Should the U.S. have supported the coup in Ukraine?

[JackRiddler]

Rewind with me back to February [2014], before the elected government of Ukraine was overthrown, extraconstitutionally, by the uprising centered on Euromaidan. At that time, a leak of a taped discussion at the U.S. embassy in Kiev exposed that the State Department was deeply involved in a covert action to enact a secret policy to overthrow the Ukrainian government. If you haven't seen the tape of this discussion, please watch it now.

Tape Reveals State Department Officials Plotting Covert Intervention to Overthrow Government of Ukraine (Feb 20)

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine_violence

(That's my headline.)

My question: Should the U.S. government have been engaging in this secret policy? (The policy was secret, not the result of a public debate or proceeding of Congress; and the means of action were covert.)

By bringing up this question, please note what I am NOT saying:

1) I am not saying that the U.S. government is responsible for the movement and eventual coup that overthrew the elected Ukrainian government, or that these would not have happened without U.S. planning behind the scenes. It may be that U.S. government action was not the most important factor. What matters is that the U.S. government supported the overthrow, and did so on the basis of a secret policy.

2) I am not taking sides in the subsequent events, or defending or supporting anyone's subsequent actions, certainly not the Russian state's. (We can talk about that in other threads.)

My comment, from Feb 20, before the overthrow of the Ukrainian government:

I'm glad someone has finally covered the real story in the leaked recording of Victoria Nuland, undersecretary at the State Department, discussing strategy for Ukraine with the ambassador at the U.S. embassy in Kiev. Only in the reality-show world of the mass media is it a story that Nuland in passing happened to say, "Fuck the E.U." (oooh, how terrible!).

It also matters little who released the tape, since its authenticity is not in dispute.

What the tape reveals is that Nuland and the ambassador are involved in the management of a covert intervention aimed at overthrowing Ukraine's democratically elected government.

Without any prior public discussion or announcement of a U.S. government policy in the supposedly democratic United States, Nuland and Pyatt discuss how the U.S. government should

1) open a channel to the Ukrainian president to negotiate his resignation;

2) forestall efforts by one of the opposition leaders (Klitschko) to resolve the crisis in parliament by joining the government coalition;

3) get their preferred opposition leader (Yatsenyuk) into power; and

4) keep the opposition leaders they don't like as much as Yatsenyuk outside power, but in a stable alliance with Yatsenyuk. (The ones they want on the outside are Klitschko, who is perhaps disliked because he is too German-influenced, and Tyahnybok, leader of the extreme right party supported by John McCain.)

In this unannounced, secret, hostile intervention to overthrow and replace the government of another country, the U.S. agency is expecting to have a say in the micromanagement of who sits in the new cabinet, according to Nuland:

"What needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week. You know, I just think Klitsch going in [to the cabinet], he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk. It’s just not going to work."

Why the love for Yats, as Nuland calls him? (Whether she gives these nicknames condescendingly or familiarly is unclear.) "I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience," she says. Read into that what you will.

More importantly, why does Nuland get to judge that? When did any Ukrainians vote for Nuland and her CIA-infested State Department to play kingmakers for their country?

When did any Americans even get to know, let alone discuss this policy of overthrowing the Ukrainian government, which ultimately will be put down as having been pursued in their name, with their tax money?

In the same clip from Democracy Now!, Yats is shown, to his credit, admitting that he cannot control and has little idea of who is in charge at this point among the protesters battling the police on the street level.

(Note: That proved quite important, as extreme right parties took over key ministries in the new government, which on the day after the coup d'etat passed a law to abolish the status of the Russian language, triggering the Crimea crisis.)

I wish to emphasize that by posting this here, I take no set position on the Ukrainian struggle.

I am an American and a democrat and I am talking about my own government making secret policy on my behalf, without a public process. I oppose that on principle.

I oppose it ten times over if this government policy involves--as it typically does--a mere handful of self-appointed geostrategists like Nuland using U.S. public resources to intervene covertly in faraway countries on the basis of whatever they imagine are legitimate U.S. interests.

Now our junior geostrategists are involving us in another mess most of us do not even understand. We are making new "allies" (whom we may later betray, as usual) and new enemies, and if it ever comes up that these enemies actually act against us, most Americans will be puzzled, hurt and confused: Why do they hate us? They must hate our freedoms!

[JackRiddler]

1. Wish I had the ability to make a poll of this...

Sadly, I'm currently unable to afford.

(Charity stars accepted - thanks!)

[The Magistrate]

2. It Is Good To See Your Caveats, Sir

"By bringing up this question, please note what I am NOT saying:

1) I am not saying that the U.S. government is responsible for the movement and eventual coup that overthrew the elected Ukrainian government, or that these would not have happened without U.S. planning behind the scenes. It may be that U.S. government action was not the most important factor. What matters is that the U.S. government supported the overthrow, and did so on the basis of a secret policy.

2) I am not taking sides in the subsequent events, or defending or supporting anyone's subsequent actions, certainly not the Russian state's."

They pretty much destroy the common line that the U.S. procured and caused the overthrow of Yanukovych's presidency, and move the thing onto the simple ground of policy and diplomacy reacting to events.

What is revealed by that telephone intercept is the normal practice of government. In a situation of crisis, diplomats were trying to see to it things came out right from the point of view of the government they represent and act for.

Very little of any government's detail foreign policy is the product of public debate, and ours is no exception. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has been the policy of the United States government, through several administrations, to extend Western influence as far east as can be managed. This is a consensus policy anyone with a modicum of awareness of current events will be familiar with. It is also a policy which has been widely popular among European peoples who were long subject to Czarist and Soviet domination. A fact which is also something anyone with a modicum of awareness of current events will be aware of.

Stating a preference is not the same as making something happen, just as expressing approval or disapproval of some possible outcome is not the same as making it happen. Even stating that one will try and get something done is far from establishing that the thing occurred because of those efforts. Nothing in the call establishes that anything which occurred in Kiev or elsewhere in Ukraine owed to efforts of Ambassador Nuland in particular, or the United States government in general.

[JackRiddler]

4. Normal practice is not therefore good.

You say:

"What is revealed by that telephone intercept is the normal practice of government. In a situation of crisis, diplomats were trying to see to it things came out right from the point of view of the government they represent and act for."

What formulates that point of view? I do not take it as a given, in the absence of an open discussion or process of policy making. If it's not open, it can't be democratic or republican. It is parapolitical, even if done by agents of the elected government. Why, it's the kind of unaccountable duplicitous thing that made some people in Ukraine want to overthrow their own elected government. Interesting. I do not accept that duplicity or secret policy is okay because it's normal. That's why we keep repeating the same old shit that led to WWI.

You say:

"Very little of any government's detail foreign policy is the product of public debate, and ours is no exception."

Same deal. It should be. I reject the doctrine of realpolitik, and deny that there's anything realistic about it. It's a means for advancing specific interests that are not simply to be assumed or excused as belonging to some abstract "we."

You say:

"Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has been the policy of the United States government, through several administrations, to extend Western influence as far east as can be managed."

I reject the automatism of the idea that this is "Western" and thus "ours." That's what I'm calling junior geostrategy. I also reject the implication that general guidelines must apply in this case, and that having a secret policy on Ukraine in particular follows logically.

"It is also a policy which has been widely popular among European peoples who were long subject to Czarist and Soviet domination."

Has it been? Clearly the split in Ukraine was more like 50-50, with a majority at the last election having preferred the apparently "Czarist" line of Yanukovich. Was it "our" business or in "our" interest to take sides? I dispute that.

"Stating a preference is not the same as making something happen, just as expressing approval or disapproval of some possible outcome is not the same as making it happen."

That's not what's going on in Nuland's discussion. She's clearly describing actual efforts underway, and plans for intervention such as establishing a means for Yanukovich to capitulate.

"Even stating that one will try and get something done is far from establishing that the thing occurred because of those efforts. Nothing in the call establishes that anything which occurred in Kiev or elsewhere in Ukraine owed to efforts of Ambassador Nuland in particular, or the United States government in general."

Granted. A big maybe. I say we shouldn't even be wondering. It was not "our" business to conduct in the first place.

[stevenleser]

5. It absolutely was our business to conduct in the first place. That's the business of every country

The business of the foreign diplomatic service of every country is to foster relations and environments that are most favorable to each country.

Virtually every other country has interest groups and PACs here, loosely or not so loosely affiliated with the foreign diplomatic services of each particular country, that attempt to promulgate policies favorable to that group and country.

All you need to do to prove this is start connecting with the consulate of a foreign country here in the US, tell them you are a fan of that country and ask to be on their mailing list for events and activities. In short order, you will see how much activity is going on where that country, through its consulate, is trying to influence business and politics here.

[JackRiddler]

8. So "business" is subterfuge and you approve.

Nuland was laying out a secret, unannounced policy to overthrow the elected government of another country. That is not business or mere "influence," as per your euphemisms. It is a form of war. Embassies caught working to overthrow the U.S. government would be shut down, or at least have their "diplomats" expelled.

[stevenleser]

11. Ooh, you used a big scary sounding word that sounds bad! No. Read again what I wrote. nt

[JackRiddler]

12. Really? Subterfuge is a big word to you?

I'd have thought your vocabulary was more expansive, what with your being a big important political commentator on such fine upstanding, non-Russian, All-American outlets like FOXNEWS.

[The Magistrate]

6. As The Man Said, Sir

"Reality is that which, when one ceases to believe in it, continues to exist.'

Whether you approve of normal practice or not does not change the fact that it is normal practice. Once should expect what normally occurs to occur, and not affect to discover it or pretend it is some dark secret being revealed which people ought to be shocked at.

It is evident you understand there is a long-term consensus policy over several administration to extend western influence eastwards. I have never considered it a particularly good policy, but it is the one in place, and is likely to remain so. With the exception of Belarus, just about every jurisdiction in the western portion of the Soviet Union or in the former Warsaw pact has opted for decisive separation from Russia, and in doing so have sought some protection from a re-imposition of Russian control, whether economic or military. Ukraine does form an interesting case, largely because so large a proportion of its native populace was killed off, and because of overt colonization by population transfer and Russification in recent generations. A poll among people of Ukrainian descent only would likely have a much different result than a general survey on the question of ties to Russia. Persons of Russian descent in former Soviet and Czarist colonies do indeed feel a bit unwelcome.

I repeat that nothing in the taped call establishes anything out of the ordinary was being done by Ambassador Nuland. Establishing a line of communication, a way that an embattled and clearly losing chief of state can climb down without too much chaos and disruption, is the sort of thing diplomats do, and are expected to do.

[JackRiddler]

9. Unacceptable.

Once should expect what normally occurs to occur, and not affect to discover it or pretend it is some dark secret being revealed which people ought to be shocked at.

No one is advocating being shocked. The frequency of an action cannot be the criterion by which it is judged as acceptable.

By this standard no one should get worked up about violations of voting rights in Republican controlled states, slave wages in Bangladesh, or the levels of hydrocarbon consumption that are causing global warming. You've probably "affected to discover" such wrongs in the past. Slavery, serfdom, child labor, legal subjugation of women, etc. etc. -- all were once normal in the United States (and widespread in many places today). Confronted with critiques of these wrongs, there were always "realists" who responded in much the same way as you do, not with approval, but by suggesting it's the way of the world so give up.

Democracy, rule of law, a republic -- all mean nothing if policy is conducted in secret and by means of deception, without open discussion and debate. When did the U.S. government announce it was going to machinate to overthrow Yanukovich? Who decided this was good for "Western" interests, or for the American people this government supposedly represents? If it had an impact -- it may well have -- we see the results now: a right-wing ethnocentric government in Ukraine comes to power under siege and necessarily looking for a fight at birth, immediately bans the Russian language, and thus gives Putin the pretext to intervene with the approval of more than 90% of the Crimean population. Now we are close to a new permanent Cold War to justify burning the wealth of our people on more "defense."

The broad outlines of the prior policy are not enough to justify something as big as a U.S. government decision to covertly back the overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine. Again, regardless of the impact it has. And of course, it robs the U.S. government of its standing to complain to the Russians (as prior U.S. policy a lot worse than the Crimea intervention has also done).

[The Magistrate]

13. You May Forgive Me, Sir, For Being Unable To Take Your Line Seriously Any Longer Here

The only point at issue is whether there was anything particularly nefarious done by a U.S. ambassador in Ukraine; the answer seems to be, even on your own admission, no, there probably was not.

The rest of this is simply a complaint the world is not what you would like it to be. That is too common a plaint to engage interest for very long.

[JackRiddler]

14. The answer, actually...

is that she sure makes it sound like there was. See OP again for list of what she indicates. Or just listen to the tape.

[tech3149]

27. My perception of the situation would disagree with you

While I agree that foreign policy is not deliberated in public and should not be, in specific terms, the general policy has been for decades, adversarial and combative.
The fact that Nuland and Pyatt were discussing their "preferred" outcome in Ukraine does not reveal the whole truth.

We have invested much effort since the fall of the Soviet Union to isolate Russia and move the satellite states into the Western sphere of influence. That move to extend Western influence as far east as possible is the crux of the biscuit. That, in and of itself, is an act of aggression that we would not tolerate.

If you aren't old enough to remember, the Cuban missile crises was a direct result of our stationing equivalent missiles in Turkey. This situation isn't much different. While our NGO's were not specifically instigating for violence or overthrow, they were doing all they could to divide and isolate the satellite regions from Russia and then theirs the EU.

Those in Ukraine that would like to associate with the West don't realize the cost and pain associated with it. Should they choose to tale the IMF offer of support they will just be another sacrificial lamb as Greece. The IMF is nothing more than a paydal lender for nations.

[AngryAmish]

34. What you seem to not understand, Sir, is a knowledgeable and thoughtful

understanding of what is going on, such as yours, is not welcome around here. It is much easier to try to either cheerlead for one side or the other or somehow start a war the US cannot win.

One MUST UNDERSTAND that Put in is the devil. Or he is great because Iraq.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. Should you not have beat your wife? nt

[joshcryer]

7. It was not a coup.

[JackRiddler]

10. So they held a constitutional impeachment, did they?

And anyway, what's 50 percent of the country's population more or less? Some Nazis speaking for transhistorical "Ukraine" against the image of "Russia" should get to trump that, right? It's not like they could have waited until the election, hell no!

[joshcryer]

16. Yes, the impeachment was legal.

The current polls suggest Ukrainians are moderate.

[JackRiddler]

18. I'm sure they are moderate.

Their provisional government, unfortunately, has extreme rightists in power positions. And decided it had nothing more important to do than to abolish Russian as a state language, even though it's spoken daily by more people in the country than Ukrainian. Thus the hardly shocking outcome in Crimea. Should work out into an understanding between the highly sympathetic governments in Kiev and Ukraine, since minus Crimea means the nationalist right and the neo-liberals might even win a legitimate election if they decide to hold one. First "bailout" is set. Welcome to Greece. Lucky bastards, hooray.

[joshcryer]

19. The key will be handling the oligarchs.

If the Ukrainian people don't do something about them then they are in for more of the same.

Crimea has no choice being run by oligarchs.

[JackRiddler]

20. Yeah, they've got the perfect government

now to do that.

[joshcryer]

22. They well have elections.

Any austerity under the interim government can be turned back.

[JackRiddler]

15. bumping

[bigwillq]

17. The USA needs to stay out of Ukranie and Russia's business

and start worrying more about the USA.

[malaise]

21. Way too many folks are ignoring this simple set of facts

And some of that overheard Nuland conversation was covered in the media.

[JackRiddler]

24. Yeah but the corporate media...

focused on "Fuck the EU" and missed the story, as usual.

[malaise]

25. M$M never fails

Damn they suck!

[JVS]

28. Don't think they don't know what they are doing

[JackRiddler]

29. Some of them do...

Most of them are followers who just pick up the line of the day automatically. It's a factory.

[ozone_man]

23. I think this is what's most frustrating

that the U.S., and U.S. media, with the exception of Democracy Now apparently, does not mention at all that it was a coup that they supported, and helped direct the outcome. In that respect, NPR is not much better than FOX News.

[Forever29]

26. It's about the gold reserves

They got what they wanted to get.

[JackRiddler]

30. Geostrategy is a lot more than gold.

But anyway...

[KoKo]

31. Thank you for stating so well what many of us here felt at the time and still

feel about these "interventions." This isn't Obama or Kerry "bashing" it's the policy that allowed the Nuland and McCain interventions in Ukraine to have "influence."

Thank you for posting so clearly.

--------

"I am an American and a democrat and I am talking about my own government making secret policy on my behalf, without a public process. I oppose that on principle.

I oppose it ten times over if this government policy involves--as it typically does--a mere handful of self-appointed geostrategists like Nuland using U.S. public resources to intervene covertly in faraway countries on the basis of whatever they imagine are legitimate U.S. interests.

Now our junior geostrategists are involving us in another mess most of us do not even understand. We are making new "allies" (whom we may later betray, as usual) and new enemies, and if it ever comes up that these enemies actually act against us, most Americans will be puzzled, hurt and confused: Why do they hate us? They must hate our freedoms!I am an American and a democrat and I am talking about my own government making secret policy on my behalf, without a public process. I oppose that on principle.

I oppose it ten times over if this government policy involves--as it typically does--a mere handful of self-appointed geostrategists like Nuland using U.S. public resources to intervene covertly in faraway countries on the basis of whatever they imagine are legitimate U.S. interests.

Now our junior geostrategists are involving us in another mess most of us do not even understand. We are making new "allies" (whom we may later betray, as usual) and new enemies, and if it ever comes up that these enemies actually act against us, most Americans will be puzzled, hurt and confused: Why do they hate us? They must hate our freedoms!

[bemildred]

32. I think the point is that they made a mess of it. nt

[JackRiddler]

33. Would it have been okay if it had been effective?

This kind of parapolitical action is inherently wrong, and usually causes messes of one kind or another.

Fact is, with or without the presumably unintended consequences in Crimea, interests are looking to profit from the mess in Ukraine.

[bemildred]

35. If it resulted in good governance in Ukraine, I'd be fine with a bit of subterfuge.

On the other hand, when your object is to thwart that, and to force your views on Ukraine, then no I don't approve.

And when you have your head buried in your own anus and are wallowing in obviously delusory "plans", then no, I don't approve of that either.

I do agree that it would be better to just skip all the dissembling, and much cheaper and simpler too, and no doubt far more functional, but I don't think our "democracy" is anywhere close to that yet, and you still have to try to govern well. So I can deal with well chosen dissembling, for now. We all applaud Pelosi for what she got done as Speaker, I can assure you she is as old school as they get politically.

[JackRiddler]

36. Subterfuge wrong on principle and bad practice.

bemildred, I cannot agree with your statement, "If it resulted in good governance in Ukraine, I'd be fine with a bit of subterfuge." at all.

On many levels:

- The U.S.G. should not be the judge of what constitutes "good governance" in Ukraine. (Is your use of governance witting?)

- The U.S.G. has no business covertly undermining democratically elected governments. No argument based on the supposed ends can make that right.

- State-backed subterfuge to undermine foreign governments is hostile covert action, by definition. It makes enemies. They retaliate.

- Those holding office in U.S.G. have no business deciding on secret policy, especially not covert war on foreign entities, without going through this country's republican/democratic institutions. (That's what happened in this case: no public, no debate. Who decided what "our" policy to Ukraine should be? No one in the open, not even in an elite process.)

- Engaging in these practices generally means giving up a large part of sovereignty to an unaccountable deep state and parapolitical actors.

- The apparatus required to do such action effectively worldwide is enormous and creates a top-secret Frankenstein branch (or realm of many covert branches) of government, which is a permanent deep bureaucracy with many parapolitical tentacles, and largely in charge.

- In the big picture, you may like the results of one or another action but the end result, especially for the world's Mr. Big, is that everyone will consider him an enemy. It's a self-destructive policy as far as the people are concerned.

So to me, that it didn't have "good results" in Ukraine is not due to incompetence or mistakes or picking the wrong side. It's a predictable fallout of a nuts foreign policy system run as a self-service store for a tangle of elite geostrategists, corporations, spook groups and the super rich. The system will produce or contribute to such destabilizations constantly, keep the U.S. permanently entangled in machinations everywhere, and create the pretext for a trillion dollars spent on "security" and "defense" by the federal govt every year.

[bemildred]

37. Oddly enough, having read all that, I don't find anything I particularly disagree with.

And it annoys me too. Sometimes I just sit around and think about how absolutely absurd it is the way the world is run. And yet I still stand by my pragmatic approach.

[Spider Jerusalem]

38. It was not a coup.

It was a popular revolution. These are very different things. A coup involves the seizure of power by a small faction within the existing government or military.

[JackRiddler]

39. In eastern Ukraine the popular seems to go the other way.

Half the vote was for Yanukovich, and it was concentrated in the east. Surprised at what's happening now?



Only one kind of popular to the coup government, unfortunately: On their first day, they abolished Russian as an official language. What did they think would happen?

We'll see how "popular" it is once the EU policy of destroying the economy in order to save it kicks in.

[JackRiddler]

40. Since it's kickable...

and since someone* just linked it, I shall kick.

* who was so pissed off by my OP that they're still linking to it as "evidence" of my incompatibility with their neocon politics. A badge of honor.