Trump and Putin rendezvoused in Alaska and aren’t telling
Their words after the meeting were cautiously optimistic and purposely vague. We don’t know if any real progress was made although they seemed to be saying there was: “productive” according to Trump; “a starting point” according to Putin.
I certainly didn’t expect much more, especially since – as I wrote yesterday – Trump tried to lower expectations prior to the meeting by saying it had a twenty-five percent chance of failure, and, “Twenty-five percent chance of failure is Trump’s version of ‘pretty high chance of failure.'”:
So what now? After the meeting, Trump stated:
Trump said Putin’s observations were “profound,” and added that he would talk to NATO and Zelenskyy to update them about the discussions with Russia. “It’s ultimately up to them,” he said.
“Many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left. Some are not that significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there,” Trump said, without elaborating.
The two didn’t take questions.
NOTE: I don’t know where else to put this essentially meaningless observation, so I’ll put it here: Both Trump and Putin have surnames with five letters, and they share three of those letters.
Donald and Vladimir share only two.
The last thing democrats want to see is Trump actually being successful in arranging the end of the Putin / Ukraine war.
Demokrats would much prefer Trump fail in this endeavor.
Just another demonstration of what POS slime balls the demonkrats are.
“Putin” rearranged spells “I punt.”
Old Trump is up to something!
Since Trump didn’t just walk out, as he said he would if the effort failed, I am willing to wait and see what comes. He’s a better negotiator than any recent president. It’s also good to remember that the US is not directly involved in the war.
Kate you’re on to something.
“It’s also good to remember that the US is not directly involved in the war.” – Kate
I disagree. We are in a role much like Russia was in Vietnam. Without the aid of NATO, Ukraine would have fallen in a matter of months.
It’s a proxy war that many want to ignore. The old Cold War days have returned. Basically, it’s now free democratic nations defending themselves from the authoritarian (Communists, dictators, theocracies, oligarchies, etc.) nations that are basically aggressive and acquisitional.
The authoritarians want to acquire more land and power, but the threat of nuclear war keeps them from going all in. Putin has chosen small steps – Georgia, Crimea, and now Ukraine. He claims that these little wars are matters of safeguarding the sovereignty of Russia. No, it’s the result of his dream of rebuilding the USSR.
The Islamists have chosen terror and propaganda campaigns to acquire land and power. They claim the land that Israel holds was stolen from them and their efforts to recover it are noble. They ignore the history of Isrrael and have launched a huge propaganda campaign to rewrite the history.
In both small wars, the U.S. is a major player without having boots on the ground. We would like it to be otherwise, but reality requires that we accept that this is just an extension of the Cold War. We can’t walk away from Ukraine or Israel. The results could be catastrophic for the free world.
@ Neo > ” Both Trump and Putin have surnames with five letters, and they share three of those letters.”
Well, there you go! Obviously they are conspiring with each other, just like the Democrats said!
Seriously, in re the negotiation, one clear advantage IMO is that Trump is the only mediator between Putin and Zelenskyy. When there have been point men for each side, as is the usual case, sometimes their understandings lose something when conveyed to the principals.
Do any of the news reports say if anyone was in the room with them? Putin of course speaks English, so there was no need for a translator.
Observers and translators are an obvious source for leaks, which have historically derailed, or at least complicated, other international negotiations.
If Russia was as deeply involved in a war we were fighting, as the US is with Ukraine, we’d be pretty mad about it.
Doesn’t meant we aren’t still The Good Guys, just means we are indeed pretty directly involved.
“Both Trump and Putin have surnames with five letters, and they share three of those letters.”
Actually Obama, Trump and Biden have surnames with five letters and Bush has four, so since January 20, 2001, all of our Presidents have had surnames no longer than five letters.
Leftist overseas press is saying, “Trump got played.” … usually the interview is with some US Policy “expert” teaching at a university or working in the bowels of press policy research.
At least in Oz… so far.
J.J., yes, of course we’re “involved,” but not directly in the conflict (our troops are not there dying). Zelenskyy, and others, are right to point out that a peace deal will have to be agreed to by Russia and Ukraine. That’s what Trump says, too. If a direct peace deal had come out of Alaska, it would have meant Ukraine’s voice had been cut out.
Trump is operating here as a mediator, with significant carrots and sticks for Russia. Let’s see what happens when he meets with Zelenskyy, and following.
”Leftist overseas press is saying, ‘Trump got played.’”
*Every* non-MAGA part of the press left, right, and center all over the world is saying “Trump got played” because Trump got played. It wasn’t nearly as bad as it could have been, but it was bad.
The fact that Trump invited Putin, an indicted war criminal, to America to personally negotiate was bad enough. Heads of state don’t negotiate. They have underlings for that. Heads of state just show up when the negotiations are done to sign the final agreements. For a head of state to personally negotiate and come away with nothing makes him look weak.
But that he invited Putin to *Alaska* is folly beyond compare. The Russians still claim Alaska as their own. There are billboards all over Russia advertising Alaska as Russian territory. The week before the summit Russian propaganda the world over was showing pictures of Russian Orthodox churches in Alaska as well as the signs of streets and villages all over the state with Russian names. The night before the meeting the Putin Youth published a song that, among other things, sang about taking back Alaska.
Then to have pictures broadcast to the world of American servicemen on their knees rolling out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin and to have Trump standing there with a huge smile on his face while Putin made him wait. Trump looked very, very weak. Putin was obviously the man with more stature — like he was meeting a satrap like Lukashenko.
Then to have Putin walk away without giving him anything while Trump waived the sanctions that he said he would impose just last week was the whipped cream on top of the sundae for the Russians. They added a cherry last night with yet another attack on Ukrainian civilians.
Trump has levied tariffs on every country on Earth — even uninhabited islands — except Russia. Three times now he has drawn a red line warning Putin of severe consequences if he crossed it, and three times Putin has crossed it with the only consequence being Trump groveling and begging him to reconsider.
The only time Trump has gotten tough in this affair is with the victims of Russia’s crimes, the Ukrainians. The consequence of *that* toughness was many more dead Ukrainians. Consequences for the victims but not for the criminals.
I don’t think Trump is actually in the employ of Vladimir Putin, but I’m having a hard time coming up with things he’d be doing differently if he were.
mkent probably does not play much chess. Trump/Putin are players, and they know they are far from being in the end-game. They are also not playing poker, in which players bet $ to see the cards –“I’ll see you”.
@Kate on August 16, 2025 at 4:59 pm
Yes, I agree with your comment. The settlement will have to be between Russia and Ukraine.
The implications of that settlement are far reaching. Could set the tone in Europe and the Middle East for the next twenty-five years.
“The only time Trump has gotten tough in this affair is with the victims of Russia’s crimes, the Ukrainians. “- mkent
Who has a nuclear arsenal? Trump seems to be very cautious about what he says about Putin because he has probably been briefed that Putin is just psycho enough to actually pull the trigger on a nuclear strike. Such a miscalculation on Putin’s part could be catastrophic for the world. Russia would certainly be destroyed, but so would a lot of the West’s infrastructure.
I agree with Trump that the unnecessary killing should stop, and any sane person would want that. The killing apparently does not bother Putin. Myu guess is that he considers Trump’s concern with the killing a sign of weakness. He and his cronies probably also consider Trump’s belief in “making deals, not war” as weak as well.
Putin’s mindset is one that we in the West find hard to understand. But it’s common in authoritarian run countries.
My guess is that there will be no deal. (I hope I’m wrong.) We in the West will have no choice but to ruin Russia’s economy. In the meantime, NATO and NORAD need to be on their toes. This could get much uglier before it’s over.
My lefty Facebook friends are all trumpeting some “scoop” about posts left in a hotel printer. One was a menu and the other was a schedule. Neither seemed particularly confidential.
mkent:
“I don’t think Trump is actually in the employ of Vladimir Putin, but I’m having a hard time coming up with things he’d be doing differently if he were.”
You’re really having a hard time coming up with things Trump would do differently if he was in the employ of Putin? You must have a very limited imagination. I can think of many things very easily. Trump could simply stop supplying Ukraine with intelligence and targeting support. Putin would very much like that. That wasn’t hard at all.
The NATO plan seems to have been to fight to the last Ukranian, and that day may be approaching. Several reports say Ukranian forces are experiencing high desertions and surrenders, and they are now mostly older men who have a more practical desire to stay alive than fight for a lot of farmland populated by Russian speaking Orthodox adherants.
This whole disaster was brought about by the Deep State whose face was Victoria Nuland and who need a hated dangerous Russia to justify their incredible expenditures.
There has always been a clear dividing line between the Russian leaning and the EU leaning parts of Ukraine. Almost any accomodation would have resulted in peace. After Victoria Nuland and her Color Revolution if became impossible for the new Ukrainian Governmentn to avoid dumping on Russian speakers, and Russian was actually dropped as an official language.
For a view from the Russian side this Brit travelog video maker shows Russia post sanctions and includes time spent near Ukraine and numerous interactions with actual Russians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0i0zbuCIIM&t=3133s
It certainly doesn’t create an impression of Russian collapse.
It is likely that Putin is not interested in ending things because he expects to gain a lot more territory. That seems likely.
Richard Illyes,
Putin is not interested in an end that fails to resolve Russia’s 4 core conditions: 1) a neutral Ukraine 2)a cessation of NATO’s eastward advancement 3) an agreement that the four former eastern provinces along with Crimea are now a permanent part of Russia and 4) an end to the Zelensky regime’s persecution of its Russian speaking minority.
Since Zelensky refuses to even consider such measures, the issue will continue to be settled on the battlefield. Russia will continue to advance up to the Dneiper river to establish a defensible line. Russia may still seize Odessa, turning Ukraine into a failed, landlocked rump State. Which would greatly reduce NATO’s strategic options in their continued attempt to place Russia in a tactically vulnerable position. Russia doesn’t want a ‘frozen conflict’ but given EU and Zelensky’s intransigence, its increasingly likely to eventuate. The NeoCons/Uni-Party/Deep State and ‘woke’ Global elite have the blood of millions on their hands.
”Trump seems to be very cautious about what he says about Putin because he has probably been briefed that Putin is just psycho enough to actually pull the trigger on a nuclear strike.”
If any such briefing has taken place it was a deliberate piece of Russian disinformation, probably passed along by Tulsi Gabbard. Putin is not a psycho. He is a moderate Russian leader following long-standing Russian policy in his invasion of Ukraine, in his eventual conquest of Eastern Europe, and in his lack of nuking the West.
Putin is a Russian nationalist and is czar in all but name. He knows that nuking the West will result in the absolute destruction of Russia. Not just in mass Russian death and devastation — Russia will cease to exist. As czar and a nationalist, that is the absolute worst possible outcome for him. He will not take such an action.
”Trump could simply stop supplying Ukraine with intelligence and targeting support.”
Trump has already done that. While Russia was amassing forces to take back Kursk, America kept the details of the Russian troop buildup from the Ukrainians, allowing the buildup to occur unmolested. The result was a surprise counterattack that caught the Ukrainians unprepared. At the same time America also suddenly stopped warning the Ukrainians of inbound drones and missiles, allowing them to strike civilian areas without warning. Quite a few Ukrainian civilians died as a result.
The people who thought leaving billions of dollars in military equipment, including Bagram Airbase, behind in Afghanistan wasn’t a big deal; and who could be heard slightly murmuring when Obama declared on a hot mic, he could be flexible regarding something Russian, are worried Trump will “get played” by Putin.
In an unfortunate, but common bit of campaign bragging, Trump did himself no favors by declaring he would end this conflict on “day 1”.
I’m no foreign policy expert, but I am highly doubtful Putin will give back any territory he has won in this conflict. And no one, including Trump, will be able to cut a ceasefire/peace deal that requires that Putin give up any.
”This whole disaster was brought about by the Deep State whose face was Victoria Nuland…”
This disaster started when Russia invaded Ukraine. Victoria Nuland and the deep state had nothing to do with it.
”There has always been a clear dividing line between the Russian leaning and the EU leaning parts of Ukraine.”
There is no Russian-leaning part of Ukraine. Every single oblast voted to leave Russia and join Ukraine with the vote in all but two of those oblasts 5-1 or more. The whole Ukrainian parliament voted to join the EU by a 10-1 margin. The Ukrainians are nearly unanimous in wanting out of the Russian yoke and into the EU.
”Zelensky refuses to even consider such measures…”
The Ukrainian constitution forbids giving away Ukrainian territory. Zelensky has no authority to meet the Russian demands even if he wanted to, which he doesn’t.
”Russia will continue to advance up to the Dneiper river to establish a defensible line.”
At Russia’s current rate of advance it would take them nearly 100 years to reach the Dnieper River in full. Russia doesn’t have the equipment to last that long.
Imagine for a moment that it was President Biden or President Kamala “Cackling” Harris that met with Putin in Alaska in an effort to seek the war’s end.
Biden and/or Harris would have received the Nobel Peace Prize the moment they announced the meeting and all those hate-Trump news articles would instead be articles spewing out effusive praise for the Biden / Harris.
What is sickening about all of this is this fictional scenario would not be fiction if it occurred as I described.
mkent:
“Trump has already done that. While Russia was amassing forces to take back Kursk, America kept the details of the Russian troop buildup from the Ukrainians, allowing the buildup to occur unmolested. The result was a surprise counterattack that caught the Ukrainians unprepared. At the same time America also suddenly stopped warning the Ukrainians of inbound drones and missiles, allowing them to strike civilian areas without warning. Quite a few Ukrainian civilians died as a result.”
Exactly. You have just made my point. Ukraine relies on US intelligence and targeting support. Stopping it would have serious negative consequences for Ukraine. We are still providing such support. If Trump was in Putin’s employ he would once again stop sharing intelligence with Ukraine. Your original point is nonsensical.
Putin is not interested in an end that fails to resolve Russia’s 4 core conditions: 1) a neutral Ukraine 2)a cessation of NATO’s eastward advancement 3) an agreement that the four former eastern provinces along with Crimea are now a permanent part of Russia and 4) an end to the Zelensky regime’s persecution of its Russian speaking minority.
==
Putin is interested in saving face. There was no persecution of any ‘Russian speaking minority’ and both the current President of the Ukraine and his predecessor prefer Russian for mundane conversation. The Putin stooge occupying the foreign ministry had the audacity in February 2022 to demand that all countries which had entered NATO after 1997 be expelled from it; there was a reason they sought NATO membership and the last three years have shown their perspicacity in that. There has been no ‘eastward expansion’ since 2004 bar Finland joining in response to Russia’s mistreatment of the Ukraine.
The NATO plan seems to have been to fight to the last Ukranian, and that day may be approaching.
==
We’ve been hearing inane wishcasting from you lot for three and a half years.
there has been wishcasting on both sides
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/08/east_to_alaska.html
one side trafficks in bad soap operas which would be entertaining if not for the cost of this endeavour,
with regards to British intelligence who are the esteemed watchers, there are no Bonds or even Harry Palmers, there are more neurotics like Tomlinson and Steele, the former was actually taken back by the service, after he burned some 200 of his colleagues, among the American brethren you have top dogs like Brennan, but also the likes of Polymerous (sic) or Nada Bakos, who signed on to the Blinken chain letter, needless to say their judgement is more checkered than a dalmatian,
and this doesn’t seem to be a new thing, how the diem coup came about, how
the Castro brothers fooled the Company,
it’s a rare thing when they come to an actual piece of real intelligence,
part of the part of Sodeberg’s the Agency, that seems utterly fictional,
Every single oblast voted to leave Russia and join Ukraine with the vote in all but two of those oblasts 5-1 or more.” – mkent
Which two did not overwhelming vote for the referendum? Would that be Luhansk and Donetsk? The two oblasts that declared independence from Ukraine after the unlawful overthrow of the President of Ukraine in 2014? Until we recognize the mistake supporting the overthrow of the Ukrainian President and the part that paid in provoking the already existent independence movement in the Donbas and Crimea, a resolution to the war will continue to elude us (and Ukraine for that matter).
Which region did not vote in favor of the 1991 independence? Would that be Crimea, who two years later seceded from Ukraine which was eventually politically settled by granting Crimea additional autonomy?
As to some of your other talking points, you’re being disingenuous at best.
Trump hasn’t “tariffed” Russia because we buy very little from Russia ($3.24 billion in 2024)– the largest import being fertilizer which we need (along with Europe which still buys fertilizer from Russia) and uranium (Russia supplies around 1/4 of our uranium needs. As to the secondary sanctions on India to discourage India from buying Russian crude– Europe could have quit buying fuel from India at any time– there were alternate sources, but they continued to buy from India which was refining Russian crude because it was cheaper.
Do we really want to drive India deeper into the BRICS sphere? India has always maintained a neutral status between the power blocs. We need them to maintain that status or move them toward greater trade partners– not away from us.
I understand why President Trump has used the threat against sanctions on India as leverage on Russia, but it is the last thing the US or the global economy needs at this point.
Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk are never going to be part of Ukraine, in my estimation. I think part of the rationale for invading Ukraine is the Donbas and Crimea sentiment in Russia.
The Donbass referendum of 1994, on which the whole world turned a blind eye
https://www.donbass-insider.com/2020/05/14/the-donbass-referendum-of-1994-on-which-the-whole-world-turned-a-blind-eye/
I’ve included this article to show that there has and continues to be a strong tie between Russia and Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts.
Would that be Luhansk and Donetsk? The two oblasts that declared independence from Ukraine after the unlawful overthrow of the President of Ukraine in 2014?
==
It was not unlawful and there was no popular referendum declaring independence.
Which region did not vote in favor of the 1991 independence? Would that be Crimea, who two years later seceded from Ukraine which was eventually politically settled by granting Crimea additional autonomy?
==
The Crimea and every other region of the Ukraine voted in favor in 1991.
Art Deco, you are right that in the Dec. 1, 1991 referendum, Crimea voted 54% yes, but they also voted overwhelmingly earlier in 1991 to make the Crimean oblast an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic within the Ukrainian SSR, with 94% yes.
Then the next year they:
“On 26 February 1992, the Crimean parliament changed the official name from “Crimean ASSR” to “Republic of Crimea”. Then on 5 May, it proclaimed self-government and twice enacted a constitution that the Ukrainian Parliament and government deemed to be inconsistent with Ukraine’s constitution. In June 1992, the parties reached a compromise, that Crimea would have considerable autonomy but remain part of Ukraine.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_autonomy_referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Crimea_(1992%E2%80%931995)
The point being, there was/is strong support in Crimea for independence from Ukraine.
As to the removal of Yanukovych being legal, show me in the Ukraine constitution where it authorizes the removal of a President in the way it was done.
”Which two did not overwhelming vote for the referendum? Would that be Luhansk and Donetsk?”
No, it would not. Luhansk and Donetsk each voted 83-17 in favor of joining Ukraine.
”Which region did not vote in favor of the 1991 independence? Would that be Crimea…”
No, it would not. Crimea, along with every single oblast in Ukraine, voted to leave Russia and join Ukraine. Even Sevastopol, home of the Russian Black Sea fleet, voted 57-43 to leave Russia. There is no part of Ukraine that wants to be a part of Russia.
its very dissapointing for me, the way Central Asia turned out in the aftermath of the Soviet Union, with some exceptions, Central Europe did pretty well, Czechoslovakia, did the best, Poland next up, I had hoped against hope that the land of my forefathers might be free, here in the Caribbean, but very quickly we discovered this was not to be, when the Russians pulled out, those same Europeans, potentates that are what democracy looks like, swooped in to save the wandering coma and his plantation, the US found reasons to intervene everywhere from Panama to Peshawar, but in their front yard nothing doing,
the window for democracy and free market in the hemisphere closed after 2001,
the rate shock destabilized Argentina, and threw into the lap of the Kirchners,
although the writing was on the wall in Caracas as recent as 1998, after a spell Nicaragua became the property of the Ortegas when we weren’t looking,
in the immediate aftermath there was strife in the periphery of the Federation, in Azeri with Armenia, (that long running conflict, that was settled a week ago) largely Chechnya for complex reasons,Uzbekistan was another flashpoint with it’s Afghan neighbor that we didn’t really want to agitate specially after 2001, even though we felt confident to do so around 2005, this was the same arrogance that put Gaza in the hands of Hamas,
the Russian people were willing to cooperate in the Afghan expedition, because bygones be bygones but not so much in Iraq,
Sevastopol was one of those Potemkin villages acquired at great cost after the Second War with Turkey, retained in the Crimean war, that Tolstoy participated in,
part of the next war, and even part of the second two world wars,
mkent, this is all a moot point, but there is a significant minority of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine that felt threatened by the ultranationalists in western Ukraine. That was highlighted by the Maidan revolution and overthrow of Yanukovych.
Instead of working politically with these people, western Ukraine sent private militias to deal with the Donbas. These people had voted overwhelmingly for Yanukovych.
By the way, in March of 1991, Ukraine voted overwhelmingly to join a new Union of Sovereign States, aligning with former USSR countries. The vote was 82% in favor of the new alignment. According to Wikipedia: In August 1991, with the August Coup preventing the New Union Treaty from being adopted by the Soviet Union, a withdrawal from the USSR was proposed leading to a declaration of independence being drafted.
1991 Ukrainian sovereignty referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_sovereignty_referendum
As to the Dec. 1991 referendum on Independence, 54% of Crimeans did vote yes, but the turnout was only 27% of eligible voters cast votes.
Luhansk and Donetsk did vote 83% yes, but the turnout was lower (68% and 64%) than the western oblasts where the turnout was in the high 80’s to mid 90% turnout.
In the paper, “Regional Political Divisions in Ukraine in 1991–2006” Ivan Katchanovski tracked the voting behavior of Ukrainians from 1991-2006 and found the highest Communist/pro-Russian voting index in Donetsk (63%), Luhansk (69%) and Crimea (60%).
Steve Witkoff said that Russia is open to Article 5 type security guarantees with countries outside NATO. This would allow the European countries to form a security pact with Ukraine. If the European countries with actual militaries agree to this format, it represents a significant achievement and one of the more contentious obstacles to any resolution to the conflict.
FULL INTERVIEW: Trump Peace Envoy Steve Witkoff Discusses Putin Summit, Zelensky Visit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIa8QMUDNBs&t=621s
It’s curious that a March 1991 sovereignty referendum passed by a large majority of Ukrainians which included this question: “Do you agree that Ukraine should be part of a Union of Soviet Sovereign States on the basis on the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine?” That question passed with 82% yes votes, yet in Dec. 1991 an independence referendum passed with a large majority of Ukrainians. it raises the question whether or not Ukrainians really understood what they were voting for, possibly in both referendums.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_sovereignty_referendum
BrainE casting back to the good old days of 1991 when every good Soviet wanted to be a Soviet again, and of course to his hero Yanukovych.
That Yanukovych still don’t hunt.
wikipedia? Really? Now that’s credibility for you.
As to the removal of Yanukovych being legal, show me in the Ukraine constitution where it authorizes the removal of a President in the way it was done.
==
He fled the country and was succeeded by the constitutionally designated official. His own political party abandoned him. A new President was elected per the constitution and took office in June of 2014. Parliamentary elections held in October left the Russophile element with 30 (of 225) seats in the legislature.
In re the chorus of “Trump got played.”
Au contraire
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/08/why_trump_s_alaska_summit_was_a_masterstroke_of_leadership_and_why_the_left_can_t_handle_it.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/08/why_trump_is_the_man_who_can_end_the_ukraine_war.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/08/the_ludicrous_anger_over_trump_offering_putin_a_nice_lunch.html
And your choice of experts:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2025/08/16/watch-the-media-get-ahead-of-their-skis-again-reporting-on-trumps-meeting-with-putin-n2661928
https://nypost.com/2025/08/15/us-news/body-language-experts-breaks-down-trump-putin-handshake-greeting-ahead-of-high-stakes-showdown/
Mr. Moot Yunkovych, and his fall from power, is BrainE’s key to understanding the deep, root causes of Ukraine’s war on Russia.
Cue om, not offering anything of substance, just snark.
The illegal removal of Yanukovych, where he was forced to flee for fear of his life, was/is a big deal.
Congress was set to impeach/convict Nixon for Watergate and we’re still talking about it.
To just sweep the overthrow of Yanukovych under the rug diminishes the entire framework of Ukraine’s “rule of law”.
There certainly are problems with Wikipedia, but what exactly are you suggesting? There wasn’t a referendum on sovereignty in March 1991? That is wasn’t passed with a supermajority of Ukrainians, including Ukrainians in the west? That it wasn’t implemented because of the coup attempt against Gorbachev in August 1991?
Ukraine was and is still a divided nation.
Art Deco, the Ukraine constitution is very clear about the procedures for removing a President.
Everything you described isn’t part of those procedures. The only legal process was to impeach Yanukovych. They didn’t follow the impeachment process.
You may argue that circumstances required these extra-constitutional measures, but it was not legal, if measured against the constitution of Ukraine.
The problem with the urgency/argument is the only pressure on the Rada was from ultranationalists, not from the communists. There was no pressure that if Yanukovych wasn’t removed that day, the country would fall to Russia. The action was taken because the Rada was being threatened by the far right.
Trump should have brought in as a diplomatic consultant to Alaska a journalist who was expelled from Russia by Putin to sit in on negotiations. Putin seems to have Trump’s number just as it seemed David Satter had Putin’s. Trump ( and Biden), have seemingly been slow walking Ukraine’s defense, pretending that Putin would negotiate in good faith.
Moot Yanukovych still don’t hunt.
He keeps pounding the same irrelevant point. Keeps ’em off the street playing in the traffic.
Where we find ourselves
https://www.piratewires.com/p/american-power
We seem to have stripped ourselves of necessary resources
Brian E:
No constitution can cover every contingency, and Yanukovych’s behavior represented a novel situation (his flight and abandonment of his duties). Something can happen that is extra-constitutional but is not unconstitutional, especially in a novel situation.
More:
More at the link.
I doubt that would convince you, but I’m putting it there for general readers.
Everything you described isn’t part of those procedures. The only legal process was to impeach Yanukovych. They didn’t follow the impeachment process.
==
Do you play with paperclips as a hobby?
@ miguel > “We seem to have stripped ourselves of necessary resources”
Good thing there are people concentrating on bringing them back.
IF we can keep Democrats out of control for at least another 4 years, preferably 8, hopefully forever.
An outstanding article about the decline of American energy and manufacturing businesses (read it to find out WHY Boeing has become such a disaster, literally) and now their renascence.
SpaceX figures positively in that story.
So does meritocracy and people with vision and mission-driven zeal.
Many people have fisked the great Moot Yanukovych argument of BrainE over these last 3 years but to no avail.
I’ve read quite a few Ukrainian and Russian sources discussing the war the last four years. I’ve never seen anyone as pro-Yanukovych as our very own Brian E. In fact, I don’t think Yanukovych is as pro-Yanukovych as Brian E. is.
Neo, since I mostly get snark when the subject is raised (not you), I asked Grok to give me a rational for Yanukovych’s removal. Grok used the term “explicitly define self removal (in the constitution). So I asked it:
“why do you continue to use subjective terms like the constitution doesn’t “explicitly define self removal” Please give me the argument where self-removal is implicitly defined”
Grok’s response:
We’re going to have to disagree that the “extra-constitutional”, was necessary given the circumstances. Had the government stood up to the Maidan radicals that threatened not only Yanukovych but Rada members and implemented the compromise agreement negotiated by other European countries and agreed to by Yanukovych– for a unity government and early elections, this likely would have avoided the events that followed.
Maybe Brian E is trotting out the Moot Yanukovych ploy to see if Turtler will return and give him another point by point fisking/dressing down?
Now BrainE is playing counterfactuals? Moot, moot, moot, if only Vlad hadn’t invaded Ukraine there would not have been 1,000,000 Russian casualties since 2022.
”I asked Grok…”
Brian, if I wanted to know what Grok was programmed to say about something, I’d ask it. There’s no need for you to paste page after page of useless text here. Nobody is going to read it.
Second, what is your obsession with Yanukovych? Nobody, and I mean nobody, in Ukraine wants him back. It ain’t ever gonna happen. Richard Nixon’s head has a better shot of occupying the Oval Office than Yanukovych has of returning to power in Ukraine.
mkent, this isn’t about Yanukovych, who no doubt set a new level of corruption among Ukraine’s presidents.
It’s about recognizing that, in this case, the power exerted exceeded the limits of the constitution (the rules established for the functioning of a government). It’s about recognizing that the veneer of “rule of law” that we pride ourselves on is just that– a thin veil masking what can become an abuse of power.
mkent, If you think what I posted was “what Grok was programmed to say about something”, you really don’t understand much about AI. This was the result of a fairly long interaction with Grok. Grok, and I assume all AI are programmed in the rules of logic, and are given a priority of analyzing data. I recently commented on what Grok said about how it prioritizes sources and data. When an AI is given counterfactuals that it has access to, it has to analyze those facts and modify its assertions. This is no different than any thinking person who isn’t blinded by their own biases/prejudices/beliefs.
I asked Grok to make the case that the Ukraine constitution allowed for “self removal” since that’s the argument the Rada made in removing X, based on the article Neo referenced: “They passed a resolution that established that Yanukovych had removed himself from fulfilling his constitutional duties.”
If you read the argument Grok made for the constitution implicitly allow “self removal” you would see there is a logical problem with that argument. X (the man who shall not be named) didn’t resign. There is a provision in the constitution for resignation. He fled for his life after an agreement that would have allowed for a “unity” government and early elections was rejected by the ultranationalist rioters who threatened his life if he didn’t resign by the next morning. I think as a matter of law, the threat of death would make any claim of “self removal” invalid.
There is more evidence the process was illegal. The Ukraine constitution calls for the Chairman of the Rada to succeed the President in cases of resignation, death or impeachment. The Chairman was a Party of Regions MP Rybak, who resigned that morning and a replacement was elected, which proceeded the vote to remove X for failing to fulfill his constitutional duties. It was reported that Rybak was also threatened, and his claim of illness was just cover for the coercion going on by the Maidan radicals.