Thread: How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

Originally Posted by sabang

Now, post coup, Ukraine is in tatters-

Post Russian military invasion you mean.

Originally Posted by sabang

Crimea has seceded

It did not secede. Secession involves the cooperation of the original parent country. It was annexed.

Originally Posted by sabang

So where is the evidence to suggest most Ukrainian people want to move economically towards Europe-

Overthrowing a government that was acting without a popular mandate by cosying up to Russia.

Originally Posted by sabang

by election, not coup

By election, not annexation, you mean.

“Russia is winning [4]” the Ukraine crisis, or so goes the conventional account. This claim has elements of truth to it—narrowly conceived, Russia has gained much in the last year. President Putin has boldly returned control of the Crimean peninsula to Russia. He has crippled Ukraine through a new “hybrid warfare” that the West seems unable to counter. Moscow has demonstrated its resolve and resilience in the face of Western sanctions, even as President Putin has watched his domestic approval ratings skyrocket. And the Kremlin has reminded the world that Russia is determined to control its neighborhood, and that it remains a great power worthy of respect.
But Putin’s short-term victories should not blind Western policymakers to the significant costs that Russia has racked up. In particular, through its annexation of Crimea and subsequent policies, Moscow has ensured that Ukraine will no longer act as a buffer state and will instead gravitate to the West for the foreseeable future. What’s more, Russia’s security situation has continued to deteriorate amidst a series of missteps and predictable backlashes from the international community. And worst of all, the Kremlin cannot reverse its error and must instead rely on additional, costly policies in order to mitigate the fallout from its initial mistake.
From the end of the Cold War until early 2014, Ukraine acted as [5] the quintessential buffer state. Both Russia and the West wanted to integrate the country into their respective spheres of influence, but Kiev remained independent and largely neutral.
Ukraine’s demographic make-up offers at least a partial explanation. Samuel Huntington dubbed Ukraine a “cleft country” based on its relatively even divide between pro-Western voters in the west and pro-Russian voters in the east. Indeed, this east-west divide had characterized every presidential election since the country’s independence, and it explained why control of Kiev oscillated back and forth between pro-Russian and pro-Western leaders. Thus, in 1999 and 2004, the western oblasts took Kiev, while the eastern oblasts won in 1991, 1994, and 2010.


Most importantly, the swing of the electoral pendulum was bounded. So long as Ukraine remained a democracy, there was never any serious risk that the country would become permanently ensconced in either the Western orbit or the Russian constellation. To do so would risk alienating half the country. Thus, by default, Ukraine adopted a self-correcting policy of nonalignment. Kiev would sometimes lean toward the West, and other times toward Russia, but there was always an electoral check on permanent alignment with either geopolitical pole.
To be sure, this situation was not ideal from Moscow’s perspective. Russia had to contend with occasional turbulence in its relationship with Ukraine, as well as Kiev’s sporadic moves toward the West. The Kremlin would have much preferred the strategically superior alternative of a firmly eastern-oriented Ukraine, a throwback to the days of the Warsaw Pact. But the situation was tolerable, not least because Russia obtained some measure of strategic depth against significant encroachment by NATO and the West.


Then came the Maidan revolution. Moscow saw a repeat of the 2004 Orange Revolution [8], where pro-Russian Yanukovych had “won” a rigged presidential election, only to have the results annulled by the Ukrainian Supreme Court acting under popular pressure. In the second round of balloting, Yanukovych had gone on to lose to pro-Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko by a substantial margin, sealing Russia’s “defeat.” (Never mind that the pendulum swung back in 2010, when President Yushchenko and other pro-Western candidates lost the presidential election to a revitalized Yanukovych.) Wanting to avoid Part II of the Orange Revolution, the Kremlin saw an opportunity to reclaim the Crimean peninsula in late February 2014.
This was a mistake. By annexing Crimea, President Putin thrust what remained of Ukraine into the arms of the West for the foreseeable future. First, the annexation disrupted the country’s delicate electoral balance. Before, control of Kiev vacillated back and forth between roughly even blocs of pro-Western and pro-Russian voters. But by taking Crimea, Russia annexed not only the peninsula, but also more than a million largely pro-Russian eligible voters.


In the past, these voters had helped maintain the electoral equilibrium underlying the country’s policy of nonalignment. In 2010, for example, Yanukovych edged out [10] the pro-Western Yulia Tymoshenko by 887,909 votes. Crimea overwhelmingly supported Yanukovych, casting 639,529 more votes for him than his rival. Without those votes, Yanukovych’s margin of victory would have been vanishingly narrow—only 92,119 votes in a country of almost 45 million [11]. And if one had subtracted out the votes from the now separatist-controlled Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts as well, then Tymoshenko would have won with 3,299,982 more votes than her rival—almost four times her opponent’s actual margin of victory in 2010.
Ukrainian nationalism has waxed and waned over the years, but nothing unites a group of individuals as much as a perceived external threat. Moscow’s moves guaranteed that Ukraine would unite around its independent national identity and identify less and less with its imperious eastern neighbor. Polls bear witness to [12] this increasingly virulent anti-Russian nationalism. In 2011, about 80 percent of Ukrainians had a favorable opinion of Russia, but by last summer, that statistic had plunged to a mere 35 percent. As the impasse continues, Ukrainians continue to downgrade [13] their views of Russia, not only in the western part of the country—never that friendly to Moscow to begin with—but also in the east—the normally dependable, pro-Russian stronghold.
Ukrainian electoral politics will be driven for a long time to come by the combination of the loss of a significant pro-Russian voter bloc and this new nationalism. Kiev has moved with unprecedented speed to solidify an enduring relationship with the European Union and NATO. Prior to 2014, the Kremlin would have seen this burgeoning relationship as a strategic nightmare because of its calamitous consequences for Russia’s security dilemma. On December 23, 2014, the Ukrainian Parliament officially repealed [14] the country’s nonaligned status, citing a litany of complaints against its overbearing eastern neighbor.


A Bear Trap of Its Own Making

Since the Crimean annexation, Russia has compounded its strategy quandary. First, it has accentuated the electoral problem by underwriting the Luhansk and Donetsk separatists. Like Moscow’s seizure of Crimea, the separatist movement saps the pro-Russian electorate of critical votes and helps guarantee a pro-Western leader in Kiev.
Second, Moscow has also kneecapped itself through a series of policies that play well on the domestic news, but seem shortsighted from a tactical perspective. For example, in response to Western sanctions, the Kremlin effectively decided to sanction itself by banning food imports from the West. This policy has aggravated [15] Russia’s economic predicament by stoking inflation, an outcome that should have surprised no one but the descendent of a Soviet central planner.

Likewise, Russia’s economic warfare may be misfiring as well. By threatening to cut off natural gas and continuing to fuel Ukraine’s separatist conflict, Russia has sent Ukraine’s economy into free fall. Predictably, though, this state of affairs has only strengthened Ukraine’s dependence on the West. Now, President Petro Poroshenko is on the cusp of receiving [16] a $17.5-billion loan from the IMF, which would replace a $17-billion loan announced last April. Once again, Russia’s moves are driving Ukraine into the arms of Washington and its allies.
These tactical errors have been worsened by the entirely foreseeable economic, security and diplomatic consequences of Russia’s actions.

Much has already been said [17] about Putin’s string of economic miscalculations, but it is worth stressing the extent of the damage exacted by Western sanctions acting in conjunction with a drop in oil prices and Russia’s deeper structural problems. As Dmitri Trenin notes [18]:

Russia’s GDP is likely to contract by 5 to 7 percent, inflation may rise to 15 to 20 percent, unemployment climb to 7 percent, and the capital flight reach $130 billion on top of $150 billion in 2014. Since last summer, the ruble has already lost nearly half its value against the major currencies.

And of course, the Russian fisc is being further strained [17] by the enormous cost of financing the absorption and reconstruction of the Crimean “money pit [19].” As a result, Trenin predicts, “[t]his year promises to be the most difficult for Russia since the beginning of the new century.”

President Putin has also aggravated Russia’s security dilemma through his rash policies. For Russia’s unnerved neighbors, Moscow’s behavior has sparked an almost existential crisis. Lithuania has stated that it will reintroduce [20] military conscription to bolster its army. Poland has announced [21] a military modernization plan valued at 33.6 billion euros, and the Baltic states have increased military spending by an additional 1.2 billion euros [22] as well. Meanwhile, NATO plans to establish [23] a 5,000 strong “spearhead” force in addition to six new bases along Russia’s strategic perimeter. These steps augur [24] the “biggest reinforcement of [NATO’s] collective defence since the end of the Cold War”—a move that, to put it lightly, does not favor Russian interests.

Nor is this all. In late November, the G20 ostracized [25] President Putin over his refusal to own up to the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17; in response, he decided to leave [26] the summit early. Later that month, France announced [27] the indefinite suspension of a $1.6-billion arms deal that would have transferred two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships to the Russian navy. And in early December, Gazprom announced that European objections had torpedoed [28] a planned natural-gas pipeline through Bulgaria; Russia has been forced to divert [29] the pipeline to Turkey instead.
No matter what strategy it pursues, Russia will not be able to revert back to the status quo ante bellum. In the best-case scenario for Russia, Moscow can bring Kiev to its knees through sustained economic warfare and support for the separatist movement. But this scenario is improbable. Every move by President Putin can be countered by the West, at least to some degree. So Russia’s economic warfare will probably be matched by IMF commitments, and in the event that the IMF fails to act, the United States and the European Union will likely step up to the plate.
But even if President Putin could convince President Poroshenko and Ukraine’s elite that Kiev has no rational choice but to fold in the face of Russian power, he would have difficulty making that decision stick. After all, capitulation might be the rational choice, but there has never been much rationality in the sort of nationalism surging through Ukraine. So long as Kiev remains at least semi-responsive to public sentiment, Ukrainian leaders will have little incentive to bow before Russian pressure. And even if President Poroshenko caves, there will always be some demagogue ready to denounce appeasement and ride a nationalist wave into power in the next election.

Nor does Russia really have the capacity to bring Ukraine back easily into its orbit by force. To secure the borders and occupy Donbass alone, though, Russia would need [17] another 91,000 soldiers according to one analysis. To take and hold the rest of the country would be a daunting task, especially in the face of a disgruntled population and probable insurgency. Even a small invasion and occupation—perhaps of the more pro-Russian eastern oblasts in historic Novorossiya—would likely be beyond Russia’s capabilities.

Besides operational problems, President Putin also has political constraints at home: he has maintained [30] an astronomically high approval rating up until now, but polls suggest that Russians are adamantly opposed to an outright invasion of Ukraine (in fact, only five percent [31] favor deploying Russian troops). So it is unsurprising that President Putin has disavowed [32] any interest in marching on Kiev.
Russia’s strategy over the last year can be best understood as a desperate attempt to stall its deteriorating security situation. In particular, after having lost Ukraine, Russia now seems prepared to make sure that no one else can win it, either. There is some method to this madness: a strong and united Ukraine would oppose Russian interests, but a weak and destabilized Ukraine will be too busy coping with the chaos in its innards to be able to coherently or consistently impede broader Russian objectives.

At the end of the day, though, this destabilization strategy has the feel of the second-best. This rearguard action may help Russia gain leverage in the war’s settlement negotiations, keep Ukraine out of NATO and send a warning to Russia’s other neighbors. But as noted earlier, this strategy can only blunt the damage of losing Ukraine; it cannot achieve a lasting strategic victory for Moscow.


No Winners; Only Losers

None of this is to say, however, that the West has “won” the Ukraine crisis in any meaningful sense. Russia’s blunders may have conduced to America’s advantage under the chessboard mentality of the Cold War, but today, they have instead proven an unwelcome distraction from more pressing problems, including a rising China and a burning Middle East.

Indeed, Russia and the West have instead entered a negative-sum conflict where both sides stand to lose simultaneously. By destabilizing a key neighbor and tilting it toward the West, Russia has injected a source of instability into European politics for the foreseeable future. Ukraine will continue to needle the Russian geopolitical consciousness, grafting friction onto the relationship between Russia and the West.
The United States and its allies should strive for a diplomatic solution with terms acceptable to Russia and its embattled leaders. In particular, the West must be exceedingly cautious when it calibrates external pressure on Russia to end the conflict: actions that could bring it to the negotiating table—like arming Ukraine or threatening to expand NATO—may also aggravate Russia’s strategic situation in a way that forces it to escalate.


Russia's Misstep: How Putin's Ukraine Adventure Backfired

Originally Posted by bsnub

The United States and its allies should strive for a diplomatic solution with terms acceptable to Russia and its embattled leaders.

The solution should include substantial financial reparations to what remains of the nation of Ukraine.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by sabang

Now, post coup, Ukraine is in tatters-

It did not secede. Secession involves the cooperation of the original parent country. It was annexed.

Thats incorrect Looper. Crimea was an autonomous republic within Ukraine.

Originally Posted by Looper

There is no line.

The acceptability of behaviour is something that evolves slowly over time. It is shaped by global conflict events and the lessons we learn about how to deal with them and how to avoid them in future.

National boundaries are now sacrosanct.

You cannot grab land from other countries just because you are in a bad mood about losing a tactical battle in the field of international politics.

You have to see it from the other side. The US uses coup's and other soft means to further imperialist dominance.

Putin is making a statement. That this soft imperialist meddling is what has to fucking stop. This isn't 1914. Its not as simple as lines on a map.

Originally Posted by robuzo

You can prattle about the "invasion" all you like, but when the head of the "opposing" navy (Admiral Berezovsky) defects to the Russian side by pledging allegiance to Crimea and brings at least half the local military personnel with him it might suggest that something other than a violent takeover took place.

You can try to spin it any way you want. The facts speak for themselves. Russia took a chunk of land of a neighbour because it was in a bad temper because the neigbour did not want to be friends with them anymore.

Originally Posted by Markus

You have to see it from the other side. The US uses coup's and other soft means to further imperialist dominance.

You are living in another century. the age of empires is over. Yes big countries (USA and Russia and China for example) try to influence political outcomes in small countries. It would be better if they didn't but it does not justify a regression to cavemen tactics when another player comes out on top. The coup did not happen by itself. The US didn't sneak at night time and over throw the government while the Ukrainians were asleep. The president did not have a popular mandate for his policies.

Originally Posted by Markus

Putin is making a statement. That this soft imperialist meddling is what has to fucking stop.

A statement!! Invading other countries is not a statement. It is an international crime. Russia meddles and so does China. The coup could not have happened without popular support.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by robuzo

You can prattle about the "invasion" all you like, but when the head of the "opposing" navy (Admiral Berezovsky) defects to the Russian side by pledging allegiance to Crimea and brings at least half the local military personnel with him it might suggest that something other than a violent takeover took place.

You can try to spin it any way you want. The facts speak for themselves. Russia took a chunk of land of a neighbour because it was in a bad temper because the neigbour did not want to be friends with them anymore.

Originally Posted by Markus

You have to see it from the other side. The US uses coup's and other soft means to further imperialist dominance.

Originally Posted by Markus

Putin is making a statement. That this soft imperialist meddling is what has to fucking stop.

A statement!! Invading other countries is not a statement. It is an international crime. Russia meddles and so does China. The coup could not have happened without popular support.

You can white wash it any way you want. It is not a black and white situation like you are making it out to be.

Not one bullet was fired in Crimea. Not one. There was already 20,000 Russian soldiers in Crimea legally. Yet here you are calling this an international crime.

Russia has a lease on Crimea. Crimea itself is a Russian speaking, autonomous republic within Ukraine.

Don't get me started on the wests long list of international crimes. Just because something is not approved by the west, does not make it an international crime.

Did you think that the Falklands aggression by the UK was an international crime ?

^None of this justifies taking land by force from a neighbour. If Russia wanted Crimea back it should have been by negotiation not theft.

Bullets don't need to be fired when you have the largest army in the region massed on the border to put down any opposition to your barefaced thuggery.

The Falklands were and are British territory. What is your point?

Originally Posted by Markus

Not one bullet was fired in Crimea. Not one. There was already 20,000 Russian soldiers in Crimea legally. Yet here you are calling this an international crime.

Beyond absurd. They had a base, following international law. They have no legal right to use that force outside the base.

Originally Posted by Markus

Russia has a lease on Crimea. Crimea itself is a Russian speaking, autonomous republic within Ukraine.

A lease on Crimea - beyond delusional. A lot of people there are of russian descent, true. I have stated many times before, if they were sure that a majority of Crimeans wanted to join Russia they could have justifiably pushed for an open and internationally controlled referendum. This could not have been denied them. If Ukraine had refused, even the West would have put pressure on them to allow it. Putin chose violent takeover instead, BECAUSE HE WAS NOT SURE OF THE OUTCOME. Or maybe he even knew that he would lose that referendum.

Holding guns to the head of people is violence, even if not a single shot is fired.

There was no force, and no invasion. Crimea was already the HQ of the Black Sea Fleet, housed a Russian air force base, and was an autonomous Republic with it's own Parliament. Not to mention a Russian holiday playground that was, and is, ethnically, linguistically and culturally Russian- and yet you cal it a 'Russian invasion', scoff. The force used was the co-ordinated street riots that ended with the violent overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government. The Crimean Parliament shortly afterwards called a Referendum- and the results were overwhelming. Thus Crimea rejoined the Russian federation, as had been the case through most of hstory, until a stroke of the pen in 1964 altered it's administrative status from part of Russia to part of Ukraine within the SSR.

The 'death toll' in Crimea was two people, a Ukrainian and Rusian sympathiser. Compare that to events in the rest of Ukraine, for example 48 people were burned to death in the Trades Union Hall in Odessa by neo-Nazi paramilitaries, and that includes nothing of the war in Donetsk (the 'Donetsk Peoples Republic'). I actually think that is where a lot of pique descends from- Crimea has made Ukraine look like the sick puppy it is. The Crimean Republic did exactly the right thing, peacefully and with an overwhelming mandate from the people. I really don't think they care what the illegitimate, failing government in Kiev says or thinks, I'm sure they are more concerned about the humanitarian catastrophe in eastern Ukraine- a catastrophe they avoided.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by robuzo

You can prattle about the "invasion" all you like, but when the head of the "opposing" navy (Admiral Berezovsky) defects to the Russian side by pledging allegiance to Crimea and brings at least half the local military personnel with him it might suggest that something other than a violent takeover took place.

You can try to spin it any way you want. The facts speak for themselves. Russia took a chunk of land of a neighbour because it was in a bad temper because the neigbour did not want to be friends with them anymore.

You are being silly, Looper. Russia was not about to cede a strategically important region to a government that took power in Ukraine by force with the assistance of foreign governments. The overwhelming majority of people in the Crimea did not want to be ruled by government overtly hostile to their interests- same goes for the Donbass.

The alliance that took power in 2/14 was divided almost equally between legitimate opposition and extreme right-wingers from Western Ukraine (which was for hundreds of years Polish until taken by Stalin- in many ways Lvov has less claim to being "Ukrainian" than Sevastopol). There was no chance that the people of Eastern Ukraine were going to settle for being governed by coalition that included Svoboda and Right Sector Party fascists in top positions in government, including the Minister of Defense, the top and vice-commanders of the National Defense and Security Council, and one Vice PM. They quite rightly took this as a direct threat. The Russians didn't force over a million people to become refugees, and if the Russians armed a portion of those refugees and sent them back to fight it should at least be understandable.

Now that the Ukrainian military has suffered serious defeats there is the chance that we will see another coup, this time with the right-wing parties taking all power. This would pose a serious quandary for the west (it would leave the US/NATO Ukraine policy in tatters) and would probably lead to a Russian invasion to oust the Nazis/Banderistas. Will NATO intercede on behalf of a Right Sector/Svoboda government? Under what conditions would the Russians leave?

There is a real possibility that things could get much, much worse, and as long as the US continues to take a hard line it is impossible to expect the Russians to soften their approach. The refusal of the US or British governments to recognize Russia's legitimate concerns, even while condemning certain actions, is bizarre- it's the opposite of diplomacy. Anyone proposing that Putin or any Russian leader could simply capitulate at this point is either extremely ignorant or disingenuous (although I think it would be great to have someone more reasonable, like Lavrov, in power if Putin decides to stay vanished). The region is exiting the mud season and entering the traditional time of year for war. It's time for both sides to get serious about stopping this conflict.

Originally Posted by sabang

There was no force, and no invasion.

Sabang you are talking out of your arsehole.

Threat of violence was used to railroad an illegal poll to try and put some lipstick on a hostile takeover. Friggin obvious as the light of day.

It is embarrassing to watch grown adults trying to wriggle out of facing the plain facts.

The annexation of Crimea was an entirely illegal and hostile venture in the country of Ukraine.

Originally Posted by sabang

The 'death toll' in Crimea was two people, a Ukrainian and Rusian sympathiser.

6000 people are dead in eastern Ukraine due to a Russian engineered violent uprising.

Russia deserves nothing but the disdain of the civilised world and should be shunned by all right thinking politically progressive nations.

Originally Posted by robuzo

You are being silly, Looper. Russia was not about to cede a strategically important region to a government that took power in Ukraine by force with the assistance of foreign governments. The overwhelming majority of people in the Crimea did not want to be ruled by government overtly hostile to their interests- same goes for the Donbass.

Russia was not about to cede anything since it was not theirs to cede.

If Russia wanted Crimea to become Russian sovereign territory the only legal option for them was to pursue these ends politically.

If the people of Crimea genuinely wanted to return to Russia it would have happened by force of political pressure being brought to bear.

The violent and illegal path that was pursued is a glaring affront to the civilised world. Russia has put itself in the position of needing to be made an example of. Civilised countries everywhere must turn their backs on Russia for the security of the future of the globe. The world must teach Russia that bad tempered belligerence will not pay in the modern world.

Originally Posted by Looper

6000 people are dead in eastern Ukraine due to a Russian engineered violent uprising.

The people in Eastern Ukraine, especially the Donbass, didn't need Russia to tell them not to accept the government that took power after a US-engineered (there is proof, you know) violent uprising. If the new government in Kiev had elected to talk with the people in the east rather than sending in the Azov Battalion things might have gone differently.

Kiev, having taken power by force, chose to use force on people who rightly rejected the legitimacy of the Kiev government. Kiev has so far failed, rather spectacularly at Debaltseve. What's next? More war over the summer directed by US and British trainers?

Originally Posted by Looper

The violent and illegal path that was pursued is a glaring affront to the civilised world. Russia has put itself in the position of needing to be made an example of. Civilised countries everywhere must turn their backs on Russia for the security of the future of the globe. The world must teach Russia that bad tempered belligerence will not pay in the modern world.

The authors of the disaster area that is now Iraq and Syria have the moral authority to "teach Russia"? You can't be serious.

Originally Posted by Looper

Russia took a chunk of land of a neighbour because it was in a bad temper because the neigbour did not want to be friends with them anymore.

Utter drivel.

They took it because the US was trying to take it and control it via supporting and implementing an illegal and entirely corrupt takeover of the Ukrainian government using mostly neo-nazi partners.

Originally Posted by robuzo

after a US-engineered (there is proof, you know) violent uprising.

Maybe the US did something to help facilitate it but it popular uprisings are not engineered by overseas forces.

Originally Posted by robuzo

The authors of the disaster area that is now Iraq and Syria have the moral authority to "teach Russia"? You can't be serious.

G20 nations do not steal territory from other countries. When has the US done this recently?

Originally Posted by Silverback

They took it because the US was trying to take it and control it via supporting and implementing an illegal and entirely corrupt takeover of the Ukrainian government using mostly neo-nazi partners.

Cobblers ballbags. The people of Ukraine have had enough of kow-towing to Russia and wanted to move towards Europe economically. The Russians spat the dummy and broke the rules of engagement by taking illegally what could have been pursued through legitimate processes. They deserve to be made to stand in the corner with the dunce hat on.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by robuzo

after a US-engineered (there is proof, you know) violent uprising.

Maybe the US did something to help facilitate it

Yeah, "fuck the EU."

Originally Posted by Looper

but it popular uprisings are not

You are conceding, then, that the popular resistance to the fascist/pro-West coalition in Eastern Ukraine developed organically? Or are you saying that somehow the popular resistance to Kiev in Donbass and elsewhere is all a Russian invention? Maybe you are simply saying that the residents of eastern Ukraine don't deserve a voice in view of their being mostly Russian speakers. Russia somehow enticed the million+ refugees to flee to Russia, right?

Originally Posted by Looper

Maybe the US did something to help facilitate it but it popular uprisings are not engineered by overseas forces.

It wasn't a popular uprising you fool it was a forceful coup.

Originally Posted by robuzo

You are conceding, then, that the popular resistance to the fascist/pro-West coalition in Eastern Ukraine developed organically?

I am referring to the overthrow of the previous Ukrainian government. They were not overthrown by the USA while the Ukrainian population was watching television. Maybe the USA had a hand in facilitating the process which is underhand but nobody overthrows a government on home turf except the native population.

The point is that the Russian reaction to being snubbed by Ukrainian popular opinion was to go ballistic. Sorry but that is against the rules.

Originally Posted by Silverback

It wasn't a popular uprising you fool it was a forceful coup.

How do you think coups happen? Do you think foreign governments sneak in and make them happen while the population is out shopping?

It's certainly fair to call the Maidan demonstrations a popular uprising against the corrupt, if fairly elected, Yanukovych government. The demonstrations resulted in an agreement brokered by the EU between the opposition and Yanukovych for elections, a unity government, and reversion to the 2004 constitution. Unfortunately, that's where it went tits up, because that simply wasn't good enough for the Ukrainian far right parties or the neocons at the US State department, because, you know, fuck the EU. The Maidan demonstrations were co-opted by the Banderistas and manipulated by western agencies, probably because the outcome of future elections was in doubt, given that the majority had previously gone for Yanukovych.

I suppose the people in eastern Ukraine, who largely had voted for Yanukovych, were supposed to just suck it up and get ready for their language to be outlawed, among other things.

There is no way that a foreign agency could organise a coup to overthrow a government without substantial domestic support for the action. It is certainly underhand to get involved in such processes but it could not possibly happen unless there was substantial domestic dissatisfaction with the government.

Facilitating a popular overthrow of a corrupt government is a bit sneaky but this is not even within a milifraction of the seriousness of stealing land from a foreign country. Russia is trying to pretend that the world should accept this based on the alleged provocation of facilitation of a popular coup but that is not going to fly. They are not comparable in terms of magnitude of affront to the civilised conduct of government and international relations.

Originally Posted by Looper

There is no way that a foreign agency could organise a coup to overthrow a government without substantial domestic support for the action. It is certainly underhand to get involved in such processes but it could not possibly happen unless there was substantial domestic dissatisfaction with the government.

At the same time you seem happy to overlook the very substantial domestic opposition to the coup. An agreement was in place- what could possibly have happened? Are you aware of the Nuland-Pyatt conversation?

Originally Posted by Looper

Facilitating a popular overthrow of a corrupt government is a bit sneaky but this is not even within a milifraction of the seriousness of stealing land from a foreign country. Russia is trying to pretend that the world should accept this based on the alleged provocation of facilitation of a popular coup but that is not going to fly. They are not comparable in terms of magnitude of affront to the civilised conduct of government and international relations.

Again, you entirely dismiss the history, not to mention Russian security concerns about creeping NATO expansion. Sorry, but