing" would come a bit later.

> It's status has been disputed in modern history since at least 1991 when Crimea declared itself an independent autonomous state.

In 1997 Russia and Ukraine signed a Treaty in which Russia accepted Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea.[1]

> Could you expound on how the Ministry of Foreign Affairs... is a propaganda front for the Kremlin

Many of its statements are effectively regurgitated Russian state media news pieces, many of which are outright lies, while others are twisted to further a propagandistic agenda. It is amazing that a Foreign Office would base its official statements (and arguments used in international negotiations) on outright propaganda (made up or twisted stories the sole purpose of which is to incite hatred towards Ukraine within Russia).

> Can you show where TASS or RT have claimed such ridiculous things

Sure, but first: most of the well-known media outlets in Russia are state-owned or controlled/censored. Because of this there's practically no difference between them with respect to the journalistic integrity (or lack thereof) in their reporting.

"Channel One", the biggest Russian TV channel, ran a story[2] of a woman (allegedly from Slavyansk) who claimed that some Ukranian soldiers have crucified a child in front of his mother. Then they proceeded to tie the mother to a tank and drag her around the square (and she claimed to have seen it with her own eyes). Needless to say, this turned out to be a lie[3], but the story was circulated by many Russian news outlets without batting an eye.

As for ITAR-TASS and RT, you can read about some of their exploits here[4] and here[5][6][7].

[0] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/25/putin-s-cri...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea#Autonomous_R...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1TJLNcc5DY

[3] http://www.stopfake.org/en/lies-crucifixion-on-channel-one/

[4] http://www.stopfake.org/en/tag/rt/

[5] http://www.stopfake.org/en/exclusive-german-professor-for-it...

[6] http://www.stopfake.org/en/itar-tass-lies-pro-ukrainian-radi...

[7] http://www.stopfake.org/en/china-did-not-declare-its-support... of-russian-annexation-of-crimea/

[xnull2guest]

> I apologize in advance since I'm a bit short for time at the moment and I'll just post a short(-ish) reply to the questions I can answer from the top of my head (more or less).

That's okay. Totally get that. Same boat. Thanks for status.

> The medal forged by the Russian Govt. itself is the most damning evidence

Couple thoughts.

The article you link to concludes that the 2/20 date makes sense for being dates that snipers became active.

It's also easy to explain the 2/20 date as a day that contingency planning and deployment started, and the reason the medal exists is because the contigency plan needed to be executed.

Finally I checked the source of the Crimean medal story. I am not able to find (although it has been very difficult to search because I do not speak Russian) any statement made by Russia regarding the medal or it being a mistake, as claimed by Radio Free Europe. Also, provided that RFE is a propaganda outlet, and we're trying to exclude them as sources, how do you feel about this? In particular there's this interesting blog post about how the British propaganda effort made up a fake German medal in analogous circumstances [1].

Finally, I do believe that the medal is real and the 2/20 date is real. But I'm not sure how to interpret the 2/20 day other than as the beginning of contingency planning. It's 100% true that Russia wanted to annex Crimea and designed plans to do it. There's no debate from me there.

> Many of its statements are effectively regurgitated Russian state media news pieces, many of which are lies, while others are twisted to further a propagandistic agenda.

It does sound quite a lot like the State Department. Of course Russia's propaganda has always been a bit more crass. So are we at a point where no official statements can be trusted? If so we're really limiting our sources. Is there a department of Russia that you trust? It's sort of hard to cite material if anything from any source in Russia is knocked out of consideration.

Anyway, there are non-Russian sources that were presented. It would still be difficult to explain the Der Speigel numbers matching the RT numbers so closely, etc. I don't mind if you can't or don't have time to pursue this line any more - Academi/Greystone/Blackwater presence is a side conversation to the main discussion.

> Sure, but first: most of the well-known media outlets in Russia are state-owned or controlled/censored. Because of this there's practically no difference between them with respect to the journalistic integrity (or lack thereof) in their reporting.

Yes.

I meant a source for the drinking the blood of babies thing. But the crucifixion one is pretty good. That's pretty silly, Russia...

I do not know what to make of the stopfake website (it's the first time I have run into it.) Here's a neat one for the US news, in case it is useful to you [2]. Regarding fake news in the United States, there has been similar coverage. Of course first comes the reports of WMDs in Iraq, the DoD Analyst Program and then media blackout [3], and plenty of other examples of media manipulation from the US government [4]. I totally get that Russia and RT are more crass.

Anyway, there are other sources listed. If you don't want to use RT that's fine with me, but we should probably avoid a bunch of different news outlets in that case and be sure to reply to the non-RT ones.

[[Back to what was mentioned before...]]

We should consider consolidating the conversation. There are lots of interesting things to be said, but there's a lot that hasn't been addressed and there is significant danger of too much rat-holing. I think you agree with the thesis that the US has been pushing politics, activists, demonstrators and interest groups in the Ukraine toward Europe through the use of CSOs and their funding of NGOs, and organizing a replacement to Yan evidenced by the leaked tapes on DemocracyNow and by the USAID documents that clearly state US Foreign Policy objectives and procedures. (Interesting aside: Secretary of State Kerry's son is has recently become a major stakeholder in Ukraine oil)...

I think we differ about how okay that is - you'll say that it's legal or acceptable. Can you correct me if I'm wrong about your agreeing that both covert and overt action have been and are taken in Ukraine and other states by the US to pursue policy objectives?

[1] https://ersjdamoo.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/mystery-of-the-cr...

[2] http://www.emergent.info/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_military_analyst_prog...

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8933443

[geoka9]

> Is there a department of Russia that you trust?

If you mean any department within the Government, then no, there isn't. If you mean "mass media", there are a couple that I trust (not unreservedly, though, but I consider them to have some standards of journalistic integrity):

http://www.novayagazeta.ru/

http://tvrain.ru/

Other than those there are pretty much no news outlets in Russia when it comes to Ukraine; the rest of the saner sources of information are blogs and opinion pieces.

> Can you correct me if I'm wrong about your agreeing that both covert and overt action have been and are taken in Ukraine and other states by the US to pursue policy objectives?

No, you're not wrong, of course they do.

> I think we differ about how okay that is - you'll say that it's legal or acceptable.

As I said, I think it's acceptable as long as it is legal. I don't mind the Russians meddling in Ukrainian politics (although I'd love them not to, but that's my personal preference) by lobbying, supporting NGOs and even propagandizing (provided it's not fighting wars against Ukraine).