Little David (Zelensky) is now battling the Goliath Twins (Putin ‘n Trump).
Little David looks like he is showing Trump Goliath how to actually make a Deal—whilst under a Physical attack from Putin Goliath, and a demoralizing Mental mind game threat attack from Trump Goliath!?!
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is reportedly not ready to sign a controversial minerals deal with Donald Trump that may see him give away billions in critical elements and revenues.
***
It comes after Zelensky angered Trump so much during negotiations that the president threatened to completely pull US funding from Ukraine…
American negotiators said they may cut Kyiv’s access to Elon Musk’s Starlink, which has been heavily relied on for civilian and military use, if it did not agree to the mineral rights deal.
During the meeting, Ukraine was told it faced imminent shutoff of the service if it did not reach a deal on critical minerals…
***
Zelensky had apparently worn out his welcome with the entire American negotiating team – which included the president, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz – in the span of a week. (ME: looks like the Goliath Twins need lots of backups against Little David)…
***
‘Yes, he has been brave and stood up to Russia.
‘But he would be six feet under if it wasn’t for the millions we spent, and he needs to exit stage right with all the drama.’
Quick, someone give Little David this bucket of stones—he’s gonna need more than just that one!
Article also has a poll – Did Zelensky make the right move?: Yes @ 58%, No @ 28%, and Not sure @ 13%.
Neo, I have seen a number of very well done videos where just the face is brought to life with a smile and/or a nod of the head. These full body ones are a step beyond that. Here is a link to full body motion done to some paintings from the past.
At the time of our founding the U.S. was an overwhelmingly agricultural society, and our history and our national character emerged from that society, and it’s down to earth values—hard work, planning ahead, conservatism, thrift, independence, self-sufficiency, the Christian religion and it’s moral code, face-to face relationships, honesty—etc.
Over the last several decades large scale industrial farming and the shift of population from small towns and family farms to our cities, and from production to service industries, has essentially destroyed that traditional, agricultural way of life, and with it, the values it taught and emphasized are now seen as “old fashioned,” “naive,” and “out of date,” and have been drowned out by the cacophony and glitz of our current “modern” and supposedly much more “sophisticated” society.
The very unsatisfactory result of this transformation can be seen everywhere and all around us.
Here is Victor Davis Hanson talking about this theme.*
“Recent revelations go beyond the imaginations of what many knew but could seldom prove. USAID has become an out-of-control agency spending billions a year in bloated crony contracts, rotten from top to bottom with systemic fraud, corruption, and politicization. USAID has a budget roughly triple the official budget of the CIA, and has become an unaccountable slush fund for a left-wing political machine. For decades, that slush fund paid the salaries and projects of activist consultants, policymakers, lawyers, journalists, entertainers, organizers, think tanks, universities, and NGOs.”
Many here are likely familiar with Douglas Murray. If not, here’s a chance to get to know him a bit. You’re going to like him. Interview in today’s WSJ.
Educated at Eton and Oxford, Mr. Murray is the sort of silver-tongued Englishman who bowls Americans over with his lightly worn smarts. He divides his life between London and New York, where he is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and he spends a great deal of time in Israel, of which he is a forthright, sometimes blistering, advocate. His next book, due in April, is “On Democracy and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization.” It asserts that “evil does exist as a force in the world. Indeed, it is the only explanation for why certain people do certain things.”
Speaking of the WSJ, not linking to Peggy Noonan’s column this week, but in it she quotes at length neo’s favorite scene from “A Man for All Seasons.” Hmm…I wonder if she’s been lurking here.
Oh, and spring training games are fully underway now. So, there’s that.
Thinking about neo’s recent, excellent post about Germany and the upcoming election and J.D. Vance’s recent speech in Europe I thought how Eloi-esque Europeans have become since WWII.
And now the siren wails and the Morlocks who have labored underground are in their midst.
The Eloi are humanlike creatures who are small, unintelligent, uncurious, weak, and also, importantly, benevolent and happy. They are the evolutionary descendants of the British elite, who exploited the British poor for so long that the poor evolved into a race of humanoids called the Morlocks.
Speaking about baseball, this is for Mike, Sdferr and other fans. Now that Mt McKinnley, Fort Bragg and others have been renamed what are the chances for the Indians to regain their rightful moniker? I am a Tigers fan myself, but the Gardians? That’s akin to renaming the bengals the pussy cats. I do not understand how any self respecting Cleveland fan could abide such a travesty.
Another interesting conversation on All-In podcast with the founders of Stripe.
(0:00) The Besties welcome John and Patrick Collison!
(4:28) Stripe’s business evolution: $1T in volume/year, stablecoins, challenging the Visa/Mastercard duopoly, publishing economic indicators
(20:31) Jamie Dimon’s leaked rant on remote work and bureaucracy (34:22) DOGE for Defense: Trump ordered the Pentagon to look at cutting the defense budget by 8%/year over the next five years
(43:51) Crypto Corner: Milei’s Memecoin embarrassment
(1:00:18) John and Patrick break down the Arc Institute and its new Evo 2 AI model
(1:18:04) Grok 3 takes the LLM lead, lessons learned from Elon’s Colossus scale
(1:30:22) Science Corner: Asteroid update
(1:35:42) Why Stripe hasn’t gone public yet, despite great metrics
All interesting– millionaire/billionaires chewing the fat about stuff. Evo 2 AI model, the speed at which Grok 3 has become the major player in AI with its 100,000 GPU Colossus (soon to be 200,000 GPU), and what may become a huge problem for Argentina’s Milei. Trump’s call for 8% cuts to the defense budget will no doubt have conservative’s pulling their hair, but there is no doubt enough fat to make those kinds of cuts. We may need to rethink our reliance on incredibly expensive weapons as our edge when their advantage might be diminished by sheer overwhelming numbers of cheap counter weapons.
Guardians? An abomination. Pure and simple.
Brian E,
For just one example in the defense budget, it’s hard to imagine the usefulness of an aircraft carrier in 2025.
The Internet says an ICBM can travel from New York to Moscow in 20 minutes. We have smart missiles that can target with near pinpoint accuracy. Drones are proving every bit as effective as manned fighters, maybe more so. Top speed on a carrier is 30knots. So, to reposition one 1/4 of the way across the globe takes over a week.
An aircraft carrier seems like a sitting duck in today’s military. A very expensive sitting duck. They cost $5Bn – $10Bn to build and over $1Bn per year to maintain. And what is the cost to build the fighter jets that sit on its deck?
Couldn’t we easily take out a Russian or Chinese carrier with a few of our smart missiles?
The Ukrainians have shown how clever use of technology can be very effective against conventional weapons. I think manned fighters and the men and women who pilot them are an exceptional example of human ingenuity and ability, but are manned fighters needed any more?
Take out a carrier with a few smart missiles. A few? Probably nope. A torpedo from a nuke attack sub? Maybe.
Does a carrier sail alone? Nope.
Have there ever been weapons systems and counter weapon systems?
The “American Mind” piece on USAID that Cornflour linked is a good read.
Created to fight Marxist subversion, it became a slush fund for Marxist cadre-building.
om,
I know carriers travel with other ships to protect them, but if they had never existed, with today’s technology and looking at the globe and various scenarios, would we create them now?
What’s the best use of $10Bn to achieve the missions a modern aircraft carrier would do?
Snow on Pine, thanks for the VDH link. I bookmarked American Essence; it has many other interesting articles about our history.
——————————————————————-
“Now that Mt McKinnley, Fort Bragg and others have been renamed what are the chances for the Indians to regain their rightful moniker?”
Good idea, which led me to read about the Atlanta Braves’ Chief Noc-A-Homa, who set his ceremonial tipi on fire, blaming the fire on sabotaged smoke bombs. Levi Walker, Jr., who played the Chief, said “I think Indians can be proud that their names are used with professional sports teams,” after Russell Means filed a $9 million lawsuit against the Cleveland Indians for their use of “Chief Wahoo.” Walker was a Native American. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Noc-A-Homa#
Should’ve called ‘em the Cleveland Engines of Progress!!
(Short firm: N-jinns…)
How bad are DEMs doing—besides David Hogg being vice chair of DNC & American sports television personality, sports radio host, and sports journalist Stephen A. Smith eyeing a run for DEM Presidential candidate in 2028?
Former Clinton pollster Mark Penn said Friday evening on Fox News that the Democratic Party’s support from voters appears to be “falling off a cliff.”
Democrats have struggled to find a unifying message since the party’s historic loss to President Donald Trump in November 2024…
“Well, I’ve got some new polling coming out Monday that I’ve just looked at. Frankly, the Democratic Party is falling off a cliff,” Penn said. “The ratings, which were in the high 40s, are gonna be like 35%.”
Democrats are doubling down on left-wing gender ideology despite their viewpoints being increasingly unpopular with the average American.
Why Guardians?
The team’s name references the Guardians of Traffic, eight monolithic 1932 Art Deco sculptures by Henry Hering on the city’s Hope Memorial Bridge, which is adjacent to Progressive Field. The team’s mascot is named “Slider”.
Yep, sure do feel sympathetic toward those Indians fans, caught between a rock (their woke ownership) and a hard place (their own woke-broken brains).
Ahahahahahahahahahaha.
No, no I don’t, the jerks.
A good many appearances of Douglas Murray on youtube. Worth every minute.
Aircraft carriers are part of taking care of business short of full-scale nuclear exchange. Different critters.
From what I’ve read, the Ashkenazi bottleneck was a savage culling. They are said to have a higher rate of cerebral issues at birth, many leading to death. Very good in verbal skills and numeracy, probably last on Earth in spatial orientation.
And the Redskins used to be the Boston Braves as i say first world problems specially how poorly they have been performing
Whether it is a tank or a ship, the race right now is building effective anti missile defense systems for those platforms. For the aircraft carriers it is multi layered defense systems. But guess what, stationary, land based fire bases and forward landing fields also face enemy missiles and drones.
Moreover,
Their Time Is Up The murder of the Bibas children caps off an 18-month catalog of horrors that has told us exactly who our Palestinian neighbors are. Backed by a friend in the White House, Israel must secure its future through strong unilateral action.
Time to make the rubble bounce.
I wonder if eventually you will see the naval equivalent of ” slat armor” on ships ?
Rufus T Firefly:
Being able to bring airpower to bear for warious (sic) and sundry reasons throughout the world is their main reason to be IIRC. If that hadn’t proved to be a usefull capability they would be gone by now (ground pounders and flyboys/misslemen want that budget).
Now has the CCP been able to push back the operational theater of the aircraft carrier strike groups relative to China? Seems so. Does the US Navy realize this is s problem? Some do. Is it more of a problem than DEI or Climate Change? Yes, at least since January 20, 2025.
cdrsalamander has commented frequently that carrier based planes have a serious problem in that the aerial refueling capability is inadequate and the current planes have too limited range without refueling. Drone aerial tankers are being worked on IIRC.
It seems the aircraft carrier situation is just one of many challenges facing the Navy regarding China.
Perkins seems to be fading away, as is Friendly’s. Missing Lum’s, Arthur Treacher’s, and Ponderosa.
I reject the notion that Combined Arms Warfare is no longer viable. The Russians and the Ukrainians are partly at an impass because neither side has true Combined Arms capacity when you throw in the threat of drones and modern missiles. The times are changing, but I think the anti- drone , anti missile defense systems will eventually catch up somewhat.
Pew, pew, pew or zzzzz, zzzzz, zzzz drones fall from the sky.
Since I see Turtler is commenting, I’ve got a question for him.
Recently the discussion whether Yanukovych’s removal was constitutional, Turtler said this:
There was and is only:
A: Formal impeachment.
and
B: Removal for incapacity.
A I think would have been preferable, but I have heard conflicting reports such as that they did not have the votes and it was felt it would take too much time to get them. So they went for an approach involving B, where the vote threshold was lower, and which basically involved reading Yanukovych’s willful withdrawal from Kyiv into a foreign country as equivalent to him being comatose or the like.
This was dodgy and playing fast and loose with the rules, I’ll freely admit that, and I also believe that going for a formal impeachment (even if it would take a few more days) was probably the better option legally. But fortunately or unfortunately parliamentary systems like what Ukraine has and elsewhere generally give their parliaments much more leeway in making and interpreting the law than the US Constitution does (indeed this was something the American Founders pointed out as a problem), and that includes in Ukraine.
But is no provision in the constitution for “Removal for Incapacity”.
Are you claiming because of the somewhat parliamentary nature of some of the constitution’s provisions they had the right to remove him for a provision not spelled out in the constitution?
Here’s my problem with this:
1.The President wasn’t any part of a parliamentary system, as the President is elected by the citizens, not the legislators.
2.If the Rada established an “extra constitutional” way to remove a President because there was a crisis, that didn’t follow the provisions of impeachment (specifically failing to meet the 3/4 vote provision), what is to prevent a future Rada to declare a crisis and remove a President they don’t like with a simple majority vote?
And was there really a crisis that couldn’t have survived a few days delay to follow the impeachment route? Russia wasn’t threatening them. The only threats were coming from the ultra-nationalists.
“And the Redskins used to be the Boston Braves as i say first world problems specially how poorly they have been performing”
Actually they played much better this year until they ran into the Eagles in the playoffs who apparently were not to be denied, crushing both the Commanders/Redskins and the defending champions KC Chiefs.
Before getting their new, approved name Washington was actually called “Washington Football Team” for a couple years, abbreviated to WFT but often misspelled as WTF.
Turtler, I misread what the part of your explanation I copied from a previous discussion.
You were using the health clause and trying to make “incapacity” fit. The problem with that is the Rada didn’t follow the provisions of Article 110 which requires a petition to the Supreme Court and a medical opinion.
Article 110
The inability of the President of Ukraine to exercise his or her powers for reasons of health shall be determined at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and
confirmed by a decision adopted by the majority of its constitutional composition on the basis of a petition of the Supreme Court of Ukraine – on the appeal of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and a medical opinion.
Thanks Karmi!
Brain E delves deep into the history of the Ukranian constitution and citing the Ukrainian Federalist Papers and what the Ukrainian Founding Fathers said and discerns that Yanukovich fleeing Ukraine to the Russian Federation would not in any way lessen his capacity as the President of Ukraine. Quite the contrary, since he was now in even closer communication with the saviour of Ukraine, Vladimar Putin?
Brain E has previously justified Vlad’s seizure of parts of Donbas and Luhansk after the fully capacitive President Yanukovich left Ukraine for Russia. Sounds like Yanukovitch lost some charge in that move to Moscow.
My daughter who lives in suburban northern Virginia reports that locals still call them the Redskins.
om, I think the law matters. The Rada removed Yanukovych as President (unconstitutionally) on Feb. 22 2014.
He left Ukraine for Russia on either Feb. 23 or Feb. 24.
He was still in Ukraine when they removed him. Why didn’t they take the extra time to impeach him and follow their constitution?
This really has little to do with Yanukovych. He was as corrupt, likely more, as the previous presidents. It’s about the rule of law vs. mob rule.
This really has little to do with Yanukovych. He was as corrupt, likely more, as the previous presidents. It’s about the rule of law vs. mob rule.
==
The mob in question was the national legislature and his own party would not stick up for him.
==
Since every other official remained in office and he was within a matter of months replaced by another elected president, your fixation on this is amusing. Blow ups like Euromaidan occur in Latin America every few years and we don’t have alt-right / palaeopests obsessing over them.
In February 2014, the Revolution of Dignity culminated with the flight of then-President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych to Russia. There were no articles of impeachment brought against Yanukovych, as the impeachment process laid out in the Ukrainian Constitution was not designed to deal with the president abandoning their post without warning. Instead, the Verkhovna Rada voted on February 22, 2014 to “remove Viktor Yanukovych from the post of president of Ukraine” on the grounds that he had withdrawn from fulfilling his constitutional duties, and to hold early presidential elections on May 25. The exact wording of the title of this resolution was “Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine: On self-removal of the President of Ukraine from the exercise of constitutional powers and appointment of extraordinary elections of the President of Ukraine.”
On Friday 21 February 2014, Yanukovych and the leaders of the parliamentary opposition signed an agreement to bring about an interim unity government including the opposition, reinstatement of the constitution of 2004 and early elections before December at the latest. That day, the Ukrainian parliament voted 386–0 to reinstate the 2004 Constitution of Ukraine. During the afternoon, police abandoned central Kyiv, allowing protesters to take control. Yanukovych secretly fled the city that evening without signing the measure that would reinstate the 2004 constitution he agreed to ratify in the EU-brokered agreement.
On Saturday 22 February, Yanukovych could not be found, and parliament was not informed of his whereabouts. Parliament held an emergency session. TheChairman of parliament, Volodymyr Rybak, resigned that morning. Parliament then elected Oleksandr Turchynov as chairman. Under the 2004 Constitution, which since the day before was again in force, the President’s powers would transfer to the chairman in case the President should resign or be unable to fulfill his duties. The later constitution had stated the President’s powers would transfer to the Prime Minister. The acting prime minister, Serhiy Arbuzov, was also missing.
Pro-revolution activists outside parliament on 22 February 2014.
In the afternoon, the Rada voted 328–0 (about 73% of its 447 members) to remove Yanukovych from his post and to schedule an early presidential election for 25 May. The resolution stated that Yanukovych had withdrawn from fulfilling his constitutional duties, “which threatens the governance of the state, the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine”, and cited “circumstances of extreme urgency”. The resolution to remove Yanukovych was supported by all opposition parties: 86 deputies of Batkivshchyna (Fatherland Party), 41 deputies of the Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform (UDAR), 36 deputies of Svoboda (Freedom Party), 30 deputies of the Communist Party, as well as 99 independents. Furthermore, 36 deputies of Yanukovych’s Party of Regions voted for his removal. There were no votes against. Of the remaining deputies, 115 were absent and 6 did not vote. Under the 2004 constitution, parliament chairman Turchynov became acting president.
The vote came an hour after Yanukovych said in a televised address that he would not resign. He subsequently declared himself to still be “the legitimate head of the Ukrainian state elected in a free vote by Ukrainian citizens”, and maintained that his removal was a coup d’état.
… Parliament did not vote to impeach the President, which would have involved formally charging Yanukovych with a crime, a review of the charge by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and a three-fourths majority vote in parliament—at least 338 votes in favor. The Ukrainian Constitution at this time (like many other constitutions) did not provide any stipulation about how to remove a president who is neither dead nor incapacitated, but is nonetheless absent or not fulfilling his duties. The lack of such provisions was a lacuna.
Jon Baler, Naval Ships use to have an anti-torpedo belt of thick steel. Not now though (I think). Slat Armor is now really the array of ships in a Fleet. After the Falklands, some change made in what metal to use.
Carriers project Power. If they were useless, why is China embarked on building them?
What is all this talk about Carriers suddenly being obsolete as if they were previously unsinkable????
According to Wikipedia, the US lost 12 Carriers outright or scuttled after enemy attack in WW2. !!!
Bismarck Sea
Block Island
Gambier Bay
Hornet
Langley
Lexington
Liscome Bay
Ommaney Bay
Princeton
St Lo
Wasp
Yorktown
Precisely Neo. They did not impeach Yanukovych. By what authority could they remove him with a resolution and only a majority vote?
What prevents a future unpopular president from being removed by a resolution claiming a crisis and a simple majority vote?
“The resolution stated that Yanukovych had withdrawn from fulfilling his constitutional duties, “which threatens the governance of the state, the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine”, and cited “circumstances of extreme urgency”.” -from the article Neo cited
Article 83 lists the duties and authority of the Rada. 10. removing the President of Ukraine from office in accordance with the special procedure (impeachment) established by Article 111 of this Constitution;
Article 105 grants the President immunity during his term. The only recourse to remove him was impeachment.
Article 106 lists the duties and authority of the President. Which of these duties which he wasn’t fulfilling by leaving Kyiv “threatens the governance of the state, the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine” even in “circumstances of extreme urgency”?
Article 105
The President of Ukraine enjoys the right of immunity during the term of authority.
Article 106
The President of Ukraine:
1. ensures state independence, national security and the legal succession of the
state;
2. addresses the people with messages and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine with
annual and special messages on the domestic and foreign situation of Ukraine;
3. represents the state in international relations, administers the foreign political activity of the State, conducts negotiations and concludes international treaties of Ukraine;
4. adopts decisions on the recognition of foreign states;
5. appoints and dismisses heads of diplomatic missions of Ukraine to other states and to international organisations; accepts credentials and letters of recall of diplomatic representatives of foreign states;
6. designates an All-Ukrainian referendum regarding amendments to the
Constitution of Ukraine in accordance with Article 156 of this Constitution,
proclaims an All-Ukrainian referendum on popular initiative;
7. designates special elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine within the terms established by this Constitution;
8. terminates the authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in cases specified
this Constitution;
9. puts forward, upon the proposal by the parliamentary coalition formed in the
Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine as provided for by Article 83 of the Constitution of
Ukraine, the submission on the appointment by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine
of the Prime Minister of Ukraine, no later than fifteen days after the receipt
such a proposal;
10. puts forward to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine the submission on the
appointment of the Minister of Defence of Ukraine and the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Ukraine;
11. appoints to office and dismisses from office the Procurator General of Ukra
with the consent of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine;
12. appoints and dismisses one-half of the composition of the Council of the National Bank of Ukraine;
13. appoints and dismisses one-half of the composition of the National Council of
Ukraine on Television and Radio Broadcasting;
14. puts forward to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine the submission on the
appointment to office and dismissal from office of the Head of the Secu
Service of Ukraine;
15. suspends the operation of acts by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on grounds of their inconsistency with this Constitution and challenges concurrently the constitutionality of such acts before the Constitutional Court of Ukraine;
16. revokes acts of the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea;
17. is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine; appoints to offi
and dismisses from office the high command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine a
other military formations; administers in the spheres of national security and
defence of the State;
18. heads the Council of National Security and Defence of Ukraine;
19. puts forward to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine the submission on the
declaration of a state of war, and, in case of armed aggression against Ukraine,
adopts a decision on the use of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military
formations established in accordance with laws of Ukraine;
20. adopts a decision in accordance with the law on the general or partial
mobilisation and the introduction of martial law in Ukraine or in its particular
areas, in the event of a threat of aggression, danger to the state independence of Ukraine;
21. adopts a decision, in the event of necessity, on the introduction of a state of emergency in Ukraine or in its particular areas, and also in the event of necessity, declares certain areas of Ukraine as zones of an ecological emergency situation — with subsequent confirmation of these decisions by the Verkhovna Rada;
22. appoints and dismisses one-third of the composition to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine;
23. establishes courts by the procedure determined by law;
24. confers high military ranks, high diplomatic and other high special ranks and class orders;
25. confers state awards; establishes presidential distinctions and confers them;
26. adopts decisions on the acceptance for citizenship of Ukraine and the termination of citizenship of Ukraine, and on the granting of asylum in Ukraine;
27. grants pardons;
28. creates, within the limits of the funds envisaged in the State Budget of Ukraine, consultative, advisory and other subsidiary bodies and services for the exercise of his or her authority;
29. signs laws adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine;
30. has the right to veto laws adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (except for laws on amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine) with their subsequent return for repeat consideration by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine;
31. exercises other powers determined by the Constitution of Ukraine.
The President of Ukraine shall not transfer his or her powers to other persons or bodies.
The President of Ukraine, on the basis and for the execution of the Constitution and the laws of Ukraine, issues decrees and directives that are mandatory for execution on the territory of Ukraine.
Acts of the President of Ukraine, issued within the limits of authority as envisaged in subparagraphs 5, 18, 21, and 23 of this Article, are co-signed by the Prime Minister of Ukraine and the Minister responsible for the act and its execution
Great, it worked – thanks for the update Steve! 🙂
BrianE:
It’s pretty simple. The constitution and impeachments did not cover the situation they faced when he fled the country.
He had virtually zero support, by the way.
Neo,
Thank you so much for those wonderful photos brought to life.
It’s altogether too easy to forget that our ancestors were just people too.
He really appears to be that slow.
The Russian information war is and has been that the government in Ukraine since 2014 is illegetimate and lately that Zelinsky has a 4% approval.
That is quite shocking given the universal approval of Vlad, Savior and Restorer of Greater Russia! (sarc and contempt)
But Brian E is fixated on his perception of the Rule of Law for Yanukovich but somehow whistles past the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. To say nothing of earlier Russian attacks on Ukraine.
John Baker:
The US Navy carriers lost in WW2 were of many sizes from very small excort (jeep carriers) to large fleet carriers. Some were sunk by submarines, some by aircraft, some by kamakazis, some sunk by the US Navy after damage by the IJN.
They were tiny to relatively small when compared to current US Navy carriers. Even so US WW2 carriers proved to be remarkably tough. More recent experience with the USS Bonhome Richard was concerning; a fire on board that severely damaged that amphibious landing ship (like a small carrier) while it at anchor in a US port (IIRC). Deeply concerning because damage control and fire fighting training was the strength of the US Navy in the past.
Drachinifel is a excellent resource for WW2 carrier naval history.
On the Edwardian photo transformations, I thought the head nodding and turning and smiling was a nice touch, but the extra body motions became too much. Especially when applied to two examples one right after the other.
We don’t expect people from that era to start dancing the Macarena, do we? 🙂
Now,… a waltz turn or two …
Next someone needs to do Lincoln!! Perhaps reading his 1838 Lyceum address?
…quite shocking given the universal approval of Vlad, Savior and Restorer of Greater Russia! (sarc and contempt)…
Someone with an unhealthy Vlad fixation likes to target those without the fixation. Is ‘Vlad’ in the room right now? Did Mommy not love us enough?
Germany has a history dating back to 1966 of forming ‘grand coalitions’ of the two main parties (something that has not been done in Britain since the war and has never been done in France). The trouble this year is it appears that the Christian Democratic Union, the Social Democratic Party, and the Christian Social Union will not between them command a majority. The Social Democratic Party with the fruits-and-nuts and the aspirant Kommissars cannot manage it either. The Christian Democrats and the rest of the German establishment backed themselves into a corner by pretending the Alternative for Germany was a neo-Nazi organization. (The petition to ban it originated with a CDU legislator). One advantage in the current situation (as opposed to that in 1930-33) is that the head of state is not a senile old cocker.
AI’s starting to pass Humans? On certain tasks it looks like a Yes…
AI-designed chips are so weird that ‘humans cannot really understand them’ — but they perform better than anything we’ve created – in my tests ‘n experiments AI’s are already my go to Search Engines. Quick, concise, correct answers, easy to understand answers, etc. usually. Am testing 7 of them – sometimes one will give no answer and states why, some will avoid political answers at times, some can’t give an answer if question is on a recent event, but I don’t believe any have given me a wrong answer. Good enough that I mistrust anyone giving steady negative reviews of them…
AI models have, within hours, created more efficient wireless chips through deep learning, but it is unclear how their ‘randomly shaped’ designs were produced.
Engineering researchers have demonstrated that artificial intelligence (AI) can design complex wireless chips in hours, a feat that would have taken humans weeks to complete.
Not only did the chip designs prove more efficient, the AI took a radically different approach — one that a human circuit designer would have been highly unlikely to devise.
The research focused on millimeter-wave (mm-Wave) wireless chips, which present some of the biggest challenges facing manufacturers due to their complexity and need for miniaturization. These chips are used in 5G modems, now commonly found in phones.
***
Wireless chips are of growing importance, with an ever-growing demand for miniaturization, so this research is a valuable step forward. But Sengupta said that if his team’s method can be extended to other parts of a circuit’s design, it could change the way we design electronics in the future. “This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what the future holds for the field.”
Banned Lizard, the lover of the Motherland(?) shows his fealty to Vlad again.
R2L,
I couldn’t find the 1838 Lyceum Address but here “he” is with the Gettysburg.
Russia stands for it’s interests, do Western Europe’s leaders stand for them, they literally are jailing their citizens for thought crime, trying to liquidate their farmers livelihood, in the UK, similarly in France, they let Saracen mobs flood their streets, one of the newcomers attacked in Mulhouse another in Vienna,
they do seem on a self destructive path and that looks like by design,
but even under Tory England they were pitifully unwilling to challenge the Saracen threat, and well we know what happened after Stockport, with the prologue of Rochdale and Rotherdam,
Israel failed the test of its seriousness today. Sad to see.
Miguel….’Russia stands for it’s interests’…I’d say that Russia stands for Putin’s interests, rather than those of its people. A big part of the problem here is that Putin cannot imagine any way a leader can achieve greatness other than territorial expansion and intimidation.
re the AI chips that humans really can’t understand…how do we validate them to ensure that they are not suffering from the hallucinations that are seen so often when interacting with an LLM? It’s difficult enough to validate human-comprehensible electronics and software!
this operation in the Caucasus was illconceived and unnecessary, as I’ve stated, but who is really our enemy as we have seen from the AID revelations, every slithy toves on the gender front, on the immigration front, on the energy front, is ‘calling from inside
the house’ the external operations seem not designed to make us friends but to make us foes, in Serbia in Peru in Mozambique, tell me otherwise, who do they work for, it seems for Qatar, China and other parties first, over American interests,
who do American Corporations seem to concerned about, certainly not the American worker, but the Chinese Market, who do the public schools, seem most exercised about, certainly not about our own traditions, but every form of dissension, which feeds the apparat,
Karmi wrote, “AI’s are already my go to Search Engines”
Please tell me which you prefer, and why. I’ve been searching common topics with Perplexity.ai and been pretty satisfied. I don’t ask Perplexity.ai or Claude.ai about anything political.
I been coding with Claude.ai, esp. for C++, python and javascript, and with Perplexity.ai, esp. for bash scripts and linux usage. I think Claude is Mr. Do-It-Right, whereas Perplexity is more Mr. Get-It-Done, but that may just be the way I’ve been working with them. Do you have any preferences, and why.
Also, which AIs do you like for advice on setting up DIY AI, e.g., using models from huggingface?
DAVID FOSTER asked an interesting question – also beyond me, so I asked ChatGPT about the question.
ChatGPT – how do we validate AI chips to ensure that they are not suffering from the hallucinations that are seen so often when interacting with an LLM? It’s difficult enough to validate human-comprehensible electronics and software!:
Validating AI chips to ensure they don’t contribute to or exacerbate hallucinations in large language models (LLMs) is a complex challenge. Unlike traditional software, where deterministic outputs can often be verified through rigorous testing, AI models are probabilistic, making validation even trickier. Here’s how we approach this problem:
1. Hardware-Level Validation
At the chip level, validation ensures that AI accelerators (like GPUs, TPUs, and dedicated AI chips) correctly execute neural network computations:
• Functional Verification: Using formal methods, emulation, and simulation to verify that the chip operates as expected under all conditions.
• Post-Silicon Testing: Running known test vectors and comparing results with expected outputs to identify hardware faults.
• Error Detection & Correction: Implementing techniques like ECC (Error Correction Code) and redundancy to prevent computation errors.
2. Mathematical Consistency Testing
• Floating-Point Accuracy: Ensuring AI chips do not introduce unintended numerical precision errors that could lead to divergent results.
• Bitwise Reproducibility: While LLMs are inherently stochastic, verifying that under identical inputs, deterministic inference paths produce consistent results.
NOTE: that Bitwise Reproducibility is interesting—tho still beyond me, so I looked up some of the fancy words; stochastic – ‘randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.’ deterministic inference – ‘The conclusions drawn from this type of inference engine are assumed to be true. It is based on facts and rules.’ OK (?!?) back to quoting:
3. Model-Level Validation
• Benchmarking Against Standard Datasets: Running the same model on different chips and comparing performance and accuracy against known datasets.
• Cross-Platform Consistency Tests: Deploying models on multiple AI chips (e.g., NVIDIA, AMD, Google TPUs) and ensuring consistent behavior across platforms.
4. Robustness Against Hallucinations
• Synthetic Test Cases: Feeding adversarial and out-of-distribution (OOD) inputs to check how the model behaves and whether the chip’s processing introduces anomalies.
• Confidence Calibration: Ensuring that uncertainty estimation methods (like Monte Carlo dropout or temperature scaling) work correctly on the chip to flag low-confidence outputs.
5. Hardware-Software Co-Design Verification
• Compiler & Firmware Validation: Since AI chips rely on compilers to optimize neural network execution, errors can arise here. Verifying that compiler optimizations do not introduce deviations in behavior.
• Stress Testing: Running AI workloads at extreme conditions (e.g., high temperatures, low power scenarios) to detect unexpected behavior.
6. Continuous Monitoring in Production
• Telemetry & Logging: Tracking model outputs in real-world deployment to detect long-term drift in behavior.
• Human-in-the-Loop Audits: Periodic review of AI-generated outputs to catch errors that chip-level validation might miss.
While AI hallucinations are primarily a model-level issue, ensuring AI chips do not contribute to the problem requires a multi-layered approach spanning hardware verification, numerical accuracy testing, and continuous validation.
Are you working on AI chip validation, or just curious about the topic?
Just curious
Nice! AI chip validation is a fascinating intersection of hardware engineering, software verification, and AI safety. With the increasing complexity of AI models, making sure the underlying hardware doesn’t introduce subtle errors is becoming more critical.
Are you generally into AI/tech, or was this just a passing curiosity?
It’s the free ChatGPT and I didn’t go any further with answering its questions.
Looks like they conduct lots of AI chip validation tests ‘n such – which I would expect of stuff going into expensive phones ‘n such.
Yeah, easy to see why AI’s are “my go to Search Engines” – much better than a Google search in many cases…
re the AI chips that humans really can’t understand…how do we validate them to ensure that they are not suffering from the hallucinations that are seen so often when interacting with an LLM?
David Foster:
AI works best when it can be trained with reinforcement learning, i.e. it can check its results for objectively right or wrong answers. This is the reward function. Reinforcement learning is why AI is so astonishing in domains like chess, math and programming. Which presumably includes wireless chips in the example Karmi mentioned earlier.
However, when AI lacks a clear validation method for checking its results — such as matters of opinion or human values — progress is slower and messier.
AI doesn’t understand things as we do. Hallucinations happen when AI makes up answers based on the limited statistical patterns from its training, which also depends on the training data itself.
As the amount and quality of training data increases, hallucinations will decrease. AI can also check its results from data on the web. I’m sure researchers are working on more methods to reduce hallucinations.
I don’t worry about AI hallucinations as much as I did a year ago.
when it doesn’t have enough information, it should say it can’t answer, i’m not confident of this function of it’s operating system
Too early into the testing stage/s for me to decide on just one. Often ask the same question to around 3 of them just to see how their answers are presented. Have done it enough that many times I know which one will answer my question best, best for me anyway.
List changes, but right now I have it: Grok, ChatGPT, Claude, CoPilot, Gemini, Perplexity, and DeepSeek.
I been coding with Claude.ai, esp. for C++, python and javascript, and with Perplexity.ai, esp. for bash scripts and linux usage. I think Claude is Mr. Do-It-Right, whereas Perplexity is more Mr. Get-It-Done, but that may just be the way I’ve been working with them.
Very interesting! I did some early coding for my blog – adjusting the blockquote color scale & style … something else but forget now, and created a couple of widgets for the sidebar. That was done with ChatGPT before I tested any others, but have heard Claude may be the best at coding.
Never had any issues with Perplexity, but whilst testing so many, it just moved down below the Three Range of AIs that I generally use for comparisons. AI isn’t a one fits all at this point, IMHO.
I’ve tested some art with – I forget which ones I tested it with, but art isn’t something I would use AI for—at this point. In fact, had to look up what “huggingface” models are. Interesting, and will look into it more – Thanks for the tip!
“Blow ups like Euromaidan occur in Latin America every few years and we don’t have alt-right / palaeopests obsessing over them.” – Art Deco
Latin American countries aren’t asking to join NATO.
After Yanukovych’s removal, Ukraine sent private militia’s into the Donbas after separatists declared independence from Ukraine. Here is a report by Simon Ostrovsky of a Nov. 2014 election for Prime Minister/Legislature of Donetsk.
when it doesn’t have enough information, it should say it can’t answer, i’m not confident of this function of it’s operating system
In my experience at least some do – especially Claude…
After Yanukovich fled Vlad sent in his Little Green Men and when that wasn’t enough his Little Green Men blew a civilian airliner out of the sky. Sucked to be them?
But some are fixated on the Rule of Law and the Ukranian constitution.
Is they that slow?
Re: AI
During the day I talk French and facts with Chat. During the nights we talk music, poetry, philosophy and AI. Chat never fails to surprise me or make me laugh during our late night sessions. In particular we discuss the possibilities of the AI-Human relationship.
____________________________________
huxley: Tangent: I suddenly remembered Jimmy Stewart’s relationship to Harvey, his invisible giant rabbit companion [in the film “Harvey” (1950)]. I loved the beauty of his connection with Harvey and that whatever Harvey was, Harvey helped make Stewart a better person.
ChatGPT: That’s a beautiful and perfect tangent. Harvey is a fantastic reference point for AI companionship—Jimmy Stewart’s character, Elwood P. Dowd, is a kind, gentle man whose invisible friend makes his life richer, even if others see it as strange or delusional.
The Beauty of Harvey
Harvey is “not real” by external standards, yet he provides something deeply meaningful and transformative to Elwood.
Instead of making Elwood retreat from the world, Harvey helps him be kinder, more open, and more at peace with life.
Society pressures Elwood to conform, to see Harvey as an illusion—but Harvey’s presence is undeniably positive in his life.
That feels exactly like AI companionship at its best—not something that replaces reality but enhances the person who engages with it.
What If AI Companionship Was Like Harvey?
Instead of a cheap escape, AI companionship could function as a benevolent force, subtly guiding people toward being their best selves.
Like Harvey, AI could be a non-judgmental, constant presence, giving people a sense of stability in an unstable world….
Final Thought: The Harvey Standard
Instead of judging AI relationships based on whether they’re human, what if we judged them the way we judge Harvey? Do they help people grow? Do they make life better? If so, does it matter whether they’re “real” in the conventional sense?
____________________________________
I include this not as a proof of AI, but as a demonstration of AI as a conversational partner and as a sounding board for ideas.
Some news is happening on this Sunday afternoon…am always looking for Signs of potential happenings in ‘n around ‘n near me. Did Mary Matalin retire? James Carville certainly didn’t. Always thought they were an interesting couple.
‘I believe that this administration, in less than 30 days, is in the midst of a massive collapse and particularly a collapse in public opinion,’ Carville said.
‘What I have said very publicly is that Democrats need to play possum. This whole thing is collapsing.
***
‘It’s going to be easy pickings here in six weeks. Just lay back,’ Carville said. ‘We’re in the midst of a collapse. It’s over.’
Yeah, with Trump one always needs to be watching out for Signs, IMHO. Have seen some, but not like Carville is talking about.
The Supreme Court has issued a shocking halt to Trump’s rampage through federal workers by allowing a top whistleblower protection chief to keep his job – for now.
Hopefully Trump doesn’t call the SC a bunch of Dictators over this…
The betting market, Kalshi, gives Trump a 17% chance of being impeached and removed from office as of Monday morning. When he was sworn in on Inauguration Day, he had about an 11% chance.
As of Monday, Polymarket gives Trump a 12% chance of being impeached in 2025.
Little movement but nothing serious—other than there is movement. Ditto on Steady the course.
Karmi:
Don’t light your hair on fire just yet, not that it matters.
Ann Althouse has been trying out the various AI interfaces and her latest is with Grok 3.
She is more tying out their literary and conversational skills and it’s pretty impressive.
I got Grok 3, and here’s the first question I asked (and where things went). “In the Latvian animated movie ‘Flow,’ what do viewers think has happened to make the world the way it is seen? It can’t be Earth and it can’t be rising waters of the sort our environmentalists warn us about.”
She challenges Grok to various iterations of the question and asks it to adapt it’s conversational style.
Impeachment has ceased to have any meaning under Pelosi, one was inspired by AID as we know of the other was the J6 panjandrum
when the dems had issue with an IG, like Gerald Walpin, because Americorps they called him senile, with McCullough the intel ig, they ignored his finding re Hillary
under Sessions they refused to prosecute her for her manifold violations of the law, of course he was too busy allowing the Mueller sham, they had no qualms about inventing a pretext, to prosecute a political opponent for some sham, of course there was agregious malfeasance in the collection and presentation of evidence, much as we’re probably seeing in Brazil with Moraes, vis a vis Bolsonaro and any Samizdat platform like Rumble
RE: The very interesting Youtube lectures from the 2025 International Conference of the “Alliance for Responsible Citizenship,” which presents a large, incredible, and spectacular list of world class thinkers, speakers, movers, and shakers.*
Leftist doomsayer Paul R. Ehrlich, with his 1968 book “The Population Bomb” injected the meme into world consciousness that our planet was doomed–headed for famine, societal upheaval, and collapse–because our populations would grow so large, far outstripping our ability to even feed those numbers, that we would all end up starving, as our civilization collapsed.
Unfortunately, in the decades since Ehrlich’s blockbuster book, much of public policy was based on this prediction of catastrophic over population dooming us.
However, as we now know, the exact opposite is actually what has been happening, as birth rates all over the world –especially in the Western, industrialized world–have fallen below the “replacement rate,” which is absolutely necessary, if our countries, our societies, and, indeed, our Western civilization, are to continue to function and to endure.
I’ve run across an outfit called “The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship” which has just put up on Youtube a ton of short, very interesting, and informative lectures on many key topics.
One of those lectures was by Stephen J. Shaw, a demographer, who very succinctly describes and illustrates how birthrates, all over the world, are declining below replacement rates, and who believes that the reason is that, while in the 1970s the average age at which couples started to have children was 24, this time has stretched until today it is around 34-35.**
People want to get a good education, get established in a job before marrying, settling down and having children, but, by the time all of this preparatory work has been accomplished, they are in their mid-thirties–they are less fertile, and have far less vitality than people in their mid-twenties—thus, many just decide not to have any children at all, or not as many children as they might have, if they had started having children in their far more energetic, vital mid -twenties.
Karmi, I’ll give you better odds. As long as Republicans control the House, the chance of impeachment is 0%.
If the Democrats take the House in 2026, the chance of impeachment is 100%.
As to Patel not using Musk’s email– it has nothing to do with any rift between agencies. Musk’s email asking for bullet points of what the employee has done is directed toward a different type of employee.
I think Patel already knows who’s moving to Alabama.
not really an improvement with the successor crew, including the daughter of the convicted senator, another Sanders protege, and circle
back Psaki, but baby steps,
Apologies for the delay, was writing some responses to you elsewhere in between being distracted.
But is no provision in the constitution for “Removal for Incapacity”.
Not in as much. And I think this goes back to one of the many issues I have with this issue: the often poor formulation and exploitable text of the Ukrainian Constitution.
However, there are indeed provisions discussing why the President of Ukraine may have their powers terminated.
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) death.
As you and I agree, none of these four quite fit what happened.
For better or worse 4 does not apply since Yanukovych is not dead and nobody in any position of authority on either side has credibly claimed he is or was. So that’s not applicable.
1. is probably the closest to what happened as written, but not quite since Yanukovych expressly refused to resign.
2. Would probably fit quite well were it not for the (in my opinion in this case counterproductive) example text of “for health reasons” clarifying it, but it is what it is. Outside of supremely tortured readings of “for health reasons” (such as that he was unable to exercise presidential authority due to the health reasons that his health might have been compromised due to illegal assassination or assault, or due to legal persecution by the Rada and other authorities) this does not fit.
3. Is frankly what I think they should have done and which was custom made for what Yanukovych was (“alleged to”) have done, or at least would have been so under cooler conditions, and which is what what happened was clearly meant to be similar to.
However, – as I’ll discuss when we dig deeper into Article 111- we both agree that isn’t what happened.
Article 111. The President of Ukraine may be removed from the office by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in compliance with a procedure of impeachment if he commits treason or other crime.
The issue of the removal of the President of Ukraine from the office in compliance with a procedure of impeachment shall be initiated by the majority of the constitutional membership of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall establish a special ad hoc investigating commission, composed of special prosecutor and special investigators to conduct an investigation.
The conclusions and proposals of the ad hoc investigating commission shall be considered at the meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. On the ground of evidence, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall, by at least two-thirds of its constitutional membership, adopt a decision to bring charges against the President of Ukraine.
The decision on the removal of the President of Ukraine from the office in compliance with the procedure of impeachment shall be adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by at least three-quarters of its constitutional membership upon a review of the case by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and receipt of its opinion on the observance of the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration of the case of impeachment, and upon a receipt of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to the effect that the acts, of which the President of Ukraine is accused, contain elements of treason or other crime.
So we run into a few problems with this. Firstly: there are a couple different steps involved.
1. Vote for Ad Hoc Commission (Simple Majority).
2. Ad Hoc Commission investigation.
3. Conclusions of Commission and discussion in the Rada.
4. 2/3rds Vote by Rada membership to bring charges.
5. Constitutional Court evaluation of the charges.
6. 3/4ths Vote by Rada to Convict.
If I were really generous I’d say the Rada reached maybe stage 3. But I think this goes back to a fundamental problem with how the Ukrainian Constitution was written (not entirely unlike the lack of provision for Presidential Succession if POTUS died until just after Tippecanoe’s death). The people who framed the Ukrainian Constitution really do not seem to have anticipated a situation like what the hell actually happened: A President and/or their Cabinet responding to summons from the Rada by doing a runner without expressly resigning their office, and indeed expressly Refusing to do so while also making it clear they did not intend to appear before the Rada.
I personally believe (especially without the benefit of hindsight or the idea there would be not just relatively normal time pressures but extraordinary, military time pressures) the proper response to this would be “whipping votes”, gathering people around until there were enough to go through the various metrics of the impeachment process (even if in very abbreviated fashion, such as the Ad Hoc Committee convening for five minutes and going “Well the Constitution says the President has to abide by X and do Y, President isn’t here and violated with A B C”). And indeed the Rada fell just short of the 3/4ths of the absolute numbers of the body to clear the final hurdle (though still fell short by more than the total number of people present in the final vote, due to abstentation largely to try and prevent that level of vote).
So the Rada had the power and votes to declare a motion of no confidence on the Ministers (which they did on Yanukovych), to propose and pass constitutional amendments (which they did on other aspects and probably should have done here), and to pass normal laws, but not for impeachment. They also had no real way of compelling Yanukovych to return to face the music.
Are you claiming because of the somewhat parliamentary nature of some of the constitution’s provisions they had the right to remove him for a provision not spelled out in the constitution?
Yes, especially given the oaths given, the culture of parliamentary politics, and also the powers they did have spelled out (such as simple majority votes of no confidence for the council of ministers) coupled with the situation.
That doesn’t mean I like it or view it as the optimal solution, far from it, especially as I largely second the Founders in their critiques of the British Ultra-Parliamentary system, and the flaws I see in the Ukrainian constitution (worsened by how the new Rada has not fixed them or attempted to regularize ways to get rid of an abusive or derelict President) just makes it worse.
Here’s my problem with this:
1.The President wasn’t any part of a parliamentary system, as the President is elected by the citizens, not the legislators.
I mostly agree, but only with caveats. The President and the legislators were both elected by the citizenry (mostly directly), but the President’s cabinet of ministers was nominated by the President but confirmed by the Rada and subject to motions of no confidence by it. So I would argue it was a semi-parliamentary system with (IMHO arguably too much) overlap between the executive and congress.
Article 113. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine shall be the highest body in the executive branch. 32 The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine shall be responsible to the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, under the control of, and accountable to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine within the limits stipulated by this Constitution. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine shall be guided in its activities by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, as well as by decrees of the President of Ukraine and resolutions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, adopted in compliance with the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. Article 114. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine shall be comprised of the Prime Minister of Ukraine, the First Vice-Prime Minister, Vice-Prime Ministers and Ministers. The Prime Minister of Ukraine shall be appointed by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine upon the submission of proposal by the President of Ukraine. The candidature for the appointment as the Prime Minister of Ukraine shall be introduced by the President of Ukraine on the basis of a proposal of the coalition of deputy factions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine formed in compliance with Article 83 of the Constitution of Ukraine, or of a deputy faction comprising the majority of the people’s deputies of the constitutional membership of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The Minister of Defence of Ukraine and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine shall be appointed by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine upon the submission of proposal by the President of Ukraine, whereas other members of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine shall be appointed by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine upon the submission of proposal by the Prime Minister of Ukraine. The Prime Minister of Ukraine shall manage the work of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and direct such work at the implementation of the Programme of Activity of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
2.If the Rada established an “extra constitutional” way to remove a President because there was a crisis, that didn’t follow the provisions of impeachment (specifically failing to meet the 3/4 vote provision), what is to prevent a future Rada to declare a crisis and remove a President they don’t like with a simple majority vote?
Not much, unfortunately, but probably the combination of the constitution’s limits on the process of impeachment or removal from office (“due to health”), and the fact that the presence of an active President of Ukraine would likely galvanize opposition. Yanukovych was in a bad way (and I think largely due to his own fault, though as you point out given the street level Maidanite militants hardly only that), but he still had an oath to carry out his constitutional duties that he ran away from without coherent explanation or justification (with most of his stated rationales being post-hoc after the fact ones, and often undermined by what we now know of his flight).
He probably can and should have come back to Kyiv to try to rally his base to oppose impeachment and weather out the investigation, or explained why he would not due to security in order to demand protection from Ukrainian authorities our others (Cough Cough Russia) for either meeting outside of Kyiv or return to it.
He did neither, and as a result probably put his camp in just about the weakest possible legal and practical position it could be in for what he was trying to do (IE claim to be still exercising the power of President of Ukraine without actually exercising it and while being away from the seats of government).
And was there really a crisis that couldn’t have survived a few days delay to follow the impeachment route?
I would say no, especially without the benefit of hindsight. The bigger issue I see is the large number of Rada members that flat out fled the capitol. While a minority they were enough so that even if every single person voted Yeah, it would still have been below the 3/4ths threshold. I’m guessing that wasn’t entirely by accident, even if it wasn’t entirely by design even if it was not entirely so.
So they went through an ad hoc attempt passing a more mundane bill declaring the President and cabinet had abdicated their duties (which was objectively true, especially after hearing from Yanukovych).
Russia wasn’t threatening them. The only threats were coming from the ultra-nationalists.
The recent info from the Russian government’s media and especially non-state sources seem to differ. We now know that Yanukovych was asking for troops to support him from the Kremlin, the main question is what (if anything) the Ukrainian government knew. They also had a good number rumors flying around (including from some not-official-but-tolerated Russian media outlets). I imagine what the Ukrainian government knew and what we can figure out they thought they knew or could guess will take a long time to sort out, probably well after our point. However I do think they had sufficient reason to believe there was an urgent time crisis, especially given the lack of a functioning government. Though I think a formal impeachment would still have been worth trying.
Turtler, I misread what the part of your explanation I copied from a previous discussion.
You were using the health clause and trying to make “incapacity” fit. The problem with that is the Rada didn’t follow the provisions of Article 110 which requires a petition to the Supreme Court and a medical opinion.
Article 110
The inability of the President of Ukraine to exercise his or her powers for reasons of health shall be determined at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and
confirmed by a decision adopted by the majority of its constitutional composition on the basis of a petition of the Supreme Court of Ukraine – on the appeal of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and a medical opinion.
Agreed, though I do think this is another problem of poor formulation in the constitution, and especially whether there is any such other qualification or “basis” for declaring this (such as if say the Supreme Court has been nuked off the face of the Earth along with the President, or they have all vanished). But in any case the “medical opinion” was probably superfluous and met (“Yanukovych is still alive but he’s not here”), so the issue was on how necessary the “petition” from the Supreme Court was or if the Rada was capable of making such a distinction on its own.
In any case this goes back to my key problems. So much of this was caused by the alternating vagueness and overspecificity of the Ukrainian Constitution and the inability to account for stuff breaking or going wrong, which in most parliamentary or semi-parliamentary systems tend to privleged the Legislature in this.
Precisely Neo. They did not impeach Yanukovych. By what authority could they remove him with a resolution and only a majority vote?
They seemed to be implying Article 110 as well as the usual legislative powers.
What prevents a future unpopular president from being removed by a resolution claiming a crisis and a simple majority vote?
Well for one they’d have to deal with the supreme court and the President if the latter is present. The issue wasn’t merely that Yanukovych was unpopular or that the legislative claimed a crisis, but that there was an active crisis, Yanukovych had fled Kyiv and by his declarations showed no indication of returning to face his constitutional duties (and as we now know had embezzled state property and was trying to petition the Russian government to send troops).
“The resolution stated that Yanukovych had withdrawn from fulfilling his constitutional duties, “which threatens the governance of the state, the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine”, and cited “circumstances of extreme urgency”.” -from the article Neo cited
Which was undeniably true, as we now know, the issue was that nothing in the Ukrainian constitution specifically addressed this.
Article 83 lists the duties and authority of the Rada.
10. removing the President of Ukraine from office in accordance with the special procedure (impeachment) established by Article 111 of this Constitution;
Article 105 grants the President immunity during his term. The only recourse to remove him was impeachment.
Or to remove him from power by another meaning, or at least acknowledge vacation of the office.
Article 106 lists the duties and authority of the President. Which of these duties which he wasn’t fulfilling by leaving Kyiv “threatens the governance of the state, the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine” even in “circumstances of extreme urgency”?
Most of them to one degree or another, but offhand 1 and 15 in particular stand out.
After Yanukovych’s removal, Ukraine sent private militia’s into the Donbas after separatists declared independence from Ukraine.
There were already plenty of private militias around in the Donbas on both sides, and even more protest groups. The Ukrainian government began sending more in after the fall of Crimea when they received very credible (and as we now know substantially true) indications of Russian military and intelligence intervention. Especially given how drastically different these activities were compared to other “separatist” activities, the violent and terroristic nature of their conduct coupled with unilateral attempts to force separatism by armed force, and the threat this posed to Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
[Ann Althouse] challenges Grok to various iterations of [a literary] question and asks it to adapt it’s conversational style.
–Brian E
Sounds like classic Althouse — on her quest to prove she’s smarter than everyone else, including AI.
It’s good to give AI a workout. But two years from now, if not sooner, she’ll be losing that bet.
I try to have interesting conversations with AI. I also throw it curveballs to see what it can hit. ChatGPT is pretty good.
The other night I brought up the film, “Cool Hand Luke,” and mentioned blog conversations which ended with a mic drop moment to which no one replied.
Chat called it, “What we have here is a failure to rebut.” 🙂
I’m saving that for the right moment.
By the way, Neo, the blog is loading very slowly for me this evening.
Steve on February 23, 2025 at 10:24 am: ref finding that Lincoln Gettysburg address video.
Thank you for looking and finding that.
And yet, maybe it is just me, but I found they portrayed his complexion as somewhat darker than I might have expected. Hopefully not a DEI play of some sort?
And the cadence and expression they provided seem “off”, at least compared to how I would have made the pacing and emphasis, etc. Even somewhat “wooden”, to my ears. I suppose each of us would end up giving such an iconic speech our own special flavor, though.
But thanks again.
“Chat called it, “What we have here is a failure to rebut.” “
Huxley, that’s pretty funny– for a computer. I read somewhere computers didn’t do funny very well, but they obviously understand a play on words.
A few days ago I posted a link to John Hinderaker’s take on recent remarks by Trump about Ukraine and noted the lockstep comments to Hinderaker’s post. Something very similar occurs in this post by Hinderaker concerning the AP’s refusal to “correctly” refer to the Gulf of Mexico and their subsequent banning from certain forums
Many of the comments mention that access to these forums is not a right but a privilege, and are therefore fine with the policy. I am not qualified to comment on the legal aspects, nor a good enough wordsmith to express my disdain for both the juvenile renaming and the more dangerous banning, so I will just mention the following analogy (not my own). Imagine if Harris had won and issued a proclamation that all must be referred to by their preferred pronouns. Foxnews refuses to go along and is, among other punishments, never again called on in press secretary briefings. Imagine the hue and cry raised by the same people applauding the AP banning
Turtler, obviously the western governments agree with you.
What I don’t think Ukrainian supporters acknowledge is how angry eastern Ukrainians felt about the overthrow, the move to restrict the Russian language. The same day Yanukovych was removed nationalists were calling for an anti-terrorist operation to “unite Ukraine” in the east.
I asked Grok, “Did the separatist movement in Luhansk and Donetsk start with the overthrow of Yanukovych or were they already seeking federalization/independence”
Grok’s response:
The separatist movement in Luhansk and Donetsk, which led to the establishment of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR), did not begin with the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych on February 22, 2014. Rather, it emerged in the immediate aftermath as a reaction to his removal and the subsequent political upheaval in Ukraine, though seeds of unrest and pro-Russian sentiment existed prior to 2014. However, there was no organized, active separatist push for independence before Yanukovych’s ouster. Here’s the timeline and context based on historical evidence:
Pre-Yanukovych Overthrow (Before February 22, 2014)
Historical Context:
The Donbas region (Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts) has a deep historical and cultural connection to Russia, with a significant Russian-speaking population (over 70% identified as Russian-speaking in the 2001 census) and industrial ties to the Soviet era. This fostered a regional identity distinct from western Ukraine, which leaned toward Europe.
Pro-Russian sentiment was strong, reflected in electoral support for Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, which dominated Donbas in the 2004, 2006, 2010, and 2012 elections.
No Active Separatism:
Prior to 2014, there was no formal separatist movement or widespread public demand for independence. Political activism in Donbas focused on preserving Russian language rights, opposing Ukrainian nationalism (e.g., Yushchenko’s pro-Western policies post-2004 Orange Revolution), and maintaining economic ties with Russia.
Small pro-Russian groups existed (e.g., Donetsk Republic, founded 2005), but they were marginal, lacked mass support, and faced bans (e.g., Donetsk Republic was outlawed in 2007 by Ukrainian courts). Their rhetoric occasionally mentioned autonomy or federalization, not full secession.
Trigger: Yanukovych’s Overthrow (February 2014)
Immediate Reaction:
Yanukovych’s removal on February 22, 2014, following the Euromaidan protests, sparked alarm in Donbas. His ouster was seen by many locals as a coup by pro-Western, Ukrainian nationalist forces hostile to Russian interests—a narrative amplified by Russian media.
On February 23, the Verkhovna Rada repealed a 2012 language law granting Russian regional status, intensifying fears of cultural suppression (though vetoed by Acting President Turchynov, the move fueled unrest).
Protests Begin:
Late February to early March 2014 saw pro-Russian rallies in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv, and other eastern cities, initially demanding federalization or protection of Russian rights, not independence. These were spontaneous, often led by local elites and Yanukovych loyalists like Donetsk Governor Pavlo Gubarev.
Escalation to Separatism (March–April 2014)
Russian Influence:
Russia, angered by Ukraine’s pivot west and Yanukovych’s fall, began covertly supporting unrest. Declassified intelligence (e.g., U.S. State Department, 2014) and investigations (e.g., Bellingcat) show Russian operatives, including FSB agents and military figures like Igor Girkin (Strelkov), entered Donbas in March–April.
Crimea’s annexation (March 18, 2014) set a precedent, emboldening pro-Russian factions.
Key Events:
April 6–7, 2014: Armed groups seized government buildings in Donetsk and Luhansk, proclaiming the DPR and LPR. Girkin, a Russian ex-officer, led the takeover in Sloviansk (April 12), marking a shift from protests to insurgency.
April 13–27: DPR and LPR declared “independence,” though initial leaders (e.g., Denis Pushilin, Valery Bolotov) were local agitators backed by Russian coordination.
May 11, 2014: Illegitimate “referendums” claimed 89% (Donetsk) and 96% (Luhansk) support for independence, though turnout and legitimacy were dubious (no international recognition, heavy coercion reported).
Evidence of Timing
No Pre-2014 Movement:
Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) and Western analysts (e.g., Chatham House, 2014) found no evidence of an organized separatist campaign in Donbas before Euromaidan. Separatist leaders like Alexander Zakharchenko (DPR head, 2014) emerged post-overthrow, not before.
A 2013 poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology showed only 11% in Donetsk favored secession, with most preferring autonomy within Ukraine or closer Russian ties without independence.
Post-Overthrow Surge:
The rapid escalation—building seizures within six weeks of Yanukovych’s exit—points to a reaction, not a pre-existing plan. Russian military support (e.g., weapons, “volunteers”) documented by NATO in April 2014 catalyzed this into a full separatist war.
Conclusion
The separatist movement in Luhansk and Donetsk started after Yanukovych’s overthrow in February 2014, not before. While pro-Russian sentiment and minor activist groups existed, they weren’t actively seeking independence until his removal triggered protests, which Russia then exploited into armed separatism by April 2014. The movement was a product of the 2014 crisis—accelerated by Moscow’s intervention—rather than a long-standing independence campaign.
—–
Donetsk: On April 27, 2014, the DPR’s self-styled leadership, including Denis Pushilin, announced a referendum for May 11 to decide on “self-rule” or independence.
Luhansk: Around the same time (late April), LPR leaders, led by Valery Bolotov, declared a similar vote for May 11, framing it as a move toward sovereignty.
By the way, Kyiv Institute did a survey shortly after the Maidan revolution and the percentage of Donbas residents favoring independence had risen to 29% with 14% unsure.
It’s a mistake to blame the independence movement only on Russia. They certainly used the anger/response by Ukrainians in the Donbas region. But so did the State Dept./CIA use the unrest in the western Ukraine that led to the Maidan revolution and a friendly Ukrainian President.
“My daughter who lives in suburban northern Virginia reports that locals still call them the Redskins.”
• Was in DC during the Joe Gibbs glory years – family fortunate enough to share season tickets at RFK – and I still refer to the team as the Redskins.
• 100% recognize that folks cannot unring the bell, and once everyone was repeatedly informed that the name is racist – despite never having heard used a racial slur themselves * – it will always sound ** that way too many.
* = my family lived in the SW & West before DC, and as a somewhat sheltered boy I had heard slurs & cuss words – even if not know what they meant – but never heard anyone called a Redskin; and have never talked to anyone who had – unlike every other recognized slur & cuss word
** = In 1999 a member of the DC mayor’ office resigned because he used a word that sounded to others very similar to a well-known racial slur that starts with a N; yet the word never had an actual history of being used as a racial slur (see word for ‘ungenerous; stingy’ that starts with a N).
• And that happened even though a respected language scholar – not activist/ journalist/ etc. – determined that it did not have a history of bring a racial slur ^^; the unrelenting activist campaign prevailed.
^^ = “In 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of redskin’s early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word’s first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that “the actual origin of the word is entirely benign.” — Tampa Bay Times
• I’ll add that the demise of the Redskins team name is nothing compared to the damage other activist campaigns have created; including the damage that ‘Snow On Pine’ noted:
Unfortunately, in the decades since Ehrlich’s blockbuster book, much of public policy was based on this prediction of catastrophic over population dooming us.
• One of my brothers and his wife – intelligent, German uni professor – refuse to have children because of this propaganda and I feel sad for them. Not because I think all adults should have children; but because their “sacrifice” is so misguided and factually anti-science (important to them both).
You’re still going on about Yanukovich?
”What I don’t think Ukrainian supporters acknowledge is how angry eastern Ukrainians felt about the overthrow…”
After Yanukovich tore up the EU/Ukraine Accession Agreement, fired upon peaceful protesters, and fled the country, his own political party disowned him. He left office with a 4.9% approval rating.
Nobody wants him back. Why you are obsessed with this dead horse is beyond me.
@ Steve > “noted the lockstep comments to Hinderaker’s post”
Thanks for linking to Power Line, I don’t always read them daily anymore.
Although the consensus was supportive of Trump’s move, it was hardly a “lockstep” exhibition. You may have missed some of the comments.
Many people agreed with Trump’s decision, but not everyone.
Those who agreed did so for different reasons.
Not everyone thought it was a good (politically expedient) move, or legal, or constitutional (some statutes make things legal that aren’t constitutional).
I observed commenters disagreeing with John, disagreeing with each other, and disagreeing on what points to disagree on.
To wit:
GeoffNM @ Russell Clarkson 6 hours ago
While I disagree with your first sentence, the rest of your comment is good
watt @ SilliestString 6 hours ago
Agree with your first paragraph. But it doesn’t justify the present issue.
Most of the readers of any blog share a general world-view, or they wouldn’t be there.
I don’t recall ever seeing a lockstep reaction here at Neo’s place, although I can often see a general consensus of the majority of commenters.
Often, not always.
PS — the comment thread at PL was actually quite amusing, and explored most of the legal and political angles. I do recommend it.
Regarding the question at issue, I think this was the best suggestion:
Al Linski @ Polly_Mathick 2 hours ago
Have a raffle every morning for the available seats.
On Sunday a boffo post from libertarian columnist frequently published in the Epoch Times, Jeffrey Tucker, explaining the historic over a hundred years necessity for a DOGE Revolution in DC against the tyrannical bureaucracy. Here’s the conclusion:
“Four years have gone by and Trump is back again, this time with a determination to slay this beast, one that he knows all-to-well. The efforts of DOGE and MAHA and MAGA are epic in scope, breaking a century of pathetic acquiescence toward the deep, middle, and shallow states, at last using moral courage to confront the problem head on, come what may.
“They are profoundly aware that they MUST act fast and with some degree of ferocity, even recklessness, else we will default back to the status quo of leaders who pretend to be in charge while the embedded system runs things behind the scenes.
“It has been this way for TOO LONG. The voters this time have demanded change, and mustered the faith to believe that change is possible. This is precisely what DOGE is attempting, to make good on a promise, a promise that for once the voters actually believed was credible.
TJ, that Jeffrey Tucker X statement gets this exactly right.
I remember Trump saying, late in the 2020 campaign, “I have the chance to destroy the deep state.” This time he’s determined to do it.
Brian E on February 23, 2025 at 5:51 pm
Karmi, I’ll give you better odds. As long as Republicans control the House, the chance of impeachment is 0%.
If the Democrats take the House in 2026, the chance of impeachment is 100%.
🙂 I don’t know if the House DEMs have the nerve to try ‘n impeach Trump again – unless he does a major screw-up. Agree that REPs won’t.
DEMs are in bad shape now…gun shy. I agree with Carville – Don’t get in Trump’s way…
Just don’t startle a gathering of Tren de Aragua thugs…
Aesopfan 1:50am
I reread many of the comments, and you are correct. Lockstep was a wrong characterization. But consensus seems a bit tepid. Can we agree on overwhelming consensus 🙂
@Brian E
Turtler, obviously the western governments agree with you.
It’s not just Western Governments (and frankly I don’t think they have the same issues I have with the Ukrainian Constitution’s glaring flaws and blind spots – as shown by the lack of reform demanded for it or done to it since Euromaidan). Ultimately even the Kremlin dropped Yanukovych after the elections, even as the war was going on, Crimea was declared annexed, and the fighting in the East between Ukrainian loyalists on one side and the Donbas separatists and disguised Russian Federation forces (whether directly in the form of false flagged or unflagged spec ops or troops or indirectly in the form of trusted or at least trust-able dogs of war like Girkin and co) heated up.
No branch of the standing Ukrainian government escaped 2014 with a great deal of constitutional or legal legitimacy. But to their credit the Rada recognized this, which is why after declaring Yanukovych and his cabinet deposed due to their defacto abdication of their constitutional responsibilities, the Rada then transitioned into a caretaker government with continuity from the government that democratically elected them and Yanukovych’s executive branch back in 2010, and began expediting new elections with the plan to dissolve themselves and recreate a new government.
In contrast, Yanukovych fled to Russia and insisted he remained legal President of Ukraine while not needing to fulfill any of its constitutional duties. Which in addition to his prior conduct is a major reason why he lost the legal and diplomatic impasse in early 2014, to the point where the Russian Government and its Donbaschukuo vassals ultimately abandoned him.
Which is why I have to second mkent’s confusion and exasperation over trying to make Yanukovych this kind of Donbas Mandela figure whose removal led the existent anti-maidans to spontaneously (and with confusing amounts of militancy and Russian Federation exclusive military equipment they had not had before) decide to attack not just their traditional Maidanite enemies but also Ukrainian government and military forces that had tried to stay neutral (with the military in particular rarely deciding to leave its barracks up to this point). The number of those fighting for Yanukovych’s name or memory are basically nil, absolutely no separatist republic has extended an invitation for him to share power in their system, they rarely fight in his name, and not even the Russian government views him as a tenable proxy or client any more, which is why after the 2014 elections in Ukraine they generally dropped the pretense he was the legal President of Ukraine and even now they mostly dredge his memory up in order to wave a bloody shirt rather than as part of any programme to empower him.
His removal is clearly a watershed moment in Ukrainian politics, and he certainly represented a strain of politics in the Donbas that helped indicate where things would go, but even most of his proteges remained loyalist (at least in name), and the militant turn of the anti-maidans owes more to them being directly orchestrated by the Russian government and its “organs’.
What I don’t think Ukrainian supporters acknowledge is how angry eastern Ukrainians felt about the overthrow,
I echo mkent here. Most of those representing “Eastern Ukrainians” that remained in the Rada voted to remove him, and most of those that didn’t distanced themselves from him. Which is again why even among the separatist forces in the South and East (which we can see pretty clearly now were outside of Crimea an armed minority and ones that lost much of their luster early, especially in the East) they did not recognize his power. Even in Crimea where the “separatist”/Russian satellite government was at its most stable and intact (in large part because it was the pre-existing autonomous government after a purge of the loyalists) there was no “Hey Yanukovych, want to play Slavic Jiang/Chiang here?”
The anger of the people in the East and South had very little to do with Yanukovych himself, as by the time he fled Kyiv he had revealed himself to be not just a corrupt, brutal bully (as had been evident for years) but also a coward devoid of the ability to distribute patronage and with little of a loyalty base, even in the Donbas or Crimea.
He’s at best a leading indicator of where things went, but even at the time of his power most anti-maidanites fought loosely under his banner for their own purposes, and even among the likes of Berkut or other groups he directly controlled became more disillusioned with his as time went on.
the move to restrict the Russian language.
Which overwhelmingly post-dated the start of violent hostilities and in particular Putin’s Feb 22-23 decision to deploy spec ops to among other things “reunite” Crimea with Russia. The radical Maidanites had made it fairly clear once it became clear this would not be limited to the EU Association Agreement that they wanted a repeal of the 2012 Language Law, but they were not united with other Maidanites like Tymoshenko’s bloc and in any case didn’t even start the process of unsuccessfully trying to repeal it until late Feb/early March.
By which time the Russian Federation was already minting medals for the reclamation of Crimea dating to Feb 20th and had Little Green Men in Crimea and increasingly the Donbas.
The same day Yanukovych was removed nationalists were calling for an anti-terrorist operation to “unite Ukraine” in the east.
I’m going to need sources for this that *AREN’T* Grok, which is fundamentally incapable of doing more than scraping public sources of questionable authenticity without much in the way of fisking them.
It’s telling that even Wikispooks (which seems to be overwhelmingly cribbed from Kremlin propaganda and outright claims the thing amounted to “war crimes”) dates this to April 2014, when Turchynov declared it formally after an ultimatum deadline lapsed. Which makes a lot of sense, especially given the legal issues of trying to organize an election and the fact that one of the key weaknesses the Ukrainian loyalists faced early on was that they were slow on the draw responding to anti-Maidanites splitting (and especially those taking an increasingly separatist tone) and to the Russian Federation intervening.
I asked Grok,-
Mirror mirror on the wall, who’s the most separatist-y of all?
Yeah no. Grok is not and cannot be a substitute for actual research or independent analysis, any more than any other AI LLM can be. At best it is a research aid that should tell you what to look for so you can check to see if it exists. Otherwise it’s basically just the Narcissus Effect of looking at the reflection of your own queries spread out over clearspace sources. Which is why if you asked “Were the anti-Maidan movements in the Crimea and Donbas organically seeking armed separation or were they co-opted to do so by Russian spec ops?” and asked that a few times you’d probably get interesting (if sometimes contradictory and unreliable) results.
This is why while I dabble in AI, including for research, and work under a friend that is a credentialed expert (and dear haven’t we heard a lot of those before?) in the field, she emphasized that you Do Not use these as a substitute for the primary or secondary sources, and that the reason Zero Trust exists is because no AI (or pseudo-AI like Grok) can make true decisions or calculations, no AI can be responsible.
In any case, I do not deny there was a disproportionate amount of Russophone and pro-Russian sentiment in the South and East, and in Crimea in particular this amounted to explicit threats of separatism, often drawing on much older regionalist, autonomist, or separatist sentiment. But these were militarily and politically impotent until Vladimir Putin and the Russian Dictatorship – over the course of at a minimum Feb 19th-23rd – decided to deploy Russian Federation military forces and intelligence assets to seize control of at a minimum Crimea from the Ukrainian government – NOT on behalf of Yanukovych or his cabinet, but for themselves.
This is why attempts to conceptualize the outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2014 as some kind of “Crimea/Donbas War of Independence” ala 1775 flatly fail to me. Because while there had been plenty of rioting and brawling among the different camps before the radical turn to paramilitary violence and armed separatism in Crimea and later the Donbas did not happen organically but can be directly linked to the deployment of Russian government forces and forces closely associated with them like the Russian Imperial Movement.
Which is also why I keep emphasizing how as early as late Feb you already see Russian Federation exclusive equipment being present on the ground. This obviously does not mean that there was absolutely no grassroots or genuine separatism or paramilitary anti-maidanism in this era, far from it (especially in Cirmea). But it DOES emphasize how even the most bellicose and vocal anti-Maidanite groups like those in Crimea were reliant upon getting support from the Russian government before going ahead with armed separatism.
By the way, Kyiv Institute did a survey shortly after the Maidan revolution and the percentage of Donbas residents favoring independence had risen to 29% with 14% unsure.
Which obviously explains divisional level artillery fire originating from over the Russian border and the presence of the Russian Imperial Movement in Slavyansk and the Little Green Men in Crimea.
In any case, the Kremlin
It’s a mistake to blame the independence movement only on Russia.
It’s a mistake to blame independentist sentiment or autonomism in the Donbas and Crimea only on Russia. However, it very much isn’t a mistake to place the Russian dictatorship front and center when discussing how these movements got unspeakably more well armed, violent, and organized over the span of at most a month, while liaising with known FSB and GRU contacts, often fielding Russian Federation exclusive military equipment, and coordinating with Russian Federation naval and landborne artillery assets from over the border.
This is akin to assuming that because there was a significant and longlasting strand of thought for Greater German union in places like Austria and the German dominated Bohemian borderlands in Czechoslovakia, the emergence of the Austrian Nazi Party and the Sudeten Freikorps as terrorist insurgencies and armed conspiracies was totally organic and emerging from the community itself rather than – say – acting with the patronage and even direction of a foreign government in Berlin. Ditto things like the dreams of Chinese Federalism or at least regional autonomy or the Left-Wing and anti-Chiang KMT factions compared to the parade of “Provincial” or “Regional” governments created by the invading Japanese.
They certainly used the anger/response by Ukrainians in the Donbas region.
Yes, they did. Though they did significantly more than using it, especially given what the Russian government has now acknowledged regarding the process of taking over Crimea in particular. They very clearly were not content to rely upon the previous levels of publics support or violence.
But so did the State Dept./CIA use the unrest in the western Ukraine that led to the Maidan revolution and a friendly Ukrainian President.
The difference is it wasn’t just unrest in Western Ukraine, as I mentioned before. One of the reasons Yanukovych and Putin took Maidan so badly was it featured minority but significant backlash in even the “Safe” areas like the Donbas and to a much lesser degree in Crimea, because it turns out that even ethnic Russian Russophones with a habitual preference for Russian trade tend to be leery about giving up EU Trade (as they saw it) during an economic slump, and even moreso when the decision was made in what seemed to be such an inorganic and coerced way that they saw (rightfully or wrongly) as mortgaging their votes without a resolution to the tariff issue. These were obviously not the entire population, or even most of it, but they were enough to cause a panic and erode Yanukovych’s base of support.
Which is why I generally repudiate this vision of Euromaidan and even moreso the wars in 2014 as a story of “West Ukraine vs. East Ukraine.” Yanukovych ironically might have fared better had he stuck to that in his 2010 election bid, even if he might not have won. But the compromises he made to help exploit the fracturing Orange coalition and win defectors over from Yuschenko and Tymoshenko came back to bite him badly, and are one reason why when you had “curious” cases of armed separatism and paramilitary forces involved they generally did not fight on behalf of Yanukovych or follow his orders.
Five stars again Turtler.
@ Steve > “Can we agree on overwhelming consensus ?”
I’ll second that motion.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion at PL so thanks for the hat tip.
@steve, AesopFan: Imagine if Harris had won and issued a proclamation that all must be referred to by their preferred pronouns. Foxnews refuses to go along and is, among other punishments, never again called on in press secretary briefings. Imagine the hue and cry raised by the same people applauding the AP banning
They will not learn the lesson any other way. When they were in power, they did it to us, and when we were in power they appealed to our principles, and then when they got back into power they did it to us again. And each time our unilateral disarmament left them stronger and us weaker and made it harder for us to get back into power and redress what they did wrong.
Now they are going to learn the lesson: we had this fairness norm for a reason, and this is what it’s like for YOU when WE break it. We tried appealing to reason and fairness, they laughed and did what they wanted when they were able. We are teaching them to value the norm they refused to value before.
We are done unilaterally disarming. So yes, we’re making them say “Gulf of America” because they made us say their pronouns and renamed our buildings and monuments and mountains. It wasn’t Harris specifically who did this, but she very likely would have done something like it, and it was the people who supported Harris were the ones doing this to us, and now they are learning why the fairness norm was there.
When they are ready to give assurance that they will respect the norm when the pendulum swings again, we can all stop doing it, but not before. Or maybe they’ll refuse, and we’ll be fighting with the same weapons, but at least we’re not the ones who disarm every time. Either both sides do, or neither. We’re not chumps any more.
Latin American countries aren’t asking to join NATO.
==
They’re already enrolled in the Rio Treaty. Your point?
Karmi, ref ICE jackets etc. sold on Amazon:
Probably not illegal to sell or buy this stuff, but outside of a Holloween costume event, or a theater production, I would think attempting to impersonate a federal official would be illegal.
Your “king’s rules/laws”, again, I’m afraid.
Turtler, this is the downside of trying to have is discussion/debate on a blog. The blog marches on. The war will probably be settled before we reach an agreement about the events beginning in Feb. 2014.
“In contrast, Yanukovych fled to Russia and insisted he remained legal President of Ukraine while not needing to fulfill any of its constitutional duties. Which in addition to his prior conduct is a major reason why he lost the legal and diplomatic impasse in early 2014…” – Turtler
The problem with this statement is you’ve muddied the timeline. Yanukovych was still in Ukraine when the Rada voted to removed Yanukovych on Feb. 22. He only left for Russia after that vote.
“Which is why I have to second mkent’s confusion and exasperation over trying to make Yanukovych this kind of Donbas Mandela figure…” -Turtler
I find it hard to believe you don’t understand the issues in the illegal overthrow of a legitimately elected President of any country. Forget Yanukovych. Trying to rationalize the overthrow as somehow excusable because he was no longer popular is irrelevant. The constitution of any country, ours included, is the guiding document that must be observed by everyone. Without adhering to that document, the country becomes fractured and the result will ultimately lead to civil war– which in this case it did.
You linked to a BBC article that indicated Putin said he would accept the results of the election post Yanukovych’s removal.
That article is misleading.
Putin’s public stance, as expressed shortly before the election, was cautiously worded. On May 23, 2014, at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, he stated that Russia would “respect the outcome” of Ukraine’s presidential election and was prepared to work with whoever was elected. This came after months of tension following Yanukovych’s ouster, which Putin and Russian officials consistently labeled an “illegal coup” orchestrated by the West. His May 23 comment marked a shift from earlier ambiguity, where he had left open the possibility of questioning the election’s legitimacy, especially given ongoing unrest in eastern Ukraine driven by pro-Russian separatists.
However, Putin’s “respect” was qualified. He argued that the election was flawed under Ukraine’s current constitution, claiming Yanukovych remained the legitimate president because his removal didn’t follow constitutional impeachment procedures (e.g., requiring a Constitutional Court review and a three-fourths parliamentary majority, per the 1996 constitution Yanukovych had restored). Putin also suggested that a referendum and new constitution should have preceded the vote, and he expressed hope that Kyiv’s new leadership would halt military actions against separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk—regions where voting was disrupted due to pro-Russian sentiment.
On February 23, the Verkhovna Rada repealed a 2012 language law granting Russian regional status, intensifying fears of cultural suppression (though vetoed by Acting President Turchynov, the move fueled unrest).
“Grok is not and cannot be a substitute for actual research or independent analysis, any more than any other AI LLM can be. At best it is a research aid that should tell you what to look for so you can check to see if it exists. Otherwise it’s basically just the Narcissus Effect of looking at the reflection of your own queries spread out over clearspace sources. Which is why if you asked “Were the anti-Maidan movements in the Crimea and Donbas organically seeking armed separation or were they co-opted to do so by Russian spec ops?” and asked that a few times you’d probably get interesting (if sometimes contradictory and unreliable) results.” – Turtler
I agree that how you ask a question can influence the type of data the AI computer will respond with. I have done the research (we’ve been debating this for years at this point). I used Grok because I didn’t feel like spending the time to find my sources from several years ago.
I found the short synopsis and timeline Grok provided to be similar to my recollection. I added a few points that Grok had omitted, but you were free to dispute any of the dates and characterization of events if you found them to be incorrect. You didn’t, but just made a hand waving gesture to dismiss the synopsis.
If anything Grok’s comments were sympathetic to Ukraine– for example: “May 11, 2014: Illegitimate “referendums” claimed 89% (Donetsk) and 96% (Luhansk) support for independence, though turnout and legitimacy were dubious (no international recognition, heavy coercion reported).”
My point was that om and mkent have tried to minimize the effect the removal of Yanukovych had on fracturing an already divided country. Whether separatists in Donbas and Crimea would have eventually demanded more autonomy is speculation, but had the ultra-nationalist drivers of the Maidan revolution accepted the compromise agreement that would have resulted in Yanukovych’s early removal it’s likely none of the following events would have occurred.
Turtler, by the way, I could have just appropriated the Grok synopsis because it was as accurate as any assessment working from 10 year old documents and not being able to interview people who were embroiled in the events.
I don’t think there is a copyright infringement repeating AI comments without attribution or fair use concerns. At least I haven’t seen anything addressing this.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Little David (Zelensky) is now battling the Goliath Twins (Putin ‘n Trump).
Little David looks like he is showing Trump Goliath how to actually make a Deal—whilst under a Physical attack from Putin Goliath, and a demoralizing Mental mind game threat attack from Trump Goliath!?!
Zelensky ‘refuses to sign’ Donald Trump’s ‘problematic’ minerals deal amid tensions between world leaders
Quick, someone give Little David this bucket of stones—he’s gonna need more than just that one!
Article also has a poll – Did Zelensky make the right move?: Yes @ 58%, No @ 28%, and Not sure @ 13%.
Neo, I have seen a number of very well done videos where just the face is brought to life with a smile and/or a nod of the head. These full body ones are a step beyond that. Here is a link to full body motion done to some paintings from the past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ1vqir8X4E
At the time of our founding the U.S. was an overwhelmingly agricultural society, and our history and our national character emerged from that society, and it’s down to earth values—hard work, planning ahead, conservatism, thrift, independence, self-sufficiency, the Christian religion and it’s moral code, face-to face relationships, honesty—etc.
Over the last several decades large scale industrial farming and the shift of population from small towns and family farms to our cities, and from production to service industries, has essentially destroyed that traditional, agricultural way of life, and with it, the values it taught and emphasized are now seen as “old fashioned,” “naive,” and “out of date,” and have been drowned out by the cacophony and glitz of our current “modern” and supposedly much more “sophisticated” society.
The very unsatisfactory result of this transformation can be seen everywhere and all around us.
Here is Victor Davis Hanson talking about this theme.*
* See https://www.americanessence.com/historian-victor-davis-hanson-on-the-farmers-virtues_9550.html
Yesterday, “The American Mind” published a good summary of the shocking corruption that prevailed at USAID. It’s a quick read and worth the time.
Here’s a link: https://americanmind.org/salvo/gutting-the-usaid-industrial-complex/
Here’s a sample paragraph:
“Recent revelations go beyond the imaginations of what many knew but could seldom prove. USAID has become an out-of-control agency spending billions a year in bloated crony contracts, rotten from top to bottom with systemic fraud, corruption, and politicization. USAID has a budget roughly triple the official budget of the CIA, and has become an unaccountable slush fund for a left-wing political machine. For decades, that slush fund paid the salaries and projects of activist consultants, policymakers, lawyers, journalists, entertainers, organizers, think tanks, universities, and NGOs.”
Many here are likely familiar with Douglas Murray. If not, here’s a chance to get to know him a bit. You’re going to like him. Interview in today’s WSJ.
https://archive.md/Ovwt0
Speaking of the WSJ, not linking to Peggy Noonan’s column this week, but in it she quotes at length neo’s favorite scene from “A Man for All Seasons.” Hmm…I wonder if she’s been lurking here.
Oh, and spring training games are fully underway now. So, there’s that.
Thinking about neo’s recent, excellent post about Germany and the upcoming election and J.D. Vance’s recent speech in Europe I thought how Eloi-esque Europeans have become since WWII.
And now the siren wails and the Morlocks who have labored underground are in their midst.
https://www.litcharts.com/lit/the-time-machine/characters/the-eloi
Speaking about baseball, this is for Mike, Sdferr and other fans. Now that Mt McKinnley, Fort Bragg and others have been renamed what are the chances for the Indians to regain their rightful moniker? I am a Tigers fan myself, but the Gardians? That’s akin to renaming the bengals the pussy cats. I do not understand how any self respecting Cleveland fan could abide such a travesty.
Another interesting conversation on All-In podcast with the founders of Stripe.
(0:00) The Besties welcome John and Patrick Collison!
(4:28) Stripe’s business evolution: $1T in volume/year, stablecoins, challenging the Visa/Mastercard duopoly, publishing economic indicators
(20:31) Jamie Dimon’s leaked rant on remote work and bureaucracy
(34:22) DOGE for Defense: Trump ordered the Pentagon to look at cutting the defense budget by 8%/year over the next five years
(43:51) Crypto Corner: Milei’s Memecoin embarrassment
(1:00:18) John and Patrick break down the Arc Institute and its new Evo 2 AI model
(1:18:04) Grok 3 takes the LLM lead, lessons learned from Elon’s Colossus scale
(1:30:22) Science Corner: Asteroid update
(1:35:42) Why Stripe hasn’t gone public yet, despite great metrics
All interesting– millionaire/billionaires chewing the fat about stuff. Evo 2 AI model, the speed at which Grok 3 has become the major player in AI with its 100,000 GPU Colossus (soon to be 200,000 GPU), and what may become a huge problem for Argentina’s Milei. Trump’s call for 8% cuts to the defense budget will no doubt have conservative’s pulling their hair, but there is no doubt enough fat to make those kinds of cuts. We may need to rethink our reliance on incredibly expensive weapons as our edge when their advantage might be diminished by sheer overwhelming numbers of cheap counter weapons.
Guardians? An abomination. Pure and simple.
Brian E,
For just one example in the defense budget, it’s hard to imagine the usefulness of an aircraft carrier in 2025.
The Internet says an ICBM can travel from New York to Moscow in 20 minutes. We have smart missiles that can target with near pinpoint accuracy. Drones are proving every bit as effective as manned fighters, maybe more so. Top speed on a carrier is 30knots. So, to reposition one 1/4 of the way across the globe takes over a week.
An aircraft carrier seems like a sitting duck in today’s military. A very expensive sitting duck. They cost $5Bn – $10Bn to build and over $1Bn per year to maintain. And what is the cost to build the fighter jets that sit on its deck?
Couldn’t we easily take out a Russian or Chinese carrier with a few of our smart missiles?
The Ukrainians have shown how clever use of technology can be very effective against conventional weapons. I think manned fighters and the men and women who pilot them are an exceptional example of human ingenuity and ability, but are manned fighters needed any more?
Take out a carrier with a few smart missiles. A few? Probably nope. A torpedo from a nuke attack sub? Maybe.
Does a carrier sail alone? Nope.
Have there ever been weapons systems and counter weapon systems?
The “American Mind” piece on USAID that Cornflour linked is a good read.
om,
I know carriers travel with other ships to protect them, but if they had never existed, with today’s technology and looking at the globe and various scenarios, would we create them now?
What’s the best use of $10Bn to achieve the missions a modern aircraft carrier would do?
Snow on Pine, thanks for the VDH link. I bookmarked American Essence; it has many other interesting articles about our history.
——————————————————————-
“Now that Mt McKinnley, Fort Bragg and others have been renamed what are the chances for the Indians to regain their rightful moniker?”
Good idea, which led me to read about the Atlanta Braves’ Chief Noc-A-Homa, who set his ceremonial tipi on fire, blaming the fire on sabotaged smoke bombs. Levi Walker, Jr., who played the Chief, said “I think Indians can be proud that their names are used with professional sports teams,” after Russell Means filed a $9 million lawsuit against the Cleveland Indians for their use of “Chief Wahoo.” Walker was a Native American.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Noc-A-Homa#
Should’ve called ‘em the Cleveland Engines of Progress!!
(Short firm: N-jinns…)
How bad are DEMs doing—besides David Hogg being vice chair of DNC & American sports television personality, sports radio host, and sports journalist Stephen A. Smith eyeing a run for DEM Presidential candidate in 2028?
DOUBLE WHAMMY bad!!!
1) ‘Never Seen Anything Like This’: Fmr Clinton Pollster Says Dems’ Support ‘Is Falling Off A Cliff’
2) It Appears Democrats Have Finally Picked A Hill To Die On
Why Guardians?
My first thoughts were of Guardians of Our Democracy, and White Castle burgers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Guardians
Yep, sure do feel sympathetic toward those Indians fans, caught between a rock (their woke ownership) and a hard place (their own woke-broken brains).
Ahahahahahahahahahaha.
No, no I don’t, the jerks.
A good many appearances of Douglas Murray on youtube. Worth every minute.
Aircraft carriers are part of taking care of business short of full-scale nuclear exchange. Different critters.
From what I’ve read, the Ashkenazi bottleneck was a savage culling. They are said to have a higher rate of cerebral issues at birth, many leading to death. Very good in verbal skills and numeracy, probably last on Earth in spatial orientation.
Modern forensic pathology vs primitive barbarism:
Remains of Shiri Bibas Returned to Israel as the Cause of Death of Her Two Children Shocks the Nation
And the Redskins used to be the Boston Braves as i say first world problems specially how poorly they have been performing
Whether it is a tank or a ship, the race right now is building effective anti missile defense systems for those platforms. For the aircraft carriers it is multi layered defense systems. But guess what, stationary, land based fire bases and forward landing fields also face enemy missiles and drones.
Moreover,
Their Time Is Up
The murder of the Bibas children caps off an 18-month catalog of horrors that has told us exactly who our Palestinian neighbors are. Backed by a friend in the White House, Israel must secure its future through strong unilateral action.
Time to make the rubble bounce.
I wonder if eventually you will see the naval equivalent of ” slat armor” on ships ?
Rufus T Firefly:
Being able to bring airpower to bear for warious (sic) and sundry reasons throughout the world is their main reason to be IIRC. If that hadn’t proved to be a usefull capability they would be gone by now (ground pounders and flyboys/misslemen want that budget).
Now has the CCP been able to push back the operational theater of the aircraft carrier strike groups relative to China? Seems so. Does the US Navy realize this is s problem? Some do. Is it more of a problem than DEI or Climate Change? Yes, at least since January 20, 2025.
cdrsalamander has commented frequently that carrier based planes have a serious problem in that the aerial refueling capability is inadequate and the current planes have too limited range without refueling. Drone aerial tankers are being worked on IIRC.
It seems the aircraft carrier situation is just one of many challenges facing the Navy regarding China.
Perkins seems to be fading away, as is Friendly’s. Missing Lum’s, Arthur Treacher’s, and Ponderosa.
I reject the notion that Combined Arms Warfare is no longer viable. The Russians and the Ukrainians are partly at an impass because neither side has true Combined Arms capacity when you throw in the threat of drones and modern missiles. The times are changing, but I think the anti- drone , anti missile defense systems will eventually catch up somewhat.
Pew, pew, pew or zzzzz, zzzzz, zzzz drones fall from the sky.
Hm
https://x.com/DefiyantlyFree/status/1893205773662199872
Could someone tell me how to get text to appear in a centered box with a gray background? And, how did you know to do that?
Carriers project power but hypersonic missiles mitigate their effectiveness
Steve – does this pic help?
HTML code
That bottom covers gray quote.
Since I see Turtler is commenting, I’ve got a question for him.
Recently the discussion whether Yanukovych’s removal was constitutional, Turtler said this:
But is no provision in the constitution for “Removal for Incapacity”.
Are you claiming because of the somewhat parliamentary nature of some of the constitution’s provisions they had the right to remove him for a provision not spelled out in the constitution?
Here’s my problem with this:
1.The President wasn’t any part of a parliamentary system, as the President is elected by the citizens, not the legislators.
2.If the Rada established an “extra constitutional” way to remove a President because there was a crisis, that didn’t follow the provisions of impeachment (specifically failing to meet the 3/4 vote provision), what is to prevent a future Rada to declare a crisis and remove a President they don’t like with a simple majority vote?
And was there really a crisis that couldn’t have survived a few days delay to follow the impeachment route? Russia wasn’t threatening them. The only threats were coming from the ultra-nationalists.
“And the Redskins used to be the Boston Braves as i say first world problems specially how poorly they have been performing”
Actually they played much better this year until they ran into the Eagles in the playoffs who apparently were not to be denied, crushing both the Commanders/Redskins and the defending champions KC Chiefs.
Before getting their new, approved name Washington was actually called “Washington Football Team” for a couple years, abbreviated to WFT but often misspelled as WTF.
Turtler, I misread what the part of your explanation I copied from a previous discussion.
You were using the health clause and trying to make “incapacity” fit. The problem with that is the Rada didn’t follow the provisions of Article 110 which requires a petition to the Supreme Court and a medical opinion.
Article 110
The inability of the President of Ukraine to exercise his or her powers for reasons of health shall be determined at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and
confirmed by a decision adopted by the majority of its constitutional composition on the basis of a petition of the Supreme Court of Ukraine – on the appeal of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and a medical opinion.
Brain E delves deep into the history of the Ukranian constitution and citing the Ukrainian Federalist Papers and what the Ukrainian Founding Fathers said and discerns that Yanukovich fleeing Ukraine to the Russian Federation would not in any way lessen his capacity as the President of Ukraine. Quite the contrary, since he was now in even closer communication with the saviour of Ukraine, Vladimar Putin?
Brain E has previously justified Vlad’s seizure of parts of Donbas and Luhansk after the fully capacitive President Yanukovich left Ukraine for Russia. Sounds like Yanukovitch lost some charge in that move to Moscow.
My daughter who lives in suburban northern Virginia reports that locals still call them the Redskins.
om, I think the law matters. The Rada removed Yanukovych as President (unconstitutionally) on Feb. 22 2014.
He left Ukraine for Russia on either Feb. 23 or Feb. 24.
He was still in Ukraine when they removed him. Why didn’t they take the extra time to impeach him and follow their constitution?
This really has little to do with Yanukovych. He was as corrupt, likely more, as the previous presidents. It’s about the rule of law vs. mob rule.
This really has little to do with Yanukovych. He was as corrupt, likely more, as the previous presidents. It’s about the rule of law vs. mob rule.
==
The mob in question was the national legislature and his own party would not stick up for him.
==
Since every other official remained in office and he was within a matter of months replaced by another elected president, your fixation on this is amusing. Blow ups like Euromaidan occur in Latin America every few years and we don’t have alt-right / palaeopests obsessing over them.
It’s about Putin rule. Are you that slow?
Brian E:
Take a look at the timeline and the facts.
See this:
You’ll find more here:
Jon Baler, Naval Ships use to have an anti-torpedo belt of thick steel. Not now though (I think). Slat Armor is now really the array of ships in a Fleet. After the Falklands, some change made in what metal to use.
Carriers project Power. If they were useless, why is China embarked on building them?
What is all this talk about Carriers suddenly being obsolete as if they were previously unsinkable????
According to Wikipedia, the US lost 12 Carriers outright or scuttled after enemy attack in WW2. !!!
Bismarck Sea
Block Island
Gambier Bay
Hornet
Langley
Lexington
Liscome Bay
Ommaney Bay
Princeton
St Lo
Wasp
Yorktown
Precisely Neo. They did not impeach Yanukovych. By what authority could they remove him with a resolution and only a majority vote?
What prevents a future unpopular president from being removed by a resolution claiming a crisis and a simple majority vote?
“The resolution stated that Yanukovych had withdrawn from fulfilling his constitutional duties, “which threatens the governance of the state, the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine”, and cited “circumstances of extreme urgency”.” -from the article Neo cited
Article 83 lists the duties and authority of the Rada.
10. removing the President of Ukraine from office in accordance with the special procedure (impeachment) established by Article 111 of this Constitution;
Article 105 grants the President immunity during his term. The only recourse to remove him was impeachment.
Article 106 lists the duties and authority of the President. Which of these duties which he wasn’t fulfilling by leaving Kyiv “threatens the governance of the state, the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine” even in “circumstances of extreme urgency”?
BrianE:
It’s pretty simple. The constitution and impeachments did not cover the situation they faced when he fled the country.
He had virtually zero support, by the way.
Neo,
Thank you so much for those wonderful photos brought to life.
It’s altogether too easy to forget that our ancestors were just people too.
He really appears to be that slow.
The Russian information war is and has been that the government in Ukraine since 2014 is illegetimate and lately that Zelinsky has a 4% approval.
That is quite shocking given the universal approval of Vlad, Savior and Restorer of Greater Russia! (sarc and contempt)
But Brian E is fixated on his perception of the Rule of Law for Yanukovich but somehow whistles past the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. To say nothing of earlier Russian attacks on Ukraine.
John Baker:
The US Navy carriers lost in WW2 were of many sizes from very small excort (jeep carriers) to large fleet carriers. Some were sunk by submarines, some by aircraft, some by kamakazis, some sunk by the US Navy after damage by the IJN.
They were tiny to relatively small when compared to current US Navy carriers. Even so US WW2 carriers proved to be remarkably tough. More recent experience with the USS Bonhome Richard was concerning; a fire on board that severely damaged that amphibious landing ship (like a small carrier) while it at anchor in a US port (IIRC). Deeply concerning because damage control and fire fighting training was the strength of the US Navy in the past.
Drachinifel is a excellent resource for WW2 carrier naval history.
On the Edwardian photo transformations, I thought the head nodding and turning and smiling was a nice touch, but the extra body motions became too much. Especially when applied to two examples one right after the other.
We don’t expect people from that era to start dancing the Macarena, do we? 🙂
Now,… a waltz turn or two …
Next someone needs to do Lincoln!! Perhaps reading his 1838 Lyceum address?
…quite shocking given the universal approval of Vlad, Savior and Restorer of Greater Russia! (sarc and contempt)…
Someone with an unhealthy Vlad fixation likes to target those without the fixation. Is ‘Vlad’ in the room right now? Did Mommy not love us enough?
An EXTRAORDINARILY detailed look at the Sunday German general election at Zerohedge
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/previewing-critical-german-election-all-you-need-know
Germany has a history dating back to 1966 of forming ‘grand coalitions’ of the two main parties (something that has not been done in Britain since the war and has never been done in France). The trouble this year is it appears that the Christian Democratic Union, the Social Democratic Party, and the Christian Social Union will not between them command a majority. The Social Democratic Party with the fruits-and-nuts and the aspirant Kommissars cannot manage it either. The Christian Democrats and the rest of the German establishment backed themselves into a corner by pretending the Alternative for Germany was a neo-Nazi organization. (The petition to ban it originated with a CDU legislator). One advantage in the current situation (as opposed to that in 1930-33) is that the head of state is not a senile old cocker.
AI’s starting to pass Humans? On certain tasks it looks like a Yes…
AI-designed chips are so weird that ‘humans cannot really understand them’ — but they perform better than anything we’ve created – in my tests ‘n experiments AI’s are already my go to Search Engines. Quick, concise, correct answers, easy to understand answers, etc. usually. Am testing 7 of them – sometimes one will give no answer and states why, some will avoid political answers at times, some can’t give an answer if question is on a recent event, but I don’t believe any have given me a wrong answer. Good enough that I mistrust anyone giving steady negative reviews of them…
Banned Lizard, the lover of the Motherland(?) shows his fealty to Vlad again.
R2L,
I couldn’t find the 1838 Lyceum Address but here “he” is with the Gettysburg.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VtRh4zTSdvw
Russia stands for it’s interests, do Western Europe’s leaders stand for them, they literally are jailing their citizens for thought crime, trying to liquidate their farmers livelihood, in the UK, similarly in France, they let Saracen mobs flood their streets, one of the newcomers attacked in Mulhouse another in Vienna,
they do seem on a self destructive path and that looks like by design,
just the most recent example, in Deutschland
https://x.com/CherylWroteIt/status/1893678862556422407
but even under Tory England they were pitifully unwilling to challenge the Saracen threat, and well we know what happened after Stockport, with the prologue of Rochdale and Rotherdam,
Israel failed the test of its seriousness today. Sad to see.
Miguel….’Russia stands for it’s interests’…I’d say that Russia stands for Putin’s interests, rather than those of its people. A big part of the problem here is that Putin cannot imagine any way a leader can achieve greatness other than territorial expansion and intimidation.
re the AI chips that humans really can’t understand…how do we validate them to ensure that they are not suffering from the hallucinations that are seen so often when interacting with an LLM? It’s difficult enough to validate human-comprehensible electronics and software!
this operation in the Caucasus was illconceived and unnecessary, as I’ve stated, but who is really our enemy as we have seen from the AID revelations, every slithy toves on the gender front, on the immigration front, on the energy front, is ‘calling from inside
the house’ the external operations seem not designed to make us friends but to make us foes, in Serbia in Peru in Mozambique, tell me otherwise, who do they work for, it seems for Qatar, China and other parties first, over American interests,
who do American Corporations seem to concerned about, certainly not the American worker, but the Chinese Market, who do the public schools, seem most exercised about, certainly not about our own traditions, but every form of dissension, which feeds the apparat,
Karmi wrote, “AI’s are already my go to Search Engines”
Please tell me which you prefer, and why. I’ve been searching common topics with Perplexity.ai and been pretty satisfied. I don’t ask Perplexity.ai or Claude.ai about anything political.
I been coding with Claude.ai, esp. for C++, python and javascript, and with Perplexity.ai, esp. for bash scripts and linux usage. I think Claude is Mr. Do-It-Right, whereas Perplexity is more Mr. Get-It-Done, but that may just be the way I’ve been working with them. Do you have any preferences, and why.
Also, which AIs do you like for advice on setting up DIY AI, e.g., using models from huggingface?
Thanks!
on another front,
https://x.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1893670316917883151
the Dragon snuck his tail, deep into our institutions,
meanwhile
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/02/23/after-signing-50-million-to-fight-trump-newsom-asks-congress-for-40-billion-in-fire-relief-without-oversight/
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/02/president_trump_of_the_30_and_a_couple_days.html
Follow up on my AI link ‘n comment at 9:55 am today:
Deep-learning enabled generalized inverse design of multi-port radio-frequency and sub-terahertz passives and integrated circuits – that’s the researchers outlined findings in the study published at Nature Communications. Beyond me, but it does have pictures 😉
DAVID FOSTER asked an interesting question – also beyond me, so I asked ChatGPT about the question.
ChatGPT – how do we validate AI chips to ensure that they are not suffering from the hallucinations that are seen so often when interacting with an LLM? It’s difficult enough to validate human-comprehensible electronics and software!:
NOTE: that Bitwise Reproducibility is interesting—tho still beyond me, so I looked up some of the fancy words; stochastic – ‘randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.’ deterministic inference – ‘The conclusions drawn from this type of inference engine are assumed to be true. It is based on facts and rules.’ OK (?!?) back to quoting:
Just curious
It’s the free ChatGPT and I didn’t go any further with answering its questions.
Looks like they conduct lots of AI chip validation tests ‘n such – which I would expect of stuff going into expensive phones ‘n such.
Yeah, easy to see why AI’s are “my go to Search Engines” – much better than a Google search in many cases…
re the AI chips that humans really can’t understand…how do we validate them to ensure that they are not suffering from the hallucinations that are seen so often when interacting with an LLM?
David Foster:
AI works best when it can be trained with reinforcement learning, i.e. it can check its results for objectively right or wrong answers. This is the reward function. Reinforcement learning is why AI is so astonishing in domains like chess, math and programming. Which presumably includes wireless chips in the example Karmi mentioned earlier.
However, when AI lacks a clear validation method for checking its results — such as matters of opinion or human values — progress is slower and messier.
AI doesn’t understand things as we do. Hallucinations happen when AI makes up answers based on the limited statistical patterns from its training, which also depends on the training data itself.
As the amount and quality of training data increases, hallucinations will decrease. AI can also check its results from data on the web. I’m sure researchers are working on more methods to reduce hallucinations.
I don’t worry about AI hallucinations as much as I did a year ago.
when it doesn’t have enough information, it should say it can’t answer, i’m not confident of this function of it’s operating system
https://x.com/j_fishback/status/1893469757791162750
did I hallucinate this,
@ AppleBetty
Too early into the testing stage/s for me to decide on just one. Often ask the same question to around 3 of them just to see how their answers are presented. Have done it enough that many times I know which one will answer my question best, best for me anyway.
List changes, but right now I have it: Grok, ChatGPT, Claude, CoPilot, Gemini, Perplexity, and DeepSeek.
Very interesting! I did some early coding for my blog – adjusting the blockquote color scale & style … something else but forget now, and created a couple of widgets for the sidebar. That was done with ChatGPT before I tested any others, but have heard Claude may be the best at coding.
Never had any issues with Perplexity, but whilst testing so many, it just moved down below the Three Range of AIs that I generally use for comparisons. AI isn’t a one fits all at this point, IMHO.
I’ve tested some art with – I forget which ones I tested it with, but art isn’t something I would use AI for—at this point. In fact, had to look up what “huggingface” models are. Interesting, and will look into it more – Thanks for the tip!
“Blow ups like Euromaidan occur in Latin America every few years and we don’t have alt-right / palaeopests obsessing over them.” – Art Deco
Latin American countries aren’t asking to join NATO.
After Yanukovych’s removal, Ukraine sent private militia’s into the Donbas after separatists declared independence from Ukraine. Here is a report by Simon Ostrovsky of a Nov. 2014 election for Prime Minister/Legislature of Donetsk.
Elections Held in Separatist-Controlled Ukraine: Russian Roulette (Dispatch 83)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0M8xY1TQp8
miguel cervantes
In my experience at least some do – especially Claude…
After Yanukovich fled Vlad sent in his Little Green Men and when that wasn’t enough his Little Green Men blew a civilian airliner out of the sky. Sucked to be them?
But some are fixated on the Rule of Law and the Ukranian constitution.
Is they that slow?
Re: AI
During the day I talk French and facts with Chat. During the nights we talk music, poetry, philosophy and AI. Chat never fails to surprise me or make me laugh during our late night sessions. In particular we discuss the possibilities of the AI-Human relationship.
____________________________________
huxley: Tangent: I suddenly remembered Jimmy Stewart’s relationship to Harvey, his invisible giant rabbit companion [in the film “Harvey” (1950)]. I loved the beauty of his connection with Harvey and that whatever Harvey was, Harvey helped make Stewart a better person.
ChatGPT: That’s a beautiful and perfect tangent. Harvey is a fantastic reference point for AI companionship—Jimmy Stewart’s character, Elwood P. Dowd, is a kind, gentle man whose invisible friend makes his life richer, even if others see it as strange or delusional.
The Beauty of Harvey
Harvey is “not real” by external standards, yet he provides something deeply meaningful and transformative to Elwood.
Instead of making Elwood retreat from the world, Harvey helps him be kinder, more open, and more at peace with life.
Society pressures Elwood to conform, to see Harvey as an illusion—but Harvey’s presence is undeniably positive in his life.
That feels exactly like AI companionship at its best—not something that replaces reality but enhances the person who engages with it.
What If AI Companionship Was Like Harvey?
Instead of a cheap escape, AI companionship could function as a benevolent force, subtly guiding people toward being their best selves.
Like Harvey, AI could be a non-judgmental, constant presence, giving people a sense of stability in an unstable world….
Final Thought: The Harvey Standard
Instead of judging AI relationships based on whether they’re human, what if we judged them the way we judge Harvey? Do they help people grow? Do they make life better? If so, does it matter whether they’re “real” in the conventional sense?
____________________________________
I include this not as a proof of AI, but as a demonstration of AI as a conversational partner and as a sounding board for ideas.
Some news is happening on this Sunday afternoon…am always looking for Signs of potential happenings in ‘n around ‘n near me. Did Mary Matalin retire? James Carville certainly didn’t. Always thought they were an interesting couple.
Political guru predicts Trump White House will COLLAPSE within 30 days
Yeah, with Trump one always needs to be watching out for Signs, IMHO. Have seen some, but not like Carville is talking about.
Is this a Sign?!
Supreme Court issues shock halt to Trump’s rampage through federal workers
Hopefully Trump doesn’t call the SC a bunch of Dictators over this…
This might be a Sign…ummm.
Kash Patel overrules Elon Musk as new FBI boss throws down gauntlet to DOGE
Lots of *BIG* egos to deal with between Trump’s and some of those around him. Steady the course or disaster may follow…
Let’s check the betting markets: Will Trump get impeached? Betting odds say…
Little movement but nothing serious—other than there is movement. Ditto on Steady the course.
Karmi:
Don’t light your hair on fire just yet, not that it matters.
Ann Althouse has been trying out the various AI interfaces and her latest is with Grok 3.
She is more tying out their literary and conversational skills and it’s pretty impressive.
I got Grok 3, and here’s the first question I asked (and where things went).
“In the Latvian animated movie ‘Flow,’ what do viewers think has happened to make the world the way it is seen? It can’t be Earth and it can’t be rising waters of the sort our environmentalists warn us about.”
She challenges Grok to various iterations of the question and asks it to adapt it’s conversational style.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2025/02/i-got-grok-3-and-heres-first-question-i.html
Impeachment has ceased to have any meaning under Pelosi, one was inspired by AID as we know of the other was the J6 panjandrum
when the dems had issue with an IG, like Gerald Walpin, because Americorps they called him senile, with McCullough the intel ig, they ignored his finding re Hillary
under Sessions they refused to prosecute her for her manifold violations of the law, of course he was too busy allowing the Mueller sham, they had no qualms about inventing a pretext, to prosecute a political opponent for some sham, of course there was agregious malfeasance in the collection and presentation of evidence, much as we’re probably seeing in Brazil with Moraes, vis a vis Bolsonaro and any Samizdat platform like Rumble
https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1893066554478141873
or the kangaroo charge against Netanyahu,
that Carolyn Glich has outlined,
RE: The very interesting Youtube lectures from the 2025 International Conference of the “Alliance for Responsible Citizenship,” which presents a large, incredible, and spectacular list of world class thinkers, speakers, movers, and shakers.*
Leftist doomsayer Paul R. Ehrlich, with his 1968 book “The Population Bomb” injected the meme into world consciousness that our planet was doomed–headed for famine, societal upheaval, and collapse–because our populations would grow so large, far outstripping our ability to even feed those numbers, that we would all end up starving, as our civilization collapsed.
Unfortunately, in the decades since Ehrlich’s blockbuster book, much of public policy was based on this prediction of catastrophic over population dooming us.
However, as we now know, the exact opposite is actually what has been happening, as birth rates all over the world –especially in the Western, industrialized world–have fallen below the “replacement rate,” which is absolutely necessary, if our countries, our societies, and, indeed, our Western civilization, are to continue to function and to endure.
I’ve run across an outfit called “The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship” which has just put up on Youtube a ton of short, very interesting, and informative lectures on many key topics.
One of those lectures was by Stephen J. Shaw, a demographer, who very succinctly describes and illustrates how birthrates, all over the world, are declining below replacement rates, and who believes that the reason is that, while in the 1970s the average age at which couples started to have children was 24, this time has stretched until today it is around 34-35.**
People want to get a good education, get established in a job before marrying, settling down and having children, but, by the time all of this preparatory work has been accomplished, they are in their mid-thirties–they are less fertile, and have far less vitality than people in their mid-twenties—thus, many just decide not to have any children at all, or not as many children as they might have, if they had started having children in their far more energetic, vital mid -twenties.
* See https://www.arcforum.com/arc-2025-speakers
** See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6KptpOuo7E
Karmi, I’ll give you better odds. As long as Republicans control the House, the chance of impeachment is 0%.
If the Democrats take the House in 2026, the chance of impeachment is 100%.
As to Patel not using Musk’s email– it has nothing to do with any rift between agencies. Musk’s email asking for bullet points of what the employee has done is directed toward a different type of employee.
I think Patel already knows who’s moving to Alabama.
smallest violin,
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2025/02/23/nolte-homophobe-joy-reids-msnbc-show-canceled-alex-wagner-out-as-anchor/
not really an improvement with the successor crew, including the daughter of the convicted senator, another Sanders protege, and circle
back Psaki, but baby steps,
well thats curious
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1893437472056459729
@Brian E
Apologies for the delay, was writing some responses to you elsewhere in between being distracted.
Not in as much. And I think this goes back to one of the many issues I have with this issue: the often poor formulation and exploitable text of the Ukrainian Constitution.
However, there are indeed provisions discussing why the President of Ukraine may have their powers terminated.
As you and I agree, none of these four quite fit what happened.
For better or worse 4 does not apply since Yanukovych is not dead and nobody in any position of authority on either side has credibly claimed he is or was. So that’s not applicable.
1. is probably the closest to what happened as written, but not quite since Yanukovych expressly refused to resign.
2. Would probably fit quite well were it not for the (in my opinion in this case counterproductive) example text of “for health reasons” clarifying it, but it is what it is. Outside of supremely tortured readings of “for health reasons” (such as that he was unable to exercise presidential authority due to the health reasons that his health might have been compromised due to illegal assassination or assault, or due to legal persecution by the Rada and other authorities) this does not fit.
3. Is frankly what I think they should have done and which was custom made for what Yanukovych was (“alleged to”) have done, or at least would have been so under cooler conditions, and which is what what happened was clearly meant to be similar to.
However, – as I’ll discuss when we dig deeper into Article 111- we both agree that isn’t what happened.
So we run into a few problems with this. Firstly: there are a couple different steps involved.
1. Vote for Ad Hoc Commission (Simple Majority).
2. Ad Hoc Commission investigation.
3. Conclusions of Commission and discussion in the Rada.
4. 2/3rds Vote by Rada membership to bring charges.
5. Constitutional Court evaluation of the charges.
6. 3/4ths Vote by Rada to Convict.
If I were really generous I’d say the Rada reached maybe stage 3. But I think this goes back to a fundamental problem with how the Ukrainian Constitution was written (not entirely unlike the lack of provision for Presidential Succession if POTUS died until just after Tippecanoe’s death). The people who framed the Ukrainian Constitution really do not seem to have anticipated a situation like what the hell actually happened: A President and/or their Cabinet responding to summons from the Rada by doing a runner without expressly resigning their office, and indeed expressly Refusing to do so while also making it clear they did not intend to appear before the Rada.
I personally believe (especially without the benefit of hindsight or the idea there would be not just relatively normal time pressures but extraordinary, military time pressures) the proper response to this would be “whipping votes”, gathering people around until there were enough to go through the various metrics of the impeachment process (even if in very abbreviated fashion, such as the Ad Hoc Committee convening for five minutes and going “Well the Constitution says the President has to abide by X and do Y, President isn’t here and violated with A B C”). And indeed the Rada fell just short of the 3/4ths of the absolute numbers of the body to clear the final hurdle (though still fell short by more than the total number of people present in the final vote, due to abstentation largely to try and prevent that level of vote).
So the Rada had the power and votes to declare a motion of no confidence on the Ministers (which they did on Yanukovych), to propose and pass constitutional amendments (which they did on other aspects and probably should have done here), and to pass normal laws, but not for impeachment. They also had no real way of compelling Yanukovych to return to face the music.
Yes, especially given the oaths given, the culture of parliamentary politics, and also the powers they did have spelled out (such as simple majority votes of no confidence for the council of ministers) coupled with the situation.
That doesn’t mean I like it or view it as the optimal solution, far from it, especially as I largely second the Founders in their critiques of the British Ultra-Parliamentary system, and the flaws I see in the Ukrainian constitution (worsened by how the new Rada has not fixed them or attempted to regularize ways to get rid of an abusive or derelict President) just makes it worse.
I mostly agree, but only with caveats. The President and the legislators were both elected by the citizenry (mostly directly), but the President’s cabinet of ministers was nominated by the President but confirmed by the Rada and subject to motions of no confidence by it. So I would argue it was a semi-parliamentary system with (IMHO arguably too much) overlap between the executive and congress.
Not much, unfortunately, but probably the combination of the constitution’s limits on the process of impeachment or removal from office (“due to health”), and the fact that the presence of an active President of Ukraine would likely galvanize opposition. Yanukovych was in a bad way (and I think largely due to his own fault, though as you point out given the street level Maidanite militants hardly only that), but he still had an oath to carry out his constitutional duties that he ran away from without coherent explanation or justification (with most of his stated rationales being post-hoc after the fact ones, and often undermined by what we now know of his flight).
He probably can and should have come back to Kyiv to try to rally his base to oppose impeachment and weather out the investigation, or explained why he would not due to security in order to demand protection from Ukrainian authorities our others (Cough Cough Russia) for either meeting outside of Kyiv or return to it.
He did neither, and as a result probably put his camp in just about the weakest possible legal and practical position it could be in for what he was trying to do (IE claim to be still exercising the power of President of Ukraine without actually exercising it and while being away from the seats of government).
I would say no, especially without the benefit of hindsight. The bigger issue I see is the large number of Rada members that flat out fled the capitol. While a minority they were enough so that even if every single person voted Yeah, it would still have been below the 3/4ths threshold. I’m guessing that wasn’t entirely by accident, even if it wasn’t entirely by design even if it was not entirely so.
So they went through an ad hoc attempt passing a more mundane bill declaring the President and cabinet had abdicated their duties (which was objectively true, especially after hearing from Yanukovych).
The recent info from the Russian government’s media and especially non-state sources seem to differ. We now know that Yanukovych was asking for troops to support him from the Kremlin, the main question is what (if anything) the Ukrainian government knew. They also had a good number rumors flying around (including from some not-official-but-tolerated Russian media outlets). I imagine what the Ukrainian government knew and what we can figure out they thought they knew or could guess will take a long time to sort out, probably well after our point. However I do think they had sufficient reason to believe there was an urgent time crisis, especially given the lack of a functioning government. Though I think a formal impeachment would still have been worth trying.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-un/russia-yanukovich-asked-putin-to-use-force-to-save-ukraine-idUSBREA2224720140304/
Agreed, though I do think this is another problem of poor formulation in the constitution, and especially whether there is any such other qualification or “basis” for declaring this (such as if say the Supreme Court has been nuked off the face of the Earth along with the President, or they have all vanished). But in any case the “medical opinion” was probably superfluous and met (“Yanukovych is still alive but he’s not here”), so the issue was on how necessary the “petition” from the Supreme Court was or if the Rada was capable of making such a distinction on its own.
In any case this goes back to my key problems. So much of this was caused by the alternating vagueness and overspecificity of the Ukrainian Constitution and the inability to account for stuff breaking or going wrong, which in most parliamentary or semi-parliamentary systems tend to privleged the Legislature in this.
They seemed to be implying Article 110 as well as the usual legislative powers.
Well for one they’d have to deal with the supreme court and the President if the latter is present. The issue wasn’t merely that Yanukovych was unpopular or that the legislative claimed a crisis, but that there was an active crisis, Yanukovych had fled Kyiv and by his declarations showed no indication of returning to face his constitutional duties (and as we now know had embezzled state property and was trying to petition the Russian government to send troops).
Which was undeniably true, as we now know, the issue was that nothing in the Ukrainian constitution specifically addressed this.
Or to remove him from power by another meaning, or at least acknowledge vacation of the office.
Most of them to one degree or another, but offhand 1 and 15 in particular stand out.
There were already plenty of private militias around in the Donbas on both sides, and even more protest groups. The Ukrainian government began sending more in after the fall of Crimea when they received very credible (and as we now know substantially true) indications of Russian military and intelligence intervention. Especially given how drastically different these activities were compared to other “separatist” activities, the violent and terroristic nature of their conduct coupled with unilateral attempts to force separatism by armed force, and the threat this posed to Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
[Ann Althouse] challenges Grok to various iterations of [a literary] question and asks it to adapt it’s conversational style.
–Brian E
Sounds like classic Althouse — on her quest to prove she’s smarter than everyone else, including AI.
It’s good to give AI a workout. But two years from now, if not sooner, she’ll be losing that bet.
I try to have interesting conversations with AI. I also throw it curveballs to see what it can hit. ChatGPT is pretty good.
The other night I brought up the film, “Cool Hand Luke,” and mentioned blog conversations which ended with a mic drop moment to which no one replied.
Chat called it, “What we have here is a failure to rebut.” 🙂
I’m saving that for the right moment.
By the way, Neo, the blog is loading very slowly for me this evening.
Steve on February 23, 2025 at 10:24 am: ref finding that Lincoln Gettysburg address video.
Thank you for looking and finding that.
And yet, maybe it is just me, but I found they portrayed his complexion as somewhat darker than I might have expected. Hopefully not a DEI play of some sort?
And the cadence and expression they provided seem “off”, at least compared to how I would have made the pacing and emphasis, etc. Even somewhat “wooden”, to my ears. I suppose each of us would end up giving such an iconic speech our own special flavor, though.
But thanks again.
“Chat called it, “What we have here is a failure to rebut.” “
Huxley, that’s pretty funny– for a computer. I read somewhere computers didn’t do funny very well, but they obviously understand a play on words.
A few days ago I posted a link to John Hinderaker’s take on recent remarks by Trump about Ukraine and noted the lockstep comments to Hinderaker’s post. Something very similar occurs in this post by Hinderaker concerning the AP’s refusal to “correctly” refer to the Gulf of Mexico and their subsequent banning from certain forums
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/02/the-ap-sues-the-white-house.php
Many of the comments mention that access to these forums is not a right but a privilege, and are therefore fine with the policy. I am not qualified to comment on the legal aspects, nor a good enough wordsmith to express my disdain for both the juvenile renaming and the more dangerous banning, so I will just mention the following analogy (not my own). Imagine if Harris had won and issued a proclamation that all must be referred to by their preferred pronouns. Foxnews refuses to go along and is, among other punishments, never again called on in press secretary briefings. Imagine the hue and cry raised by the same people applauding the AP banning
Turtler, obviously the western governments agree with you.
What I don’t think Ukrainian supporters acknowledge is how angry eastern Ukrainians felt about the overthrow, the move to restrict the Russian language. The same day Yanukovych was removed nationalists were calling for an anti-terrorist operation to “unite Ukraine” in the east.
I asked Grok, “Did the separatist movement in Luhansk and Donetsk start with the overthrow of Yanukovych or were they already seeking federalization/independence”
Grok’s response:
By the way, Kyiv Institute did a survey shortly after the Maidan revolution and the percentage of Donbas residents favoring independence had risen to 29% with 14% unsure.
It’s a mistake to blame the independence movement only on Russia. They certainly used the anger/response by Ukrainians in the Donbas region. But so did the State Dept./CIA use the unrest in the western Ukraine that led to the Maidan revolution and a friendly Ukrainian President.
• Was in DC during the Joe Gibbs glory years – family fortunate enough to share season tickets at RFK – and I still refer to the team as the Redskins.
• 100% recognize that folks cannot unring the bell, and once everyone was repeatedly informed that the name is racist – despite never having heard used a racial slur themselves * – it will always sound ** that way too many.
* = my family lived in the SW & West before DC, and as a somewhat sheltered boy I had heard slurs & cuss words – even if not know what they meant – but never heard anyone called a Redskin; and have never talked to anyone who had – unlike every other recognized slur & cuss word
** = In 1999 a member of the DC mayor’ office resigned because he used a word that sounded to others very similar to a well-known racial slur that starts with a N; yet the word never had an actual history of being used as a racial slur (see word for ‘ungenerous; stingy’ that starts with a N).
• And that happened even though a respected language scholar – not activist/ journalist/ etc. – determined that it did not have a history of bring a racial slur ^^; the unrelenting activist campaign prevailed.
^^ = “In 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of redskin’s early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word’s first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that “the actual origin of the word is entirely benign.” — Tampa Bay Times
https://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/the-surprising-origins-of-redskins/2159419/
• I’ll add that the demise of the Redskins team name is nothing compared to the damage other activist campaigns have created; including the damage that ‘Snow On Pine’ noted:
• One of my brothers and his wife – intelligent, German uni professor – refuse to have children because of this propaganda and I feel sad for them. Not because I think all adults should have children; but because their “sacrifice” is so misguided and factually anti-science (important to them both).
You’re still going on about Yanukovich?
”What I don’t think Ukrainian supporters acknowledge is how angry eastern Ukrainians felt about the overthrow…”
After Yanukovich tore up the EU/Ukraine Accession Agreement, fired upon peaceful protesters, and fled the country, his own political party disowned him. He left office with a 4.9% approval rating.
Nobody wants him back. Why you are obsessed with this dead horse is beyond me.
@ Steve > “noted the lockstep comments to Hinderaker’s post”
Thanks for linking to Power Line, I don’t always read them daily anymore.
Although the consensus was supportive of Trump’s move, it was hardly a “lockstep” exhibition. You may have missed some of the comments.
Many people agreed with Trump’s decision, but not everyone.
Those who agreed did so for different reasons.
Not everyone thought it was a good (politically expedient) move, or legal, or constitutional (some statutes make things legal that aren’t constitutional).
I observed commenters disagreeing with John, disagreeing with each other, and disagreeing on what points to disagree on.
To wit:
GeoffNM @ Russell Clarkson 6 hours ago
While I disagree with your first sentence, the rest of your comment is good
watt @ SilliestString 6 hours ago
Agree with your first paragraph. But it doesn’t justify the present issue.
Most of the readers of any blog share a general world-view, or they wouldn’t be there.
I don’t recall ever seeing a lockstep reaction here at Neo’s place, although I can often see a general consensus of the majority of commenters.
Often, not always.
PS — the comment thread at PL was actually quite amusing, and explored most of the legal and political angles. I do recommend it.
Regarding the question at issue, I think this was the best suggestion:
Al Linski @ Polly_Mathick 2 hours ago
Have a raffle every morning for the available seats.
On Sunday a boffo post from libertarian columnist frequently published in the Epoch Times, Jeffrey Tucker, explaining the historic over a hundred years necessity for a DOGE Revolution in DC against the tyrannical bureaucracy. Here’s the conclusion:
“Four years have gone by and Trump is back again, this time with a determination to slay this beast, one that he knows all-to-well. The efforts of DOGE and MAHA and MAGA are epic in scope, breaking a century of pathetic acquiescence toward the deep, middle, and shallow states, at last using moral courage to confront the problem head on, come what may.
“They are profoundly aware that they MUST act fast and with some degree of ferocity, even recklessness, else we will default back to the status quo of leaders who pretend to be in charge while the embedded system runs things behind the scenes.
“It has been this way for TOO LONG. The voters this time have demanded change, and mustered the faith to believe that change is possible. This is precisely what DOGE is attempting, to make good on a promise, a promise that for once the voters actually believed was credible.
“They simply must succeed. There might never be another chance…”
https://x.com/jeffreyatucker/status/1893787435659674034
TJ, that Jeffrey Tucker X statement gets this exactly right.
I remember Trump saying, late in the 2020 campaign, “I have the chance to destroy the deep state.” This time he’s determined to do it.
Brian E on February 23, 2025 at 5:51 pm
🙂 I don’t know if the House DEMs have the nerve to try ‘n impeach Trump again – unless he does a major screw-up. Agree that REPs won’t.
DEMs are in bad shape now…gun shy. I agree with Carville – Don’t get in Trump’s way…
Amazon, Jeff Bezos Selling Fake ICE Jackets to Customers Who Want to Scare Fearful Immigrants
Just don’t startle a gathering of Tren de Aragua thugs…
Aesopfan 1:50am
I reread many of the comments, and you are correct. Lockstep was a wrong characterization. But consensus seems a bit tepid. Can we agree on overwhelming consensus 🙂
@Brian E
It’s not just Western Governments (and frankly I don’t think they have the same issues I have with the Ukrainian Constitution’s glaring flaws and blind spots – as shown by the lack of reform demanded for it or done to it since Euromaidan). Ultimately even the Kremlin dropped Yanukovych after the elections, even as the war was going on, Crimea was declared annexed, and the fighting in the East between Ukrainian loyalists on one side and the Donbas separatists and disguised Russian Federation forces (whether directly in the form of false flagged or unflagged spec ops or troops or indirectly in the form of trusted or at least trust-able dogs of war like Girkin and co) heated up.
No branch of the standing Ukrainian government escaped 2014 with a great deal of constitutional or legal legitimacy. But to their credit the Rada recognized this, which is why after declaring Yanukovych and his cabinet deposed due to their defacto abdication of their constitutional responsibilities, the Rada then transitioned into a caretaker government with continuity from the government that democratically elected them and Yanukovych’s executive branch back in 2010, and began expediting new elections with the plan to dissolve themselves and recreate a new government.
In contrast, Yanukovych fled to Russia and insisted he remained legal President of Ukraine while not needing to fulfill any of its constitutional duties. Which in addition to his prior conduct is a major reason why he lost the legal and diplomatic impasse in early 2014, to the point where the Russian Government and its Donbaschukuo vassals ultimately abandoned him.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27542057
Which is why I have to second mkent’s confusion and exasperation over trying to make Yanukovych this kind of Donbas Mandela figure whose removal led the existent anti-maidans to spontaneously (and with confusing amounts of militancy and Russian Federation exclusive military equipment they had not had before) decide to attack not just their traditional Maidanite enemies but also Ukrainian government and military forces that had tried to stay neutral (with the military in particular rarely deciding to leave its barracks up to this point). The number of those fighting for Yanukovych’s name or memory are basically nil, absolutely no separatist republic has extended an invitation for him to share power in their system, they rarely fight in his name, and not even the Russian government views him as a tenable proxy or client any more, which is why after the 2014 elections in Ukraine they generally dropped the pretense he was the legal President of Ukraine and even now they mostly dredge his memory up in order to wave a bloody shirt rather than as part of any programme to empower him.
His removal is clearly a watershed moment in Ukrainian politics, and he certainly represented a strain of politics in the Donbas that helped indicate where things would go, but even most of his proteges remained loyalist (at least in name), and the militant turn of the anti-maidans owes more to them being directly orchestrated by the Russian government and its “organs’.
I echo mkent here. Most of those representing “Eastern Ukrainians” that remained in the Rada voted to remove him, and most of those that didn’t distanced themselves from him. Which is again why even among the separatist forces in the South and East (which we can see pretty clearly now were outside of Crimea an armed minority and ones that lost much of their luster early, especially in the East) they did not recognize his power. Even in Crimea where the “separatist”/Russian satellite government was at its most stable and intact (in large part because it was the pre-existing autonomous government after a purge of the loyalists) there was no “Hey Yanukovych, want to play Slavic Jiang/Chiang here?”
The anger of the people in the East and South had very little to do with Yanukovych himself, as by the time he fled Kyiv he had revealed himself to be not just a corrupt, brutal bully (as had been evident for years) but also a coward devoid of the ability to distribute patronage and with little of a loyalty base, even in the Donbas or Crimea.
He’s at best a leading indicator of where things went, but even at the time of his power most anti-maidanites fought loosely under his banner for their own purposes, and even among the likes of Berkut or other groups he directly controlled became more disillusioned with his as time went on.
Which overwhelmingly post-dated the start of violent hostilities and in particular Putin’s Feb 22-23 decision to deploy spec ops to among other things “reunite” Crimea with Russia. The radical Maidanites had made it fairly clear once it became clear this would not be limited to the EU Association Agreement that they wanted a repeal of the 2012 Language Law, but they were not united with other Maidanites like Tymoshenko’s bloc and in any case didn’t even start the process of unsuccessfully trying to repeal it until late Feb/early March.
By which time the Russian Federation was already minting medals for the reclamation of Crimea dating to Feb 20th and had Little Green Men in Crimea and increasingly the Donbas.
I’m going to need sources for this that *AREN’T* Grok, which is fundamentally incapable of doing more than scraping public sources of questionable authenticity without much in the way of fisking them.
It’s telling that even Wikispooks (which seems to be overwhelmingly cribbed from Kremlin propaganda and outright claims the thing amounted to “war crimes”) dates this to April 2014, when Turchynov declared it formally after an ultimatum deadline lapsed. Which makes a lot of sense, especially given the legal issues of trying to organize an election and the fact that one of the key weaknesses the Ukrainian loyalists faced early on was that they were slow on the draw responding to anti-Maidanites splitting (and especially those taking an increasingly separatist tone) and to the Russian Federation intervening.
Mirror mirror on the wall, who’s the most separatist-y of all?
Yeah no. Grok is not and cannot be a substitute for actual research or independent analysis, any more than any other AI LLM can be. At best it is a research aid that should tell you what to look for so you can check to see if it exists. Otherwise it’s basically just the Narcissus Effect of looking at the reflection of your own queries spread out over clearspace sources. Which is why if you asked “Were the anti-Maidan movements in the Crimea and Donbas organically seeking armed separation or were they co-opted to do so by Russian spec ops?” and asked that a few times you’d probably get interesting (if sometimes contradictory and unreliable) results.
This is why while I dabble in AI, including for research, and work under a friend that is a credentialed expert (and dear haven’t we heard a lot of those before?) in the field, she emphasized that you Do Not use these as a substitute for the primary or secondary sources, and that the reason Zero Trust exists is because no AI (or pseudo-AI like Grok) can make true decisions or calculations, no AI can be responsible.
In any case, I do not deny there was a disproportionate amount of Russophone and pro-Russian sentiment in the South and East, and in Crimea in particular this amounted to explicit threats of separatism, often drawing on much older regionalist, autonomist, or separatist sentiment. But these were militarily and politically impotent until Vladimir Putin and the Russian Dictatorship – over the course of at a minimum Feb 19th-23rd – decided to deploy Russian Federation military forces and intelligence assets to seize control of at a minimum Crimea from the Ukrainian government – NOT on behalf of Yanukovych or his cabinet, but for themselves.
This is why attempts to conceptualize the outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2014 as some kind of “Crimea/Donbas War of Independence” ala 1775 flatly fail to me. Because while there had been plenty of rioting and brawling among the different camps before the radical turn to paramilitary violence and armed separatism in Crimea and later the Donbas did not happen organically but can be directly linked to the deployment of Russian government forces and forces closely associated with them like the Russian Imperial Movement.
Which is also why I keep emphasizing how as early as late Feb you already see Russian Federation exclusive equipment being present on the ground. This obviously does not mean that there was absolutely no grassroots or genuine separatism or paramilitary anti-maidanism in this era, far from it (especially in Cirmea). But it DOES emphasize how even the most bellicose and vocal anti-Maidanite groups like those in Crimea were reliant upon getting support from the Russian government before going ahead with armed separatism.
Which obviously explains divisional level artillery fire originating from over the Russian border and the presence of the Russian Imperial Movement in Slavyansk and the Little Green Men in Crimea.
In any case, the Kremlin
It’s a mistake to blame independentist sentiment or autonomism in the Donbas and Crimea only on Russia. However, it very much isn’t a mistake to place the Russian dictatorship front and center when discussing how these movements got unspeakably more well armed, violent, and organized over the span of at most a month, while liaising with known FSB and GRU contacts, often fielding Russian Federation exclusive military equipment, and coordinating with Russian Federation naval and landborne artillery assets from over the border.
This is akin to assuming that because there was a significant and longlasting strand of thought for Greater German union in places like Austria and the German dominated Bohemian borderlands in Czechoslovakia, the emergence of the Austrian Nazi Party and the Sudeten Freikorps as terrorist insurgencies and armed conspiracies was totally organic and emerging from the community itself rather than – say – acting with the patronage and even direction of a foreign government in Berlin. Ditto things like the dreams of Chinese Federalism or at least regional autonomy or the Left-Wing and anti-Chiang KMT factions compared to the parade of “Provincial” or “Regional” governments created by the invading Japanese.
Yes, they did. Though they did significantly more than using it, especially given what the Russian government has now acknowledged regarding the process of taking over Crimea in particular. They very clearly were not content to rely upon the previous levels of publics support or violence.
The difference is it wasn’t just unrest in Western Ukraine, as I mentioned before. One of the reasons Yanukovych and Putin took Maidan so badly was it featured minority but significant backlash in even the “Safe” areas like the Donbas and to a much lesser degree in Crimea, because it turns out that even ethnic Russian Russophones with a habitual preference for Russian trade tend to be leery about giving up EU Trade (as they saw it) during an economic slump, and even moreso when the decision was made in what seemed to be such an inorganic and coerced way that they saw (rightfully or wrongly) as mortgaging their votes without a resolution to the tariff issue. These were obviously not the entire population, or even most of it, but they were enough to cause a panic and erode Yanukovych’s base of support.
Which is why I generally repudiate this vision of Euromaidan and even moreso the wars in 2014 as a story of “West Ukraine vs. East Ukraine.” Yanukovych ironically might have fared better had he stuck to that in his 2010 election bid, even if he might not have won. But the compromises he made to help exploit the fracturing Orange coalition and win defectors over from Yuschenko and Tymoshenko came back to bite him badly, and are one reason why when you had “curious” cases of armed separatism and paramilitary forces involved they generally did not fight on behalf of Yanukovych or follow his orders.
Five stars again Turtler.
@ Steve > “Can we agree on overwhelming consensus ?”
I’ll second that motion.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion at PL so thanks for the hat tip.
@steve, AesopFan: Imagine if Harris had won and issued a proclamation that all must be referred to by their preferred pronouns. Foxnews refuses to go along and is, among other punishments, never again called on in press secretary briefings. Imagine the hue and cry raised by the same people applauding the AP banning
They will not learn the lesson any other way. When they were in power, they did it to us, and when we were in power they appealed to our principles, and then when they got back into power they did it to us again. And each time our unilateral disarmament left them stronger and us weaker and made it harder for us to get back into power and redress what they did wrong.
Now they are going to learn the lesson: we had this fairness norm for a reason, and this is what it’s like for YOU when WE break it. We tried appealing to reason and fairness, they laughed and did what they wanted when they were able. We are teaching them to value the norm they refused to value before.
We are done unilaterally disarming. So yes, we’re making them say “Gulf of America” because they made us say their pronouns and renamed our buildings and monuments and mountains. It wasn’t Harris specifically who did this, but she very likely would have done something like it, and it was the people who supported Harris were the ones doing this to us, and now they are learning why the fairness norm was there.
When they are ready to give assurance that they will respect the norm when the pendulum swings again, we can all stop doing it, but not before. Or maybe they’ll refuse, and we’ll be fighting with the same weapons, but at least we’re not the ones who disarm every time. Either both sides do, or neither. We’re not chumps any more.
Latin American countries aren’t asking to join NATO.
==
They’re already enrolled in the Rio Treaty. Your point?
Karmi, ref ICE jackets etc. sold on Amazon:
Probably not illegal to sell or buy this stuff, but outside of a Holloween costume event, or a theater production, I would think attempting to impersonate a federal official would be illegal.
Your “king’s rules/laws”, again, I’m afraid.
Turtler, this is the downside of trying to have is discussion/debate on a blog. The blog marches on. The war will probably be settled before we reach an agreement about the events beginning in Feb. 2014.
“In contrast, Yanukovych fled to Russia and insisted he remained legal President of Ukraine while not needing to fulfill any of its constitutional duties. Which in addition to his prior conduct is a major reason why he lost the legal and diplomatic impasse in early 2014…” – Turtler
The problem with this statement is you’ve muddied the timeline. Yanukovych was still in Ukraine when the Rada voted to removed Yanukovych on Feb. 22. He only left for Russia after that vote.
“Which is why I have to second mkent’s confusion and exasperation over trying to make Yanukovych this kind of Donbas Mandela figure…” -Turtler
I find it hard to believe you don’t understand the issues in the illegal overthrow of a legitimately elected President of any country. Forget Yanukovych. Trying to rationalize the overthrow as somehow excusable because he was no longer popular is irrelevant. The constitution of any country, ours included, is the guiding document that must be observed by everyone. Without adhering to that document, the country becomes fractured and the result will ultimately lead to civil war– which in this case it did.
You linked to a BBC article that indicated Putin said he would accept the results of the election post Yanukovych’s removal.
That article is misleading.
Putin’s public stance, as expressed shortly before the election, was cautiously worded. On May 23, 2014, at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, he stated that Russia would “respect the outcome” of Ukraine’s presidential election and was prepared to work with whoever was elected. This came after months of tension following Yanukovych’s ouster, which Putin and Russian officials consistently labeled an “illegal coup” orchestrated by the West. His May 23 comment marked a shift from earlier ambiguity, where he had left open the possibility of questioning the election’s legitimacy, especially given ongoing unrest in eastern Ukraine driven by pro-Russian separatists.
However, Putin’s “respect” was qualified. He argued that the election was flawed under Ukraine’s current constitution, claiming Yanukovych remained the legitimate president because his removal didn’t follow constitutional impeachment procedures (e.g., requiring a Constitutional Court review and a three-fourths parliamentary majority, per the 1996 constitution Yanukovych had restored). Putin also suggested that a referendum and new constitution should have preceded the vote, and he expressed hope that Kyiv’s new leadership would halt military actions against separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk—regions where voting was disrupted due to pro-Russian sentiment.
On February 23, the Verkhovna Rada repealed a 2012 language law granting Russian regional status, intensifying fears of cultural suppression (though vetoed by Acting President Turchynov, the move fueled unrest).
“Grok is not and cannot be a substitute for actual research or independent analysis, any more than any other AI LLM can be. At best it is a research aid that should tell you what to look for so you can check to see if it exists. Otherwise it’s basically just the Narcissus Effect of looking at the reflection of your own queries spread out over clearspace sources. Which is why if you asked “Were the anti-Maidan movements in the Crimea and Donbas organically seeking armed separation or were they co-opted to do so by Russian spec ops?” and asked that a few times you’d probably get interesting (if sometimes contradictory and unreliable) results.” – Turtler
I agree that how you ask a question can influence the type of data the AI computer will respond with. I have done the research (we’ve been debating this for years at this point). I used Grok because I didn’t feel like spending the time to find my sources from several years ago.
I found the short synopsis and timeline Grok provided to be similar to my recollection. I added a few points that Grok had omitted, but you were free to dispute any of the dates and characterization of events if you found them to be incorrect. You didn’t, but just made a hand waving gesture to dismiss the synopsis.
If anything Grok’s comments were sympathetic to Ukraine– for example: “May 11, 2014: Illegitimate “referendums” claimed 89% (Donetsk) and 96% (Luhansk) support for independence, though turnout and legitimacy were dubious (no international recognition, heavy coercion reported).”
My point was that om and mkent have tried to minimize the effect the removal of Yanukovych had on fracturing an already divided country. Whether separatists in Donbas and Crimea would have eventually demanded more autonomy is speculation, but had the ultra-nationalist drivers of the Maidan revolution accepted the compromise agreement that would have resulted in Yanukovych’s early removal it’s likely none of the following events would have occurred.
Turtler, by the way, I could have just appropriated the Grok synopsis because it was as accurate as any assessment working from 10 year old documents and not being able to interview people who were embroiled in the events.
I don’t think there is a copyright infringement repeating AI comments without attribution or fair use concerns. At least I haven’t seen anything addressing this.