TheNZThrower
Active Member
A common claim uttered by many about the Maidan Revolution is that this leaked phone conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt proves that it was a US orchestrated coup. This is best indicated by this article from the World Socialist Web Site as follows:
Sorry because of my ignorance, but what are some other possibilities as to why Nuland called Yatsenyuk, and why Pyatt might be suggesting to Nuland to call Klitschko?
Her following statements on Yatsenyuk are also seized on as evidence of a coup:
Another claim that can be seized on as evidence of a coup is Nuland's statement that Yatsenyuk was going to offer a conversation with Pyatt or her. I don't know what three-plus-one or two means in this context, so it's useful if anyone can help me understand.
Their argument primary comes from these quotes from the call as follows:What [Nuland's] tape makes clear, however, is that Washington is employing methods of international gangsterism, including violence, to effect a political coup aimed at installing a regime that is fully subordinate to US geo-strategic interests. This operation has no more to do with democracy than the US-orchestrated coups in countries like Chile and Argentina some 40 years ago.
So the claim is that as Pyatt is telling Nuland to make a phone call to Vitaly Klitschko, one of the opposition leaders, and as she has made a call to another opposition leader Yatsenyuk, it follows that they're likely organising directly who should be the leader after the ousting of Yanukovych.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.
Sorry because of my ignorance, but what are some other possibilities as to why Nuland called Yatsenyuk, and why Pyatt might be suggesting to Nuland to call Klitschko?
The next argument following from this is that since Nuland has said that Klitschko shouldn't be in government, and given the aforementioned context, this also hints at a coup happening.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.
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.
Her following statements on Yatsenyuk are also seized on as evidence of a coup:
I've heard the counter argument is that discussing preferences in future leadership is not the same as arranging for leaders to be put into power, but I don't know why I don't find this compelling?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.
Another claim that can be seized on as evidence of a coup is Nuland's statement that Yatsenyuk was going to offer a conversation with Pyatt or her. I don't know what three-plus-one or two means in this context, so it's useful if anyone can help me understand.
That's it for today, as I'm rather tired AF.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?