A Chronology of the Ukrainian Coup

[cheapdate]

87. A great many DUers don't depend on the MSM to inform their perspective

Last edited Thu Mar 6, 2014, 08:48 PM - Edit history (1)

on complex matters of politics and foreign affairs.

I read your timeline and recognize how carefully selected factual information is used with metaphorical framing to weave a narrative. For instance, Parsons notes that Nuland participated in stakeholder meetings that "included" representatives of far-right parties but she neglects to provide any other context. Barack Obama shared a stage with Hugo Chavez at a 2009 meeting of the OAS. Leaders from 35 other states were present as well. The point is that simply observing that Nuland was at a meeting that "included" leaders from two far-right parties doesn't provide enough context to draw much of a conclusion, although Parsons seems to imply that the meeting was a close collaboration between the US and the Ukraine far-right. Which might be true, but the way that Parsons fails to provide important details about the meeting raises doubts in my mind.

Parsons writes : "...As if intent on providing incontrovertible evidence of US involvement" and then notes that the US has invested substantial time and money in influencing US-Ukraine relations. She uses the phrase "incontrovertible evidence" which frames the actions in the terms of crime and guilt or innocence, when in truth, the US or any country is free influence relations with other countries -- it's called diplomacy.

Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Russia, the EU, and the IMF are free to enter into negotiations with her over trade or economic matters. F. William Engdahl can frame European proposals as "demands", but they're still only proposals. Russia has deep ties and strong legitimate interests in Ukraine. They have an interest in maintaining stability and preventing a chaotic and disastrous civil war on their border.

There are many different perspectives on the situation in Ukraine. I'm not dismissing Parson's piece, but it raises more questions than answers when you look at at critically.