I addressed that above, with extensive quotes from the apparent source of Paet’s claims.
And an Iranian website probably isn’t the best place to get information about the US.
1: Putin calls for invasion of Ukraine; UN security council meets - #261 by bwv812[quote=“toyg, post:267, topic:24467”]
Only if you expect Tymoshenko or Yuschenko to be essential, which was clearly not the case. Yanukovitch had to make some hard choices about relationships with Russia and EU that had been kicked down the road for years (by Yuschenko and Tymoshenko, among others) and was shouldering the inevitable unpopularity due to a huge economic crisis.
[/quote]
The economic crisis predated Yanukovich’s election. Tymoshenko and Yuschenko may not be essential, but surely it would be better if they were free and politically relevant if you wanted to bring them to power. I mean, it seems like an extremely crude plan to wait all this time, to a point when the opposition is weaker and more fractured than before, and then foment revolution even though the current ruler is extremely unpopular and likely would be removed in democratic elections before the end of the year. It’s tough to see why the US would pick this particular time to create a revolution.
You’re still not telling me what the US did to help Ukraine that they didn’t do in Bahrain or Turkey. In both Turkey and Bahrain they complained about the government’s actions. That the same as they’ve done in Ukraine, and it’s about all they’ve done in Ukraine, even though the revolution was successful in Ukraine and wasn’t in Turkey or Bahrain.
I disagree with your analysis of Iran. Lots of people aren’t that religious (although they have to pretend to be in order to be eligible for government jobs/university), and even many religious people have completely lost faith in the political system and the supreme leader after the 2009 election, which was widely seen as rigged by pretty much everyone. Some are nostalgic for the Shah, especially among the younger people who didn’t have to live through his excesses but still see images of Iranians from the '60s wearing miniskirts in the streets and at universities. The strength or weakness of the internal opposition, elections inside, is largely predicated on the fact that the supreme leader and the guardians council have the final say on everything, meaning that the choice is to propose reforms that have no chance of success or to propose very incremental changes that frustrate the electorate. In terms of actually controlling the hearts and minds of the people, however, the government of Iran has failed spectacularly. Sure, they hate Arabs who they consider to be extremely uncivilized and uncultured, and yes they’re skeptical of Israel and extremely frustrated with the West for holding back their nuclear ambitions, but these are about the only features that unite them (along with their pride in being Aryans, which doesn’t translate very well to Westerners). But in most other respects they’re the friendliest and most welcoming people you will ever meet, especially to Westerners.
Edited to include responses to post below:
The call is on Youtube and was reported by various outlets, there’s nothing Iranian about it. PressTV is the only English post I found on Google News, which in itself is sad. And of course one thing is to speak privately (doctor to Paet, Paet to Ashton) and another to speak to a journalist, especially after the government has changed and the people you might have carelessly “grassed out” are now in power and specifically in charge of security.
Hey, I found English reporting on it and linked to it above. However, the English reporting I found actually went to Paet’s source and asked them questions, and the source told a substantially different story and disagreed with Paet’s analysis. It’s no surprise that an Iranian outlet didn’t do the same, or presented an anti-American perspective in its analysis.
"The economic crisis predated Yanukovich's election."
But Yanukovich clearly couldn’t do anything about it. In fact, he couldn’t even bring serious help from his Putin pal.
So what? Your claim was that the economic situation made this a uniquely good time for the US to launch a revolution and solidify pro-Western leadership, despite Yanukovich being in power. That’s simply not true.
"Tymoshenko and Yuschenko may not be essential, but surely it would be better if they were free and politically relevant if you wanted to bring them to power."
But you don’t! That’s the thing: you want the pro-Russia stooges out, but you don’t necessarily want already-discredited leaders in the picture. There were lots of grumbles when Tymoshenko was released, and she couldn’t be appointed in government because she’s just not presentable anymore.
Which was basically my point. It would have made much more sense for the US to have helped them years ago when they were in power and/or still politically relevant instead of waiting until now. It makes no sense for the US to have waited until now to intervene in Ukraine’s politics.
The main forces in the new governments are people who had very public disagreements with her (despite belonging to the same party, they thrived only once she was jailed), some neutral elements, the occasional oligarchs, and a bunch of Svoboda and Pravyi Sektor strongmen. The Orange Revolution is not to be named.
So, in your opinion, the US chose this time to launch a revolution and regime change, and apparently wanted “a bunch of Svoboda and Pravyi Sektor strongmen” to be part of the new regime, because is preferable to having given their assistance when Tymoshenko or Yushchenko were the natural leaders. I’m not sure I understand this logic.
"You're still not telling me what the US did to help Ukraine that they didn't do in Bahrain or Turkey."
Did Kerry tour Turkey to lay flowers or otherwise empathise with protesters? Did they propose financial-aid packages to some government-in-waiting? Of course not. They made a couple of press releases and left it at that. Same (or even less) in Bahrain. Because behind token gestures, there is no real US policy for regime change in Turkey and Saudi Arabia and never will be, as long as US servicemen are welcome.
Did Kerry do any of this before regime change in Ukraine? Was aid money proposed before Yanukovich was ousted? Do you think that if the regimes of Bahrain or Turkey fell that the US would have engaged with the new regimes and visited?
However, a movement that could be perceived as US-backed would still struggle to find sympathisers among people born before 1989. This is not the case in Eastern Europe (in fact, it’s been the exact opposite at least until 2003).
I don’t know why 1989 is a magical date for Iran, when the Shah was overthrown in 1979. About 60% of the population has been born after 1979, and I’m not sure that those born before would have different sentiments. I’ve certainly met lot of older people who disliked the current regime just as much and who participated in the Green movement. Indeed, if the Green Movement had been successful I have no doubt that some would paint it as a being US-backed, just as you are painting the Ukrainian revolution as being US-backed. These claims would do little to change the internal legitimacy of the movement, though.
