"Savchenko released" Topic

YouTube link

Russia has freed jailed Ukrainian pilot Nadiya Savchenko, who became a symbol of resistance against Moscow.

"I am free," Savchenko told a crowd of reporters and politicians as she arrived in Kiev as part of a prisoner swap with two alleged Russian agents.

Savchenko was pardoned by Russian President Vladimir Putin before her return to Ukraine. Mr Putin said he had acted after meeting relatives of the two Russian journalists, who had asked him to show mercy to Savchenko.

She was showcased by the Russians in a sham trial, glad she's been freed. Too bad they had to free 2 Russian provacateurs for the deal though.

She was captured before the two Russian journalists were killed (likely friendly fire), although this didn't stop the Russians from finding her guilty for murder in combat. Human Rights Watch had called the trial a travesty. Even relatives of the dead journalists didn't believe she was guilty and asked Putin to free her. Her continued imprisonment was turning into an embarrassment for Russia.

One wonders what the two Russians might have known that Putin didn't want released too. It seemed to turn mighty fast.

Well – from the humanitarian point of view I'm glad it is over.
The reality is not as glamorous as a photo in Poroshenko's twitter…more like her real looks.

My opinion – most likely she wasn't guilty in death of the journalists during this particular shelling. She was a spotter in infamous Aidar batallion, and she confirms it in the video after her initial capture. Basically she should be charged for torture and abduction of prisoners, bcs. some prisoners exchanged before her capture were accusing her of being particularly cruel during investigations. Might be very difficult to prove, though…
That's how Amnesty International describes Aidar:

" On September 8, AI released a report critical of abuses by the progovernment Aydar battalion operating in northern Luhansk oblast. The battalion was one of more than 30 volunteer groups that assisted government security forces to retake separatist-held areas. The report noted Aydar had "acquired locally a reputation for brutal reprisals, robbery, beatings, and extortion." AI criticized Aydar and other volunteer battalions for being effectively outside government lines of command and control."

As for "friendly fire" OSCE doesn't share this point of view.

The Representative has repeatedly raised the issue of attacks against members of the media in the area, including the killings of journalists Anatoliy Klyan (Russia's Perviy Kanal) in the Donetsk region on 30 June, Igor Kornelyuk and Anton Voloshin (Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company) on 17 June near Luhansk, and Italian photojournalist Andrea Rocchelli and his assistant Andrey Mironov on 24 May near Sloviansk.

"I call on Ukrainian authorities to investigate all killings and attacks on members of the media in Ukraine, and to do so swiftly and thoroughly", Mijatović said.
osce.org/fom/123140

Having said all this, I agree that she should have been released as her guilt wasn't proved at the trial.

Barin1, I may not always agree with you, but I always appreciate hearing your opinion!

I believe in your words more than those chest thumpers who post without any knowledge of history or events.

She served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and has fairly serious national heroine street cred. She will doubtless be a force in Ukranian politics for the foreseeable future.

Let us pause a second to ponder the irony of the Russian government making a fuss over the death of journalists…

Impressive. According to wikia she's qualified on the Su-24 Fencer attack jet and the Mi-24 Hind gunship.

…more like her real looks

Slightly ungentlemanly comment there, I thought she looked perfectly reasonable in both photos.

The problem is that the Russian story was, like the MH17 shoot down photo fiasco, undermined by their determination to turn it into something else for propaganda purposes, which then falls apart under scrutiny.

Undoubtedly the two journalists were killed in a shelling attack… while filming in a war zone. It's very sad, but journalists do tend to try and get themselves close to the action for the best story which on occasion gets them just a bit too close.

However rather than simply charge her with counts related to warcrimes on prisoners (which may have been difficult to sustain due to lack of anything more than hearsay evidence), they attempted to concoct a more convoluted story that had her sneaking across the border into Russia in disguise as a refugee (for an unknown purpose) some time after it was already acknowledged she had been captured by separatists (and presumably escaped) and then tried to embellish it with a bigger story that she had individually and intentionally targeted mortar fire on the two journalists, assuming she knew (a) who they were and (b) that they were actually there.

Unfortunately I think it started to look increasingly like a purely punitive political trial to the domestic audience as well as the global audience, rather than a criminal one, and the risk of her successfully dying while on hunger strike may have been a little awkward for future negotiations, hence the change of heart, although I do wonder what the two soldiers exchanged may have been in danger of revealing.

She was given a position within Ukrainian politics already, although I don't know how diplomatic she is. On the other hand if the fisticuffs start flying on the parliament floor perhaps she can kick a few asses and remind them they are supposed to be sorting things out, not making it worse.

I think she looks fine for someone who has just spent two years in a Russian prison.

Why does her looks matter anyway? Would this be brought up if she was a man?

She should be judged by her heart and the principles she stands for. She stood up for her beliefs and her country and did not back down to Russian threats. Quite commendable.

For someone who just spent two years in prison, most of it on a fairly severe hunger strike, I think she looks to be in remarkably good condition

Indeed … Unless Russian prisons are now like Club Med ?

…a few weeks before the European Union decides whether to extend sanctions against Russia imposed over its support of the rebels

Well there you go ;-)

Allegedly the two captured Russians had admitted to being Russian Special Forces. They acknowledged being Russian servicemen and said they were on a reconnaissance mission, despite their country saying they had resigned from active duty. Their return seems to have received very little media attention, according to Al Jazeera, suggesting perhaps explaining why they were there in the first place might be a little awkward.

And when picking photos, you always show the one that makes you look good:

Not the ones that catch you mid-expression:

Barin's image of Nadiya was taken from her rather defiant speech at Boryspil airport where she kind of had some subtle digs at a few people:

YouTube link

Sadly for her, she is now a symbol of Ukraine and they will probably do everything they can to keep her from the front line in case she is now killed in action.

Savchenko release will not affect the sanctions, so this has nothing to do with it. EU wants "full implementation of Minsk agreement" and we have discussed to death that all sides of a conflict see this implementation through their own glasses.

Trial of Savchenko was PR disaster and made a heroine out of her. I hope the one who decided this was a good idea will be send to lead prosecution in faraway and cold place like Yakutia ;)

The talks of exchange were in for several months, and to do this Ukraine had to finish the trial of Erofeev and Alexandrov (which was going very slow, as their defence attorney was killed, etc) then they had to decline to appeal, and then ask for pardon. Savchenko refused to appeal, so this point was clear, but she also had to ask for pardon (and she was refusing to do it). In the end when all the prerequisities were met, the exchange moved forward…

Savchenko is already a deputy of PACE and Ukrainian parliament, but not in presidential block. She was very cold with Timoshenko, her party leader, and this gives hope to Poroshenko to use her to boost his falling popularity. However she will be following her own agenda I guess…

Savchenko release will not affect the sanctions

I suspect it was partly viewed as a sweetener

Savchenko refused to appeal, so this point was clear, but she also had to ask for pardon (and she was refusing to do it)

Not sure she asked for it. I think the families of the journalists requested it.

However she will be following her own agenda I guess…

I think her own agenda is to go back to the front line and fight. I suspect she is now far too valuable as a propaganda tool to risk.

Maybe she should do a photo shoot for Playboy ?

I heard Playboy only does articles now!

Damn ! Yes, I now remember that … Well there is always "Maxim" …

It seems that she has now indicated that she might run for President, if that's what the people of Ukraine want. Poroshenkos popularity has been on the wane, mainly because he has not been able to get a real handle on corruption, but the current alternative who is slightly ahead in the polls is Tymoshenko. If she chooses to run, her defiance and semi-hero status could give them both a run for their money.

I say you go girl !

I hope the Ukraine electorate examines why a former member of the Rada (parliament), an experienced helicopter pilot, a qualified pilot on the SU-24/27(?) and an Iraq War veteran chose to leave all that behind and serve as an infantry soldier in the Aidar Battalion. Her publicly stated views on the conflict with Russia and her willingness to use the harshest methods to bring the southeastern separatists to heel and back under Kiev control is an indication that she maybe a fateful choice if elected to the role of president. Hopefully Ukrainians will look past the hype and ask the hard questions which need to be answered about this perplexing and intriguing individual.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Re: Geoff's last posting, we may begin to see a reason for returning Savchenko to Ukraine. Kept in a Russian prison she becomes a greater martyr. Back in Ukraine she is a potentially disruptive factor. I can't think of a better outcome for the current regime in Kiev than to have this woman as its president. Most fitting. Unlikely, but most fitting.

She may be disruptive to the current government, but they are floundering a little anyway because people want to see hard action and at the moment they are seeing a long drawn out stalemate of very expensive attrition, with rising inflation and ongoing economic instability. It could be a lose-lose scenario, keep her there and she is a martyr, let her go and she could become a firestorm.

Savchenko has been quite outspoken about Poroshenkos lack of positive action. She is a die-hard patriot of Ukraine and I f she does choose to run her hero status and harsh line will stand her in good stead with the general population, but it could well propell the country into direct positive military conflict for some time.

Like Rod, I'm a little concerned that her military background and impressive willingness to sacrifice all for the cause could outweigh her political and diplomatic experience.

I am out there again in July so J will try and get a feel from people on the ground.

St Joan, reincarnated. The "eternal champion". She does get around….

Rod,

She was a Forward Air Controller, not an infantry soldier.

It is perfectly normal for qualified aircrew to be posted as Forward Air Controllers. In the UK Armed Forces, formation-level senior FACs are usually qualified RAF, RN or RM fast-jet aircrew, with other non-aircrew FACs (usually Army personnel) working for them at a lower level.

Geoff – We will see how Savchenko's career progresses. I suspect you overestimate her general appeal, though among the ultra-nationalists I'm sure she is a sweetheart. I agree that Savchenko's military experience outweighs her political experience, which, as far I can see is nonexistent. So even her glamour photo experience outweighs her political and diplomatic experience.

I actually think in time she may be more valuable to Kiev dead, as a martyr to the cause. Time will tell.

July 2015 Vladimir Markin, speaking at Russia's Investigative Committee, claimed that Ukrainian pilot Nadiya Savchenko was "a terrorist and that the chances of her being released were on a par with those of Petro Poroshenko replacing Barack Obama as President of the United States".

I guess you may need to watch out for a late entry into the race that side of the pond ;-)

Jemima Fawr:
You may be right. I am not so sure, however. Information is vague and distorted concerning Savchenko's role/roles in the Aidar Battalion. She seems to have been hired/recruited as an instructor, not an FAC. She has been linked by admittedly dubious sources to special operations, artillery spotting and to the forceful interrogation of prisoners. I don't think at this time that a clear picture of her activities in this paramilitary group has emerged and given the political capital which all sides have invested in portraying her in a certain light, I doubt that a clearer picture will emerge anytime soon.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Jemima, I suspect operational protocols are far from normal in these paramilitary battalions, but she was accused of directing mortar fire into the position. If she was operating as an FAC (under normal regular chain of command) would she have authority to call that fire? Or when under fire would they likely accept direction from anyone with some command status and eyes on target?

The capital btw is Kyiv. As much as I like Russians i would also take with a hug pinch of salt any allegations emanating via the All Russia Investigating Committee

GNREP8:
Kœnugarðr, Kiev or Kyiv? Only time will tell which one applies. I'm old ro I'll just stick with the familiar 800 year old Kiev even if it is based on the Russian name for the city. I still say Bombay and Pusan too. I guess I'm just an insensitive old stick-in-the-mud. Oh, and Bath is still Aquae Sulis to me too. Chester is Deva.
I am also very skeptical of all reports surrounding this story but thank you for the caution nonetheless.
Salve vigil et ave imperator.
Rod Robertson.

An account of Savchenko's capture:

‘I captured her and personally handed her over'

He goes by the military nickname "Ilim." A fighter for the Luhansk People's Republic, he says he is the one who personally captured Nadiya Savchenko, the Ukrainian soldier convicted earlier this month of murder and sentenced to 22 years in prison by a Russian court. In an interview with Meduza's special correspondent Ilya Azar, "Ilim" confirmed the main argument Savchenko's lawyers say proves her innocence: she was captured before noon on June 17, 2014—before the shelling of Metalist, a village outside Luhansk, which killed two Russian journalists from the media outlet VGTRK.

From a couple of comments I've seen around the web she appears to have been lucky to have survived capture; FAC, snipers and artillery spotters were usually 'dealt with on site' as it were.

Only time will tell which one applies.
------------------
well Kyiv is the name that the country of which it is a capital asks to be used (just as its Ukraine and not the Ukraine).

GNREP8 – Moskva is the correct name for the capital of Russia. Do you use this name or Moscow? Since the name of the capital of Ukraine is a transliteration, it is then a matter of the system of sound representation you choose to use. If you prefer KI-ive then use that. Kiev is the older English representation, so, like Mr. Robertson, I will use this form. The additional bonus, of course, is that it annoys the Banderists and their toady followers.

I also refer to Saigon as Saigon, not Ho Chi Minh City.

Many places in Ukraine have changed their name from Russian versions to their Ukrainian versions, Lvov to Lviv, Rovno to Rivne. I do try and use the correct current variants (but then I have students from Mumbai, Kolkatta and Ho Chi Min City).

Then again Russia decided to change St Petersburg to Leningrad and back again (amongst many others). The French call London by a French version, Londres, but I do tend to use Moskva and Pari.

Do you still refer to New York as New Amsterdam too? ;-)

As long as we know what we are talking about its all good :-)

P.s. Crimea is actually Krim.

GNREP8:

Do you refer to Switzerland as Confoederatio Helvetica in day to day speech? Do you say Deutschland or Germany? Is it Japan or Nippon? China or Zhonggou (?- I hope I spelled it right)? Is this not getting a bit pedantic?

All that I am saying is that the facts are very unclear concerning this women so people, including myself, should not jump to conclusions and should do their homework before casting a vote if Ukrainian. What's wrong with that?

Cheers.
Rod Robertson

pedantic – but then the comment that 'The additional bonus, of course, is that it annoys the Banderists and their toady followers' of course exemplifies that it goes beyond just that. The Banderites (talking PS and Svoboda of course) obtained a fairly low number of votes with most people voting for mainstream parties. Of course an extended version of thats the RT view – that anyone who supports the Kiev Junta is a fascist Banderite – utter nonsense of course spoken in RT's case by a channel that should know more about fascism than most. Many normal Ukrainians would say that the name of their capital is now spelt Kyiv.

Of course we have the same issue closer to home Londonderry v Derry. Normally even most Protestants refer to it as Derry but the official name is Londonderry but the council is Derry City Council – but when conversations turn political then whether at that point one uses one or the other then shows one leanings (so I am given to understand) – in such circs I could see reason to use the official name is if annoys militant Irish republicans, I Ran Away fans and their toady followers

The linguistic world is of course strange – no one but a bit of silly billy would now refer to Beijing as Peking but as you say we don't say Londres – i have this argument at work where people want to translate addresses into English – even if for an English audience, that looks silly. As a language teacher once said to me Julio Iglesias is Julio Iglesias – no one thinks of him as July Churches

The Banderites (talking PS and Svoboda of course) obtained a fairly low number of votes with most people voting for mainstream parties.

Of course the majority of Ukrainians voted for Yanukovych but the militant minority won the day against democracy.

The majority of Ukrainians voted for Yanukovych

48% to 45%, a 3% margin, assuming you believe the votes were not rigged. Democratic, but a bit too narrow for there ever to be real comfort or satisfaction. There were lots of unproven claims of vote rigging (from the other side) which, given his subsequent track record from that moment forward, may carry some weight ;-)

The militant minority won the day against democracy

The actual 'militant' majority formed a very small part of a much larger level of mumbled dissatisfaction across more than half the country after his rapid swings from east to west and back again. The impeachment vote in Feb 2014 was 36 out of 38 in favour of having him removed. Democratic enough? He fled the same day and his own party abandoned him with the statement "[we] strongly condemn the criminal orders that led to human victims, an empty state treasury, huge debts, shame before the eyes of the Ukrainian people and the entire world."

He had clearly ceased to represent the majority view, tried to make it illegal for people to protest then used that as a basis to order military vehicles in to clear civilians so he could put up the Christmas tree – when you stop listening to what most people want in favour of deals that line your own pocket you are already in trouble. When they then find out just how much of the people's money you have been squirreling away for your own personal luxury, well it's a one way street.

The Party of Regions chose not to participate in the 2014 parliamentary elections – as my father used to say, 'you cant catch a fish with your hook in the boat'. Many of them subsequently joined the Opposition Bloc, which achieved 29 out of 450 seats in 2014. Incidently the Opposition Bloc rejects the March 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia…

But back on topic, Savchenko has now been sworn in to parliament as a lawmaker – not quite sure what status that infers in real terms, but her initial drive is to have other Ukrainian political prisoners released from Russia: link

I'm still hoping to watch her kick ass when the idiots decide to have a punchup in parliament.

Of course the majority of Ukrainians voted for Yanukovych but the militant minority won the day against democracy.
---------------------
Sorry but which election are you talking about? the 2010 election win of Yanukovych or the 2014 results when pro-Eastern parties did badly (as did the far right). I have worked in Ukraine various times and the putsch narrative is one that is not fair on the many Ukrainians of all shades who went out on the street not just of Kyiv but many cities to protest again Yanukovych. As I often said if the separatist narrative was as strong as its portrayed then it would not be only 2 oblasts (and only parts of them) that were in revolt

Democracy is shaky with a 48% to 45% margin for the win? In 2000 in the US hanging chads and a Supreme Court decision produced a win for Bush, but there was no overthrow of the government. I see in the general elections for Britain in 2015 the current prime minister's party got 37% of the vote. I know it's a parliamentary system but 37% is hardly a mandate. Still, no revolution in Britain to overthrow the constitutional order. In Israel Netanyahu's party got 25% of the vote and Bibi is still prime minister. No revolution there either.

When the Maidan began in November 2013 the sitting president was up for reelection in March 2015. Odds are he would have been voted out of office as he was not popular. Seems that the time between November 2013 and March 2015 would have been time for the Ukrainian people, who, as we've been told, cherish European values, to have thoroughly discussed the issue of the EU Association agreement and what it meant for the country, pros and cons, allowing them to make an informed decision.

That didn't happen.

On 21 February 2014 the foreign ministers of France, Poland, and Germany, meeting with Yanukovich, president of Ukraine, and the opposition leaders Tyagnibok (Svoboda, formerly Social Nationalist party), Yatsenyuk (Batkivscchina party) and Klitschko (UDAR party) brokered an agreement that met the principal demands of the protests:

* Early presidential elections, to be held no later than December 2014.
* Return to the 2004 constitution, restoring parliamentary dominance.
* Formation of a new coalition government of national unity in 10 days.
* Amnesty for those involved in violence during the protests (this was the third amnesty of this sort).
* No declaration of a State of National Emergency.

(Link to terms: link )

This agreement was hailed and lauded by the EU, the British prime minister, the head of NATO, and the US government, among others.

Of course, the next day the Maidan armed protesters overthrew the constitutional government, disregarding the agreement negotiated on the 21st. Curiously, those foreign governments that had earlier hailed the agreement of the 21st quickly forgot about it and instead recognized the new masters of Kiev.

Why wasn't the democratic process allowed to work in Ukraine, like it works in Britain with a prime minister who only enjoyed 37% of the vote? Because Yanukovich was a bad man, corrupt and a possessor of a golden toilet, and wouldn't have honored the agreement? We'll never know. But it is easy to think that somebody didn't want the democratic process to work its way to a democratic resolution of Ukraine's crisis or to a democratic decision regarding whether the EU Association agreement was in Ukraine's interest.

If it looks like a putsch, walks like a putsch, and acts like a putsch, maybe it is a putsch.

In the overthrow of Ukrainian democracy, who benefited the most? Ukraine? Russia? The EU? The US?

One thing is certain, adhering to democratic principles would likely have spared Ukraine the agony it has and will continue to endure.

There would be no informed decision. His flirting with the EU was a way to secure a better deal from Russia and was going to happen the way he felt best. The shock at his sudden change of direction was very real. His own party took him out of office. The rest was smoke and mirrors to try and shift the blame. I was out there before during and after it happened. The tension went well beyond a few militant wannabes.

Who benefitted most? Ukraine would have if Russia had simply closed the border rather than allow coaches to cross bringing in militant protesters (personal friends in Kharkiv have photos)

Notice that Maydan was essentially a peaceful protest until he tried to outlaw protests. And those I've met are pretty disgusted to be told they were part of an Anerican or EU plot. They knew what they wanted.

Geoff,

A backgrounder on the EU association agreement negotiations from der Spiegel:

Summit of Failure: How the EU Lost Russia over Ukraine

Part 1: link

Part 2: link

Interesting quote:

Kiev, Presidential Palace
Nov. 19, 2013

At Barroso's behest, Füle traveled to Kiev once again to meet with Yanukovych -- and the Ukrainian president got straight to the point. In talks with Putin, Yanukovych told Füle, the Russian president explained just how deeply the Russian and Ukrainian economies are interconnected. "I was really surprised to learn about it," Yanukovych said.

Füle couldn't believe what he was being told. "But Mr. President, you have been governor, you have been prime minister, you have been president for a number of years now. Certainly you are the last person who needs to be told about the level of cooperation, interconnection and interdependence of the Ukrainian and Russian economies. Needless to say, the association agreement does not have any negative impact on that," Füle said.

"But there are the costs that our experts have calculated," Yanukovych replied. "What experts?" Füle demanded to know. The Ukrainian president described to his bewildered guest the size of the losses allegedly threatening Ukraine should it sign the agreement with the EU.

Later, the number $160 USD billion found its way into the press, more than 50 times greater than the $3 USD billion calculated by the German advisory group. The total came from a study conducted by the Institute for Economics and Forecasting at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and it was a number that Yanukovych would refer to from then on.

"Stefan, if we sign, will you help us?" Yanukovych asked. Füle was speechless. "Sorry, we aren't the IMF. Where do these numbers come from?" he finally demanded. "I am hearing them for the first time." They are secret numbers, Yanukovych replied. "Can you imagine what would happen if our people were to learn of these numbers, were they to find out what convergence with the EU would cost our country?"

Ukraine would have if Russia had simply closed the border rather than allow coaches to cross bringing in militant protesters (personal friends in Kharkiv have photos)

Why didn't the Ukrainian border guards stop them? Or report on them? How do your friends know they were from Russia and not anti-Maidan protesters from elsewhere in Ukraine?

From what I have read the Ukrainian border guards had the crossings from Russia locked down and Russian volunteers had to hire 'stalkers' to help them get into Donetsk and Lugansk virtually cross country. Sometimes those guides would sell them out to the SBU.

And you can't see the evident level of corruption there?

More came out just yesterday: link

A logbook gas emerged detailing how "Ukraine's former president paid bribes worth at least $2 USD billion (£1.4 billion) during his four years in office – amounting to almost $1.4 USD million for every day he was in power – according to evidence handed to investigators".

The Ukrainian border guards did turn back several coaches (mainly the ones with things like baseball bats on the floor under the placards) but several went through and were seen both at the border and also in Kharkiv – number plates were recorded – but those that were let through had insufficient reason at that time to deny access. That got tighter as time went on, until they stopped letting them in altogether, until they lost control altogether. However it is quite clear that the border has been porous for quite some time, and in fact its security and the return of control to Ukraine is one of the conditions under the Minsk agreement, which would seem to indicate acknowledgement that it is both not secure and not under Ukrainian control.

Unless you are suggesting that the Russian personnel on 'vacation', that Russia has acknowledged, all came through legitimate borders with their passports in hand, presumably having ticked the 'tourism and a bit of insurgency' box?

If it looks like a putsch, walks like a putsch, and acts like a putsch, maybe it is a putsch
----------------------
personally having been in Ukraine a number of time I go with Geoff's version rather than smoke and mirrors. Also if you look at the longer history of Ukraine you see that the EuroMaidan was a continuation essentially of the 2005 Orange Revolution. Try going to Kyiv or other cities and telling young and old who stood out against the regime that they were part of an Anerican or EU plot. As Geoff says they knew what they wanted. The putsch line is one peddled mainly by RT and people like Global Research in Canada who hate everything about the West

GNREP8 – I've personally been to Ukraine myself. My wife is Ukrainian. I'm well aware of the fact that there are Ukrainians who have the views you describe. I'm also well aware that there are others who do not. I'm well aware of the Orange Revolution and what hopes people in Ukraine had. The people of Ukraine have been badly exploited by their rulers and the oligarchical class. It is a country that is rich in resources and a people who deserve better than what they've had. Their poverty, and most are poor by Western standards, is the result of bad governance.

So I understand what a lot of Ukrainians were hoping for, both in the Orange Revolution and in the Maidan. They didn't get it from the Orange Revolution and they're not getting a better life from the current regime. Example: my mother-in-law's pension now doesn't cover her utility bills. Before the Maidan, she could pay for everything with that pension. That can't be blamed on the Russians. It is the result of economic policies being dictated by the EU and the IMF.

However, I'm also perfectly well aware of the geopolitical realities surrounding Ukraine. In Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard he wrote, "Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire." In December 2013 Victoria Nuland publicly stated the the US government had "invested" $5 USD billion in Ukraine: "Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We've invested over $5 USD billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine." As an American I know the US government doesn't give money away for philanthropic purposes. This was money to influence people and policy in directions favored by the US government. Now I know the other side was doing the same, but that illustrates the geopolitical dimension that you seem to wish to ignore. I was surprised when the news website for the city where my wife's family lives proudly advertised that it was funded by the US Embassy in Kiev. Is this just being helpful and full of good intentions or is this interference in the internal affairs of another country?

Russia is a geopolitical target of the US government and Ukraine is an important pawn in the game.

Explain why the finance minister of Ukraine, Natalie Jaresko, is an American citizen and a former US State department employee who was given $125 USD million by USAID for "investment" in Ukraine (last I heard she had not yet renounced her US citizenship)? As Oleg Lyashko, a prominent Ukrainian politician and motor-mouth asked, "aren't there any Ukrainians who could the job"? Jaresko is just one of many foreigners who've been given positions in the Ukrainian government, people who are associated with the US and EU. Is Ukraine now a colony of the US?

And let's not forget the value of Crimea. The geopolitical value of Crimea is Sevastopol, base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. If you're a wargamer surely you can grasp the significance of a NATO aligned or NATO member Ukraine evicting the Russians from this base. This would effectively squeeze the Russians out of the Black Sea. A big coup in weakening Russia. More of the geopolitical dimension that you would like ignored.

As for those Ukrainians who don't like the suggestion that their Maidan had other purposes than what they believed? Who likes to admit they've been had.

I know you aren't going to change your views on this, but I write this for others. They may have deferred to your 'expertise' because you've personally been to Ukraine. The others are encouraged to know that others, who've also personally been to Ukraine, can come to a different conclusion about events in Ukraine.

That does seem to conveniently ignore a few facts. Sometimes people look too deeply, hoping to see conspiracies and machaveilian machinations everywhere, and miss the simplicity of human nature. How often have you been to Ukraine? I went to Greece once. It was lovely. I don't understand why they are in financial difficulties ;-). I've been to Ukraine once or twice a year for the last 12 years. I'm starting to get a feel for the place.

Ah. The Orange Revolution. Ukraine gained independence in 1991. Over 10 years later and it was stagnating. It hadn't massively improved, as you have proved above corruption was both rife and massive at the upper levels. Yushenko and Tymoshenko brought hope for a new bright future (and remember this came a few years after Poland had joined the EU, and was starting to prosper). Those hopes rapidly soured as the infighting flared and they turned out to be just another couple of politicians (something my Ukrainian wife told me would happen from the day of the revolution, and I kept telling her not to be so cynical, but she was aware of the origins of these people and was pretty much spot on with her predictions).

Yanukovich election really just saw a reflection of the disappointment that the flames of prosperity turned out to be a damp squib (with a lot of mysterious added costs). Maydan was little more than a relatively quiet protest that was turned into something much bigger my incompetent mishandling by a politician who thought he could pretend it didn't exist, then when he realised it wasn't going away tried to have it bulldozed. It was only at that point that it took on a new light and gave strength to some minority groups who could hold up their banners as martyrs to the cause.

The likes of Svoboda have always been present in Ukrainian politics, because democracy says they are entitled to representation. It's been made out that Maydan and American influence brought them to power. Well in some ways it gave them the support that perhaps they had always dreamt of, but that support was pushed their way not by American behind-the-scenes manipulation, but by the failure of the Ukrainian President to recognise the strength of desire of the people, because his eyes were blinded by dollar signs.

Did this new revolution help? Well no, not really, but it brought to surface those hopes and dreams again. Did it affect your mother in laws pension because of the EU and IMF deals? Partly, but get real here, Ukraine had been teetering on the verge of financial collapse for a long time, it was going to need a lot of investment and that was only going to come from Russia, the USA or Europe. Without it, there was very real danger of financial implosion, and no one wanted that.

So they looked at what they had, with Russia, and said "we've had this with Russia for nearly 20 years, and we are not really any better off; do we really want more of the same?" America was one step too far the other way, but there was Europe. Poland was now part of Europe and was in a far far better state than Ukraine, despite having been in a very similar situation 10 years earlier. So if you have to borrow anyway, one side offers more of the same and the other appears to have evidence of real positive long term improvement… ?

Ah yes, the infamous $5 USDbn provided for 'regime change'. Note that it was the pro-Russian governments (pre and post Yushenko) that were taking it. It wasn't secret funds going to covert groups that might take power but investment in agriculture, science and industry. Why do it? No doubt America wanted to curry favour, perhaps the number of Ukrainians now living in America or who can trace roots there had some influence, but realistically after 20 years it was just throwing good money after bad. It may have supporting American industries working in Ukraine, or trading with Ukraine, but attempts to change the regime? If it hadn't happened by now it probably wasn't ever going to happen (and certainly not while they were taking money from all sides). If anything it may have helped keep Yanukovich in power for longer as he could use it to show he was doing something. But it usually conveniently forgets to include two words. "Since 1991". So actually it's about $25 USDm a year. That's actually not a lot.

Why employ an American citizen as Minister of Finance? Well for a start although born in the US, she is the daughter of Ukrainian immigrants (an often conveniently glossed over fact). She lived in Ukraine since 1992, worked in the finance section of the American Embassy in Ukraine and had direct responsibility for improving financial relations to help investment in the country. Oh and was a member of the Foreign Investors Advisory Council and the Advisory Board of the Ukrainian Center for Promotion of Foreign Investment "under the auspices of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine" so it's not like she was actually just some American brought in to run it. But even if she was… You've already shown just how corrupt the home grown setup was, why not bring in an outsider who may not be affected by the corruption to help get it back on track? That's good business. Yes there was going to be a large degree of belt pulling to sort it out, but I don't think anyone in Ukraine realistically expected any different (and pensions in Crimea are a lot worse than that now).

The naval base. Ukraine had just signed a 20 year deal with Russia for the naval base, there was no indication that they had any intention to convert it to a NATO stronghold, but given that Turkey has been a NATO member since the 1950s, and controls the only exit out of the Black Sea, and Bulgaria and Romania are both EU countries with Black Sea frontage as well, then as a wargamer I would say it's pretty moot (notwithstanding the new naval base they have built on the east coastline). Where's the real importance in what could effectively become a land locked pool because the other side controls the key? Crimea wasn't about the naval base, it was about showing the Russian people at home how great Russia was still, like in the good old days, and getting out of an expensive deal over gas while gaining a base for free. It was about prestige and punitive actions.

So I agree, it is a country rich in resources that deserves a lot better than it has managed to get over the last 20 years (most of that under Russian influence). So perhaps that is exactly why we have seen two sizeable attempts, not by external forces, but from the people within to see real change. And if they can just get over this large scale embedded corruption (and a little less stirring on the border) just maybe that can actually bring it about. But it does represent a massive blow to Russia's global prestige and image…

GNREP8:

…and people like Global Research in Canada who hate everything about the West

You really seem fixated on the boogie man of Global Research? Here is a video which may bring things into better perspective and give you some potential peace of mind. Enjoy!

youtu.be/95Hpix8O9Qs

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Unless you are suggesting that the Russian personnel on 'vacation', that Russia has acknowledged, all came through legitimate borders with their passports in hand, presumably having ticked the 'tourism and a bit of insurgency' box?

Nah. I just thought that Akhmetov/FSB/your pick here/etc was behind Anti-Maidan would have found it cheaper to hire a Ukrainian rent-a-crowd to back up the true believers in Oplot etc. rather than busing them in over the border.

RE: The Maidan protest, the "Report of the International Advisory Panel on its review of the Maidan Investigations" has been released

link

Some interesting data there.