Malaysia for the win: How Kuala Lumpur secured the black boxes: http://t.co/a5F46qBQjL #MH17
— Paul Sonne (@PaulSonne) July 24, 2014
Candles and photos of the victims of #MH17 at a memorial concert in Kharkiv this evening pic.twitter.com/2OfRN0Zmfi
— Kevin Bishop (@bishopk) July 24, 2014
@Yatsenyuk_AP I announce the resignation due to the collapse of the coalition & due to blocking of the Government's legislative initiatives
— Arseniy Yatsenyuk (@Yatsenyuk_AP) July 24, 2014
In the case if the existing coalition collapses, and there is no new coalition in place, the Government and the PM have to resign.
— Arseniy Yatsenyuk (@Yatsenyuk_AP) July 24, 2014
Russians say the #MH17 downing is the 11th most memorable event of the last few weeks: http://t.co/664BFayfeB
— max seddon (@maxseddon) July 24, 2014
Former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul has been talking pretty forthrightly to VICE News. Here are some of his comments:
On the possibility of a face-saving way for Russian President Vladimir Putn to end the Ukraine conflict in the wake of MH17:
Yes, because what this tragedy gives him is a reason to break with the insurgents, and it could be very simple. He could call [Ukrainian President Petro] Poroshenko and say, “Here are the three things I need so that we can declare victory.” And it could be decentralization, the protection of Russians by international monitors, and the use of the Russian language. I think Poroshenko would take that deal and Putin could say, “Congratulations, the insurgency has accomplished what it needed to.”
There’s a big argument about whether he has leverage or not. My view is that he has a lot of moral leverage and soft power leverage even if he can’t call up these guys and tell them to lay down their guns. If he goes on national television and says, “Mission accomplished,” it will be very hard for them to continue the fight…. Will he do it? My answer is no. I don’t predict that he’ll do it. I think there’s a higher probability today because of this tragedy that he might, but every indication so far is that he’s not interested yet in that kind of a settlement.
On the option of supplying Kyiv with weaponry:
Yes. I would ask the question in a normative way. The Russians have said, “This is atrocious. This is awful. You should never do this. This would mean escalation.” And my answer to that is, “Well, why is it okay for Putin to arm illegitimate, illegal insurgents inside of Ukraine, but somehow it’s not legitimate for us to assist the internationally recognized government of Ukraine?” Again, I don’t want to pretend to know what kind of assistance they need, but to say that it’s off limits because we don’t want to offend Putin — I just don’t understand normatively why that is an acceptable argument, especially in the wake of this tragedy.
On dealing with Putin:
Well, I think he’s quite powerful when it comes to foreign policy matters. I should underscore that no amount of quiet diplomacy, no amount of constructive engagement at lower levels or with Putin, in my view, would have changed the dynamic in US-Russia relations that we see today. I think that that’s sometimes hard for people to admit. But I’ve thought about this pretty hard and I don’t think that if only we had some secret channel to Putin through some government official or private citizen, we could have solved the problem. Because he just has a different theory about international relations than we do. He sees us as a sinister force. He sees us as wanting to foment regime change around the world, and no amount of engagement is going to change his mind. I saw the president engage with him. I saw other senior American government officials engage. And he’s pretty firm in his views. That’s the first thing.
The second thing is there is not, in my view, a coalition around him that does the kind of red-teaming, plan B, or pushing back on his theory of international relations. He’s been in the job for fourteen years, so he thinks he knows everything. And if fourteen, ten years ago, there were people around him that I think he did listen to, particularly on economic policy, today I think his circle has become smaller and more insulated and more filled with yes men….
The last piece that I would add to that concerns the international stage. In his first term, there were several leaders around the world that he had relationships with and that he respected, so they had some influence on him. I think the moment he went into Crimea was the moment he just said, “To hell with them all. I don’t really care what they think.” And aside from maybe [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel, although that relationship seems rather strained right now, you don’t look out there and see people, his peers in the international leadership, that are people he would listen to. That therefore makes influencing him all the much harder today than it might have been, say, ten years ago.
Read the entire interview here
No panic, pls! Although it's a surprise, but Ukraine PM makes a quite logical move 2 clear the way for early parl elections Timing's perfect
— Maxim Eristavi (@MaximEristavi) July 24, 2014
Expected that presidential decree will come in 1 month, fixing parliamentary elections for Oct 26
— Oliver Carroll (@olliecarroll) July 24, 2014
Re Yatsenyuk resignation, It is not believed that there is any agreement with Poroshenko re re-appointment. This is Yatsenyuk's gamble
— Oliver Carroll (@olliecarroll) July 24, 2014
NOW: #Ukraine government steps down to pave the way for September parliament elections - will determine the revolution's success or failure.
— Maxim Tucker (@MaxRTucker) July 24, 2014
Possible #Ukraine resignations are to pave way for parliamentary elections but huge doubt here over their timing. Yatseniuk forcing issue?
— David Patrikarakos (@dpatrikarakos) July 24, 2014
@MaxRTucker Good be Yatsenyuk forcing the issue. Plus Ms T no doubt present somewhere in all this.
— David Patrikarakos (@dpatrikarakos) July 24, 2014
Ukraine PM @Yatsenyuk_AP offers his resignation in an attempt to speed early parliamentary elections pic.twitter.com/4OQyhX9kAA
— Maxim Eristavi (@MaximEristavi) July 24, 2014
Here are some more details regarding Yatsenyuk's resignation (from RFE/RL's news desk):
Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has resigned from his post after two major partners in the majority coalition announced their withdrawal to allow President Petro Poroshenko to start the procedure for new parliamentary elections.
As he announced his resignation on July 24, Yatsenyuk lashed out at lawmakers for failing to pass laws on energy and on a budget increase to fund the armed forces.
"I announce my resignation due to the coalition break-up and blocking of governmental issues," Yatsenyuk said.
Following Yatsenyuk's resignation, parliament speaker Oleksandr Turchynov asked the UDAR and Svoboda parties to nominate a "technical candidate" to fill the prime minister's post.
UDAR and Svoboda were the two parties that pulled out of the coalition earlier in the day.
(Reuters, AP, Interfax and ITAR-TASS)