Attorney's file on Roger Stone, LaRouche and Russia influencing the 2016 presidential election

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is not the end of story Bob, and I have a hard time thinking you do not know it.

What happened in Ukraine was illegal.  All you have to do is watch the film.

It was achieved through terrorism and threats. Crimea did not want to be a part of it.

Again, the late great Bob Parry: https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/22/crimeans-keep-saying-no-to-ukraine/

Jim. You're changing the subject. Regardless of what happened (which is disputable) you're side stepping the fact that under the Ukrainian constitution Crimea wasn't allowed to unilaterally remove itself from the State and give itself to Russia. After that nothing can be justified to make it okay for Russia to invade and force referendums on the people in Crimea, even if they want it! Same-same those pesky states south of Mason-Dixon, right?

Crimea is actually Tatarville which dates back to the forced removal and displacement of the indigenous people to central Asia by Stalin. The "Crimeans" are ethnic Russians placed there (ala' Hitler) to access the oil of the Balkans and a warm water port. The "referendum" given to the Crimeans was a "heads I win, tails you lose" choice with a miraculous 90 percent participation (or some such according to Russia) taken during occupation. Crimea was part of Ukraine and therefore had to negotiate its separation constitutionally with Ukraine, not with itself. The Tatar minority did not take part in the referendum and neither did pro-Ukrainian supporters.

My limited experience of this (at the time) was by monitoring the situation on local blogger sites (I did the same in Syria) where I felt I'd get an on-the-ground reading of the situation rather than listen entirely to the spittle coming out of the various press organizations. Unfortunately Governments have caught on to the idea of closing these down and this isn't possible any more. The sources I was paying attention to are long gone. Either way, the impression I got was pretty close to what has been presented by western media. Largely local, liberal types objecting to the graft and corruption that has become the norm in Russia (this I know as a fact from first hand sources - we had the chance to help them out but didn't IMO).

It's bad. But I'm also sympathetic to the Russian conundrum of having the worst neighbors one could ask for (see European history) and the sacrifices they made while the U.S. was dilly-dallying and playing footsie with Hitler et al. To a degree we still do but I don't think to the extent many assume. I also understand their resistance to "NATO creep" but the Russians have a share of the blame there also as they could have easily become the economic power of the region if they had continued to liberalize. Easy for me to say though...

Much of this is familiar to European history - where chaos exists, opportunity abounds! A brief look at the borders of Europe through the ages will confirm that the region is a cluster freak of intrigue and violence and in my view the Crimean annexation is a continuation of that and one of the reasons we have soldiers shacked up over there. The World War Two group we closely study here reflects that view, for better and worse, and the tragedy of JFK's assassination was that he very well could have made strides to bring the USSR along a path of recovery. In fact they still haven't recovered from World War Two to the extent they should have. We had a golden opportunity to help them and passed after the fall.

Putin's behavior on the world stage is discouraging to say the least and I don't think I'll see a time in my life where our two countries live in a relatively harmonious co-existence.

Hope I'm not adding to your woes by giving you a PIA! hahaha!

 

[James DiEugenio]

I am not changing the subject at all Bob.

If you watch the film, which apparently you have not, the vote taken was illegal.  Here is the central issue:

But the agreement – though guaranteed by the European nations – was quickly negated by renewed attacks from the Right Sektor and its street fighters who seized government buildings. Russian intelligence services got word that an assassination plot was in the works against Yanukovych, who fled for his life.

On Feb. 24, Yanukovych asked permission to enter Russia for his safety and the Ukrainian parliament (or Rada), effectively under the control of the armed extremists, voted to remove Yanukovych from office in an unconstitutional manner because the courts were not involved and the vote to impeach him did not reach the mandatory threshold. Despite these irregularities, the U.S. and its European allies quickly recognized the new government as “legitimate.”

Calling a Coup a Coup

But the ouster of Yanukovych had all the earmarks of a coup. An intercepted phone call, apparently in early February, between Nuland and Pyatt revealed that they were directly involved in displacing Yanukovych and choosing his successor. The pair reviewed the field of candidates with Nuland favoring Arseniy Yatsenyuk, declaring “Yats is the guy” and discussing with Pyatt how to “glue this thing.” Pyatt wondered about how to “midwife this thing.” They sounded like Gilded Age millionaires in New York deciding who should become the next U.S. president. On Feb. 27, Yatsenyuk became Prime Minister of Ukraine.

And in the face of this, you are saying that Crimea should have gone along with the coup as engineered by Victoria Nuland?  And you know who she is married to don't you?

This is how nutty this Russia Gate stuff has become.

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Bob Ness]

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I am not changing the subject at all Bob.

If you watch the film, which apparently you have not, the vote taken was illegal.  Here is the central issue:

But the agreement – though guaranteed by the European nations – was quickly negated by renewed attacks from the Right Sektor and its street fighters who seized government buildings. Russian intelligence services got word that an assassination plot was in the works against Yanukovych, who fled for his life.

On Feb. 24, Yanukovych asked permission to enter Russia for his safety and the Ukrainian parliament (or Rada), effectively under the control of the armed extremists, voted to remove Yanukovych from office in an unconstitutional manner because the courts were not involved and the vote to impeach him did not reach the mandatory threshold. Despite these irregularities, the U.S. and its European allies quickly recognized the new government as “legitimate.”

Calling a Coup a Coup

But the ouster of Yanukovych had all the earmarks of a coup. An intercepted phone call, apparently in early February, between Nuland and Pyatt revealed that they were directly involved in displacing Yanukovych and choosing his successor. The pair reviewed the field of candidates with Nuland favoring Arseniy Yatsenyuk, declaring “Yats is the guy” and discussing with Pyatt how to “glue this thing.” Pyatt wondered about how to “midwife this thing.” They sounded like Gilded Age millionaires in New York deciding who should become the next U.S. president. On Feb. 27, Yatsenyuk became Prime Minister of Ukraine.

And in the face of this, you are saying that Crimea should have gone along with the coup as engineered by Victoria Nuland?  And you know who she is married to don't you?

This is how nutty this Russia Gate stuff has become.

 

Nutty it is...

The problem is these are two distinct actions, Jim. A referendum on Crimean succession does not follow a purported coup. You're conflating the two which is what Russia wants. The coup, real or not, is irrelevant to the validity and legal standing of the referendum or the constitution. Russia had gone years recognizing the Ukrainian constitution until their boy was removed!!! I don't even think they ever claimed the constitution was illegal!! The referendum vote assumed Crimea as independent of Ukraine but was never voted on by Ukrainians. That's the rub. No can do and still be legal. No matter hard it's spun.

[Jeff Carter]

4 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Nutty it is...

The problem is these are two distinct actions, Jim. A referendum on Crimean succession does not follow a purported coup. You're conflating the two which is what Russia wants. The coup, real or not, is irrelevant to the validity and legal standing of the referendum or the constitution. Russia had gone years recognizing the Ukrainian constitution until their boy was removed!!! I don't even think they ever claimed the constitution was illegal!! The referendum vote assumed Crimea as independent of Ukraine but was never voted on by Ukrainians. That's the rub. No can do and still be legal. No matter hard it's spun.

Your logic is a bit skewed, as running the duly elected government out of town and the subsequent referendum in Crimea are not “two distinct actions” but part of the unfolding of the same event. The event was put into motion by the coup - or, more accurately, by the recognition of the coup as “legitimate” by the US, Britain and Canada, which ended the previous mediation effort sponsored by a few EU countries.

Ten years before, at the time of the “Orange Revolution” which helped bring overt western interests into Ukraine politics , NATO had its analysts examine conceivable outcomes should Ukraine eventually come into the alliance’s orbit. Those analysts concluded that Russia would take firm action over Crimea, with its Russian naval facilities, to the point of annexing it. Russian officials made exactly the same point to western counterparts in the subsequent years, as Ukraine politics were becoming polarized between a pro-EU/NATO faction and a status quo faction. It was the pro EU/NATO faction which assumed power - unconstitutionally - through a violent attack on the legislature after a mediation agreement had been reached to resolve the immediate political issues raised by the Maidan protests. Nuland said “f—the EU” referring to this mediation effort, the goal was regime-change, and the NY Times reporter on the scene was told by a Right Sector spokesperson that the goal of the putsch was to prevent the mediated settlement from taking hold. Having witnessed the ill intention, the Russians set about to do what they clearly stated they would do, and which NATO’s analysts had correctly predicted a decade before.

In my opinion, Russia’s swift action resolved a looming international crisis swiftly and without bloodshed. Otherwise, what lay ahead was some kind of major showdown over Crimea which would have rivalled big Cold War crises such as Berlin. US officials knew this would be a flashpoint and yet still went ahead with precipitating the event, as their recognition and legitimization of the unconstitutional removal of the duly elected government was the signal destabilizing event in Ukraine’s brief history as a state. If the mediation agreement had stood, Ukraine would have enjoyed a full ten months to debate thoroughly its future political path, a democratic election would have clarified the wishes of the people, and that would have all occurred a full four years ago. Instead, the country remains in a state of effective civil war.

[James DiEugenio]

Bob:

In concurring with Jeff, once a legitimate government is overthrown, not by covert but overt means, all bets are off. That is what happened here.  The Stepan Bandera neo nazis overthrew an elected government, began to murder people in the streets, set fire to buildings thus incinerating people inside, and threatened to assassinate the president.  All of this was done with the backing, encouragement and even the leadership of Victoria Nuland.  And since you cannot bring yourself to name her husband, I will.  Its neocon fruitcake Robert Kagan.  You know, the co founder of PNAC. Kagan backed HRC in 2016.

Nuland and Pyatt essentially guided the Bandera followers in their murderous overthrow.  In fact, as Parry and the film Ukraine on Fire show, , they helped pick the guys they wanted to run the government.  Now, if this was to help the people living there, that would be one thing.  But such was not the case. As Parry noted:

Some of the reasons for the Crimean attitudes are simply pragmatic. Russian pensions were three times larger than what the Ukrainian government paid and now the Ukrainian pensions are being slashed further in compliance with austerity demands from the International Monetary Fund.

This month, Nuland boasted about those pension cuts in praising the Kiev regime’s steps toward becoming a “free-market state.” She also hailed “reforms” that will force Ukrainians to work harder and into old age and that slashed gas subsidies which helped the poor pay their heating bills.

In other words, Freidman style Shock Doctrine.

I think what Nuland and Pyatt did was a disgrace. And why the State Department let her get away with this escapes me. To let loose the Bandera followers in the Ukraine would be a little like the US government fully backing the Klan in the south in the fifties.  For those who do not know who Bandera was, click here https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/stepan-bandera-nationalist-euromaidan-right-sector/

In their headlong madness to restart the Cold War, these are the kinds of people Nuland, Kagan and Pyatt jumped into bed with. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Bob Ness]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob:

In concurring with Jeff, once a legitimate government is overthrown, not by covert but overt means, all bets are off. That is what happened here.  The Stepan Bandera neo nazis overthrew an elected government, began to murder people in the streets, set fire to buildings thus incinerating people inside, and threatened to assassinate the president.  All of this was done with the backing, encouragement and even the leadership of Victoria Nuland.  And since you cannot bring yourself to name her husband, I will.  Its neocon fruitcake Robert Kagan.  You know, the co founder of PNAC. Kagan backed HRC in 2016.

Nuland and Pyatt essentially guided the Bandera followers in their murderous overthrow.  In fact, as Parry and the film Ukraine on Fire show, , they helped pick the guys they wanted to run the government.  Now, if this was to help the people living there, that would be one thing.  But such was not the case. As Parry noted:

Some of the reasons for the Crimean attitudes are simply pragmatic. Russian pensions were three times larger than what the Ukrainian government paid and now the Ukrainian pensions are being slashed further in compliance with austerity demands from the International Monetary Fund.

This month, Nuland boasted about those pension cuts in praising the Kiev regime’s steps toward becoming a “free-market state.” She also hailed “reforms” that will force Ukrainians to work harder and into old age and that slashed gas subsidies which helped the poor pay their heating bills.

In other words, Freidman style Shock Doctrine.

I think what Nuland and Pyatt did was a disgrace. And why the State Department let her get away with this escapes me. To let loose the Bandera followers in the Ukraine would be a little like the US government fully backing the Klan in the south in the fifties.  For those who do not know who Bandera was, click here https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/stepan-bandera-nationalist-euromaidan-right-sector/

In their headlong madness to restart the Cold War, these are the kinds of people Nuland, Kagan and Pyatt jumped into bed with. 

No.... after the riot police under the orders of Yanukovich started shooting and beating protestors and the crowds started fighting back. Yanukovich LEFT THE COUNTRY to avoid criminal prosecution and/or impeachment. To wit:

Underlying human rights violations, including lack of accountability for past human rights violations committed by security forces, the lack of independence of the judiciary and a perceived denial of equal rights and protection, including though mismanagement of resources and through corruption, lack of a system of checks and balances and the lack of free elections, were among the root causes of the popular protests that took place throughout Ukraine, and in particular on Independence Square (Maidan) from November 2013 to February 2014. While the protests were initially triggered by the Yanukovych Government’s refusal to sign an Association Agreement with the European Union, the excessive use of force by the Berkut special police and other security forces at the end of November initially against largely peaceful protestors on the Maidan led to a significant radicalisation of the protest movement. The violence on 30 November transformed the protests, from demonstrations in favour of signing the EU Association Agreement, to include demands to reform the system of authority and punish those responsible. Serious human rights violations were committed including during the Maidan protests, which resulted in the death of 121 individuals (this number includes 101 Maidan protesters, 17 officers of the internal affairs/police, 2 were members of NGO “Oplot” that attacked the Maidan in Kharkiv and a Crimean Tatar found dead). There have been also numerous reports of torture and ill-treatment of protesters. The Maidan protest movement1 also revealed historical, but still relevant divisions within Ukrainian society and long-standing grievances with respect to the lack of good governance and the rule of law of previous Governments.

1 The Maidan protest movement refers to the various groups that participated in demonstrations and centred on Independence (Maidan) square in the centre of the Kyiv. This initially included persons demonstrating for Ukraine to enter the Association Agreement with the European Union, hence the fact that there is often a reference made to “Euro-Maidan”. However, over time the movement included a number of other elements, including anti-Government, anti-corruption, far right wing groups and others, some of whom did not necessarily share the same pro-European aspirations. Sorce - UN Human Rights Report

Please don't tell me the Berkut were a bunch of lilly-white roses patriotically trying to uphold God's vision of Shangra-La in Europe. For whatever reason Yanukovich left the house and rendered the Ukraine leaderless. The legal, constitutional vote for his removal was 380-0. I'm not aware of any guns present for the vote although they sure were in Crimea after the parliament building was seized by armed "little green men". It was probably a good idea for Yanukovich to leave or at least hide but that wasn't an overthrow. He skedaddled to Daddy with as much as he could carry. And that doesn't make it open season on Ukraine once Yanukovich left. That's insulting to the people who live there. They have the right to be wrong you know, just like you and me. Invoking the Right Sektor as the prime movers behind the Maidan Square protests is BS. It's meant to fog the mind of people who have no time or memory. Putin only has to keep the region unstable and he gets what he wants. NATO buffer. Eventually the land.

Regardless of any warnings, conspiracies, overthrows, bad actors or whatever, they do not excuse or justify an external entity (read Crimean independence supporters, Russians, The U.S., Neo-Cons etc) from suspending or ignoring the constitution of a sovereign state. The Ukraine was and is a constitutionally formulated sovereign state that has laws pertaining to the separation of its provinces and regions that are governed by the Ukrainian constitution,  not our or anyone else's opinion of their leadership, personality quirks or anything else. It's not relevant! The process is in black and white for all to see and has been for some time, with the acceptance of its regional neighbors (including Russia) and the U.N. A putsch or coup or overthrow doesn't mean the Ukraine is up for grabs!!

As an example, with your argument the United States would be fully justified in granting citizenship to all residents of the East Venezuela province, assemble a vote for the day after tomorrow with the provincial regional authorities who are tired of Modura and annex that region for it's massive oil reserves. Believe me they'd love to have a U.S. passport! Aside from the likelihood that a similar plan may already be under way, I don't think that would be legal under international law and it doesn't matter what the results of their election were or who started what.

In exactly the same way Katanga broke away from the Congo and then did in Lumamba you're now saying that's the way to do it in the Ukraine.  Annex Crimea using in-country forces and mercenaries (thus securing your ultra-important naval base), bribe and intimidate the local officials and citizenry and follow that with an extra-legal, unconstitutional succession from The Ukraine.  The only thing left is to create a blizzard of propaganda using your state media, and nowadays your internet assets, resurrect the NAZI's, groom a successor and create havoc in the east along your own border. Super-easy to do that. Cheap too.

I'm not at all suggesting there wasn't Western interference. I'm sure there was much slobbering and panting after the Arab Spring, featuring many of our favorites. Russia has good reason to regard the west the way it does. That was earned.

Regarding documentary films and there usefulness as a source my 25 years in that business tells me they're as often a good misrepresentation as they are an accurate view of a complex subject. Mr. Stone and Mr. Parry I'm sure did an admirable job but it's not the sort of thing I take as a primary source. I watched much of what was going on at the time via indy journalists and residents of the country. I'm much more inclined to believe people who put their feet on the ground and live there and aren't chaperoned around like tourists. Been there. I will watch it though.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Well Bob,with that U.N.report and your own words, I'll say that's certainly the most nuanced contribution to this discussion yet..

Jim says:

Did you see Ukraine on Fire? !!!

Jim, did you see "North to Alaska!" You have to!, It will change your world!

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway

[Bob Ness]

2 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Well Bob,with that U.N.report and your own words, I'll say that's certainly the most nuanced contribution to this discussion yet..

Jim says:

Did you see Ukraine on Fire? !!!

Jim, did you see "North to Alaska!" You have to!, It will change your world!

 

Haha! well if you're interested (I don't really like posting links for others to go vet but...)

Here's 1600 pix of all those goose stepping NAZI's by a FedEx jet driver who happened to be there getting shot by the Berkut

https://www.flickr.com/photos/estabrook/albums/72157640636759884/page1

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 3/12/2019 at 2:36 PM, Douglas Caddy said:

Interesting report.

https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/pelosi-pretending-impeach-trump-d/16649/?fbclid=IwAR3Cneq3Ln9MUILlTCAT744xR12e3I_NBymuYjgTx2W3o1l-cVeYkfFbOmU

Doug, I think we both know this guy doesn't have a high win rate. But he does put forth some interesting theories. This one does make sense. As for the Democrats, I think  the tides work in favor of just continuing to apply pressure, but then, I think this was Pelosi's  employing a little reverse psychology. 0.- 56 seconds. 

https://youtu.be/j-QYYE7VrXg

 

[Jeff Carter]

3 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

No.... after the riot police under the orders of Yanukovich started shooting and beating protestors and the crowds started fighting back. Yanukovich LEFT THE COUNTRY to avoid criminal prosecution and/or impeachment. To wit:

Underlying human rights violations, including lack of accountability for past human rights violations committed by security forces, the lack of independence of the judiciary and a perceived denial of equal rights and protection, including though mismanagement of resources and through corruption, lack of a system of checks and balances and the lack of free elections, were among the root causes of the popular protests that took place throughout Ukraine, and in particular on Independence Square (Maidan) from November 2013 to February 2014. While the protests were initially triggered by the Yanukovych Government’s refusal to sign an Association Agreement with the European Union, the excessive use of force by the Berkut special police and other security forces at the end of November initially against largely peaceful protestors on the Maidan led to a significant radicalisation of the protest movement. The violence on 30 November transformed the protests, from demonstrations in favour of signing the EU Association Agreement, to include demands to reform the system of authority and punish those responsible. Serious human rights violations were committed including during the Maidan protests, which resulted in the death of 121 individuals (this number includes 101 Maidan protesters, 17 officers of the internal affairs/police, 2 were members of NGO “Oplot” that attacked the Maidan in Kharkiv and a Crimean Tatar found dead). There have been also numerous reports of torture and ill-treatment of protesters. The Maidan protest movement1 also revealed historical, but still relevant divisions within Ukrainian society and long-standing grievances with respect to the lack of good governance and the rule of law of previous Governments.

1 The Maidan protest movement refers to the various groups that participated in demonstrations and centred on Independence (Maidan) square in the centre of the Kyiv. This initially included persons demonstrating for Ukraine to enter the Association Agreement with the European Union, hence the fact that there is often a reference made to “Euro-Maidan”. However, over time the movement included a number of other elements, including anti-Government, anti-corruption, far right wing groups and others, some of whom did not necessarily share the same pro-European aspirations. Sorce - UN Human Rights Report

Please don't tell me the Berkut were a bunch of lilly-white roses patriotically trying to uphold God's vision of Shangra-La in Europe. For whatever reason Yanukovich left the house and rendered the Ukraine leaderless. The legal, constitutional vote for his removal was 380-0. I'm not aware of any guns present for the vote although they sure were in Crimea after the parliament building was seized by armed "little green men". It was probably a good idea for Yanukovich to leave or at least hide but that wasn't an overthrow. He skedaddled to Daddy with as much as he could carry. And that doesn't make it open season on Ukraine once Yanukovich left. That's insulting to the people who live there. They have the right to be wrong you know, just like you and me. Invoking the Right Sektor as the prime movers behind the Maidan Square protests is BS. It's meant to fog the mind of people who have no time or memory. Putin only has to keep the region unstable and he gets what he wants. NATO buffer. Eventually the land.

Regardless of any warnings, conspiracies, overthrows, bad actors or whatever, they do not excuse or justify an external entity (read Crimean independence supporters, Russians, The U.S., Neo-Cons etc) from suspending or ignoring the constitution of a sovereign state. The Ukraine was and is a constitutionally formulated sovereign state that has laws pertaining to the separation of its provinces and regions that are governed by the Ukrainian constitution,  not our or anyone else's opinion of their leadership, personality quirks or anything else. It's not relevant! The process is in black and white for all to see and has been for some time, with the acceptance of its regional neighbors (including Russia) and the U.N. A putsch or coup or overthrow doesn't mean the Ukraine is up for grabs!!

As an example, with your argument the United States would be fully justified in granting citizenship to all residents of the East Venezuela province, assemble a vote for the day after tomorrow with the provincial regional authorities who are tired of Modura and annex that region for it's massive oil reserves. Believe me they'd love to have a U.S. passport! Aside from the likelihood that a similar plan may already be under way, I don't think that would be legal under international law and it doesn't matter what the results of their election were or who started what.

In exactly the same way Katanga broke away from the Congo and then did in Lumamba you're now saying that's the way to do it in the Ukraine.  Annex Crimea using in-country forces and mercenaries (thus securing your ultra-important naval base), bribe and intimidate the local officials and citizenry and follow that with an extra-legal, unconstitutional succession from The Ukraine.  The only thing left is to create a blizzard of propaganda using your state media, and nowadays your internet assets, resurrect the NAZI's, groom a successor and create havoc in the east along your own border. Super-easy to do that. Cheap too.

I'm not at all suggesting there wasn't Western interference. I'm sure there was much slobbering and panting after the Arab Spring, featuring many of our favorites. Russia has good reason to regard the west the way it does. That was earned.

Regarding documentary films and there usefulness as a source my 25 years in that business tells me they're as often a good misrepresentation as they are an accurate view of a complex subject. Mr. Stone and Mr. Parry I'm sure did an admirable job but it's not the sort of thing I take as a primary source. I watched much of what was going on at the time via indy journalists and residents of the country. I'm much more inclined to believe people who put their feet on the ground and live there and aren't chaperoned around like tourists. Been there. I will watch it though.

 

The argument that Yanukovych “LEFT THE COUNTRY to avoid criminal prosecution and/or impeachment” is highly contentious, to say the least. There were no impeachment or prosecutorial actions active on the day the government was chased out of town. Regardless of what an unsourced UN human rights report may say, there is no evidence that government forces were responsible for the sniper event in February 2014, and most of the agreed witness testimony holds that the shooting occurred from a building controlled by opposition forces. There was no “legal constitutional vote for his removal” to change the legal government in Ukraine. No one claims Right Sektor were “prime movers” in the Maidan protests, rather that they were prime movers in the unconstitutional coup which occurred on a particular day, and their particular involvement was recorded in on-the-scene reports published in the NY Times, among others.

“A putsch or coup or overthrow doesn't mean the Ukraine is up for grabs!!”

What are you talking about? The initiation of a putsch or coup implies a political entity is “up for grabs” simply by the initiation of a putsch or coup. That Ukraine was a “constitutionally formulated sovereign state” was never at question here, it was the expressly unconstitutional assertion that the duly elected government could be somehow suddenly replaced by a “legitimate” body of opposition representatives which is contentious.  That is, your arguments appear as contrarian talking points which lack basis in material reality. I also watched what was going on at the time and have a diametrically opposed analysis of events. The arguments invoking Montana, Venezuela and Katanga are irrelevant in this case, as the resources are not at stake compared to the geography. The geographical issue of Crimea is the primary geopolitics informing this debate , best to acknowledge that. Overturning the apple cart, or kicking the hornet’s nest, however you phrase it, was a poor policy initiative and should be seen as such.

[James DiEugenio]

Bob Van Ness: In exactly the same way Katanga broke away from the Congo and then did in Lumamba you're now saying that's the way to do it in the Ukraine. 

 

Did you take Kirk's advice and watch North to Alaska?

Congo was a newly independent country. There was an election under a written constitution to choose its first president. The former colonizing mother country, Belgium, then sent paratroopers in and sponsored a breakaway government in Katanga to sap the Congo of its mineral resources, its functional economic strength. (If you can show me where there was a democratic referendum in Katanga before it split off, please do.)  This was all done in order to make the fledgling democracy collapse and pave the way for a return of the Belgians to take power under their chosen fascist dictator and imperial front man.

How you can compare that situation with what happened in Ukraine is a bit incomprehensible.  I don't think any objective person would compare the two.  But if you had to, in Ukraine, Nuland and Pyatt, would be like the Belgians.  

 

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

Bob, Thank You, Those are some great pictures, some great faces. Though  perhaps in my ignorance,  it does raise a few questions.

Being American I first assumed all those sacks were untended trash bags. Then I see them used as a barricade for that tent. Those shields the police use are also unusual, they look like covers to industrial heaters. 

Am I to assume this is before Yanukovich fled the scene?

[Bob Ness]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Van Ness??

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Did you take Kirk's advice and watch North to Alaska?

Haha! No need. I've already seen it, several times on "Big Money Movie" during the 70's. The stock shots are great and I actually took a crew out on the paddle wheeler for two days as a DP and shot some commercial stuff on Puget Sound later on. Mostly the rest was sound stage in LA. Some nice historic exteriors though.

Congo was a newly independent country.
As is/was Ukraine.

There was an election under a written constitution to choose its first president.
In this example that would be Lumumba/Yanukovich.

I'm relieved you agree that a constitution has some meaning. Why you and Jeff stress that the absence of the President, for any reason, invalidates their constitution is beyond me. I have international law and norms on my side while you both seem to be saying "well, it depends."

The former colonizing mother country, Belgium, then sent paratroopers in and sponsored a breakaway government in Katanga to sap the Congo of its mineral resources, its functional economic strength.

I doubt Nuland and Pyatt had access to the instruments of the military on hand to accomplish that. Let's see who did ( English translation dated 1/3/2014 - one month before Yanukovich bugged out):

http://uaposition.com/analysis-opinion/english-translation-audio-evidence-putins-adviser-glazyev-russian-politicians-involvement-war-ukraine/

The following is a partial UA translation. Please see the source in the link above:
 

Quote

 

Russian presidential adviser Sergey Glazyev instructs unknown man on the organization of mass unrest and create a pretext for invading army of Russian Federation.

“Banderovtsy” (term derived from the name of the person Stepan Bandera). In soviet propaganda – Ukrainian nationalists (living abroad and in Ukraine) who opposed the Soviet national policy. In fact Banderivets is called any Ukrainian who goes against the Kremlin. (In further dialogue Glazyev himself says it in direct text) (BN note: see link above).

Sergey Glazyev: Hi, Anatoliy Petrovych, why is Zaporizhia silent, where are they? We know exactly that he had a thousand of people. Where they are? Where are Kazaki?

I have an order to raise everybody, to raise people. People should gather in the square to demand turn to Russia for help against “banderovtsy”.

Specially trained people should knock out “Banderovtsy” from the building council, and then they should arrange the meeting of the regional state administration, gather executive authorities. Collect regional executive committee and give him the executive power and subordinate police to this new executive. I have direct orders – to raise the people in Ukraine where we can.

So we must take people to the streets, so do as in Kharkiv and as soon as possible.
Because as you see the president has signed a decree, operation began, here has reported that the military are raised. What are they waiting for?

We can not do everything with force, we use the power to support people, not more. And if there are no people, what support there might be?

Listen well, tell him that it is a very serious talk about the fate of the country and therefore there the war is going…

 

 

How you can compare that situation with what happened in Ukraine is a bit incomprehensible.

It's really not you're overstating your complaint. I fully understand they aren't the same situation but the principle lay bare for all to see. Crimea was illegally annexed by the Russian Federation because the simple, undeniable fact is that it was a legally constituted entity functioning under and obligated to the constitution of The Ukraine which requires a full vote of The Ukraine to break away. It matters not whether the current occupants of the White House, Kremlin, you, myself or anyone else, including, short of a prior amendment or invalidation of that constitution, the people of Ukraine/Crimea, have a differing opinion. It does not matter if the President of The Ukraine is usurped, thrown out or takes his toys, burns the evidence (bet Manafort wished he did a better job of that!) and runs away. That in itself doesn't invalidate the underlying constitution, even if that's what all of us think is the best thing for those people, which very well may be true. The Constitutionally legal line of succession confer all the authorities of the President (with the Chairperson of the Parliament/RADA) thereby preserving the Government until a new election is held. That includes a temporary vacancy of the office, usually for illness or some such thing, at the end of which the elected President is restored. By all accounts (who knows?? maybe not - impossible to confirm), Yanukovich accepted permanent citizenship in Russia making it impossible to resume the roll of President.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The initiation of a putsch or coup implies a political entity is “up for grabs” simply by the initiation of a putsch or coup.

The 2016 Election was a Dominionist coup d'etat.  Evangelical fascists rigged the vote by disenfranchising millions of Democratic-leaning voters, and the traditionally Republican FBI weighed in heavily for Trump by making Clinton's e-mails the focus of the last 11 days.

Donald Trump is an illegitimate occupant of the White House.  He rules as a wanna-be dictator.

Trump issues warning to opponents: ‘It would be very bad’ if his military, police and biker supporters got ‘tough’

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/03/14/trump-issues-warning-to-opponents-it-would-be-very-bad-if-his-military-police-and-biker-supporters-got-tough.html

Maybe Canada will annex Washington, Oregon and California...

Edited March 14, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Crimea was illegally annexed by the Russian Federation because the simple, undeniable fact is that it was a legally constituted entity functioning under and obligated to the constitution of The Ukraine which requires a full vote of The Ukraine to break away.

 

The counter-argument is that the constitution of Ukraine was not functioning:

"In Kiev there was a coup, and it means that the legitimate authorities disappeared. The president fled under the threat of murder, the government partially fled and was partially not able to fulfil its duties, the parliament made decisions under the barrels of machine guns… at the time of the Crimean events there weren’t any constitutional, legitimate, and internationally recognised authorities in Ukraine… Internationally recognised elections that formally established the activity of constitutional structures in Ukraine happened only at the end of May… when Ukraine formally restored the action of its Constitution, Crimea was Russian for already a long time."

https://www.stalkerzone.org/ishchenko-crimea-recognition-trump/

The deliberate scuttling of an internationally mediated political agreement in the form of an armed attack on the country’s legislature seems to me the signal event from which all else transpired. That is why Stephen Cohen describes what happened in Crimea as a “reactive” move, rather than an “aggressive” move which is how it has been portrayed in the west.