Talk:Revolution of Dignity

Recent events

Where the pro-Russia demonstrations in the aftermath are covered? It should be added that some of the recent protest are neither spontaneous, nor entirely local, and include Russian tourist/activist and organized busloads arriving from Russia itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by An unknown editor (talk) 3, March 2014 (UTC)

NO MENTION OF VICTORIA NULAND AND THE GEOFFRY PYATT??? YOU WONDER WHO RUNS WIKIPROPAGANDA

Jonathan Marcus: At the outset it should be clear that this is a fragment of what may well be a larger phone conversation. But the US has not denied its veracity and has been quick to point a finger at the Russian authorities for being behind its interception and leak. Voice thought to be Pyatt's: I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader]. And I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad that he said what he said in response.

Jonathan Marcus: The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs. Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.

Anti-government protesters in Kiev

Pyatt: Yeah. I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok, the other opposition leader] and his guys and I'm sure that's part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.

Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.

Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?

Nuland: My understanding from that call - but you tell me - was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a... three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?

Pyatt: No. I think... I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn't like it.

Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.

Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.

Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?

Jonathan Marcus: An intriguing insight into the foreign policy process with work going on at a number of levels: Various officials attempting to marshal the Ukrainian opposition; efforts to get the UN to play an active role in bolstering a deal; and (as you can see below) the big guns waiting in the wings - US Vice-President Joe Biden clearly being lined up to give private words of encouragement at the appropriate moment. Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.

Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.

Jonathan Marcus: Not for the first time in an international crisis, the US expresses frustration at the EU's efforts. Washington and Brussels have not been completely in step during the Ukraine crisis. The EU is divided and to some extent hesitant about picking a fight with Moscow. It certainly cannot win a short-term battle for Ukraine's affections with Moscow - it just does not have the cash inducements available. The EU has sought to play a longer game; banking on its attraction over time. But the US clearly is determined to take a much more activist role. Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there's a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.

Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president's national security adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden's willing.

Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks.

Jonathan Marcus: Overall this is a damaging episode between Washington and Moscow. Nobody really emerges with any credit. The US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal in Ukraine than it publicly lets on. There is some embarrassment too for the Americans given the ease with which their communications were hacked. But is the interception and leaking of communications really the way Russia wants to conduct its foreign policy ? Goodness - after Wikileaks, Edward Snowden and the like could the Russian government be joining the radical apostles of open government? I doubt it. Though given some of the comments from Vladimir Putin's adviser on Ukraine Sergei Glazyev - for example his interview with the Kommersant-Ukraine newspaper the other day - you don't need your own listening station to be clear about Russia's intentions. Russia he said "must interfere in Ukraine" and the authorities there should use force against the demonstrators.

NOT a revolution

The title and entire contents are false here. It is well documented that this was not a revolution but rather a coup organised by NATO and the USK military industrial complex. That's why the current Kiev regime is being resisted by people in the East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.75.172 (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Title not from a neutral point of view

The claim that the events can be described as revolution is a biased (also any further claims deriving from the assumption this must be true). The other POV is that this is about an externally backed coup. So the terms revolution and coup are not neutral until there is historical consensus about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.181.135 (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Only one of your references is a reliable source (Japan Times) and it consists of one person's commentary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't even waste time engaging with these types, Mr N. No reliable source (don't try pushing opinion pieces) calls this a "coup", which is an implausible term. RGloucester — ☎ 17:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

missing elements

I don't think this page can be classified as neutral as it is.

There is no special section for foreign leaders who spoke on the Maidan. Yet many people see the presence of people like Ashton on the Maidan where she gave a speech in support of the protests as a severe violation of the principle of "non-interference" in the internal affairs of other countries. In this context it is also strange that the leaked phone conversation between Victoria Nuland and ambassador Pyatt about who should rule Ukraine isn't mentioned. In my opinion this should be in a paragraph 2.2: Western involvement.

I recommend including something from the following NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-leader-was-defeated-even-before-he-was-ousted.html This gives background to the Russian advice to Yanukovich on how to deal with the protests - that was largely ignored - and paints it as sound from the tactical point of view.83.86.53.85 (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Barack Obama admits the role of US in regime change in Ukraine

This is just in and reported on several outlets. I think it should definitely be included in this article since this shows that the so-called "revolution" wasn't simply a revolution but was a calculated ouster funded/supported by nations including the US (for geopolitical reasons).

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150201/1017625288.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS-Fighter (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Seconded, the role of the US should be discussed. - Saibod (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Will you please stop posting idiotic nonsense to Wikipedia talk pages? RT comments section is somewhere else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Source is garbage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

CNN themselves have a transcript of the interview, in which Obama states that "we'd brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine" . Then there is the leaked phone conversation between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt. - Saibod (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Government in exile ?

As far as I understand the former Prime Minister of Ukraine is planning to form government in exile [1] If correct, this should be added. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

Just taking a look at this article, I am not particularly comfortable with its tone and content.

Starting with its unquestioning characterisation of the events starting in 2014 as a "revolution" (in line, mind with the so-called "colour revolutions") and its subsequent coverage, the article fails to convey a balanced point of view and to sufficiently describe and contrast the various positions as regards the situation. In fact, it reads a bit like a run-of-the-mill best-seller: the impossibly bad Bad Guys, the Good Guys (with minor defects, to make them more relatable to the audience), ... we're only lacking some romance! :-)

Joking aside, for example the third paragraph in the introduction mentions Russia 'calling the revolution a "coup d'état"'. Considering that, according to the article's very own (unreferenced) "fact box" one of the goals of the "revolution" was the "ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych", it would seem that "2014 Ukrainian Coup d'État" would be at least as equally fitting a name for this article. Yet, there is no qualification of the term "revolution" that has been chosen.

Equally, the rest of the article has a pronounced Western bias. This is in part expected given that a large part of the (utterly non-academic, but then again this is Wikipedia) sources are in English and therefore written by or directed to a Western audience, as opposed to a local, regional, or non-Western audience. However, of those Ukrainian and (only one?) Russian-language citations there are, the majority of references used come from sources such as Ukrayinska Pravda ("Ukrainian Truth") and the Kiev Post, both of which are eminently pro-Western (this is not a criticism of those sources per se).

I do not believe or suggest that there is a deliberate attempt at manipulating Wikipedia by presenting a specific point of view, but merely that the editorship's work has been a bit lacking in this article by using in an uncritical manner those sources that are the easiest for a Western, English-speaking editor to find and interpret.

I suggest that this and related articles (e.g., Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis is downright embarrassing) be reviewed and contrasted for neutrality, and all news sources (where they must be used at all) be treated critically—but with especial care taken when dealing with those coming from the same cultural background as the editor, as the bias in those is the most difficult to find.