Ukraine IV: Putin for Nobel Peace Prize

[Gneisenau]

No, but they had a nuclear weapons programme, which they gave up in return for diplomatic normalisation and, allegedly, security guarantees.

Non binding security guarantees ?

[snake]

Snake,

Ukraine gave up its nukes based upon the trilateral "security assurances" of the US, UK, and Russia. Worked out well for Ukraine didn't it?

No it didn't. All the big guys are doing is showing the little guys that you need a deterrent to stop the bullies from doing what they like with you. Right now that deterrent is nuclear weapons.

But then they'll hit you with sanctions and economic isolation. lol

[Altherion]

Non binding security guarantees ?

Undocumented security guarantees. In retrospect, this was a monumentally stupid thing to do.

[snake]

Undocumented security guarantees. In retrospect, this was a monumentally stupid thing to do.

I doubt having documented security guarantees would have made much of a difference.

[Miodrag]

One should note why Ukraine's economic treaties with Russia were under threat if they signed the agreement with the EU. You make it sound as if the treaty asked Ukraine to break established economic ties with Russia, when the latter was the one who had made it clear that they would raise custom duties for imports of Ukrainian goods if that happened. That's why backing off from the deal for the moment was not necessarily a wrong call: Russia was blackmailing them, and the EU was unwilling to pay Ukraine more in oder to compensate.

It's important to also keep in mind that the decision not to sign the treaty came pretty apruptly. Basically, until that point it had been considered a foregone conclusion that the deal would happen.

Russia wanted to butt in and renegotiate a finalised bilateral agreement in trilateral talks that involved them. The EU wasn't keen on that.

Here is the EU statement released before the Vilnius summit.

I'm not saying EU's decision to refuse some kind of compromise with Kiev/Moscow/whoever is necessarily a bad deal for EU. For all I know, EU may have legitimate concerns about their own market which they have to protect. What's problematic is the ultimatum I was talking about. And the ultimatum included not only a "take it or leave it" stance against Ukraine, but also the typical EU blackmailing: if you don't sign it now, then you'll never be able to get back on the track of EU integration. And when such an arrogant EU attitude is concerned, Serbia unfortunately has a vast experience of it's own that can attest to that. Our government, like governments of other Balkans states, is constantly being treated that way (but, unfortunately, never found the courage to reply with a simple 'no'), which is why in November some critics and columnists from here wrote that EU foolishly confused Kiev with Belgrade and deluded itself into thinking that the former would succumb to the blackmail just like the latter always do. Of course they're not going to blackmail anyone in official statement, so the wording of their press releases is hardly any evidence of their true intentions and attitudes, but even in the statement you provided, if you read closely and between the lines, you'll see in effect they're saying to Ukraine that it can't keep it's trade agreements with Russia if it is to sign a deal with EU (except the first paragraph, the rest is essentially saying: trust us that on the long run you'll be better off with us than with Russia). And again, it's in EU's rights to pose such a condition, just like Kiev was in it's rights to finally refuse it.

Not sure how did you come up with Russia blackmailing anybody, to be honest. Especially seeing how hard you try to deny any possibility that EU was the one doing the blackmailing. EU's logic to refuse anything Moscow and/or Kiev offered may be the right one from EU's perspective, but it doesn't necessarily mean Kiev was any less logical in refusing "take it or leave it" offer from EU, nor that Kiev's refusal was a result of a pressure from Kremlin.

And no, the decision didn't come abruptly, because Kiev stated their misgivings weeks before the summit in Vilnius (which is when the blackmailing over further EU integration chances started). But even if it was abrupt, so what? Even in that case, no harm's done to EU. Even if Ukraine changed the mind in the very last moment, EU wasn't worse off than before. A significant part of Ukrainians obviously thought their country is going to be worse off, which is why they started to protest (I'm talking ordinary, decent protesters), but what's that got to do with EU?! And, also, it's not like EU found out only yesterday about Ukraine's agreements with Russia, or how difficult for Ukraine it might be to turn their back on those deals.

This is the part where somebody should come up with solid proof that the EU and/or the US were behind the mass protests, otherwise it just sounds like tinfoil hat stuff.

Just the aggressive, open support for the protests by Western diplomats was a strong indication. When protests happen in US or in EU countries, are foreign ministers running there to spend the night with protesters and feed them? Of course not. Nor would they be allowed.

The presence of Marko Ivkovic, of whom I wrote about earlier today, is also a strong indication. He wasn't ordered out of Ukraine for no reason, especially because at the end everything went down the way he advised Yatsenyuk and the rest of Majdan leaders (just to remind you, he was advising them to provoke violence and death, cause otherwise they won't be able to overthrow the government - that is the reason he was expelled from the country). Stephen Cohen wrote and talked about West's involvement. Counterpunch minutely wrote about the chronology of Western involvement in Ukraine (the intercepted correspondence between Klitschko and a Lithuanian guy is especially interesting).

But, all this may be not solid enough for you. OK, fine. Tell me then: you really think Victoria Nuland came out of the blue? After you listen through that leaked conversation she had with Pyat, and after you consider that everything ended exactly according to her desires expressed in that conversation, do you really think that was the first and/or the only time she was orchestrating the Majdan events? Do you really think she just got lucky with the way the new regime turned out at the end? Or you think she simply jumped in in he middle of the protest, and the leaders of the protest just stepped aside and let her handle everything from then on? Did you see the way the Polish minister talks to Majdan leaders? Do you, after that, really have any doubt about who was in charge there? When was the last time we saw a foreign minister of another country addresses the opposition leaders so aggressively (before noticing cameras are recording him, of course, after which she hurriedly run away)?

Solid proof? What do you expect: a Deep Throat? A copy of written orders from Washington (before Wikileaks, I wouldn't rule that one out entirely, to be honest)? Everything that was revealed so far, does it really amount to nothing? What would've happen if Russian or Chinese or Ecuadorean diplomats were caught conducting themselves like that in a foreign country?! How many times US and EU governments have to be caught lying, in order to loose at least some credibility in the your eyes?

As if we aren't on ASOIAF portal. Think Tywin Lannister, and how he wasn't exactly involved in the Red Wedding business: that is exactly how US/EU weren't behind Majdan. In fact, come to think on it, Tywin was much better in covering his tracks than US/EU.

[arya_underfoot]

Just the aggressive, open support for the protests by Western diplomats was a strong indication. When protests happen in US or in EU countries, are foreign ministers running there to spend the night with protesters and feed them? Of course not. Nor would they be allowed.

The presence of Marko Ivkovic, of whom I wrote about earlier today, is also a strong indication. He wasn't ordered out of Ukraine for no reason, especially because at the end everything went down the way he advised Yatsenyuk and the rest of Majdan leaders (just to remind you, he was advising them to provoke violence and death, cause otherwise they won't be able to overthrow the government - that is the reason he was expelled from the country). Stephen Cohen wrote and talked about West's involvement. Counterpunch minutely wrote about the chronology of Western involvement in Ukraine (the intercepted correspondence between Klitschko and a Lithuanian guy is especially interesting).

But, all this may be not solid enough for you. OK, fine. Tell me then: you really think Victoria Nuland came out of the blue? After you listen through that leaked conversation she had with Pyat, and after you consider that everything ended exactly according to her desires expressed in that conversation, do you really think that was the first and/or the only time she was orchestrating the Majdan events? Do you really think she just got lucky with the way the new regime turned out at the end? Or you think she simply jumped in in he middle of the protest, and the leaders of the protest just stepped aside and let her handle everything from then on? Did you see the way the Polish minister talks to Majdan leaders? Do you, after that, really have any doubt about who was in charge there? When was the last time we saw a foreign minister of another country addresses the opposition leaders so aggressively (before noticing cameras are recording him, of course, after which she hurriedly run away)?

Solid proof? What do you expect: a Deep Throat? A copy of written orders from Washington (before Wikileaks, I wouldn't rule that one out entirely, to be honest)? Everything that was revealed so far, does it really amount to nothing? What would've happen if Russian or Chinese or Ecuadorean diplomats were caught conducting themselves like that in a foreign country?! How many times US and EU governments have to be caught lying, in order to loose at least some credibility in the your eyes?

As if we aren't on ASOIAF portal. Think Tywin Lannister, and how he wasn't exactly involved in the Red Wedding business: that is exactly how US/EU weren't behind Majdan. In fact, come to think on it, Tywin was much better in covering his tracks than US/EU.

Sorry mate, everything you've written is conjecture and doesn't address the question. There has been no credible evidence presented that the EU or its allies have organised the Maidan protests.

I do agree with your earlier point about EU blackmail though. Their behaviour was rather cynical and no doubt contributed to Putin's decision to invade.

[bbstark]

I would never say that blackmail of some sort, or bullying or coercion is beneath the EU (behind closed doors of course), however when you start a search for the so-called truth, and nothing even remotely legitimate turns up to even slightly corroborate a theory, then just perhaps it's no more than speculation?

So I find it a tall order to believe the EU is behind the Maidan protests just because it may be "likely", and it may be in their interests.

I also don't think the people of Ukraine will regret these protests. Russia isn't just a large, inscrutable neighbor to Ukraine that occasionally comes over for coffee, it's a neighbor that has moved in unannounced, and helped themselves to some free goodies. There's some ancient tensions there that are unlikely to be fixed if Ukraine remains under Russia's thumb

[Jon AS]

I'm not saying EU's decision to refuse some kind of compromise with Kiev/Moscow/whoever is necessarily a bad deal for EU. For all I know, EU may have legitimate concerns about their own market which they have to protect. What's problematic is the ultimatum I was talking about. And the ultimatum included not only a "take it or leave it" stance against Ukraine, but also the typical EU blackmailing: if you don't sign it now, then you'll never be able to get back on the track of EU integration.

I don't know where you get this from. A source would be nice, particularly a primary one as the one I quoted which explicitly contradicts what you are saying here.

What happened was that, after not signing the agreement, the Ukrainian leadership wanted to renegotiate. In particular, they wanted more money. At the same time, Russia was apparently threatening negative consequences if the agreement was signed (as the Yanukovych government themselves said) while also waving the carrot of financial aid at Ukraine. The EU called this a bidding war which they refused to be drawn into.

I can't find any indication of the EU threatening that Ukraine was heading down a one way street by not signing the agreement. In fact the official statement said the exact opposite.

Of course they're not going to blackmail anyone in official statement, so the wording of their press releases is hardly any evidence of their true intentions and attitudes, but even in the statement you provided, if you read closely and between the lines, you'll see in effect they're saying to Ukraine that it can't keep it's trade agreements with Russia if it is to sign a deal with EU

However the European Union will not force Ukraine, or any other partner, to choose between the European Union or any other regional entity.

[...]

Stronger relations with the European Union do not come at the expense of relations between our Eastern partners and their other neighbours, such as Russia.

[...]

The Eastern Partnershipis conceived as a win-win where we all stand to gain. The European Union continues to stand ready to clarify to the Russian Federation the mutual beneficial impact of increased trade and exchanges with our neighbours, whilst fully respecting the sovereignty and independence of our Eastern Partners and the bilateral nature of Association Agreement and DCFTAs.

The one thing I can read between the lines there is the emphasis on the bilateral nature of the agreement. As in: an agreement between the EU and Ukraine, one where Russia can't just expect to be involved simply because they used to rule Eastern Europe.

Apart from that I see mostly the exact opposite of what you claim to read from this document.

But, all this may be not solid enough for you. OK, fine. Tell me then: you really think Victoria Nuland came out of the blue? After you listen through that leaked conversation she had with Pyat, and after you consider that everything ended exactly according to her desires expressed in that conversation, do you really think that was the first and/or the only time she was orchestrating the Majdan events?

Okay, at least we've narrowed it down to the idea that it was the US, not the EU behind this (since Nuland wanted to cut the EU out of the process; that whole "fuck the EU" thing).

Did you see the way the Polish minister talks to Majdan leaders?

The bit where he warned them that if they didn't compromise they'd be killed?

Do you, after that, really have any doubt about who was in charge there?

Considering that the compromise agreement was not enacted and the radicals more or less got their way, it does not appear to have been Sikorski.

Russia was kinda miffed about this, by the way, and accused the EU foreign ministers involved in the compromise agreement of not meddling enough, that they should have put more pressure on the opposition to make sure the agreement was put into effect.

[Werthead]

While I think saving face is part of it, I think that broadly Putin had a plan to gather a "Eurasian" alliance about him to balance against the EU, and Ukraine was the centerpiece of that. When his puppet regime fell apart, he reacted, but I think he overplayed his hand with the Crimean occupation. And now he seems to have shot himself in the foot -- he's taken hostile action against a country he was hoping to turn into a junior partner, and if he actually does annex Crimea he'll have eliminated a a reliably pro-Russian region from the Ukrainian polity.

Indeed. Russia's response to this crisis is becoming more and more incoherent and skittish, and I think it's clear they haven't entirely thought it through. They've also badly underestimated just how much economic havoc the West can wreck on them if they choose: it's interesting that the, "What sanctions could hurt us?" attitude abruptly vanished after the stock market crashed and it was pointed out that a lot of Russian billionaires could be a lot poorer if their European assets were seized. The Russian musings on invading all of Eastern Ukraine as well seemed to die down about the same time.

It looks like the current spin is that Putin will 'liberate' Crimea and return it to the motherland and declare a victory, whilst hoping no-one notices that rest of Ukraine being lost to the EU sphere of influence. The only danger is if Putin decides that's a bit too obvious and is inspired to try to move into Eastern Ukraine after all, but that seems less likely now.

[Miodrag]

@arya_underfoot

@bbstark

Perhaps you'll have an easier time understanding what I'm talking about if you hear about former US ambassador to Serbia William Dale Montgomery, who quite openly and frequently talked about US involvement in removing Serbian government in 2000. In a TV documentary about those events, that was aired on our national television, Montgomery confirmed that USA gave "much more than 100 million dollars" to Serbian opposition and that they were training opposition activists in Budapest, where they established a headquarter of a kind for bringing down Serbian regime. Opposition leaders also confirmed all of this (after they ceased to be opposition and became the new authorities, of course). Here's a link to an English translation of an interview Montgomery gave to Nacional magazine from Croatia (where he also served as an ambassador). It's a long piece though, so, if you don't want to read the whole thing, I'll quote the most interesting part:

Nacional: About 20 days ago RTS (Serbian state broadcaster) aired a documentary called The Final Clash, about the events on October 5, 2000. In that documentary you said that you helped bring in more than USD 100mn into Serbia in order to topple Milošević.

Montgomery: I don’t want to comment on the amount of money. I actually don’t know how much money was really spent. I can only say that the U.S. thought that Milošević had to fall, that he was a big source of instability in the entire region. One of the ways to achieve that was to develop the civil society, especially independent media and associations such as GONG. A democratic alternative to Milošević’s regime needed to be strengthened by all means. For example, we gave special cell phones to key political leaders of the opposition which were working during the protests independently from the Serbian telecommunications network.

There are numerous other proofs that the Serbian opposition was financed, organized, trained and otherwise helped throughout the 1990s by USA (and EU, to a smaller extent). The leaders of the opposition themselves are constantly talking about it. And the US/EU influence unfortunately didn't end there: as Wikileaks documents showed, American embassy in Belgrade was effectively bringing down Serbian governments it didn't like and creating Serbian governments it preferred as late as 2008 (not that they stopped then, just that Wikileaks didn't cover more recent activities).

Knowing all this, and seeing how similar to the Serbian coup these Majdan events are, and seeing Marko Ivkovic (a Serbian coup veteran and NDI collaborator) operating there in the capacity of Yatsenyuk's 'adviser' at the beginning of this mess, and remembering that two Serbian activists (revolutionaries for hire) were expelled from Ukraine the previous time protests of this kind occurred there, in 2004... there isn't a shadow of a doubt in my mind that Majdan was financed and organized with an enormous help from the West. If Nuland's tape wasn't a smoking gun, if you require some even stronger evidence that the role of US/EU is much different than what they're saying, here's an advice: just wait. They're not too smart, and certainly not as much as they think they are. Very soon they or their Majdan collaborators will start bragging about what they've done there. In no time they'll start giving each other a pat on the back, and it tends to reveal a lot of nasty details. But the biggest revelations are going to happen when the honey moon passes, and Majdan leaders start fighting among themselves. And it's going to happen. Inevitably. It always happens. Then, just pay attention to what Klitshko is going to say about Yatsenyuk or Tyagnibok, for example, just pay attention when they start arguing who took more money from US/EU, when they start blabbing about all the things they're hiding now.

Unfortunately, chances are you won't be thinking about nor following Ukraine any more. You'll be focused on some other crisis in another part of the world, Middle East or Latin America or Balkans or somewhere, a crisis that once again you won't believe was in any way orchestrated by US/EU.

[Kungsmurfen]

Vice dispatch five from Crimea.

[Miodrag]

I don't know where you get this from. A source would be nice, particularly a primary one as the one I quoted which explicitly contradicts what you are saying here.

What happened was that, after not signing the agreement, the Ukrainian leadership wanted to renegotiate. In particular, they wanted more money. At the same time, Russia was apparently threatening negative consequences if the agreement was signed (as the Yanukovych government themselves said) while also waving the carrot of financial aid at Ukraine. The EU called this a bidding war which they refused to be drawn into.

I can't find any indication of the EU threatening that Ukraine was heading down a one way street by not signing the agreement. In fact the official statement said the exact opposite.

It's interesting that, in the "EU Observer" you linked, the first line is in a stark contrast with the rest of the article. "Ukraine has said it will not sign a strategic EU treaty next week, blaming its move on Russian pressure." - that is the first line. Later on, however, a unnamed diplomat is quoted that it all appears to be Yanukovych's attempt to fool everyone involved:

"He wants to represent himself as a victim. He said today in Vienna that he wants to continue with euro-integration … But what he really wants is for the EU and the IMF [international Monetary Fund] to keep giving him money in the name of stopping Russia, so that he can win the next elections," the source said.

What's more, nowhere is Ukraine "blaming its move on Russian pressure". Carl Bildt is, but that's another matter and far from an unbiased or reliable source. Care to explain how did the author came up with Ukraine that is "blaming its move on Russian pressure"?

Not to mention that right there, from the very start, you clearly see EU treating it as a crisis. What for? How is that a crisis? One country decided not to proceed with signing a document that can potentially hurt it. Are countries allowed to decide against signing an agreement before they actually sign it? There were no protests at that moment. Kiev's move could've been proved smart or stupid, but nobody was harmed. After Kiev decided against signing, nobody was worse off than before. What crisis were those people talking about back then?! And what's more, some other countries made the same decision as Ukraine: are there any crisis there? How come? What makes Ukraine so special for EU?

Seeing this kind of articles, I'm not surprised anymore that Western public is so misinformed about the rest of the world. And, by the way, one think this article appears to be denying, is your previous remark that Kiev's move came abruptly. "Another EU diplomat said it has been clear for months Ukraine was planning to ditch the pact." And, if you think about it, isn't is a little suspicious that "it has been clear for months" that Ukraine doesn't want to halt its deals with Russia even if it means rejecting EU integration, but that EU itself didn't make any attempt to find some kind of compromise, before it suddenly, when there was nothing to be done any more, started treating it as a crisis?

The one thing I can read between the lines there is the emphasis on the bilateral nature of the agreement. As in: an agreement between the EU and Ukraine, one where Russia can't just expect to be involved simply because they used to rule Eastern Europe.

Apart from that I see mostly the exact opposite of what you claim to read from this document.

Kiev made it clear that they don't want to halt trade agreements with Russia. EU said those deals are not allowed by EU standards or laws or whatever. Fine, EU is naturally entitled to hold that position. Kiev then proposed some sort of compromise may be found (traces of that can be seen in that statement from November 21 by then Prime Minister Mykola Azaraov: "It also proposed the creation of a new EU-Russia-Ukraine "trade commission" to promote economic ties"), but, as we know now, EU refused that. Again, EU's right. Ukraine asked for some special treatment there, and EU refused. No problem. So, where's the crisis coming from then? Again, why was EU treating Kiev's decision as a starting point for a crisis, especially because at the moment there was no crisis at all?

Okay, at least we've narrowed it down to the idea that it was the US, not the EU behind this (since Nuland wanted to cut the EU out of the process; that whole "fuck the EU" thing).

Can you 'cut from the process' someone who isn't already involved, or at the very least isn't planing to become involved, in the process?!

The bit where he warned them that if they didn't compromise they'd be killed?

Once again you're ignoring the most important aspect: Is that the way to talk to an opposition leaders you supposedly came to help?! Is there any similar example that we know of? Are they imbeciles so he has to spell them everything, even when their bare lives are at stake? Did that conversation really strike you as an exchange between two sides that fully respect each other?! And not to mention his subsequent 'explanations' of the incident, which are laughable, to say the least.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kungsmurfen, (Snake),

Sounds like the Russian authorities, per that report, are trying to provoke a response from the Ukrainian military so that they can convert this into South Ossetia.

[Jon AS]

What's more, nowhere is Ukraine "blaming its move on Russian pressure". Carl Bildt is, but that's another matter and far from an unbiased or reliable source. Care to explain how did the author came up with Ukraine that is "blaming its move on Russian pressure"?

Well it came following meetings between Yanukovych and Putin as well as Azarov and Medvedev. There's also that quote about "national security" in the article itself.

Russia had also already hit Ukrainian goods with import restrictions, and openly told anyone who would listen that signing the EU deal would have catastrophic consequences for the country.

Let's try some more quotes (from The Guardian in this case):

The Kremlin aide added that the political and social cost of EU integration could also be high, and allowed for the possibility of separatist movements springing up in the Russian-speaking east and south of Ukraine. He suggested that if Ukraine signed the agreement, Russia would consider the bilateral treaty that delineates the countries' borders to be void.

Gotta love how Russia laid the groundwork for the "self defence units" story and the possibility of redrawing the boarders back in September.

Some more on that:

"We don't want to use any kind of blackmail. This is a question for the Ukrainian people," said Glazyev. "But legally, signing this agreement about association with EU, the Ukrainian government violates the treaty on strategic partnership and friendship with Russia." When this happened, he said, Russia could no longer guarantee Ukraine's status as a state and could possibly intervene if pro-Russian regions of the country appealed directly to Moscow.

"Blackmail" is such an ugly word, but if you don't do what we tell you, we might just make sure your country ceases to exist.

Not to mention that right there, from the very start, you clearly see EU treating it as a crisis. What for?

Russia intervening in this manner isn't seen as a particular desirable, particularly by eastern EU members. So, not a crisis per se, but not something you want to see become a habit. You don't want to have Russia in the room, implicitly or explicitly, every time you talk to a country that used to be part of the Soviet Union.

Seeing this kind of articles, I'm not surprised anymore that Western public is so misinformed about the rest of the world.

Well, I'm actually trying to find an article that substantiates your claim that the EU put a now-or-never kind of ultimatum to the Ukrainian government. The more I looked, the further I seemed to be getting from reputable news sources.

The best fit I've found so far was Füle commenting that Ukraine becoming part of the Eurasian Economic Community would make the EU agreement impossible, as Ukraine would have ceded control over tariffs to a supranational body which would make fulfilling the agreed upon conditions impossible.

And, by the way, one think this article appears to be denying, is your previous remark that Kiev's move came abruptly. "Another EU diplomat said it has been clear for months Ukraine was planning to ditch the pact."

Oh yeah, I found that interesting. Not sure what to make of it, a number of people (particularly those reporting on it) certainly seemed to be taken somewhat by surprise.

In hindsight, given the stuff Russia had gotten up to (and how thoroughly corrupt the Yanukovych government apparently was), maybe it really wasn't that surprising.

Again, why was EU treating Kiev's decision as a starting point for a crisis, especially because at the moment there was no crisis at all?

My impression is that, at the time, a lot of the noise came about because Ukraine bowed out at the last minute. Even if some insiders were convinced it wasn't going to happen anyway, Yanukovych waited until a few weeks before the summit to make his intentions clear. This whole thing was supposed to be the big highlight of Lithuania's EU presidency, and suddenly it turned into an empty meeting. The Russian sabre rattling probably didn't help, particularly for the eastern EU member states.

Can you 'cut from the process' someone who isn't already involved, or at the very least isn't planing to become involved, in the process?!

So Steinmeier and Sikorski weren't involved? You just used Sikorski's involvement with the opposition as a hint for a big western conspiracy, even implying he was some kind of master mind ordering them around. You really can't have it both ways here.

ETA: Oh, misread that last bit. So it's not one but two conspiracies, working at cross-puposes? And the US came out on top?

Edited to fix quotes

[Ghjhero]

Kungsmurfen, (Snake),

Sounds like the Russian authorities, per that report, are trying to provoke a response from the Ukrainian military so that they can convert this into South Ossetia.

If they keep it up, sooner or later someone is bound to break and when they do things will get much worse.

[Miodrag]

<snip>

Here's once again a link to Stephen Cohen explaining the mess West made in Ukraine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z6_5Vd8R5M

At 6:02, he starts talking about the moment I'm talking about: when EU said Kiev has to choose between EU and Russia. What Cohen also says is: "It wasn't reported here". If it really wasn't, it goes great lengths in explaining why there aren't English sources for the ultimatum I'm talking about. And it wouldn't be the first nor the only omission of that kind. I guess you weren't informed about Marko Ivkovic (an 'adviser' to Yatsenyuk that was expelled from Ukraine in early December because of his radical plans for escalation of violence), just like prior to the coup I guess you weren't informed there are some fascist and neo-Nazis among Majdan leadership, and just like you weren't informed that the acting President of Ukraine Tourchynov assumed the office illegally since the Constitution declares someone else to assume the position once it is vacant.

However, the Guardian piece you provided is an interesting one, because it predates November events by two months. The piece itself is hardly a balanced one, if we consider that as early as in the second paragraph it describes Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan union as something that "critics have referred to as a reincarnation of the Soviet Union". I mean, if critics have referred to that way, than it has to be nothing but the truth, and Kremlin is back on its imperial track once again! And also, how dares Moscow to "lure its neighbours into its own alliance"? Really: lure? Was EU also luring Ukraine into its own alliance? But OK, let's put all those mean details aside, and focus on the quote you found crucial too:

"We don't want to use any kind of blackmail. This is a question for the Ukrainian people," said Glazyev. "But legally, signing this agreement about association with EU, the Ukrainian government violates the treaty on strategic partnership and friendship with Russia." When this happened, he said, Russia could no longer guarantee Ukraine's status as a state and could possibly intervene if pro-Russian regions of the country appealed directly to Moscow.

Let's concentrate on the part I emphasized. Is it true that legally the agreement with EU violates the treaty with Russia? From what I know, it is. And not even Guardian seems to be denying that, so we can safely assume it is true. Let's go through everything again. On one side, there is a signed agreement between Russia and Ukraine that serves both countries. On the other side, there is an agreement EU offers, an agreement which, if signed, legally violates the treaty with Russia. Now, if someone insists on signing the agreement with EU, he's effectively halting the treaty with Russia. Even if he isn't mentioning Russia treaty at all - just like he doesn't have to - it still makes it no less exclusive. Anyway you put it, the agreement with EU excludes and negates and violates the deal with Russia. Legally, the very proposition to sign the agreement with EU is a "choose between us and Russia" in its core. Add some usually arrogant rhetoric by EU diplomats (of which, possibly, Russian diplomats were also guilty of, though I'm yet to see an evidence for that, other than doubtful third-person quotes in biased pieces like the Guardian one), and you'll see it was an ultimatum, only not in so many words. Ask yourself what would've happen in reverse situation. Imagine, Ukraine has an agreement with EU signed years ago, and then Russia comes along and offers to Ukraine an agreement that legally violates the one with EU. Even if Russia doesn't use any aggressive or exclusive rhetoric, would it be greeted in EU as anything other than coercing Kiev? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. Would EU be regarded as bullies if in that situation it would warn Ukraine against signing the deal with Russia, or if EU would declare an intention to respond with moves that would protect its own market and its own economy? Again, pretty sure it wouldn't be the case.

Not to mention that US/EU were only threatening more and more openly as the time was passing. These are the guys that threatened an legal government of a sovereign nation with sanctions, even though the government was facing violent mob that was occupying some of government buildings. The guys that unequivocally backed (at least with some strong rhetoric and rude presence in the protests, if you want to nitpick) an opposition that was partially fascist and extreme. The guys that didn't hesitate a second to recognize the new regime in Kiev, even though no investigation about who initiated the violence was conducted (in fact, there are strong hints that the investigation is/was blocked by the very regime that took power). And we're to believe that no, they never coerced Ukraine before all this started?

Sorry, but I have to paraphrase the State Department from the other day: we are here on a web-site dedicated to an epic, gigantic saga that describes several devastating wars, and yet, the way some people here go on justifying numerous misdeeds and violations committed by US/EU could very well be the biggest fiction around. Lithuania may very well be disappointed that the big highlight of their EU presidency collapsed, but I find it very hard to think of it as a reasonable justification for all the actions of US&EU in Ukraine.

As for Sikorski, you gotta love that he was the one accusing Russia of "19th-century mode of operating towards neighbours", and then, only five months later, he was caught in such a modern, like 21th-century modern, way of operating towards opposition members of a sovereign country. How to resist an irony in that? But, that aside, nice try to make it sound like I'm fabricating some conspiracy theories. It would've been much more believable, if there wasn't for Nuland tape. Be my guest, count all the conspiracies revealed in that conversation. Just please, once again, explain to me why were they arguing about EU at all, if EU didn't have a hand in all that? How come they didn't discuss China or India or Zimbabwe, but EU, and in such a manner that I, for one, don't think it was the first time Victoria Nuland was faced with EU in regards to Ukraine?

[Velo]

Does one really need to live through this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_Poland - to understand what Sikorski was alluding to? You are making me lose faith in humanity good sir.

[snake]

Kungsmurfen, (Snake),

Sounds like the Russian authorities, per that report, are trying to provoke a response from the Ukrainian military so that they can convert this into South Ossetia.

You won't stop beating that dead horse will ya? Hahahahahaha

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Snake,

Because, the Russians would love to have an excuse to open up on the Ukranian miltary. Thankfully, the Ukrainians haven't allowed the Russians to provoke them. And that is the primary difference between Crimea and South Ossetia.

[Ghjhero]

Snake,

Because, the Russians would love to have an excuse to open up on the Ukranian miltary. Thankfully, the Ukrainians haven't allowed the Russians to provoke them. And that is the primary difference between Crimea and South Ossetia.

Not yet anyways.