Ukraine's relationship to Russia has many points of similarity to Canada's relationship to USA. But a picture is worth 1000 words. As a thought experiment, let's re-locate US into Russia and Canada into Ukraine, with French-speaking Quebec, English-speaking Ontario and "Michigan"
in our experiment, let's additionally suppose that our re-located USA and Canada were part of the old USSR, which for 30 years was ruled by a dictator from Honduras (re-located to Asian Georgia) and since WW2 by two leaders from our re-located Ontario (Khrushchev, Brezhnev)
then, in 1952, "Canadian" leader of the USSR administratively re-assigned Michigan, which had been part of USA since 1776, into the Canadian Socialist Republic.
next, in 1990, the USSR breaks up, with Michigan left (against its wishes) as an orphan in "Canada".
Let's additionally suppose that our new "Canada" is more or less evenly divided between French-speaking group and English-speaking group.
Politics in our re-located Canada divide along linguistic lines - like now, but even more so.
However, in our scenario, politicians from "Quebec" become very nationalistic about language rights, while politicians from "Ontario" and "Michigan" try to preserve local rights.
In 2010, a politician from "Ontario" is elected as President of "Canada". Our "Ontario" region has very strong economic and cultural ties to "U.S.A." - just as it does at present.
In 2014, with backing from "Russia" (re-located to North America), riots and armed militias from "Quebec" force the elected president of "Canada" to flee to the "USA".
In its very first act, the legislature of the newly-installed French-speaking govt passes legislation banning use of English in all public institutions.
"Michigan" immediately holds a referendum to separate from "Canada" and to re-join "U.S.A." (where it had previously belonged). "Russia" across the ocean is furious.
"Ontario" similarly announces its independence from "Canada", now a puppet of overseas "Russia". "Ontario", like Ontario, has strong cultural and economic ties to USA.
However, "Russia" launches a policy of isolating "Ontario". "U.S.A" is somewhat sympathetic to "Ontario", but it's not the same as "Michigan".
Meanwhile, across the ocean, "Russia" insists that "Michigan" be returned to "Canada".
Analogies are never perfect.
However, as someone in Ontario, the parallel between Canada's relation to US and Ukraine's relation to Russia seems both obvious and relevant.
in my prior commentary, I've focussed on what Quebec would have done if an elected French-speaking PM of Canada had been driven out of office by mobs from western Canada, which then sought to eliminate minority language rights.
Quebec would separate immediately.
But that analogy missed the even more telling comparison set out today. Rather than Quebec corresponding to eastern Ukraine Donbass, it is Toronto and southern Ontario that are the closest parallel to Donbass.
like it or not, Toronto and southern Ontario are inextricably part of a North American continent dominated by US.
When I comment on US politics (as I do), I'm in more or less the same position as someone from Donetsk in eastern Ukraine commenting on Russia.
it would also be possible from English-speaking Canada to be defensive of right to speak English (if it were threatened by oppressive French-speaking federal government) without being
"pro-American".
I don't know enough about Donbass to say whether defense of language rights by Russian-speaking minorities means that they are "pro-Russian". They may be. But I do know that it would be possible to be defensive of English-speaking language rights without being "pro-American".
Whatever the merits of this analogy, here's one thing that I'm sure of: if Toronto and southern Ontario were placed in the sort of quandary as Donbass, our status should be up to us (not some overseas country).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD: given current interest in Ukraine, I think readers will be interested in Andrew Weissmann's extremely strong views on Crimea and the extent to which he thought that candidate Trump's phlegmatic and practical perspective constituted a law enforcement issue.
Crimea is mentioned on multiple occasions in Weissmann's book. First, W complained that Trump was "notably unbothered" by Crimea, which Weissmann characterized (IMO falsely) as "invasion and forced annexation" (as opposed to authentic repudiation of Ukraine and separation)
3/ Weissmann asserted that Crimean separation from Ukraine was a "threat to our national security interests" and that Ukraine was "standing in defense of Europe and the Baltic". I'll omit obvious editorial comment other than noting that Ukraine's location is well south of Baltic
Here's an interesting apparent inconsistency between evidence of Julia Gurganus (ODNI NIO, Russia) who was senior author of ICA and Sally Yates on date on which Obama got briefed on ICA.
In Yates' 302 (and other testimony), Yates said that the briefing of Obama and his officials was on January 5, 2017 (the day before Trump's briefing) and one day after McCabe et al intervened to prevent close of Flynn investigation.
but in Gurganus' 302 (identification per walkafyre), Gurganus said that Obama was briefed by the four stooges ///oops, sages on Wednesday, January 4, 2017. Seems like the sort of thing that Gurganus would get right.
unsurprisingly, commentary on Danchenko indictment is very inaccurate. US media is mostly trying to whitewash FBI and intel community by blaming on Danchenko, who is not an innocent. But after January 24, 2017, perpetuation of dossier hoax was due to FBI, not Danchenko deception.
in this thread, I'm going to comment on recent commentary, starting with Eric Wemple archive.md/sjvcJ and Glenn Kessler archive.md/sjvcJ of the WaPo, which announced partial retractions of past reporting.
3/ I'm going to focus on Millian commentary as that is one of two issues in Indictment. "Fact-checker" Kessler began his section on Millian with false claim that Millian was doxed in news reports "because Danchenko suggested [his name] to FBI". This is total BS.
@shipwreckedcrew at his first interview, Danchenko confessed that he had NEVER met Millian. You mis-state this in your interesting article.
nor does it appear that FBI was misled by Danchenko's story of an anonymous telecon. It appears that Brian Auten disbelieved true part of Danchenko's confession: that he had never met Millian and had never even had a telephone conversation with someone who identifed as Millian
Auten and FBI appear to have decided that, for some obscure reason, Danchenko was "minimizing" his contact with Millian and accordingly disregarded his confession in favor of the original fabrications of the dossier.
this article perfectly exemplifies how preoccupation with Page FISA by so many Russiagate critics leads to false and distracting narrative. Article presumes that Page FISA was cornerstone of investigation and that DOJ was protecting its "poisoned fruit". Nope,
2/ while the Page FISA was seedy, it was, to mix metaphors, a dry well. It bore no fruit, poisoned or otherwise. Nothing from Page FISA appears in any of the proceedings or in Mueller report. In the end, it was irrelevant to progress main Russiagate hoax.
3/ yet we hear of almost nothing else - FISA, FISA, FISA - in complaints from majority of Russiagate hoax commentators and talking heads, even insiders like Ratcliffe.
I think that we have a clear winner in the identification of the mysterious October 2016 conference at which Danchenko and Dolan were participants. Three-day YPO "Inside the Kremlin" conference. Organizer-1 probably Steven Kupka. Credit to @_mzishi_