A WSJ correspondent suggested comparing Putin's recent comments to journalists to the US State Dept's response to get some perspective on our differing perspectives.
Putis's comments are translated here: eng.kremlin.ru/news/6763
and the response is here:
www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/03/222988.htm
Bullets from Putin's comments:
-"There can only be one assessment: this was an anti-constitutional takeover, an armed seizure of power. Does anyone question this? "
-Yanukovitch signed an agreement with the opposition Feb 21, and the opposition violated that agreement.
-While he doesn't support the unconstitutional takeover, he understand why people wanted dramatic change. They are tired of the corruption, of one thief being replaced by another, and they wanted more than cosmetic change.
-He speaks very negatively of the previous regime, specifying one guy that cheated a Russian billionaire.
-He calls the current Parliament partially legitimate, the President, not legitimate.
-He also says reactionary forces, nationalist and anti-Semitic forces are doing horrible things there.
-Regarding the Russian stock market was jumpy before this happened, it is tied to the US Federal Reserve who recently changed policy and had driving a lot of investment from BRIC states to the US. It has nothing to do with Ukraine and India was hit worse than Russia.
-When asked if he sees Crimea joining Russia, he answered "no", but spoke of self-determination enough that I think he was just trying to say Russia wouldn't take over Crimea.
-He really knows the business of Gazprom. In response to a question about a statement from Gazprom, he says the guy asking the question either misheard or Gazprom misspoke. He includes specific prices in his answer. At 1st, I was surprised by the precision of his price knowledge ($268.50 per 1k cubic m) but then realized, it's being converted...it's not a round number in rubles or euros either though...
-I find this argument to be interesting: with regard to the NATO agreement that included security assurances in exchange for Ukraine's participation in a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, he answered that there are two ways people look at the recent events, an unconstitutional armed seizure of power or a revolution. If it's a revolution, then the agreements made with the displaced authority do not hold. It's kind of in conflict with his somewhat legit view of Parliament.
The US State Dept's response points out 10 things that are wrong with Putin's version of things. I won't make a bulleted list since it is a bulleted list, but of course the US sees the current administration as legit.
