Confused about Ukraine? I am. Some Sources.
This one is critical of the US and Obama's policies.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine_violence
Here is a pretty balanced discussion among experts on the Ukraine. I like Snyder's statement at the conclusion but then it may not really be so easy to achieve his recommendation which is very genersl.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/24/a_coup_or_a_revolution_ukraine
Anyway, those are a couple of sources with ideas and facts to think about in trying to understand what is going on there. It's pretty complex. Finally it comes down to the people of Ukraine.
One thing that was said was that protestors tend to be extremists. Moderates tend not to go out into the streets. Thus, if we simply assume that the protestors represent the views or can best protect the interests of most Ukrainians, we may be making a big mistake. On the other hand, the conduct of the government, and not just toward the protestors has, as in many countries, been very corrupt and not necessarily focused on the interests of the people of Ukraine.
Apparently Russia is demanding changes in the Ukraine's government that would lead to more repression.
There have been posts on DU about Victoria Nuland's alleged meddling in Ukrainian affairs by suggesting specifically which individuals would serve well in the government and which not. I'm not sure I agree that she and the American ambassador were meddling in internal Ukrainian affairs. That depends on how much influence they could potentially have in the formatin of that government. I don't think that the US is in a position to manipulate the events in the Ukraine to the extent that the US can decide who does or does not get included in the Ukraine's government.
So, it is interesting to follow this, but the facts and issues are so complex, the motivations and capacities of various countries and individuals so uncertain that I for one will follow this but not condemn the conduct of any of the parties involved. Except, that if it is true that Putin is suggesting the curtailment and silencing of the democratic impulses, I disagree with him. When you crush civil liberties, you crush creativity and the ability to solve problems. That is never helpful.
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)dollar mansion, he had a huge collection of antique and rare cars. He had a private zoo. All in a country where the average worker can barely even get by.
I'm not the least bit confused. He needed to go. Time will tell whether those who replace him are better but no one should doubt that his was not a good government.
LuvNewcastle
(16,847 posts)I don't know who is the best person(s) to lead that country right now, but I know it isn't him.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Thanks. The problem is, "what now?"
And how will Russia, the European Union and the US resolve their differences about what is happening. Did you watch the videos? They are very interesting. They second one briefly, i think toward the end, points out the corruption in the regime that has just been ended.
The problem is that the Ukraine has a process for ending the term of an elected president prematurely. That was not followed. So there is a question about how that elected official should have been impeached and convicted.
The point as the speaker at the end of the second video explains, is to establish a legitimate government in the Ukraine that governs by the law. He suggests well supervised elections. That is the Western model. It sounds good. But government by mob rule is never good. Now we have mobs on both sides out in the streets, taking buildings and causing violence. The police then take advantage of any excuse to escalate the violence. That is not the rule of law. Not by the mobs. Not by the police.
So, it is important to get a balanced view of the issues. Susan Rice sounds good on this. So does Obama. But the proof is in what is done, not in what is said. I hope that Nuland will learn from this to speak thoughtfully even in personal conversations on electronic media in the future.