I learned long ago not to trust anything Seymour Hersh – king of the anonymous source – writes
But so many people are talking about this piece of his that I’m putting up the link.
As far as Hersh goes, I’m with what Mary McCarthy said about Lillian Hellman: “every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.'”
The point is not that “and” and “the” are lies; they’re not, of course. And perhaps Hersh is telling the truth here. But he’s earned our distrust.
My thoughts too. But there are a lot of people on the Right that will believe, including Tucker.
This whole Nordstream Pipeline story is so weird I would believe almost anything could be possible at this point. I have zero trust in what any of the players in this drama may claim. I certainly don’t trust whatever our own Government, the CIA and Joe Biden claims. I don’t trust whatever Russia claims. I’ve never heard of this Seymour Hersh character, but you and other people I respect don’t trust him so I guess I don’t either.
Sadly, the rationalization of why they wouldn’t have to notify the gang of 8 is all too plausible. It is that plausibility that both worries and saddens me. That I think it seems like it could happen is a terrible place for the US to be in. Whether it did or not is a whole other problem.
Cutting against it? The Chinese balloon and advising Obama not to take the kill shot. It goes against Biden’s character (such as it is).
If it did happen as he claimed, then Joe Biden was not aware of it. As the smartest man in the room he would not be able to keep himself from hinting at it.
It would seem extraordinarily irresponsible maybe just the like the uss main explosion it was a boiler explosion
Then again policy maker in 1897 were not suggesting that the spanish govt be provoked
The article reads like a Tom Clancy novel. Maybe it’s true, or maybe its just detailed fiction. (Tucker Carlson foolishly said it must be true because of all the details.)
Until this story is corroborated, with named sources, I’ll consider it a story — possible, but not confirmed.
Good point, Kris, on Biden’s lack of decision-making.
Indeed, “Biden” is so twisted, so corrupt, so venal, so destructive, so multi-dimensionally compromised…that Hersh may even be right this time around…
(Note that there is confirmation coming from another source…time to trot out this link again…:
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1623328793673797633
+ this from Max Abrahms (not my favorite but it seems he can’t be ignored).
https://twitter.com/MaxAbrahms/status/1623507118463627265?cxt=HHwWgsC95evH7YctAAAA
And of course, when Nuland gets involved with ANYTHING… then ANYTHING is possible. Not to mention Jake Sullivan…)
Hmm … the case of the vanishing comment … I don’t particularly trust Seymour Hersh myself. He’s been wrong more often than right, and was given, during the second Gulf War, to go around to college campuses, relating tales of massive atrocities by US troops, for which there was no evidence whatsoever. It was often speculated that he was a conduit for the CIA to loose disinformation into wider circulation, and the two big stories what he was associated with – My Lai and Abu Graib – were basically dropped into his lap, because he was a publicity hound, after other people had done the legwork.
The label on one of the players
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cia-director-bill-burns-is-clear-present-danger-ft/id1551541889?i=1000521180032
John kerrys record is infamous making allegations like this in three theatres of operation
What? But he’s a Pulitzer prize winner…he’s gotta be trustworthy right?
Seriously though, I’m pretty sure this story is accurate, or at least as accurate as the deep state operatives that really, really, really want us in a war can make it.
I’m not completely sure yet why they want us in a war, but it’s obvious they do. They’re trying to goad either Russia or China (I don’t think it matters to them) into attacking us. I suspect they just think that a war will energize the economy and bring the country together out of a sense of patriotism just in time for the 2024 elections.
For that to work, we can’t just out and out attack anyone, we’ve got to convince them to attack us. So…blow up the Russians’ multi-billion dollar pipeline, then let it leak that we did it, then claim that the leak is a lie and hope the Russkis fall for it and declare war on NATO in response.
That’s my theory anyway. I don’t have any inside info, a lot of the stuff that’s been going on recently has just been too…um…convenient. Just think about what kinds of things you would be doing if you were trying to goad another country into attacking us and tell me how that differs from what we’ve been doing for the past year or so (or even longer).
The Chinese balloon thing really struck me as odd from the get-go. Normally, when something like that came to light, you would expect the Pentagon to be reassuring us that it’s just a civilian weather balloon just like China claimed…if for no other reason than as an excuse for why they didn’t blow it out of the sky the minute it crossed into our airspace.
But from the moment the balloon was publicly announced, the government has been loudly and publicly accusing the Chinese government of using it to spy on us. Even if true (and it likely is), I wouldn’t expect our government to announce it to the world so readily. It was just…odd.
Then after breathless anticipation, and only after allowing it to complete its transit across the heart of the country, we very publicly and with great fanfare shot it down. Again, something you’d normally expect to happen fairly quietly in order to allow the Chinese government to “save face” over the whole affair. We could have done it in the dark of night and claimed the balloon just suffered a malfunction and came down on its own…but no, we made it very public that we were taking military action against it. Again…odd. Almost like we were trying to provoke China into taking some sort of drastic action in reprisal.
There are things afoot. In my opinion, Mr. Hersh is nothing more than a dupe (or willing propagandist) advancing the purposes of the professional bureaucrats who really run this country and desperately want to maintain their hold over the reigns of power.
They forgot the first rule of baltic fight club but cui bono from this event
Who welcomed the arab spring which was just an active measure by islamists that would be mccain and graham (the former lingers like jacob marley) includjng the dismantling of the military commissions act which led us the mahid khan release
I just wish people who are rightfully skeptical of Hersh were as doubtful when we were told the Russians blew up their own pipeline, which they could have shut down any time they wanted, because they’re so crazy and EEEEEEVVVVVIIIILLLL!!!!
Mike
Mbunge, I just don’t know who did it. It could be the US, it could be Russia, it could be the Chinese, it could be Norway, it could be Germany, it could be Sweeden.
Maybe it really was Switzerland.
Just because Vlad Putin is evil; proven murderer with Polonium 210, and attempted murder with nerve agents, invasion of Crimea, his proxies in the DNR (part of Ukraine before Vlad encouraged their revolt against Ukraine) shooting down a Malaysia Air civilian jet (hundreds killed Bunge) with a Roosian SAM, and of course the invasion of Ukraine on 2/24/2022.
Yeah some might consider Vlad and his regieme to be evil.
Some, but not all.
All caps doesn’t help a lie.
Glen carles trial balloon popped not for the first time
I won’t bother to repost links to Nuland and Biden’s predictive comments about Nordstream 2. Hersh/Smersh, how do you get past the advance warning from those two? Granted, Biden is easily written off as a lying sack of pedophile poo, but did Nuland echo his comments just to be agreeable?
And xi is responsible fof the deaths of millions although someone like chi haotian probably wasnt unpleased by it
But we set the red carpet for him
I’m wondering if Sailorcurt might be on to something; the Biden administration trying to provoke a war with China or Russia. A hot war has usually been the distraction/cover for quashing domestic disputes and civil rights.
Because there’s a war on, doncha know – and you’re not in sympathy with the enemies of our glorious nation … aren’t you? Then button up, citizen, and do as you are told.
Morale in the services is slipping, reenlistment and retention is on the skids, and the sense that my daughter and I get through contacts with the veteran community and active-duty people – is that morale is shot, what with the covid shots, with constant DIE/CRT wokery, and the absolute imbecilities of the DoD leadership. The debacle in Afghanistan – for which no one has ever taken responsibility – was the crowning disgrace. So far, anyway.
I still think it was done by the one nation that benefited most from the action: Ukraine. They understand pipelines. (One of their universities even offers one of the world’s few degrees in pipeline engineering. They have the nerve to do something like that. Finally, placing the bombs is not rocket science.
Seriously. The explosives are early 20th-century technology. It’s essentially a depth charge. Getting it to the pipelines is no longer particularly high tech. Rent or buy an offshore servicing vessel. Put an underwater ROV on it and operate it from there. (ROVs have been around at least 40 years.) Stick a time fuse on your depth charges and place them on the piepline using the ROV. Set the time delay fo a day or maybe two. Motor away. Wait. Kaboom.
“…odd from the get-go…”
Indeed, and it’s been odd for quite a while now (though there’s a whole slough of reasons why things seem don’t think to fit, don’t seem to compute).
We must remember that we’re dealing with masters of disinformation, misinformation, prevarication, concealment and coverups. In fact it seems that they LIVE, the EXIST for these things…(which is the reason why they HAD TO establish a “ministry” of mis… and dis… AKA mega-projection… which is merely a method—a “technique”—for the masters, or wanabees, of Totalitariansm.)
What I find odd in this whole pipeline episode (but not just this episode) is that one MIGHT think that Putin would be raving angry. Off the charts livid. But as far as I can tell he’s not. (Kindly correct me if I’m wrong.) Sure, he has to say SOMETHING… But throughout this war, it would appear, generally speaking, that Russia has been far more angry at Europe (and NATO) than he’s been with “Biden”. Far more threatening. Why?
“Biden”‘s policies on energy and trade, generally—but particularly on increasing inflation—also seem to be weakening Europe quite a bit (not just Europe, certainly).
Is it possible, could it be, that “Biden” and Putin are, together(!), working to weaken Europe? To push Europe in a particular direction (a WTF-amenable direction at that?) to arrive at some modus vivendi, which would seem to be entirely counter-intuitive? To be sure, EVERYTHING that “Biden” has been doing would appear to be counter-intuitive unless one understands that the key to weakening the West—and achieving global “equity”, “social justice”, “climate justice” etc., whatever that gibberish means…but we KNOW what it means: it’s the rationale, the twisted rationale, that justifies taking apart the country—IS weakening the US.
So is it is entirely possible, that “Biden” and Putin, working, somehow, in tandem to weaken Europe (as a prelude to weakening Western civ. generally, because this is how we save the world(TM))?
So that Putin knows what “Biden” has done—but how has blowing up the pipeline hurt Russia, exactly? By preventing that which Putin had already threatened to do…upon which threat he followed up?
And wouldn’t you know it, here comes Sy Hersh…right on cue(!)…with the SCOOP!
Making everyone, each and every one of us, even further distracted than we already are, given all the scandals and sheer dishonesty that has been hitting us from all directions, all perpetrated by the current criminal administration, whose expertise lies in subterfuge. And deep depravity.
And I’m not even talking about “Biden” ‘s “relationship” with China; or “his” “relationship” with the Mullahs (and the Mullahs relationship with Putin—speaking of which, if “Biden” gives billions to the Mullahs, and the Mullahs give millions in military materiel and assistance to Putin, might this mean that the US has embarked on “Lend-Lease v2.0” WRT Russia?)
(Or “his” “relationship” with Soros or Schwab, et al.?)
Yes, odd indeed….whirling circles within circles, wheels within wheels.
Gyroscopes within gyroscopes…
Followed Neo’s recent link to her story about origin of acceptance of anonymous sources.
Began during Watergate. It follows that because they have been exposed to reporting which includes anonymous sources, most people born after ’85 or so accept these verifications as legitimate.
As grandma used to say, if it wasn’t true, they couldn’t print it, they might get sued!
Never stop the enemy when he is destroying himself putin holds western europe in contempt he have done reasonable well supplying china and india (were buying discounted russian crude) remember the incentive from gazprom was given to all the right parties in this country
To the explicit advance warning evidence (confessions) that Nord Stream 2 would be terminated, we add celebratory comments afterward from Nuland and Blinken: Exhibits B and C.
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1623763094248865792?cxt=HHwWgIC-gcz74YgtAAAA
I don’t have much faith in what Seymore Hersh writes given his history but as others have pointed out there are plenty of indications that we did indeed blow up the pipeline. We had the motive, the means and the opportunity. The statements by Nuland, Biden and Blinken both before and after the incident make it clear that they wanted to blow up the pipeline, knew how to do it, and were pleased that it was done. The international investigations have made a point to say they have found no evidence that Russia did it. It seems rather obvious at this point what happened regardless of what Hersh has to say.
Judge Napolitano seems to think the Hersch story is true.
This is just going to continue on a low boil until something more definitive is revealed. It seems no one, up until now, seemed to care who did it.
It’s not likely Ukraine did this. I think Ukraine would have realized the blowback would hurt their cause more than help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfqacYEXtKQ
Nord Stream 2 is the hill to die on? Seriously? Despite Biden and Nuland tipping the administration’s hand before the event, then Nuland and Blinken celebrating afterward?
Are no-show Ukraine jobs for Western elites so precious? Or are we clinging to the flawed notion that the execrable Biden administration is somehow superior to Putin? Sorry to say, but news on the latter is quite bad.
Because of hershs cv we need more evidence but we dont dismiss it out of hand
Here’s a repeat of my comment from last night:
This is pretty damning:
_____________________________
Biden: if russia invades uh that means tanks or troops crossing the uh the border of ukraine again then uh there will be uh we there will be no longer a nord stream 2 we will bring an end to it
Journalist: what how would you how will you do that exactly since the project and control of the project is within germany’s control
Biden: we will i promise you we’ll be able to do it
–“Biden says he’ll shut down Nord Stream 2 pipeline if Russia further invades Ukraine” (Feb 9, 2022)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVbEoZXhCrM
_____________________________
Note that Biden said this a year ago.
I think Ukraine and the Baltic states all had far more motivation for blowing up the pipeline. Assuming, of course, that it was sabotaged and not lost to an accident. Nor do I have any confidence in Hersh. I’ll stick the whole scenario in the unlikely bucket.
It is funny to see Hersh, a lefty fabulist, suddenly elevated to truth teller by many on the right. Another case of politics making for strange bedfellows.
It’s one thing to read somewhere that Biden threatened Nord Stream 2. It’s another to watch the actual video of Biden and read the transcript including all his uhs.
The My Lai massacre, Hersh’s breakthrough reportage, actually happened. So harrumphing about Hersh in a global terms as a liar is unpersuasive to this reader.
Biden denied responsibility. And he often lies too. Is this a Hersh lie or a Biden lie? What to do…
Given that Biden et al. had motives against Nord Stream 2, made public threats on Nord Stream 2, nobody else did (to my knowledge) and somebody blew up Nord Stream 2, it seems to me that the US is at the top of the suspects list.
Even if Hersh makes that claim.
We shall see.
It is funny to see Hersh, a lefty fabulist, suddenly elevated to truth teller by many on the right
Chuck:
Of whom are you speaking? I’m not saying Hersh is a truth teller. I’m saying Hersh might be telling the truth, because even liars may tell the truth on occasion.
So we are reduced to the arduous, usually thankless, task of deciding claims on their merits, rather than taking the shortcut of who made them.
Among the Baltic states, Poland had the means and opportunity. They also had motive. The destruction of the pipeline kept the Germans from caving to Russia on supplying Ukraine to get their gas turned back on. And the Poles don’t like the Germans very much anyway.
John Fisher:
Did the leader of Poland make a public announcement that Poland could and would blow up Nord Stream 2 if Russia invaded Ukraine?
The waypoints that my compass needle keeps swinging back to is the seriousness of the declarations made by Blinken, Biden, and Nuland, all of them tying to the prospect of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, all of them saying with certainty that Nordstream II would not go ahead and that Nordstream would be ‘taken out’ and so on. These are quite specific statements. And Nuland seems to turn up like a bad penny at every critical pivot point in the Eastern Europe timeline.
Sy Hersh has a checkered history of being at the vanguard of anonymously-sourced stories out there on the ragged edge of credibility. The story is interesting, but Hersh’s reputation downgrades it.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned though, and is worth remembering: The joint investigation by the Danes and Swedes recovered evidence from the blast sites. That would mean fragments of pipeline material, and its cement coating, and that means explosive residues. And maybe pieces of a device itself. And yet: Silence. When that comes to light, then we will have something interesting. Isn’t it interesting that it hasn’t, yet? No one would care who the anonymous leaker is, then, if documents were involved.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned though, and is worth remembering: The joint investigation by the Danes and Swedes recovered evidence from the blast sites. That would mean fragments of pipeline material, and its cement coating, and that means explosive residues. And maybe pieces of a device itself. And yet: Silence.
Aggie:
Yes!
Peter Zeihan, as usual ahead of the curve, made this point within a day or two of the sabotage.
He argues that the Swedes have the tech to determine Whodunit. But they haven’t said anything.
Which to my mind argues that Whoeverdunit is likely a very powerful country, which Sweden would prefer not to embarrass.
True but polands special forces grom formidable as they are doesnt have that skill set
@huxley
I didn’t say he was lying, I said I put it in the unlikely bucket. When there is not enough information to decide, one needs to resort to probabilities. One of the priors here is Hersh’s track record and use of anonymous sources, hence I regard his assertions as unlikely, but not disproved. Few things in politics can be known with certainty, there are too many unknowns, and that is especially true in wartime.
huxley:
The Swedes certainly wouldn’t want to embarrass Roosia,
When there is not enough information to decide, one needs to resort to probabilities.
Chuck:
That’s my point too. Though I read the probabilities differently than you and others here.
But I find the whole “Someone said that and I don’t like that someone so let’s focus on that and not other evidence, then put our thumbs down hard on that end of the scale” pretty bogus.
I think “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” fable is relevant here.
Chuck:
Unlike the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” Hersh doesn’t always lie.
Nor does Biden. And Biden publicly declared his administration could and would destroy Nord Stream 2 if Russia invaded Ukraine.
Russia did and someone destroyed Nord Stream 2.
Why does your side reduce this to Hersh’s checkered credibility?
Why does Biden’s public declaration that we would destroy Nord Stream 2 count for so little?
Yes! Let’s condemn Seymour Hersh instead!
Of course Hersh’s checkered credibility plays a role, I’d be a fool to ignore it. Would you take Maddow seriously? Other journalists have weak points, for instance, I would place Taibbi and Greenwald as having an old fashioned left background that makes them sympathetic to Russia, the erstwhile cradle of the Utopian future. But they tend to be generally honest, if slanted, so Taibbi made an excellent choice to investigate the twitter files. The prejudice and honesty of journalists always needs to be taken into account. In the end we make the best judgments we can and we will not always be right.
I can quite literally believe almost any explanation for what happened to NS 2. There are just too many players on the board with possible motive and means, and not all of them are necessarily national actors in compliance with their government. I have considered an accident to be quite likely as some theorized, though failing that (as seems to be the case given new evidence) some Russian or Ukrainian faction strikes me as the most likely. But the US is certainly an avenue.
Oh and MBunge, I was always skeptical of that story. I was just also skeptical of many others and had to point out to people that the Cheka lineage has a long arse history of false flagging its own assets to obtain a result. Which absolutely does not mean they are for sure responsible THIS time but does make it worthy to consider.
In short while I remain an Ukraine hawk I know there are way too many dangerous and unscrupulous scumbags around, many in our own government and “Allies.” I do not see a benefit to this if we get in too deep, and the prospect of someone trying to spark a war is terrifying in its own right and can’t be dismissed entirely.
But I certainly don’t trust Hersh. I was dunking on his idiocy for years and will not stop now.
Hey, everybody! Turns out almost every time the Ukrainians fire a rocket at a Russian target, they’re relying on precision targeting coordinates given to them by…you guessed it…The United States!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/09/ukraine-himars-rocket-artillery-russia/
Boy, I am so glad there can’t possibly be any long-lasting repercussions from any of this. I mean, there can’t be…right? That’s why you all just marched in lockstep behind JOE BIDEN into this proxy war…right?
Mike
@MBunge
Tell us something we don’t know.
I would wish Brandon and his other fuckups would be more quiet about this and not boast about it, precisely because these sorts of actions are extremely common and useful but also incendiary and so it is better to have it going around as something that is guessed at or at least unofficially known but cannot readily be proven in the public. But I make absolutely no apologies.
Boy, I wish Bunge would learn history.
For the record: this proxy war started under Obama and continued under Trump. It just blew up to new levels as a result of Putin dropping the facade that the “Novorossiyan” separatists contained absolutely zero Russian Federation military troops about a year ago under Brandon’s watch that people tend to know.
And US policy on this was based on and spelled out in the Helsinki Final Act. And the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.
So quit trying to pretend this was a result of “you all” marching lockstep behind Brandon. This has been one thing that most American pols of every stripe including Trump agreed on, because it turns out that Putin’s treachery and assholish tendency to backstab his diplomatic partners is one thing that comes close to transcending political boundaries.
You’re welcome to argue that it was a mistake to commit the US to Budapest or to uphold that policy this long and stridently, but that would involve some deep explanations of why, and it would also mean acknowledging t this goes way beyond what can honestly be described as “lockstep behind Joe Biden.”
And considering how you are still in denial about chemical artillery shells being a WMD and Saddam supporting Abu Sayyaf in spite of the evidence for both being painfully public domain, I’m not counting on you to have that kind of intellectual honesty or awareness, either of yourself or the wider situation.
And that is one reason why you are on thin ice with many here, including our host.
PS: how many of our troops died because Putin decided to attack Georgia and force us to airlift their detachment out of Iraq in 2007?
It was probably not a huge amount. But it was also probably not zero.
Nodding vigorously.
Seymour Hersch is a pinworm, infesting the seats of the gullible. And Democrats, who seem congenitally vulnerable to BS; they lap it up.
@Cicero agreed, though that does not mean that he is necessarily wrong in any given accusation. I don’t believe him in this one, but I have been wrong before and I certainly can’t rule out much in regards to NS2.
Bunge emerges from his bunker, shouts at the clouds, and dives back in.
If I were going to blow up a pipeline, I would use commercially available explosives, not US Military, and preferably not US manufacture. I don’t know if they still do, but US made explosives used to have tiny tracer chips in them, with the manufacturer’s lot number printed on them, so explosives could be traced from seller to buyer. The maker can be traced by the chemical components of residues.
My suspicions still rest with Russian maintenance, or the lack thereof.
Why would you use divers trained to clear beaches with explosives at a depth of 260′?
There is always a group of people that can’t wait to blame the USA for something or other and they just can’t wait to have the next major incident occur for it gives them the opportunity to write or appear on TV or youtube and explain to the world how the USA – yet again !!! – was the culprit or the cause of the injustice.
Biden and all the demokrats wish to shove the US oil and gas industry into the dustbin of history; the sooner the better as far as they are concerned.
So why on earth would Bidet blow up a natural gas pipeline, one of whose results would be greater sales of US produced natural gas (LNG) that could be exported to Europe?
After all, Europe needs natural gas and whatever they cannot (or will not) obtain from Russia, will be obtained elsewhere, including the USA (much to the chagrin of joke Bidet and all the demokrats).
Hersh’s argument is all speculation ; he has not provided one bit of hard evidence to support his claim. It’s the energy equivalent of the Trump / Russia scam.
Recall that Bidet literally begged Venezuela and the Saudis to increase production of oil and natural gas, while at the same time making every effort to dismantle the US oil and gas industry (is this not treason?).
Yet trump kept putin at bay he slapped putin down at deir erzeur in damascus in that other base but we had to spend 100 billion and deplete our strategic reserve
To increase emission justifying esg push
Now we pretend like winston smith that oceania has won a glorious battle on the malabar front until it becomes necessarily to erase that front
Ira on February 9, 2023 at 2:59 pm said:
The article reads like a Tom Clancy novel. Maybe it’s true, or maybe its just detailed fiction. (Tucker Carlson foolishly said it must be true because of all the details.)
At a gun forum I use, some well established posters (SMEs in the military) are pointing out issues in the details. Claim it is fake. Personally I don’t have the specific knowledge to know.
For the record: this proxy war started under Obama and continued under Trump.
It was more of a cold war stage under Trump. Maybe some sniping and such, but not major actions.
Seymour Hersh has long been an America hater (and Israel hater too). Everything he writes needs to be triple fact checked.
@Don
Maybe relatively speaking, but it was still by far the costliest trench war in decades and well bloodier than Afghanistan and Iraq were. Putin largely drew down after his attempts to penetrate into the Western Donbas were repulsed and so the conflict continued on quite brutally but rather under the surface.
so is everyone in this adminstration, so who do we believe, if they don’t have a chinese stamp, they have qatari or turkish masters,
Turtler, I surprised you think the 7-year Donbas war was bloodier than either Afghanistan or Iraq. Total deaths in Afghanistan are estimated close to 200,000 military and civilians in the 20 years. Estimates are 14,000 in the 7-years of the Donbas war. And as you say, as time wore on, casualties diminshed.
As to the costs, it’s estimated US donated $23 billion in military aid in 2022, almost twice that of the rest of the world combined. Estimates are about $1.5 billion in the 7-years of the Donbas war. The Afghan and Iraq war will be in the $trillions.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/09/world/middleeast/afghanistan-war-cost.html
@Brian E
At the time frame where they overlapped it was. And if you don’t believe that try researching things like the death tolls, like the admittedly hugely biased Iraq War Body Count.
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
The Donbas War was causing far more bloodshed in 2015 than the Iraq War was, by any way one slices the known numbers.
Which was the point I was trying to get at, however inelegantly. Don argued that it was more of a “Cold War” under Trump, but this was a conflict actively killing far more people than the largely receded Iraq and Afghan Wars was.
Now average that out across the 20 years and realize there were massive spikes at the start and midway through the war in between backgrounds that were much lower.
And now check the source.
To which I simply say that is not right. That might fit one of the combatant sides individually, but absolutely not both together and with non-combatants.
Especially when you factor in that line the Afghan and Iraq War estimates, the true number is almost certainly well North of the reporter number due to various things like disappearances and concealment of deaths in the fog of war.
So we’re looking at a conflict that had at a minimum about 25,000 confirmed deaths among all sides (about two thirds of those being civilians) https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Conflict-related%20civilian%20casualties%20as%20of%2031%20December%202021%20%28rev%2027%20January%202022%29%20corr%20EN_0.pdf and likely something north to maybe two times that in actuality. Especially due to the Kremlin’s habit of underreporting losses and burning its own dead to avoid paying benefits, a practice I would not be surprised about in the least being imitated by the Ukrainian government or at least unscrupulous elements of it.
For comparison, the New York Slimes gave slightly less than 5,000 confirmed civilian and Afghan Republican security forces dead for the entire year of 2020. That doesn’t count the Taliban so I would assume at least an equal number of that. And this was
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/world/asia/afghan-war-casualty-december-2020.html
And again compare that to the Iraq War Body Count, which calculates the war dead for that year in the hundreds.
So we’re looking at a conflict that was – at a minimum – a bit less lethal on average than the later Afghan War and well bloodier than the post-IS surge in Iraq, and even much of the IS phase.
But how many times did you hear Afghan or Iraq at this time being referred to as a cold conflict or the like?
Indeed though not as sharply in the Donbas as it was in Afghanistan or particularly Iraq. Which was my main point.
Now compare that to the costs the Ukrainian government will face, in terms of dead, crippled, and debt. Let alone the question of rehabilitation and reconstruction, which is likely going to be incredibly costly. We certainly spent far more money in dollar figures, but we also spent less in dead (though wounded treatment is another question). And part of the reason for our largesse was the ability to use smart munitions on a scale rarely matched in history and our attempts at financing a brave new Afghanistan through pork barrels.
The Ukrainians will probably have at least as much pork to spend, but largely for themselves.
But you raise a fair point and I apologize for the mangled phrases. But I think my point stands. Afghanistan and Iraq were still bloody, horrible war fronts, but they had tapered off in lethality on the whole, especially in the case of Iraq. But how many people would have referred to them as “Cold Wars”?
Brian E:
You might want to listen to Perun analysis of the economic side of Ukrainian war, last Sunday; expenditures by the USA are not as clear cut as isolationists would assert.
Fog of war and information warfare.
Thanks for your response. As your UN document shows civilian casualties had dropped to very low numbers by 2018 as the war was fought to a draw/stalemate.
I was watching a documentary on the Crimean War and somethings never change. Siege warfare. After watching the two episodes, I’m drawn to the conclusion Russia will not give up Crimea. There is too much history there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGVRWQ6oxFw&list=RDCMUC88lvyJe7aHZmcvzvubDFRg&index=1
William Spaniel lays out scenarios.
Stalemate, Setup, or Counter-Counterattack? The Weird Winter of the Russia-Ukraine War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9HJDC3I_Qg
Back to the topic of the post. If the US did sabotage NS2, it wasn’t to profit by US sales of LNG.
Did Biden create his own red line before the invasion? Was he forced to take out the pipeline?
This article lays out the reasons why. Not a lot of excess capacity and the uncertainty of long-term contracts from Europe would make the capital expenditures to expand production unprofitable.
Norway has reopened a LNG that had been shutdown after a fire, but this will only make up 10% or so of the Russian gas.
https://www.mei.edu/publications/biden-administration-promises-us-lng-europe-how-does-work
om, here’s where the data I used comes from.
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts
Frontline’s Putin and the Presidents series with Yevgenia Albats. She is editor-in-chief of The New Times, a Moscow-based independent weekly and a critic of Putin.
Unlike Ioffe, she doesn’t claim to have a crystal ball divining Putin’s inner thoughts. But she makes the case Putin believes America is his enemy, and an existential threat to him and Russia,
Well worth the time. I say that as someone who sees a negotiated settlement that will cede territory to Russia as the only path forward.
Fast forward to about minute 44 to see her take on the US/West’s actions on the runup to the war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt-SgfaTX4o&t=2692s
Brian E:
Tartars and Ukrainians were there before the Russians. Imperial Russia died. The USSR died. Vlad’s Roosia won’t live forever, thousand year Reich anyone?
The NYT of Duranity? Otay. Roosia wants. Some want to reward that. Some never learn.
Council of Foreign Relations. Double Otay.
I would place Taibbi and Greenwald as having an old fashioned left background that makes them sympathetic to Russia, the erstwhile cradle of the Utopian future.
Please stop confusing Russia and the USSR. There is not any semblance of any plan, political, military, or other for a “Utopian future” in Russia, let alone one that will somehow carry the entire world at some point. The left were and are communist sympathizers. Russia is not communist and isn’t going to be ever again. People like Glenn Greenwald and Tulsi Gabbard – regardless of what you think of their politics – are certainly smart enough to know that.
om, you’re missing my point. In a thousand years, when memories fade, it won’t matter. But for many Europeans, even 200 years can still be fresh to them. And 70 years is like yesterday.
“Meet the Crimeans Who Voted to Join Russia: Russian Roulette in Ukraine”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1v_lu6qcyk
om, are you mocking Yevgenia Albats? Sometimes you read like Miguel Cervantes.
Brain E:
I get your point: Roosia must be accomadated. Regarding Roosia’s rationalizations for thousands of years of imperial conquest and territorial expansion; yes that is a very old and convienient rationalization and excuse for aggression. Funny that it seems to require armies, proxies and wars for Roosia to get what it needs; those on the other side of this malevolent behavior should just roll over, because Roosia wants. Melian Dialog.
Sad that you buy into it. You be you.
Brain E:
Roosia wants and the world reacts; first Sweden and Finland join NATO, and now Japan and South Korea consider getting nuclear weapons. Naked aggression has its consequences:
On Point: Watching Ukraine, Japan and South Korea Consider Nuclear Weapons – Austin Bay
https://strategypage.com/on_point/202302090944.aspx
What is the connection to Roosia? North Korea, Roosia’s useful (sometimes) tool. Roosia wants.
om, I know it’s futile to try and have a conversation with you, but no, you don’t get the point.
I think a negotiated settlement which includes territories given their independence to decide who they want to align with in exchange for security guarantees for Ukraine is the only rational solution.
Crimea and the Donetsk and Luhansk regions were trying to carve an autonomous status at the same time the West was recognizing Ukrainian independence in 1991. Crimea declared its independence at that time, but was rebuffed by Ukraine.
As a result of the illegal overthrow of Yanukovych in 2014, Crimea again declared its independence, this time using the precedent set by Kosovo in 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_opinion_on_Kosovo%27s_declaration_of_independence
Kosovo had unilaterally declared it’s independence.
Brain E:
Talk about futile, you keep repeating the lie about the “illegal overthrow of Yanukovitch” and accept Roosian activities in Donetsk and Luhansk as nothing to see.
Are Vlad’s referendums in his occupied regions of Ukraine this year to be accepted as well?
But you continue to forget things (basic facts) that those who spent time trying to educate you, patiently and in great detail, Turtler for example. Facts don’t sink in.
When the Kerch Bridge is out of commission and the Ukrainians force Rossia from the area south of the Dnipro River, Vlad and his “liberators” will leave Crimea to Ukrainians and the Tartars.
But, but, but Crimea War in the 1850s and Imperial Russia under the Tsars!
You be you.
Brain E:
Some more information why Roosia in Crimea will continue to be a threat to Ukraine. Having Roosia as a neighbor really sucks, historically speaking.
Zatoka Bridge Near Odesa Hit by Unmanned Marine Drone – Suchomimus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLaGjHQ0g8A
@deadrody
Can you blame us when Putin and many of his kin go out of their way to defend the legacy and iconography of the USSR when they can, from the Communist Red Stars as recognition flashes on the wings of VVS planes to persecuting people for pointing out the truth of Molotov-Ribbentrop?
Please inform the likes of Prigozhin, Dugin, and even Putin that. It certainly is downplayed compared to what it was and nowhere near as urgent a threat as the CCP, dueling Islamist Theocracies, or the woke Left at home but it would be a mistake to ignore the danger of appeals to a messianic “Russian World” / “Russkiy mir.”
“The left were and are communist sympathizers.”
Sure, but that’s also why communists are split so badly on the war between competing globalists and the hunger for power.
Don’t believe me?
https://www.jimbakkershow.com/news/aoc-and-ilhan-omar-plus-28-other-democrats-send-letter-asking-biden-to-appease-putin/
“Russia is not communist”
Correct, though it is a brutal dictatorship ruled by someone who sentimentally defends much of the Communist legacy, at least those bits identified as “Good.”
“and isn’t going to be ever again.”
Maybe that’s true, but it won’t stop several communists, including in Russia, from hoping that will change, and believe supporting the Kremlin’s war will leave them in a better position for “when” that “dream” comes again.
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-lawmakers-expelled-communist-faction-ukraine/31878469.html
” People like Glenn Greenwald and Tulsi Gabbard – regardless of what you think of their politics – are certainly smart enough to know that.”
I have modest admiration for Greenwald and Gabbard, but they seem to have a big blind spot when it comes to the likes of the Kremlin and assorted left wing anti-Western goons like Lula. Greenwald’s still boasting that his reporting got Lula out of prison and back into power.
@om
Half-true at best.
This far back in history (before about the 1500s, and especially before the 1200s) there wasn’t that much of a difference between “Ukrainians” and “Russians” since they were mostly precursor groups of Slavic-Urgic-Scandinavian groups under the broad category of “The Rus” or “Russians.” They largely diverged over the hundreds of years since.
And the Rus and proto-Rus spent centuries fighting nomadic groups like the Kipchaks for the limited territory around the rivers and the broad forested interiors even before the Mongols basically tore the place apart.
There certainly weren’t large numbers of “Tatars” in Crimea or other parts of Ukraine before they burned through the lands of the Rus and largely settled on the ashes.
Which goes to some degree to show the very real historical background to Moscow’s interest in Ukraine and its people and the dreams of unity.
Sure, but the Russian World idea is pretty durable. The question is how far it will go and where.
Because while in many ways this IS Putin’s War, a lot of the pathologies and interests go far beyond that. There’s a reason why one of the great propaganda spectacles Putin’s government financed was a movie adaptation of Taras Bulba, written by Tsarist author Nikolai Gogl as his way of uniting his love of “the Ukraine”/”Little Russia”/”Southern Russia” and its traditions and the Cossack way of life with his loyalty to Tsarist Autocracy.
I disagree with Brian E on a fair amount but I don’t think that is the point they were raising, even if that might be their preferred policy.
I mean, “Russia” and even “The Rus” didn’t really exist for 2,000 years, let alone “Thousands.” Rurik supposedly took power sometime in the 800s AD/CE and his descendants launched their first major raid on Constantinople in 860. That’s a long time and one I point to myself if I feel people lean too much into the Tolstoyian vision of Russia as a land of victimized, peace loving peasants, but it’s still scarcely more than a thousand years. No need to exaggerate.
See above.
“But you continue to forget things (basic facts) that those who spent time trying to educate you, patiently and in great detail”
Foreign policy experts have been telling us for over 20 years that Russia had certain “red line” concerns when it came to Ukraine. Those concerns pre-date Putin. People like om refused to acknowledge this and that’s at least part of how we ended up here.
I’m sure the surviving relatives of all the dead Ukrainians would find om’s grade school “Roosian” comments to be completely worth the lives of their loved ones.
Mike
@Brian E
I think we’ve talked about this before, and particularly why I do not see that working and why I have no reason to believe Putin does.
However, the simple fact is: Russia gave Ukraine security guarantees before. For that matter so did we. Most notably and relevantly at Budapest in 1994, but also at other times. The Kremlin obviously violated said security guarantees when it invaded Crimea and the Donbas in 2014 (as it now admits to doing in the former case). There was a somewhat later attempt to end the war or at least freeze it at Minsk after about a year, but that also broke down.
What incentive do the Ukrainians have to believe the next set of security guarantees, especially ones that leave Ukraine in a worse state strategically than it did before?
And it’s not because Ukrainian governments have never considered some kind of plebiscite to divide up the territories. As I pointed out, Zelenskyy broached this exact topic (and took extreme domestic flak for doing so), on condition that both sides removed their militaries and paramilitaries and the vote was overseen by international, qualified observers. Which Putin didn’t deign to respond to.
I believe before you mentioned that this reaction was understandable because the offer wasn’t serious… but to which I’d respond what would be?
And how would it be less serious from a negotiating standpoint than the Kremlin’s original stated demands of “Denazification”, Demilitarization, and Forced “Neutrality” in violation of the rights a sovereign nation is recognized as having?
And that’s before I talk about how for various reasons I don’t think Putin or many other aspects of the Kremlin really WANT this solution to be definitively solved, precisely because it is politically useful to keep Ukraine in limbo like Georgia and Moldova have been.
Sure, but within the framework of a Ukrainian nation. And the autonomy for the Donbas regions faded in large part as they came to have a heavy say on national politics in Kyiv while Crimea was granted a form of autonomy.
All of this was signed, sealed, and agreed to both by Ukraine itself and by great powers like Russia, the US, and UK over the course of the early to mid 1990s.
I’m not sure where you are getting this from but the reality was that Crimea tried to create autonomous constitutions for itself that the Ukrainian government rejected. It would be comparable to if Puerto Rico became a state but tried to have a state constitution (to cite absurd, extreme cases) legalizing slavery or codifying nullification which the Fed would obviously reject.
Actual independence wasn’t attractive for a whole host of reasons, starting with the dependence of naval and maritime infrastructure as well as the need to finance development by a larger power (which was one of the reasons behind the much balleyhooed transfer from the Russian SR to the Ukrainian SR by Khruschev; the Russian SR’s bureaucrats had seriously dropped the ball and helped lose the peninsula to the Nazis and Romanians and – once they got it back – screwed up the recovery and reinvestment).
I’m going to stop you right there and ask a very simple fact.
If a President actively RUNS from their constitutional duties such as to answer questions before the Legislature and takes shelter in a foreign country, refusing to carry out the duties of the Presidency, is there any legal means to remove that person for incapability?
The Kremlin’s propagandists and people trying to whitewash Yanukovych’s crimes like glossing this over, but it is a fairly simple point. Because in both the US (either Impeachment if there are any crimes or the 25th Amendment if there aren’t) and Ukraine there is. In Ukraine there is both Impeachment (rather similar to what the US did) and removal from office for incapacity, which is covered in the early “Article 100s” of the Ukrainian Constitution.
Yanukovych refused to face questions about his (increasingly illegal, violent, and unconstitutional) actions before the Ukrainian Rada, the legislature he was democratically elected alongside and which in fact at the time was dominated by his own party. Instead he decided to flee the country altogether (after stealing a few things) in favor of taking up residence in Russia.
Yanukovych doesn’t get to have it both ways. Does he carry out the office and duties of President of Ukraine? Or does he not and instead prefer fleeing abroad to avoid *answering the inquiries he is constitutionally obliged to face*?
So the idea that he was “illegally overthrown” I think can be categorically rejected, and it is telling that even the Kremlin doesn’t like talking about how.
….. after being overrun by Little Green Men who even Putin now acknowledges were Russian Spetznaz, who proceeded to take over the peninsula and government buildings with the help of willing allies in the local government before holding a laughably rigged referendum.
To say that such a thing lacks legitimacy would be understating it.
And I’m not even inherently OPPOSED to the idea of Crimea or parts of the Donbas joining Russia or becoming independent. But that doesn’t mean I am prepared to wash away the Kremlin jamming such a status at bayonet point using state sponsored terrorism. Because that ACTUALLY IS illegal in a way a corrupt, tyrannical former President being ruled incapable of preforming his duty in unofficial self-imposed exile on foreign soil isn’t.
@MBunge
Which brings us to the issue of which foreign policy experts they were.
Because others (including rather dovish and pro-post-Soviet-Russia ones like Kennan) pointed out how likely those red lines would change when convenient and how bad a neighbor the Kremlin usually was to independent states on its borders.
Agreed.
But not in comparison to such hegemonic “concerns” that believe Moscow can dictate how Galicia lives and has every right to impose such a belief by bayonets.
I can’t speak for them, and of course they’re diverse, but most of them seem to believe that they’re more worth it than the assurances the Kremlin gave that it would respect Ukraine’s rights as an independent nation at Budapest and Astana. Which is one reason why the Ukrainian public as a whole is quite hawkish, and often moreso than its leaders. Kharkhiv isn’t terribly fond of Zelenskyy as a politician or leader but it doesn’t seem that interested in giving way.
Which brings us back to the key point. I find many of om’s “Roosia”/”Roosian” spam comments and what I find to be petty needling to be tiring and not that great.
But they’re not at all what resulted in the Ukrainian dead you talked about. Especially since you acknowledge that Moscow’s “concerns” in Ukraine well predate the USSR without acknowledging the other side of the issue: that that means it is harder to castigate the people you dislike to blame for that, and that the locals there MIGHT not be so fond of it.
Turtler:
I don’t have the expertise to comment at great length and in great detail about Russian history, as you have. I can recognize the basic difference between individual Russians and Vlad’s Roosian regime.
You have tried at length to address the many lies spread by Roosian apologists and repeated by some on this blog. Good luck, Regarding my mistake about how long Russia has been an aggressive imperial state, I’m sure you could probably write a very informative and interesting comment about the various Tsars and Tsarinas. They have been pretty active aggressively pursuing their interests for a very long time (not 1000 years, but many hundreds of years); most modern countries aren’t in the empire mode since 1945 or so It is strange that the largest country on earth “always” seems to want to be larger. (exaggeration possibly) But it does suck to be their neighbor.
Good luck educating Bunge. Brian E may be receptive.
Your long comments are appreciated, but again, not in my skill set.
Bunge:
Sometimes issues aren’t complicated; polishing a turd doesn’t change the essential nature of the material you are trying to make presentable, to make a comparison you can follow, or to be more complicated, making apologies or rationalizations for Russian aggression.
Don’t be a Bunge.
Turtler, we may look at the evidence and arrive at different conclusions. Part of the problem is we no longer have a source of information that can be relied on. I’m trying to look through the information available and sift through the bias to find some solid ground to form an opinion.
You wrote in a previous comment back on Feb. 3:
“Yanukovych (and his cabinet) was confronted about his abuses of power and the Constitution by the Ukrainian Legislature that was on the whole Democratically Elected at the same time he was… and which by and large was dominated by *his own coalition.* And constitutionally they had every right to demand he and his members of cabinet appear before them to answer questions on conduct like most parliamentary systems.
Yanukovych (probably recognizing that even if he and his ministers could safely go to Kyiv to attest, that they had no legal or ethical answers to justify his conduct) instead decided to flee the country, making him incapable of carrying out the duties of Ukrainian President. Which led the Rada to backdoor a removal of power by essentially declaring him incapable.”
That is a problem. Following the events of February 20, in which the Maidan protestors rejected a settlement negotiated by foreign governments with Yanukovych and the protestors, which would have given the Rada more power and move elections up, they demanded Yanukovych resign by the next day or they would storm the building. Units of the Berkut riot police declared they would not fight the protesters and Yanukovych had no choice but to flee to Eastern Ukraine and then Crimea. His car was fired on. He did later leave for Russia.
There is no reason for him to expect he could return to Kiev without being assassinated.
Why didn’t the Rada go through the constitutional process of impeaching Yanukovych? It could have been done in a matter of days. Is it because they didn’t have the votes to impeach him?
Members from Yanukovych’s “Party of Regions” were beaten by protestors and forced to vote for his removal.
Reporting at the time: “Ukraine’s parliament voted to hold early presidential elections on May 25, passing a resolution stating that Viktor Yanukovych had failed to properly fulfill his duties as president. The resolution said that Yanukovych “is removing himself (from power) because he is not fulfilling his obligations, and (that parliament) is setting elections for May 25.””
Pretty thin gruel for removing a President.
Brian E:
Pretty big assumptions you are making regarding Yanukovich or it that more borscht? Is that reliable information you are citing regarding Yanukovicht’s actions and his opponents? Have you thoroughly vetted that interpretation of what happened?
IIRC Yanukovich’s security forces used live ammo on his opponents, many wound up permanently peaceful,
Turtler may get back to you,
I’ve been meaning to start a discussion about the events leading up to and including the fateful Feb. 20 protests/riots referred to as the “Revolution of Dignity” and how the “heavenly 100” shaped international opinion.
The problem with sorting this all out is we’re the “good guys” and Russians are the “bad guys”. Even liars sometimes tell the truth and honest people sometimes lie.
Here’s a start. This BBC video of a snippet on Feb. 20:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQhuD4F1yJ0
.
The BBC certainly thought the Maidan was responsible for the “overthrow” of Yanukovych. Early on the reporting concluded that not all the killing was done by government forces. This changed to the narrative that Berkut riot police and Alpha snipers were responsible for all the deaths.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJhJ6hks0Jg
@Brian E
Agreed there.
To be honest I’ve never thought we had a “source of information that can be relied on” per se, just the old forest of mirrors and people pushing agendas or lies. But I do think we can get a reasonable understanding of what happened and what didn’t from checking at what they say about themselves and each other.
Understandable and quite admirable. I am trying to do similar.
I absolutely agree. But not only was it partially caused by Yanukovych himself and his increasing brutality, but above all it was a manageable one. Yanukovych could still move about the country with a reasonable degree of security and could have cooperated with foreign powers and the parliamentary opposition to secure safe passage to the Rada, or at least a safe hearing by remote (which had precedence in Ukrainian legislative proceedings).
But he didn’t.
Firstly: the formal signing and adoption of it was on Feb 21st (in part due to the shocks over the bloody day prior on Feb 20th).
Secondly: Maidan Protestors were hardly united, but to the extent they were those identified as their political leadership (especially in the Rada) had signed on, including the Klitchkos, “Yats”enyuk, and neo-Fascist Tyahnybok. So at a minimum the deal could be held up to that. Which also would have helped to divide the opposition between the parliamentary legislature and the more radical ones on the street like Right Sector and the Autodefenses under people like Parasyuk.
What really doomed the agreement was a mixture of Lt. General Dumansky/skyy/skii’s resignation and allegations that the government had tried to order the army to violently clear the streets with a recklessly brutal ROE, and the cabinet fleeing. Which in many ways was a gift that prevented the Maidan coalition from splintering along the lines of pro-agreement and anti-agreement lines as it seemed to do with hotheads like Lyashko.
While also further embittering what increasingly few friends Yanukovych had on the legislature, who felt (rightly) hung out to try trying to defend their government leader and his policies on the legislature in spite of a growing mutiny within their own ranks, and generally now had the incentive to find protection for themselves.
I’m not at all saying there were any beds of roses in Yanukovych’s future or that of Ukraine’s or that the Maidan radicals threatening literally violent insurrection or terrorism were “just a prank bruh.” But by fleeing the country and making it clear he had no intention of returning any time soon or answering the legislature, Yanukovych basically blew his own position to shreds just as it looked like it MIGHT be improving while the Dumansky claims were just breaking and he had committed the leaders of most of the parliamentary opposition to compromise, and thus divided his opposition.
There were way better ways for him to have handled this and one doesn’t have to turn Yanukovych into selfless martyr marching straight through God-knows-what in the streets of Kyiv without assurances to believe that.
Which showed in part how deep disillusionment with Yanukovych’s orders or at least the desire to save one’s own skin went. Especially given the lavish and frankly-questionably-legal-at-best treatment Yanukovych gave Berkut. But that goes back to the issue of negotiating with the others, including foreign governments, to work out either a safe way to appear before the Rada in person or a means of answering testimony remotely (which it’s worth remembering was the norm 200 years back and still is commonly used today, though not usually on matters of this gravity).
But by making it clear he did not intend to return to answer questions when his opposition – even with the Blue Mutineers – did not have the votes to successfully impeach him (at least yet), Yanukovych gave them the alternative of removing him for incapacity.
Which brings me back to the prior point. Especially since while the military had made it clear they would not conduct carte-blanche violent street clearing for him there was good reason to issue an order (preferably with the legislature) to escort him to the Rada and either get their agreement or force them to get a refusal in writing or in audio. Which could be done by representatives even while staying mobile to avoid gunfire (or keep stealing, as the cynics among us looking at his itinerary believe).
He certainly wouldn’t be the first head of state to put himself under the protection of a foreign power’s embassy until matters cooled down and he wouldn’t be the last. The big issue I see (well, besides being a violent boor who allowed things to escalate this far due to some frankly immoral *and* impractical situations) was that he did not make it clear this was “temporary” and that of course he would be GLAAAD to answer the questions before the Rada.
Whether or not he actually would intend to in this case being irrelevant due to the aforementioned divide over the agreement between the Maidanites, and Parasiuk etc. al.’s deadline for violent action by the Maidan hardliners.
Which I find dubious but still goes back to my previous point of arranging for a means to communicate and testify remotely. “Skype/Zoom Call it” as the kids say, which again had legal precedence in Ukraine. Random Maidan hardline snipers or defecting military are a lot less likely to recognize and snipe for some lawyer or fixer in Yanukovych’s employ than they are for him.
None of this may have changed the fundamental outcome (though let’s not assume it Couldn’t have), but the goal in this case for Yanukovych is
A: To at least give the appearance of intending to follow the Constitutional requirement for Ukrainian Presidents to answer the legislature for the longest possible time, thus buying time for his enemies to self-destruct or turn on each other and for himself to muster allies or support.
B: To do so without putting himself in excessive risk (hence why I’m not demanding he frog march himself in person through the gap between the Right Sector Molotov group and the angry Afghanisty to the Rada come hell or high water).
C: To get foreign endorsements of his safety, at least for the time being, and thus deter hotheads from trying.
Pretty much.
In short:
A: Because they couldn’t at the time. People forget with nearly a decade on that the fundamental composition of the Rada was narrowly dominated by pro-Yanukovych parties, or at least ones that HAD been pro-him. And while many of those suffered schisms or mutinies (and often had reached the point that the main divides were between those who would openly denounce him and vote against him versus those that would abstain), there still weren’t enough defectors to actually successfully impeach him. Maybe that would’ve changed as the days or weeks went by, but it might not have changed in the opposition’s favor.
A.2: I’ve also heard some vague information from Ukrainian and Russian sources that even if they had the Constitutional Court (which most people at the time had a very low opinion of, opposition due to claims it had Yanukovych cronies on it while Blues due to claims it was pro-European, on both sides due to corruption) might have put the kibbosh on it due to its claims to oversee impeachment trials in Ukraine. I’m not 100% sure of this and am still researching so don’t take my word on it, but it was another issue.
B: Because they didn’t need to. Which is again why I identify Yanukovych outright fleeing with no intent to return as being a major self-inflicted blow by himself. Understandable perhaps given the panic and the circumstances, but still one that opened himself up.
At the time of Feb 20-21st the Rada had been demanding Yanukovych and other cabinet ministers appear before it to answer questions about the cabinet’s conduct during Euromaidan, and support for THAT well exceeded the margin for support for removing Yanukovych (whether by impeachment or on grounds of incapacity). Which is why I do think it was the developing situation with the Lt. General and the sudden flight of much of the cabinet that fatally weakened Yanukovych’s position and gave the opposition this opening to remove him without impeachment.
Just a contrast between apples and oranges from the cheap seats. Yanukovitch fled to Russia when the protests and violence got hot (he’s a persecuted martyr). Zelinski didn’t flee when Vlad’s paratroops landed at Hastomel and the Vlad’s tanks rolled in from Belarus, but he is a corrupt toady of NATO and the WEF/Davos.
Because Tucker and Colonel MacGreggor. Oh, and Vlad will nuke you too! Look, a squirrel, or NORDSTREAM 2!
If only we had 100% reliable information in a war. Otay.