Trump’s not fond of Zelensky
I find some recent Ukraine moves of Trump’s potentially alarming. Are we looking at an example of Trump’s mutable opening negotiation positions, meant to make Putin think he’s with him all the way, but expected to change? Or is Trump really with Putin all the way? With Trump, you can’t tell until the fat lady has finished singing.
But he issued statements that seem so personally insulting to Zelensky that I think Trump may really be intending to shut him out of all the negotiations for the fate of his own country, and also to call for a new election in Ukraine:
… Secretary of State Marco Rubio [had] sat down with a Russian delegation in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to start mapping out a path to peace.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had made headlines in recent days over his ire at not being invited to participate in the Riyadh negotiations, saying:
“We were not invited to this Russian-American meeting in Saudi Arabia. It was a surprise for us. I think it was a surprise for many people,” Zelensky said …
[Trump said] “Well, [Ukaine has] had a seat for three years and a long time before that. This could have been settled very easily — just a half, a half-baked negotiator could have settled this years ago without the loss of much land …
“Well, we have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law, essentially martial law in Ukraine, where the leader in Ukraine — I mean I hate to say it but he’s down at 4 percent approval rating — and where a country has been blown to smithereens. …
And, yeah, I would say that when they want a seat at the table, wouldn’t the people of Ukraine have to say, “It’s been a long time since we’ve had an election?”
Russia apparently wants to force a special election as part of a peace deal. And if Russia wants it, it’s not out of any concern for Ukraine, that’s for sure. Then again, we’ve had elections here in wartime.
So, what gives? My hope is that – as I’ve said before about many moves of Trump’s – this is just an opening bid made to soothe Putin enough to bring him to the table. And that Ukraine’s needs and protection will not be ignored.
There’s also this proposal of Trump’s as described by John Hinderaker. Again, I’m not sure what Trump’s actual goal is or what the fine print of any such agreement would be. Here’s an excerpt Hinderaker offers from the British Telegraph, which he characterizes as “one of Europe’s most pro-Trump papers”:
Donald Trump’s demand for a $500bn (£400bn) “payback” from Ukraine goes far beyond US control over the country’s critical minerals. It covers everything from ports and infrastructure to oil and gas, and the larger resource base of the country.
The terms of the contract that landed at Volodymyr Zelensky’s office a week ago amount to the US economic colonisation of Ukraine, in legal perpetuity. It implies a burden of reparations that cannot possibly be achieved. The document has caused consternation and panic in Kyiv. …
Washington will have sovereign immunity and acquire near total control over most of Ukraine’s commodity and resource economy.
More at the link. What’s it all about? It seems to be based on a draft of what the Telegraph calls a “pre-decisional contract.” Is that a wish list, or ironclad demands? Is it just some kind of trade agreement? Why does the author of the article, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, call it “reparations”? Whatever it is, it doesn’t seem to be that. Could this just be a proposal for the US to invest in Ukraine and get something back?
I don’t read the Telegraph often enough to say whether it’s actually “one of Europe’s most pro-Trump papers” – or what that actually might mean, since I doubt Europe has many pro-Trump papers. But I did look up the author’s other pieces about Trump, and he clearly detests the man. That doesn’t mean that his reporting is wrong on this issue, but it means that I’m withholding judgment on what’s going on here. Which I was planning to do anyway.
[ADDENDUM: I hadn’t seen this story yet when I wrote this post, but it’s more very disturbing stuff from Trump today. He has doubled down on the rage against Zelensky. He seems to have gone full Tucker Carlson on this, which has me very worried. On the other hand, all the caveats I put in the article still stand.
If this is really Trump’s position, it is an example – the only one I can think of so far – of deception on his part in his campaign promises, which weren’t exactly pro-Ukraine but which were much milder than what he’s saying now.]
[ADDENDUM II: I have put up a new post on the subject.]
NOTE: As soon as I read the name “Ambrose Evans-Pritchard,” that hypenated surname rang a big bell from my anthropology minor in college. And yes, his father was the famous anthropologist E. E. Evans-Pritchard, whose studies of the cattle-raising Nuer of Sudan were featured very heavily in my coursework. Alas, most of the minutiae of Nuer life is gone from my memory, but I do recall that cattle were everything to them.
I’m beginning to wonder (and somewhat ashamed to confess it’s taken me so long to begin!) whether Pres. Trump isn’t simply harboring an inner loathing of corruption in officialdom, no matter where or with whom he may encounter it. And Ukraine along with Ukrainian politicos are simply rife with it, it seems. But I dunno, maybe I’m just reading in too much.
Then he’d hate Putin just as much or more.
Not after three years of a Russian reinvasion. Not after millions were forced to flee. Not with who knows how many citizens under Russian occupation. Not after three years of constant artillery fire, land mines who knows where, daily drone attacks and missile attacks, etc.
Only a Russian puppet or partner could come up with such an evil idea…
What did Trump actually say? I note that he has given the OK for Europe to buy weapons from the US and send them to Ukraine, including F-16 fighters. That is not a small thing, the chief weapons imbalance in Ukraine is air power, with Russia having the advantage.
Apparently Trump hasn’t directly said anything, what we have are reports of what Kellogg said.
Chuck – it’s all over the news, and it is Trump saying it.
Maybe I am over reacting, but I put very little faith in reporting that pretends to project Trump’s true intentions on any issue in advance.
One thing we do know. Trump has chosen level headed people, like Rubio, to spearhead foreign policy. Rubio didn’t just hit town on the turnip truck, nor is he your everyday “Joe Bagadonuts (or as we said in the fleet “Joe Shxx the Rag Man”). Nor do I believe that he is a Puppet or Yes Man. If Trump were off the rails, I would expect Rubio to resign forthwith.
I don’t think Trump has gone bonkers; but we all know that he is a ferocious, rather unconventional, deal maker, and that he is also given to public hyperbole.
I recall that many folks were aghast at his rhetoric toward Mexico, Canada, Panama, etc. So far events have not justified their angst. I doubt that he has tipped his hand at this point.
I also believe that we, the public, know little of the dynamics pertaining to Russia/Ukraine. Nor, for that matter, within Ukraine. There have been many vocal critics of Zelensky, but most Americans, me included, have given him the benefit of the doubt. Now, it may be that Zelinsky needs to be brought into line a little bit. The Ukrainian people have suffered greatly, but America has been paying the bills, and has every reason to expect cooperation in efforts to resolve this mess.
We will see how it plays out.
OldFlyer:
Those are my caveats as well.
Alas, the 2024 election was a de facto referendum on our involvement in Ukraine. As for Ukraine corruption, Joe and Hunter come to mind…
After the first Trump administration, in which national security conservatives ran foreign policy, it is perhaps surprising to see Trump swing this hard toward Russia, but it’s easy to see where it comes from. Trump’s MAGA base has supported Russia since at least April of 2022, and many of them longer.
Just look at some of the commenters here, or go to where MAGAs hang out, such as ZeroHedge, InstaPundit, Althouse, Gateway Pundit, or Conservative Treehouse. They firmly believe that Biden overthrew the popular pro-Russian government of Ukraine in 2014 and installed Zelensky as a Nazi dictator. Biden and Zelensky then started the war in 2022 as a scam to steal hundreds of billions of U. S. taxpayer dollars to split between them. Russia is the innocent victim in this scam.
Believing this nonsense explains everything Trump has said the last few days: calling Zelensky a dictator, saying he started the war, saying he has a 4% approval rating, demanding reparations from Ukraine, allowing Russia access to Western technology to rebuild and modernize their military, even the original “ending the war in one day.” It all fits and is explained by his believing what the vast majority of his base believes.
Dismissing this as just “Trump being Trump” is extremely dangerous. World war hasn’t been this likely since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
”Alas, the 2024 election was a de facto referendum on our involvement in Ukraine. As for Ukraine corruption, Joe and Hunter come to mind…”
See what I mean?
And, no, it wasn’t.
I never really liked Zelensky either. All the pro-Ukrainian propaganda 3 years ago gave off such March 2020 vibes that it very much turned me off. Not that that means Putin is a friend, of course.
My take is that yes, Trump genuinely wants the war to end – perhaps he is thinking it should end at any cost, which would be a mistake IMO. He made it very clear that when he came into office a second time, ending wars would be a priority. Perhaps the dream of being the president who ushered in an era of peace is overriding his better judgment.
I am not a fan of The Tucker Carlson wing of the Republican Party. Growing up in the cold war, I understand that Putin is not our friend.
The one thing that may be in play here is Trump trying to goad the Europeans to really step up their game. The American Left has long told us we need to be more like Western Europe.
Ok. Then let American defense of Europe be about the same level as European defense of the US…..
I really don’t think it makes sense to set our hair on fire over anything Trump has said or not said–or is reported to have said or not said– about Ukraine. Stuff Trump says is not necessarily stuff Trump does, thought we all got that last time around.
But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, the worst-case scenario, he’s really going to work with Russia to Ukraine’s detriment.
If we knew then what we think we know now, would we want Harris to win so maybe Ukraine could get a better deal, knowing that all of her America-destroying policies would continue? (Not really “hers” of course, the lower-level people who were actually in charge, of course.)
For me, I choose America’s good over Ukraine’s anytime. I don’t object to helping Ukraine if America is better off for doing so. A Ukrainian should take the opposite view and prefer Harris’s side to have won if that would have been better for Ukraine and worse for America, and I’m sure they’d prefer someone good for both if that could be done, but that would not have been Harris.
I’m sure most of us would have wanted a pro-America and pro-Ukraine president but that choice was not on the table.
As for Zelensky, his term of office expired and I’m not sure where in the Constitution of Ukraine it allows him to continue in office without an election even in a state of emergency, though their constitution is long and I may have missed it. Nothing to do with his popularity, like any of us could know that, but because of the constitution he is elected to defend.
I would say that when discussing Russia with Lefties we need to say ” China and Russia”. The Chinese and their North Korean subsidiaries, have helped prop Russia up in this war.
So has Russian oil and gas.
Almost as if Western anti oil people helped Russia..
Hey Mkent,
Why should America get all upset for Ukraine when TOO THIS VERY DAY they will not draft their own men under 25 years of age ????
You really need to read Trump’s writings on negotiation strategy and tactics.
Never, ever, open a negotiation with a demand for the end result you desire, never. Demand something extreme, outrageous even, to get the other party on their heels and ultimately focused on what they really want. Also, never negotiate with anyone but the person(s) that is empowered, able, and willing to make a deal. Finally, identify, as early as possible, the hostile parties and those that are unwilling to negotiate in good faith.
Note: Putin, and Russia, started this war, he is the only one that can agree to end it. Zelensky is powerless to determine the outcome – that is why Trump dismisses him so ruthlessly.
These “statements” by President Trump are indeed own goals to me, but what he says is often not what he actually does. The Russophiles on the “right” of course love this but time will tell. It is curious how much international aggression by Russia is ignored since 2008.
Whatever. China is also in play for Ukrainian natural resources. Ukraine will have to look out for its own interests. Europe as well (not counting Hungary and Slovakia).
Again see what he President Trump does not what he says.
And no matter what, both FJB and the Kackler are out of power.
I have put up a new post on the subject.
John baker:
Ukraine has been trading geography for Russian casualties (>800,000) for nearly 3 years now. Russia now has to rely on North Koreans and it appears all the Russians can do now is sacrifice their “poor bloody infantry.” Their assualt on Petrofsk has stalled; 1500 Russian casualties daily, Ukraine 500 a week. But Ukraine is paying dearly.
Contrary to what the Russophiles say.
”Never, ever, open a negotiation with a demand for the end result you desire, never.”
Which means Trump’s desired end result is even closer to Russia’s than his public statements, and that makes it *more* evil, not less.
Let’s review.
Russia’s demands are:
1) Ukraine returns all Russian land without compensation.
2) Russia keeps the Ukrainian land it currently occupies.
3) Ukraine turns over to Russia without compensation the rest of the four Ukrainian oblasts that Russia has partially occupied.
4) Sanctions are immediately lifted, allowing Russia to access Western technology to rebuild and modernize its military.
5) Ukraine never joins a) NATO or b) any other bilateral or multilateral defense pact.
6) Ukraine reduces its military to 50,000 men.
7) Ukraine either destroys or turns over to Russia all weapons with a range over 20 km.
So Trump, negotiating only with Russia and not Ukraine, starts out the negotiation with his “outrageous demands” of preemptively agreeing to Russian demand numbers 1, 2, 4, and 5a and also forcing Ukraine — not Russia — to pay reparations. The negotiations will then proceed from there with the end result being somewhere between Russia’s demands and Trump’s preemptive concessions.
So either Trump is the world’s dumbest negotiator — the exact opposite of Trumpers’ claims — or he is on Russia’s side.
I don’t think he’s a dumb negotiator.
mkent, your statement that “They firmly believe that Biden overthrew the popular pro-Russian government of Ukraine in 2014 and installed Zelensky as a Nazi dictator” is just nonsense and a strawman.
Ukrainian nationalists, The Right Sector bears some responsibility for the overthrow of Yanukovych. “Right Sector gained prominence for its street-fighting units, often composed of soccer ultras and nationalist activists, who clashed with riot police during Euromaidan. These actions helped topple Yanukovych in February 2014.”
We really don’t know how much the State Dept. or our government was involved.
Sen. John McCain (R AZ), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to Kiev to show solidarity with the Euromaidan activists. McCain dined with opposition leaders, including members of the ultra right-wing Svoboda Party, and later appeared on stage in Maidan Square during a mass rally. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Svoboda leader Oleg Tyagnibok.
You can shout and pretend that Yanukovych wasn’t illegally overthrown and private nationalist militias weren’t dispatched to the east to quell the successionist movement in the Donbas, but much of the conflict today began in the violent overthrow of a legitimately elected President of Ukraine.
America’s Ukraine Hypocrisy
https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy
mkent:
I don’t see how you come to your conclusions. Of course, you could be correct in the end, but your conclusion doesn’t follow logic at this point.
If it is Putin whom Trump wants to get onboard, because he is the one most eager to continue the war, Trump would start with a position that seems more agreeable to Putin. Then later on he could say well, we have to come down from that position somewhat to get a deal with all the other parties, including Europe. The change in position could, in other words, go in either direction. The key is getting Putin to the table. If Putin withdraws from Ukraine, Zelensky certainly isn’t going to keep fighting.
As I’ve said many times, this may turn out to be incorrect. But I think at this point it could go either way.
By the way, please take a look at my new post on the subject.
mkent – After the USAID revelations, and given all of the intrigue and US money that has been sloshing around in Ukraine for a decade or more, I don’t think you can really scoff at the allegations that the US was behind the Maidan revolution or otherwise meddled in Ukraine politics. (Heck, John McCain was in Maidan Square a the time.) We know that Hunter was trolling for the Biden family business in Ukraine.
Re: Trump – the man is a loose cannon. That’s what the GOP nominated. That’s what the country elected. Now we’re all along for the ride. Like oldflyer and neo, I take some solace that Rubio would resign if Trump tries to do something truly crazy, but who knows. Literally nothing the man could do would surprise me. And Trump’s impulsiveness and poor judgement were repeatedly brought out by the people who served in his first administration, like Barr. That’s what this looks like to me. (And I still believe that Barr saved Trump’s bacon over Russiagate.)
My own guess – The “Putin is Hitler” narrative is wrong, or at least significantly more nuanced than most Ukraine hawks believe. I suspect that in 2014, we “won” a propaganda war with Russia over Ukraine. I suspect that Putin found the resulting prospect of a US/EU/NATO-aligned Ukraine to be intolerable, especially with continuing US meddling and with Russia’s Black Sea Fleet based in Ukraine at the time. This isn’t to defend Putin in any way, but I suspect that he’s a rational actor acting rationally (if monstrously) in what he perceives to be his country’s interest.
As for what Trump’s doing? Who knows? I’m sure he knows the full backstory, but I doubt even he knows exactly where he’s going. If he sticks the landing, he’ll look like a genius. If he doesn’t, MAGA world will insist that he was actually playing “4-dimensional chess” that the rest of us are just too TDS-addled to understand.
We shall see. Biden and the broader West provided the catalyst for this conflict, the CIA, through USAID, facilitated the instability that drove Putin to defend his country and territory by going to war. Given his history I see Trump succeeding in bringing an end to the war. Calling Trump impulsive and a loose cannon demonstrates that you do not understand the man and his motives, and that you are blind or choose to ignore his successes.
Brian E:
Turtler has responded to you on that many many times.
”Turtler has responded to you on that many many times.”
As have I. Of course, Turtler did it much more………thoroughly. 😉
mkent:
I can’t even imagine how Turtler manages the output he does. He’s a phenomenon.
Sure enough, neo, which is why “inner” was included there: nothing about that requires his public confession of his view, least of all when he may be having to butter up his next victim.
Neo, “Turtler has responded to you on that many many times.”
What exactly are you referring to? That Yanukovych wasn’t illegally overthrown?
I responded to your article that the Ukraine constitution allowed for a ‘firing’ of the president, and I showed you the relevant clause in the constitution that made it clear what were the methods of removing a President.
As I remember it, Turtler’s position was that the constitution didn’t allow for the method they used, but the circumstances made it necessary.
mkent, I don’t remember ever having a discussion/debate with you.
The French and German governments had worked out a compromise where there would be early elections and Yanukovych’s cabinet would be replaced by opposition party members.
The was taken to the Euromaidan revolutionaries and was rejected.
A couple more statements from Trumps q&a yesterday that are hard to square. Trump said that personally, he likes Zelinsky. With friends like that…. Trump also said that during his first term he warned Putin that he better not go into Ukraine. If true, then Trump must have at some point realized that Putin had no legitimate reason to invade. What happened?
”What happened?”
He probably listened to Tucker Carlson. Actually, thinking about it, it was probably Tulsi Gabbard.
But what I actually came back here to add: The hits just keep coming.
Trump is now demanding a 40% cut to the defense budget by 2030, starting with a $50 billion cut next year. Either the military is going to severely cut deployable forces or procurement of new ships and weapon systems will cease. Given the nature of our new defense secretary, I suspect it will be the latter.
So just about the time China goes after Taiwan and Russia goes after the Baltics we’ll have either no military men or no weapons.
At this point I’m beginning to wonder if the Democrats might be right about that Russian asset thing.
Brian E is blind to the many times that Turtler has taken Brian E to the woodshed regarding saint Yanukovitch, but like water off a duck, it matters not one whit to Brain E. Not even a flesh wound for the Black Knight Defender of Vlad
om, I think your reading comprehension needs a refresher.
I’ll let Turtler tell me how many times he’s taken me to the woodshed, unless you want to link to one of his comments that support your assertion.
@mkent: Russia goes after the Baltics
What a joke. Like Mexico going after New Mexico. Russia doesn’t have any ability to conquer any part of the EU. They can barely manage Ukraine, and their population is older and poorer and has a lower fertility rate than Europe.
Maybe the North Koreans will turn the tide for them, lol.
om, I’m sure Turtler will chime in at some point, but in the meantime, you can refresh my memory. Give me a synopsis of what the discussion was about and what was Turtler’s conclusion about Yanukovych that was at odds with mine?
Brian E:
Surely you know how difficult it is for any reader to find specific old comments here, unless they’ve already bookmarked them. It’s difficult even for me, and I have more tools to do it. But even I, who on the back-end can do a search for the word “Turtler” in comments, or the word “Yanukovitch” (but not both together, by the way), would probably take a week to find it.
To the best of my recollection, however, I remember that Turtler said Yanukovitch’s removal was done legally, and has also criticized him a great great deal.
mkent:
You didn’t offer a link, which is always a problem.
This is what I found:
More at the link.
Brian E:
How many times did Turtler correct your versions history since the invasion of Ukraine by Russia? My recollection? More that 10 times. At length, point by point. He has thoroughly fisked your journalistic endeavors.
But the Energizer Bunny just comes right back.
As far a reading comprehension, I can read your plain apologies for Russia, your fixation of Yanukovitch over the years and your “see no evil” rationalizations for Russian aggression starting in 2008, 2014, and since 2022. Your crocodile tears for Ukrainians killed by your man Vlad? It stinks to heaven.
Neo, if you would like I’ll criticize Yanukovych (he took corruption to a new level in Ukraine, in a country that thrived/thrives on corruption). But that doesn’t give the citizens the right to violently and illegally overthrow their President.
There was an offramp negotiated by other European countries that would have ended the crisis and that was rejected by the revolutionaries.
There is nothing in the constitution of Ukraine that allows for ‘firing’ the President.
Turtler’s position, as I recall, agreed that the method was not constitutional, but given the emergency nature, the Rada had no other option as there was no other option than death, resignation or impeachment spelled out in the constitution.
Turtler alluded to some flexibility and used the parliamentary system as an example– but Ukraine has a hybrid system where the President is elected independent of the legislature.
Did you read the Cato article I linked to? You may disagree with the conclusion, but can you understand the events and reasoning behind the conclusion?
I don’t know the full extent of the US meddling and whether Yanukovych would have been overthrown regardless of the US position, but it’s certainly reasonable to conclude the US had a significant influence.
Hegseth and President Trump will find that an “Iron Dome” for the USA is not economically practicable or possible.
Brain E repeats the same old tired horse sh*t about Yanukovitch. In other coments he has used the ouster of Yanukovitch (who fled to Vladdy) as a justification for Russian aggression in 2014. Old and tired tropes.
He has no evidence and doesn’t know the “full extent” of US meddling, but he didn’t let that stop a former journalist.
Brian E:
Turtler’s contention, to the best of my recollection – as I already said – is that Yanukovitch was legally removed.
One of the continuous disagreements Turtler and I had, as I remember it, concerned NATO. My position is we had a tacit agreement through Secretary Baker not to move NATO eastward. It wasn’t formal, but an understanding.
Turtler’s position was it wasn’t binding and opening NATO to the Baltic states and Russia’s objections was just a ruse and not ‘existential’ as they claimed.
@Brian E:There is nothing in the constitution of Ukraine that allows for ‘firing’ the President.
”Russia doesn’t have any ability to conquer any part of the EU. They can barely manage Ukraine…”
First of all, the Baltics are far, far smaller and more easily conquered than Ukraine. Second, the EU doesn’t have a military and can put up no resistance to an invasion. Third, Russia doesn’t care about sanctions, so the EU is all but irrelevant even after the fact.
As far as Russian intent, it’s just like all the people here and elsewhere in Feb. 2022 who assured us that Russia was only bluffing. They would never invade Ukraine. Despite having invaded Ukraine already in 2014. And Georgia in 2008. And Moldova in 1992.
Just like the people who said “It would be stupid for Japan to attack the United States, so they won’t do it” in 1941. Or the people who said “It would be stupid for Germany to attack the USSR, so they won’t do it” also in 1941. Or the people who said “It would be stupid for Germany to declare war on America, so they won’t do it” in 1941 again. Come to think of it, 1941 was the year of a lot of stupidity, ‘cause it all happened.
It doesn’t matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks. Russia is all-in on redefining its borders. It will attempt to take the rest of Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltics, Finland, eastern Poland, and eastern Romania all before 2040, probably much before. And China will attempt to take Taiwan before then too, also probably much before.
@mkent:First of all, the Baltics are far, far smaller and more easily conquered than Ukraine.
Since they are part of the EU, and part of NATO, they would be defended by the other nations in Europe. Are you really saying Europe won’t defend the Baltics? If so, then isn’t NATO and the EU already fake, and then why on God’s green earth should we defend a fake alliance? And why on earth would we extend a fake alliance to Ukraine? If they won’t even defend the Baltics?
Or the people who said “It would be stupid for Germany to attack the USSR, so they won’t do it” also in 1941
The “he’s the next Hitler” card was maxed out in 2003 and I have to decline it.
Second, the EU doesn’t have a military and can put up no resistance to an invasion.
That’s completely the opposite of factual. The member nations of the EU have militaries and can put up a great deal of resistance to Russia. If they choose. (If they’re choosing not to, they must not think Russia’s a real threat, because they certainly have far more money and manpower than Russia.)
You seem to think they won’t bother, but that nonetheless we should die for them at great expense… you seem to think they won’t honor their treaty commitments to us and each other, and yet we should die for them at great expense…
You are living in a delusional world, it wasn’t even accurate in 1950. There’s really nothing more to say to you.
mkent:
In Feb 2022, who here said Russia was only bluffing? Who here said Russia could not or would not invade Ukraine?
Well we have isolationists here who have repeatedly said that Ukraine eventually joining NATO was sufficient reason for Russia to invade Ukraine. And of course Trump has raised the uncertainty regarding US commitment to the defense of NATO member states if they don’t pony up. And another of course is the ambiguity in Article V of NATO, as pointed out by Dominic Nicholds of the Telegraph’s Ukraine The Latest podcast. The Baltics were part of the Soviet Union not so long ago and “part” of The Russian Empire before that IIRC. They haven’t forgotten and know about Vlad’s “Little Green Men.”
Niketas, He wasn’t impeached, he was fired.
Article 85 lays out the authority of the Rada.
Subsection 10 specifies how to remove the President.
Article 108 specifies the ways a President can leave office early– death; health; resignation; impeachment.
Article 111 which you copied lays out the procedure for impeachment– which wasn’t followed.
The Rada cited Parliamentary Action: On February 22, the Verkhovna Rada convened:
With Yanukovych absent and his whereabouts unknown, parliament voted 328–0 (out of 450, exceeding the constitutional 300-vote threshold) to remove him, citing “self-removal” for failing to fulfill his duties.
Only Article 108 doesn’t have a provision of removal for failing to fulfill duties.
Also the vote didn’t meet the threshold for impeachment (3/4 or 337 votes)
Impeachment would also require a court review
In the end, it was declared legal by other western countries, which apparently made it legal.
Was Yanukovych’s Ouster Constitutional?
https://www.rferl.org/a/was-yanukovychs-ouster-constitutional/25274346.html
”My position is we had a tacit agreement through Secretary Baker not to move NATO eastward. It wasn’t formal, but an understanding.”
James Baker claims no such agreement was ever made. Eduard Shevardnadze, sitting across from Baker and representing the Soviets, also claims no such agreement was ever made. Mikhail Gorbachev, head of the Soviet Union, also said no such agreement was ever made.
In addition to all that, Russia has signed numerous treaties, including specifically the Russia / Ukraine Friendship Treaty of 1997 which specially recognizes Ukraine’s right to join any international organization it wished. Even if an informal agreement had been made in 1990 — it hadn’t — it would have been overridden by formal treaty in 1997.
So everyone agreed Ukraine had the right to join NATO – even Russia.
And of course Brain E knows far better than the Rada of Ukraine that being “fired” is much much different than being “impeached,” because being “fired” is not in the Ukrainian constitution? And of course having a degree in journalism makes Brain E
an authority on Ukrainian constitutional presidence
and jurisprudence.
Or not.
om, read Article 111. Did the Rada follow the procedures called for in the constitution?
If they didn’t, you can’t call what happened to Yanukovych an impeachment.
”You didn’t offer a link, which is always a problem.”
I’ve been hearing the 40% number for a couple of days now from people in the aerospace industry but didn’t see confirmation until just a few hours ago at Space News.
mkent, yes I read about that view.
Here’s some documents that reinforce the idea that early on, the view by European leaders was to recognize Soviet security interests. You can read the documents which suggest the viewpoint Baker’s assurances was only related to the East German borders is incorrect.
This is not central, IMO, to the issue later about Russia’s insecurity about NATO’s intentions. More of a side note.
NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
Ukraine maiden’s coup was just another color revolution supported, as others were, by USAID funded NGO’s.
mkent:
You still haven’t given a link.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote the muckraking book “The Secret Life of Bill Clinton,” and also wrote about the Vince Foster case, alleging that prosecutor Bret Kavanaugh sabotaged the investigation.
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/kavanaugh-sabotaged-vince-foster-probe/
Shadow wrote “All the pro-Ukrainian propaganda 3 years ago gave off such March 2020 vibes that it very much turned me off.”
Indeed. The same media scum who gaslighted us about the Wu-Flu, were now screaming that our most important issue was Poor Little Ukraine, while the Bidenite neofascists were destroying *our* country!
I wasn’t born yesterday.
”You still haven’t given a link.”
I’m not sure how to do that on an iPad. It keeps those sort of things hidden. Let me try a few things.
OK, here it is in text, but it’s not clickable.
https://spacenews.com/trump-orders-50-billion-cut-from-2026-defense-budget-shields-iron-dome-initiative/
Ok, now it’s clickable. It wasn’t before the edit.
Regarding Yanukovych’s removal, my contention was always that it was done extra-constitutionally but not unconstitutionally, as part of a crisis Yanukovych himself sparked by fleeing the country in order to avoid testimony about his conduct regarding Euromaidan (which would involve discussion of large scale imprisonments, tortures, and murders conducted by Ukrainian police and pro-Blue Paramilitaries under his cabinet’s oversight). By leaving the country while continuing to claim the seat of the Presidency he left the Rada in a tight spot, since there really wasn’t (and ISN’T, one of the major issues I’ve lobbed with the post-Maidan Ukrainian Order) something in the Constitution to chuck him out for these specific circumstances. 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.
Moreover, Yanukovych was very pointedly refusing to conduct his constitutional duties (such as appearing before the Rada to answer questions), had let us say “significant suspicions” of having violated the constitution beforehand, and while claiming to be at fear for his life (which I’m sure was true to some point) pointedly left Kyiv on false pretenses and was not so fearful he was unwilling to make multiple stops to steal baubles (including luxury goods) from places including official Presidential residences. And given the rapidly evolving situation I can’t fault the Rada for concluding it needed to arrange for new elections ASAP by declaring Yanukovych incapable of performing his government duties.
The big issue I see is that this was never written into the constitution as a “lessons learned” afterwards, meaning that there was no attempt to pre-empt this problem from appearing again.
also wrote about the Vince Foster case, alleging that prosecutor Bret Kavanaugh sabotaged the investigation.
==
Four separate investigations concluded Vincent Foster committed suicide. The man’s condition was known to his hometown doctor, who had recently prescribed anti-depressants for him.
Alas, the 2024 election was a de facto referendum on our involvement in Ukraine.
==
In your imagination only.
Ukraine maiden’s coup was just another color revolution supported, as others were, by USAID funded NGO’s.
==
It wasn’t a coup and the Russophile organizations had ample opportunity between 2014 and 2022 to regroup and compete in the Ukraine. The problem they have faced is that they’re very much admired by alt-right combox clowns but not much admired by the voting public in the Ukraine.
@Shadow
I’m moderately fond of him – certainly more than most other MAGA fans – but I never entirely trusted him and stuff like his conduct on the Burisma/Shokin issue did not inspire confidence. But I’ve generally been supportive of Ukraine before and beyond Zelenskyy, hence my issue with people portraying supporters of Ukraine as having just learned whatever the MSM put up. That’s not true for me, my stances began forming about 20 years ago during Ukraine’s own Orange Revolution and solidified there.
I can understand why, and given the revelations about USAID funding for Zelenskyy PR it makes sense. They were probably funded in much the same way. In my case I largely came to my conclusions years before then, so I mostly sighed and rolled my eyes at the propaganda onslaught even if it and I agreed on points and superficially agreed on even more.
Indeed, and this is my big issue. Putin’s not even a friend, and lacks the decency to be a consistent or open enemy (then again not many are any more given what a steal the Lucy with the Football reaction is). I came to that conclusion around 2008 with the war in Georgia and its aftermath.
Agreed, that’s also what I fear. Zelenskyy supporting Kamala/Biden and screwing the Burisma/Shokin investigation after Trump asked for looking into it also hurt. I do also sometimes think Trump believes so much in his reputation for making a deal he does not ask as much if a deal should be made.
I am also responsible, I admitted and still admit that the crisis in the US and creeping authoritarianism here were such I felt they needed to be dealt with even if Ukraine were to be thrown to the wolves. It’s something I stand by even if I am not proud of it, and so far at least at home it seems to have promising signs. But that doesn’t mean I like or trust Putin or whoever succeeds him to make or keep a deal.
Turtler again explains it to Brain E who will not accept it. Further, Brain E will continue to apply the structure of the US Constitution (how things have been done here) to Ukraine. Apples, oranges and a Vladdy stooge; “It was illegal, he was done dirty!”
I was just going to let Turtler’s explanation of why the removal wasn’t unconstitutional, but om’s remark that I’m conflating the US Constitution with the Ukraine Constitution is offensive and just plain wrong.
Here’s Turtler’s explanation:
First, the authority to remove the President by the Verkhovna Rada is spelled out in Article 85, No. 10: “removing the President of Ukraine from office in accordance with the special procedure (impeachment) established by Article 111 of this Constitution;”
There are a total of 37 statements of the authority of the Verkhovna Rada.
At the end of this Article there is this statement: “The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine exercises other powers ascribed to its competence in
accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine.” The limiting principle is that is must be in accordance with the Constitution. That would preclude making up a new category for removing a President.
Article 91
The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopts laws, resolutions and other acts by the majority of its constitutional composition, except in cases envisaged by this Constitution. This would limit the ability of the Rada to create a new method of removing a President as the reasons a President can leave office early is clearly spelled out in Article 108.
Article 108
The President of Ukraine exercises his or her powers until the assumption of office
the newly-elected President of Ukraine.
The powers of the President of Ukraine terminate prior to the expiration of term in
cases of:
1. resignation;
2. inability to exercise his or her powers for reasons of health;
3. removal from office by the procedure of impeachment
4. death.
I assume Turtler is trying to stretch “removal for incapacity” into the inability to exercise his or her powers for reasons of health.
Article 110 addresses the conditions for the use of this situation:
“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.”
To use this method, it would require a majority vote, a petition to the Supreme Court of Ukraine and a medical opinion. Other than a majority vote to remove Yanukovych, the other two requirements weren’t met.
As has been discussed earlier, the procedures of Article 111 specified in the constitution for impeachment were not met.
Article 112 specifies who and under what conditions a person would be selected to perform the duties of the President in the event of pre-term termination.
“In the event of the pre-term termination of authority of the President of Ukraine in accordance with Articles 108, 109, 110 and 111 of this Constitution…”
Once again the methods of pre-term termination are delineated to the Articles covering death, resignation, health or impeachment.
Turtler goes on the say:
The problem with this is Ukraine is not a strict parliamentary system. The legislature (Rada) doesn’t select the President, he/she is elected by the voters. It seems obvious on the face of it the Constitution would have to spell out that the legislature had the authority to remove the President with a simple majority vote– otherwise every time there was a disagreement the President would be removed.
Finally Turtler gets to the reason used by the Rada to remove Yanukovych.
Yanukovych fled Kyiv after threats of violence when the Maidan rioters rejected the agreement worked out by Yanukovych and opposition leaders brokered by Europeans and demanded Yanukovych’s resignation by the next day.
It seems bizarre that the President fails to answer to the Rada and is removed from office the same day.
I agree with Turtler that Yanukovych should have been impeached (though it’s possible they couldn’t have met the 3/4 threshold for removal) even if that would have lengthened the process by a few days.
But the demands by the Euromaidan rioters no doubt influenced the Rada to immediate action.
So I disagree with Turtler the process for Yanukovych’s removal was not unconstitutional and that the justification of it being extra-constitutional is just trying to rationalize the removal forced by the irrational and emotional demands by the Maidan rioters.
If I’ve mis-interpreted anything Turtler said about the “removal for incapacity”, I’m sure Turtler will respond.