5 ms·

> while Russia is responsible for invading, Victoria Nuland was caught red-handed orchestrating the Ukrainian coup/government that precipitated it Fyi the leak

> while Russia is responsible for invading, Victoria Nuland was caught red-handed orchestrating the Ukrainian coup/government that precipitated it Fyi the leaked Nuland call (which I assume is what you're referring to), is of her discussing who they should support after the massive protests started and Yanukovych and his ministers left the country. She did not "orchestrate a coup". At most, it's the US trying to get Ukrainian parliament to pick the interim candidate they want which while is still manipulative, is far from "orchestrating a coup".

pphysch 3y ago
Okay, she clearly orchestrated the political half of the coup. I'm not suggesting she was commanding the Maidan snipers!
- nabakin 3y ago
  Giving her support of a particular candidate is not "orchestrating" any coup. By that logic, the Democratic party giving support to Biden means the Democratic party enacted a coup on the US. Following the law of a country is not a coup. In order for there to be a coup, there has to be an unlawful seizure of power and that never happened. The president and his ministers left. I assume because the unrest of the people was so massive, he expected there would be a revolution. That would have been a coup, but even giving her support to a particular candidate the revolutionaries put forward, is not her causing a coup. Giving the revolutionaries weapons would be causing a coup. Sparking the revolution would be causing a coup. Getting one part of the government to overthrow the controlling part would be a coup. She did none of those things though (as far as we know). Facing the reality of having no president and having no line of succession remaining, the Ukrainian parliament selected an interim president for an interim government until a new, full president could be elected and that is what happened.
  - pphysch 3y ago
    > The president and his ministers left. ...under threat of lethal violence. Their offices/residences were assaulted soon after they fled. Many people were murdered during the "protests". Is a "coup" really determined by whether the overthrown leader is nimble enough to evade arrest/murder? > Giving her support of a particular candidate is not "orchestrating" any coup. Please, let's be real. If Lavrov were caught saying things like "Trump should be President over Desantis. Let's keep Desantis out of government for now. Also let's be discreet about this. Putin is on board." and then all of that actually happened, like Desantis dropped out and endorsed Trump, what do you think the American reaction would be? Some Americans even believe that something like this happened in 2016 ("Russiagate conspiracy theory"), but there is scant evidence to support it. In reality, Trump was impeached over far less evidence. We can debate semantics over the preferred definition of coup, but the bottom line is there was extraordinarily blatant foreign interference in Ukraine's democratic process, and the US government clearly played a central role and achieved their goals.
    - nabakin 3y ago
      > under threat of lethal violence I can see how it can be called a coup because of the protesters' violence and arguing that difference is pretty pedantic so I have no problem with that. The main point I was making was in response to you confidently claiming Nuland orchestrated the coup. I don't think the call shows evidence of that. They only talk about coordinating their support for a candidate. > If Lavrov were caught saying things like "Trump should be President over Desantis. Let's keep Desantis out of government for now. Also let's be discreet about this. Putin is on board." and then all of that actually happened, like Desantis dropped out and endorsed Trump, what do you think the American reaction would be? If DeSantis dropped out because of Putin, it would be Russian influence again but on another level. Going to war level. DeSantis and Trump would be traitors and Russian co-conspirators, but I'm not sure if it would be a coup. Although I'm sure some would say that, the fact he was voted in would remain. There is something to be said for manipulating the electoral process to a degree where it can't be called democratic, such as the situation in Russia at the moment where Putin's potential electoral opponents are jailed, killed, scared off, or oppressed to the point there is no other viable candidate to choose. So yes, I'd say there is a point where manipulating the democratic process prevents it from being fair and is unlawful and it could be considered a coup in that scenario, but I don't think the US meets that threshold here. Would you call every other leader selection process where the US has given their support for a candidate a coup? I agree it is wrong and shouldn't be done, but do you really think it qualifies as a coup? The US caused a coup in Panama when it bombed their infrastructure, invaded, and took their leader under arrest. The US caused a coup in Iraq when it invaded. The US caused a coup in Iran when it staged riots, paid off journalists, and paid off generals resulting in a change of leadership. There are many more examples of this, but all that was shown here was Nuland coordinated US support for a candidate. That's not enough. You said the US orchestrated the coup so confidently and absolutely as if it was another one of these scenarios. It was a call for coordinating and exercising the US' influence on Ukraine. Not a coup though. > We can debate semantics over the preferred definition of coup, but the bottom line is there was extraordinarily blatant foreign interference in Ukraine's democratic process, and the US government clearly played a central role and achieved their goals. Unfortunately semantics is where we have gone. The call does not show the US orchestrated any coup. That's a significant mischaracterization. Influenced? Yes. Interfered with? By talking to their politicians, probably. Orchestrated the overthrow of their government? No. I could definitely see the US actually being behind the coup though. They've shamelessly done it countless times throughout history. It's just nothing out there so far is evidence of it.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    There's a relatively reasonable timeline of the coup available here. [1] And it was a coup in the most classical definition of the word. The military began refusing to carry out government orders, entire regional police departments were defecting to the protesters, cities were openly refusing to recognize the government, and so on. Had Yanukovych stayed, he would likely have been killed, with or without a Ceaușescu style kangaroo court. And if you want to see the sparking of the coup, this [2] is a video of John McCain (who was working alongside Nuland) instigating and emboldening the protesters, "America is with you. Europe is with you. The destiny you seek lies in Europe!" At the same time this was happening, Nuland was on the ground with protesters, memed as 'handing out cookies.' Try to imagine something comparable happening in America. Imagine America was a relatively weak nation, and you had e.g. leading politicians from China out there rallying the protesters in DC, telling them that "China is with you! The destiny you seek lies in China!" That is going to not only dramatically embolden the existing protesters, but also draw out people from everywhere in the country who start thinking 'this could be it.' And indeed it was "it." [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#Detailed_timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#Detailed... [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg
    - nabakin 3y ago
      I can see how it can be called a coup because of the protesters' violence and arguing that difference is pretty pedantic so I have no problem with that. The main point I was making was in response to the person confidently claiming Nuland orchestrated the coup. I don't think the call shows evidence of that. They only talk about coordinating their support for a candidate. > And if you want to see the sparking of the coup, this [2] is a video of John McCain (who was working alongside Nuland) instigating and emboldening the protesters, "America is with you. Europe is with you. The destiny you seek lies in Europe!" At the same time this was happening, Nuland was on the ground with protesters, memed as 'handing out cookies.' I've seen this mentioned before. While I think it's clear who the US supported in this coup and the US was certainly trying to influence the situation, calling John McCain's speech three months before Yanukovych left, the sparking of the coup, is very disingenuous. That speech didn't cause the coup. I could definitely see the US actually being behind the coup though. They've shamelessly done it countless times throughout history. It's just nothing out there so far is evidence of it.
- peppermint_gum 3y ago
  That call happened around the time when the opposition, the government, the EU and Russia were negotiating the "Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine"[1]. The gist of the agreement was that the opposition candidate would become prime minister and Yanukovych would remain president until the elections (which didn't materialize because he fled the country). Note that there was no US at the table. Nuland and Pyatt weren't "orchestrating" anything. In fact, they were frustrated that the US wasn't participating in the talks, hence the "fuck the EU" in that call. All this leak shows is that US officials were trying to influence negotiations to which they weren't invited. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_settlement_of_political_crisis_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_settlement_of_pol...
amenhotep 3y ago
The call was leaked on the 4th of February (and apparently recorded on the 28th of January), Yanukovych fled on the 21st. The correct context is that negotiations were ongoing between Yanukovych and the Maidan organisations, with him offering Yatsenyuk the prime minister job on the 25th of January as part of a potential deal to end the protests. It's a very tired canard to call it a coup, of course, but it's important to be accurate about these details.
- nabakin 3y ago
  You're absolutely right. Thanks for the correction. I'd edit my comment but HN prevents that after a period of time.

pphysch 3y ago

Okay, she clearly orchestrated the political half of the coup. I'm not suggesting she was commanding the Maidan snipers!

nabakin 3y ago
Giving her support of a particular candidate is not "orchestrating" any coup. By that logic, the Democratic party giving support to Biden means the Democratic party enacted a coup on the US. Following the law of a country is not a coup. In order for there to be a coup, there has to be an unlawful seizure of power and that never happened. The president and his ministers left. I assume because the unrest of the people was so massive, he expected there would be a revolution. That would have been a coup, but even giving her support to a particular candidate the revolutionaries put forward, is not her causing a coup. Giving the revolutionaries weapons would be causing a coup. Sparking the revolution would be causing a coup. Getting one part of the government to overthrow the controlling part would be a coup. She did none of those things though (as far as we know). Facing the reality of having no president and having no line of succession remaining, the Ukrainian parliament selected an interim president for an interim government until a new, full president could be elected and that is what happened.
- pphysch 3y ago
  > The president and his ministers left. ...under threat of lethal violence. Their offices/residences were assaulted soon after they fled. Many people were murdered during the "protests". Is a "coup" really determined by whether the overthrown leader is nimble enough to evade arrest/murder? > Giving her support of a particular candidate is not "orchestrating" any coup. Please, let's be real. If Lavrov were caught saying things like "Trump should be President over Desantis. Let's keep Desantis out of government for now. Also let's be discreet about this. Putin is on board." and then all of that actually happened, like Desantis dropped out and endorsed Trump, what do you think the American reaction would be? Some Americans even believe that something like this happened in 2016 ("Russiagate conspiracy theory"), but there is scant evidence to support it. In reality, Trump was impeached over far less evidence. We can debate semantics over the preferred definition of coup, but the bottom line is there was extraordinarily blatant foreign interference in Ukraine's democratic process, and the US government clearly played a central role and achieved their goals.
  - nabakin 3y ago
    > under threat of lethal violence I can see how it can be called a coup because of the protesters' violence and arguing that difference is pretty pedantic so I have no problem with that. The main point I was making was in response to you confidently claiming Nuland orchestrated the coup. I don't think the call shows evidence of that. They only talk about coordinating their support for a candidate. > If Lavrov were caught saying things like "Trump should be President over Desantis. Let's keep Desantis out of government for now. Also let's be discreet about this. Putin is on board." and then all of that actually happened, like Desantis dropped out and endorsed Trump, what do you think the American reaction would be? If DeSantis dropped out because of Putin, it would be Russian influence again but on another level. Going to war level. DeSantis and Trump would be traitors and Russian co-conspirators, but I'm not sure if it would be a coup. Although I'm sure some would say that, the fact he was voted in would remain. There is something to be said for manipulating the electoral process to a degree where it can't be called democratic, such as the situation in Russia at the moment where Putin's potential electoral opponents are jailed, killed, scared off, or oppressed to the point there is no other viable candidate to choose. So yes, I'd say there is a point where manipulating the democratic process prevents it from being fair and is unlawful and it could be considered a coup in that scenario, but I don't think the US meets that threshold here. Would you call every other leader selection process where the US has given their support for a candidate a coup? I agree it is wrong and shouldn't be done, but do you really think it qualifies as a coup? The US caused a coup in Panama when it bombed their infrastructure, invaded, and took their leader under arrest. The US caused a coup in Iraq when it invaded. The US caused a coup in Iran when it staged riots, paid off journalists, and paid off generals resulting in a change of leadership. There are many more examples of this, but all that was shown here was Nuland coordinated US support for a candidate. That's not enough. You said the US orchestrated the coup so confidently and absolutely as if it was another one of these scenarios. It was a call for coordinating and exercising the US' influence on Ukraine. Not a coup though. > We can debate semantics over the preferred definition of coup, but the bottom line is there was extraordinarily blatant foreign interference in Ukraine's democratic process, and the US government clearly played a central role and achieved their goals. Unfortunately semantics is where we have gone. The call does not show the US orchestrated any coup. That's a significant mischaracterization. Influenced? Yes. Interfered with? By talking to their politicians, probably. Orchestrated the overthrow of their government? No. I could definitely see the US actually being behind the coup though. They've shamelessly done it countless times throughout history. It's just nothing out there so far is evidence of it.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  There's a relatively reasonable timeline of the coup available here. [1] And it was a coup in the most classical definition of the word. The military began refusing to carry out government orders, entire regional police departments were defecting to the protesters, cities were openly refusing to recognize the government, and so on. Had Yanukovych stayed, he would likely have been killed, with or without a Ceaușescu style kangaroo court. And if you want to see the sparking of the coup, this [2] is a video of John McCain (who was working alongside Nuland) instigating and emboldening the protesters, "America is with you. Europe is with you. The destiny you seek lies in Europe!" At the same time this was happening, Nuland was on the ground with protesters, memed as 'handing out cookies.' Try to imagine something comparable happening in America. Imagine America was a relatively weak nation, and you had e.g. leading politicians from China out there rallying the protesters in DC, telling them that "China is with you! The destiny you seek lies in China!" That is going to not only dramatically embolden the existing protesters, but also draw out people from everywhere in the country who start thinking 'this could be it.' And indeed it was "it." [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#Detailed_timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#Detailed... [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg
  - nabakin 3y ago
    I can see how it can be called a coup because of the protesters' violence and arguing that difference is pretty pedantic so I have no problem with that. The main point I was making was in response to the person confidently claiming Nuland orchestrated the coup. I don't think the call shows evidence of that. They only talk about coordinating their support for a candidate. > And if you want to see the sparking of the coup, this [2] is a video of John McCain (who was working alongside Nuland) instigating and emboldening the protesters, "America is with you. Europe is with you. The destiny you seek lies in Europe!" At the same time this was happening, Nuland was on the ground with protesters, memed as 'handing out cookies.' I've seen this mentioned before. While I think it's clear who the US supported in this coup and the US was certainly trying to influence the situation, calling John McCain's speech three months before Yanukovych left, the sparking of the coup, is very disingenuous. That speech didn't cause the coup. I could definitely see the US actually being behind the coup though. They've shamelessly done it countless times throughout history. It's just nothing out there so far is evidence of it.
peppermint_gum 3y ago
That call happened around the time when the opposition, the government, the EU and Russia were negotiating the "Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine"[1]. The gist of the agreement was that the opposition candidate would become prime minister and Yanukovych would remain president until the elections (which didn't materialize because he fled the country). Note that there was no US at the table. Nuland and Pyatt weren't "orchestrating" anything. In fact, they were frustrated that the US wasn't participating in the talks, hence the "fuck the EU" in that call. All this leak shows is that US officials were trying to influence negotiations to which they weren't invited. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_settlement_of_political_crisis_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_settlement_of_pol...

amenhotep 3y ago

The call was leaked on the 4th of February (and apparently recorded on the 28th of January), Yanukovych fled on the 21st. The correct context is that negotiations were ongoing between Yanukovych and the Maidan organisations, with him offering Yatsenyuk the prime minister job on the 25th of January as part of a potential deal to end the protests. It's a very tired canard to call it a coup, of course, but it's important to be accurate about these details.

nabakin 3y ago
You're absolutely right. Thanks for the correction. I'd edit my comment but HN prevents that after a period of time.