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).
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...
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.
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...
