Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

sombear said:

---

Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

---

On the very week we are finding out how USAID was spending billions in influence events and politics in other nations you are on here trying to pretend the US had nothing to do with the events of Maidan and 2014

That is a tall order

Simply a strange coincidence he was overthrown (despite wining a majority of the vote)

Right after turning Ukraine away from NATO and giving a longer lease to Russia for its Black Sea naval base

[So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries even if much of it went nowhere along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor's move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament...

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society one of Yanukovych's sons is a dentist who somehow ended up among the country's wealthiest men, another was an MP as well as the increasingly authoritarian nature of Yanukovych's rule. In fact, the other major sticking point for the deal was Europe's demand that Yanukovych's leading rival be released from prison over trumped-up charges, which he resisted.

But righteous though their cause may have been, the movement's critics had a point, too. For one thing, the Maidan protests didn't have majority support, with the Ukrainian public split along the regional and sociocultural lines that have long defined so many of the country's political difficulties. While the western regions where most of the protesters came from, and which had historically been ruled by other countries, some as late as 1939 backed the protests, the Russian-speaking East, ruled by Russia since the seventeenth century, were alienated by their explicit anti-Russian nationalism, especially only one year out from the chance to vote Yanukovych out.

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society.
And they were resorting to force. Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory...]

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

---

On the very week we are finding out how USAID was spending billions in influence events and politics in other nations you are on here trying to pretend the US had nothing to do with the events of Maidan and 2014

That is a tall order

Simply a strange coincidence he was overthrown (despite wining a majority of the vote)

Right after turning Ukraine away from NATO and giving a longer lease to Russia for its Black Sea naval base

[So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries even if much of it went nowhere along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor's move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament...

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society one of Yanukovych's sons is a dentist who somehow ended up among the country's wealthiest men, another was an MP as well as the increasingly authoritarian nature of Yanukovych's rule. In fact, the other major sticking point for the deal was Europe's demand that Yanukovych's leading rival be released from prison over trumped-up charges, which he resisted.

But righteous though their cause may have been, the movement's critics had a point, too. For one thing, the Maidan protests didn't have majority support, with the Ukrainian public split along the regional and sociocultural lines that have long defined so many of the country's political difficulties. While the western regions where most of the protesters came from, and which had historically been ruled by other countries, some as late as 1939 backed the protests, the Russian-speaking East, ruled by Russia since the seventeenth century, were alienated by their explicit anti-Russian nationalism, especially only one year out from the chance to vote Yanukovych out.

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society.
And they were resorting to force. Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory...]

---

The only ones just "finding that out" are folks with zero knowledge of history or int'l relations and who get their foreign policy news and history from Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. I'll simplify it: In every corner of the world, the U.S. supported freedom, and the Soviet Union/Russia opposed it.

I have no idea what your post was intended to address, but it sure did not address any of the questions raised in my post or any of the questions some of us have raised on here for two years.

And who ever said the U.S. had "nothing to do with" it? Again, if you were alive at the time and followed any news outlets of the day, or regardless, have since done even a modicum of research, you'd know the West was very open in its opposition to certain of VY's actions and very open in supporting the rights of protestors.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

---

On the very week we are finding out how USAID was spending billions in influence events and politics in other nations you are on here trying to pretend the US had nothing to do with the events of Maidan and 2014

That is a tall order

Simply a strange coincidence he was overthrown (despite wining a majority of the vote)

Right after turning Ukraine away from NATO and giving a longer lease to Russia for its Black Sea naval base

[So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries even if much of it went nowhere along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor's move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament...

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society one of Yanukovych's sons is a dentist who somehow ended up among the country's wealthiest men, another was an MP as well as the increasingly authoritarian nature of Yanukovych's rule. In fact, the other major sticking point for the deal was Europe's demand that Yanukovych's leading rival be released from prison over trumped-up charges, which he resisted.

But righteous though their cause may have been, the movement's critics had a point, too. For one thing, the Maidan protests didn't have majority support, with the Ukrainian public split along the regional and sociocultural lines that have long defined so many of the country's political difficulties. While the western regions where most of the protesters came from, and which had historically been ruled by other countries, some as late as 1939 backed the protests, the Russian-speaking East, ruled by Russia since the seventeenth century, were alienated by their explicit anti-Russian nationalism, especially only one year out from the chance to vote Yanukovych out.

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society.
And they were resorting to force. Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory...]

---

The only ones just "finding that out" are folks with zero knowledge of history or int'l relations and who get their foreign policy news and history from Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. I'll simplify it: In every corner of the world, the U.S. supported freedom, and the Soviet Union/Russia opposed it.

I have no idea what your post was intended to address,

---

1. The Soviet Union and the modern Russian Federation are two different entities (Marxist vs nationalist, etc)

2. The Cold War is over. New paradigms abound and new geo-strategic realities exist

3. You continue to put out the blatant lie that the mobs in Kyiv that overthrew the last government were supported by the majority of Ukrainians.

That passage again proves they did NOT have the support off all Ukrainians and at least half the country and the Eastern parts in particular hated the coup.

4. The US government interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine. This interference and attempt to pull Ukraine out of the orbit of Moscow has led directly to 10 years plus of war and conflict.

5. And this conflict still goes on bleeding the US tax payers out of billions of dollars.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

---

On the very week we are finding out how USAID was spending billions in influence events and politics in other nations you are on here trying to pretend the US had nothing to do with the events of Maidan and 2014

That is a tall order

Simply a strange coincidence he was overthrown (despite wining a majority of the vote)

Right after turning Ukraine away from NATO and giving a longer lease to Russia for its Black Sea naval base

[So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries even if much of it went nowhere along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor's move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament...

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society one of Yanukovych's sons is a dentist who somehow ended up among the country's wealthiest men, another was an MP as well as the increasingly authoritarian nature of Yanukovych's rule. In fact, the other major sticking point for the deal was Europe's demand that Yanukovych's leading rival be released from prison over trumped-up charges, which he resisted.

But righteous though their cause may have been, the movement's critics had a point, too. For one thing, the Maidan protests didn't have majority support, with the Ukrainian public split along the regional and sociocultural lines that have long defined so many of the country's political difficulties. While the western regions where most of the protesters came from, and which had historically been ruled by other countries, some as late as 1939 backed the protests, the Russian-speaking East, ruled by Russia since the seventeenth century, were alienated by their explicit anti-Russian nationalism, especially only one year out from the chance to vote Yanukovych out.

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society.
And they were resorting to force. Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory...]

---

The only ones just "finding that out" are folks with zero knowledge of history or int'l relations and who get their foreign policy news and history from Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. I'll simplify it: In every corner of the world, the U.S. supported freedom, and the Soviet Union/Russia opposed it.

I have no idea what your post was intended to address,

---

1. The Soviet Union and the modern Russian Federation are two different entities (Marxist vs nationalist, etc)

2. The Cold War is over. New paradigms abound and new geo-strategic realities exist

3. You continue to put out the blatant lie that the mobs in Kyiv that overthrew the last government were supported by the majority of Ukrainians.

That passage again proves they did NOT have the support off all Ukrainians and at least half the country and the Eastern parts in particular hated the coup.

4. The US government interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine. This interference and attempt to pull Ukraine out of the orbit of Moscow has led directly to 10 years plus of war and conflict.

5. And this conflict still goes on bleeding the US tax payers out of billions of dollars.

---

I disagree with most of what you just posted. But, even if it is 100% true, it is not in the same universe as "a U.S. coup to overthrow a government."

Yes, the Soviet Union and Russia are different. But they support the same causes. Regardless, the reason I referenced that is because, as those with any knowledge know, the USAID was expressly created by JFK Jr. to combat Soviet influence. Yet, suddenly, this week, to may on the right, USAID is some new, secret society, and they're just finding out it was used in these ways. It's comical.

I don't think I have ever posted that the protestors were a majority. But the facts suggest it probably was a strong majority. It was a neck and neck Presidential race. VY ran, among other things, on anti-corruption, bringing the country together, and the EU deal. In fact, every candidate supported the EU deal. Well, what did Ukraine get? Corruption that made even Russians and Ukrainians blush. Imprisoned political opponents. Backing out of the EU deal. Russian coercion on energy and the economy. A private police force that eventually executed protestors. I've never reviewed data of % of Ukrainians supporting protests. But I know how I'd place my bet. Then you consider the fact that VY's own party turned on him. I'm thinking they had a pretty good pulse also - and most of his party was in the east.

If by "interfere" you mean we, like most Euros and Russia worked hard to influence VY (very publicly I might add) and supported some of the protestors (as we have throughout history and continue today), then yes, we interfered.

Ukraine was out of the Russian orbit the minute it became a free country. Despite Russia's infiltration of Ukraine's government, intel, and business establishment, they coexisted and had a decent relationship. They would have continued to have a decent relationship if Russia had not invaded. When VY ran for President, not a single major candidate or party supported NATO membership. And accepting the EU deal would have done nothing to affect the existing Russian/Ukraine supply deals and other primary economic arrangements. Russia simply wanted Ukraine to be dependent on Russia.

Here's 1.25 million dollars to an American university to provide support for MSM (men who sleep with men) IN UKRAINE who get infected with HIV. I don't see how this is our problem, or something we should fund. pic.twitter.com/4ONHzHryP6

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) February 5, 2025

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

---

On the very week we are finding out how USAID was spending billions in influence events and politics in other nations you are on here trying to pretend the US had nothing to do with the events of Maidan and 2014

That is a tall order

Simply a strange coincidence he was overthrown (despite wining a majority of the vote)

Right after turning Ukraine away from NATO and giving a longer lease to Russia for its Black Sea naval base

[So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries even if much of it went nowhere along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor's move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament...

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society one of Yanukovych's sons is a dentist who somehow ended up among the country's wealthiest men, another was an MP as well as the increasingly authoritarian nature of Yanukovych's rule. In fact, the other major sticking point for the deal was Europe's demand that Yanukovych's leading rival be released from prison over trumped-up charges, which he resisted.

But righteous though their cause may have been, the movement's critics had a point, too. For one thing, the Maidan protests didn't have majority support, with the Ukrainian public split along the regional and sociocultural lines that have long defined so many of the country's political difficulties. While the western regions where most of the protesters came from, and which had historically been ruled by other countries, some as late as 1939 backed the protests, the Russian-speaking East, ruled by Russia since the seventeenth century, were alienated by their explicit anti-Russian nationalism, especially only one year out from the chance to vote Yanukovych out.

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society.
And they were resorting to force. Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory...]

---

The only ones just "finding that out" are folks with zero knowledge of history or int'l relations and who get their foreign policy news and history from Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. I'll simplify it: In every corner of the world, the U.S. supported freedom, and the Soviet Union/Russia opposed it.

I have no idea what your post was intended to address,

---

1. The Soviet Union and the modern Russian Federation are two different entities (Marxist vs nationalist, etc)

2. The Cold War is over. New paradigms abound and new geo-strategic realities exist

3. You continue to put out the blatant lie that the mobs in Kyiv that overthrew the last government were supported by the majority of Ukrainians.

That passage again proves they did NOT have the support off all Ukrainians and at least half the country and the Eastern parts in particular hated the coup.

4. The US government interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine. This interference and attempt to pull Ukraine out of the orbit of Moscow has led directly to 10 years plus of war and conflict.

5. And this conflict still goes on bleeding the US tax payers out of billions of dollars.

---

Saying nearly half a country doesn't like one move when more than the other half did is bewildering. You're never going to get 100% agreement on anything. See our domestic political landscape for proof.

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

---

On the very week we are finding out how USAID was spending billions in influence events and politics in other nations you are on here trying to pretend the US had nothing to do with the events of Maidan and 2014

That is a tall order

Simply a strange coincidence he was overthrown (despite wining a majority of the vote)

Right after turning Ukraine away from NATO and giving a longer lease to Russia for its Black Sea naval base

[So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries even if much of it went nowhere along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor's move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament...

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society one of Yanukovych's sons is a dentist who somehow ended up among the country's wealthiest men, another was an MP as well as the increasingly authoritarian nature of Yanukovych's rule. In fact, the other major sticking point for the deal was Europe's demand that Yanukovych's leading rival be released from prison over trumped-up charges, which he resisted.

But righteous though their cause may have been, the movement's critics had a point, too. For one thing, the Maidan protests didn't have majority support, with the Ukrainian public split along the regional and sociocultural lines that have long defined so many of the country's political difficulties. While the western regions where most of the protesters came from, and which had historically been ruled by other countries, some as late as 1939 backed the protests, the Russian-speaking East, ruled by Russia since the seventeenth century, were alienated by their explicit anti-Russian nationalism, especially only one year out from the chance to vote Yanukovych out.

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society.
And they were resorting to force. Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory...]

---

The only ones just "finding that out" are folks with zero knowledge of history or int'l relations and who get their foreign policy news and history from Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. I'll simplify it: In every corner of the world, the U.S. supported freedom, and the Soviet Union/Russia opposed it.

I have no idea what your post was intended to address,

---

1. The Soviet Union and the modern Russian Federation are two different entities (Marxist vs nationalist, etc)

2. The Cold War is over. New paradigms abound and new geo-strategic realities exist

3. You continue to put out the blatant lie that the mobs in Kyiv that overthrew the last government were supported by the majority of Ukrainians.

That passage again proves they did NOT have the support off all Ukrainians and at least half the country and the Eastern parts in particular hated the coup.

4. The US government interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine. This interference and attempt to pull Ukraine out of the orbit of Moscow has led directly to 10 years plus of war and conflict.

5. And this conflict still goes on bleeding the US tax payers out of billions of dollars.

---

Saying nearly half a country doesn't like one move when more than the other half did is bewildering. You're never going to get 100% agreement on anything. See our domestic political landscape for proof.

---

So in a divided country with a very divided political landscape maybe bloody street violence and coups in the Capital city are not the way the solve political disputes.

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

---

On the very week we are finding out how USAID was spending billions in influence events and politics in other nations you are on here trying to pretend the US had nothing to do with the events of Maidan and 2014

That is a tall order

Simply a strange coincidence he was overthrown (despite wining a majority of the vote)

Right after turning Ukraine away from NATO and giving a longer lease to Russia for its Black Sea naval base

[So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries even if much of it went nowhere along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor's move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament...

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society one of Yanukovych's sons is a dentist who somehow ended up among the country's wealthiest men, another was an MP as well as the increasingly authoritarian nature of Yanukovych's rule. In fact, the other major sticking point for the deal was Europe's demand that Yanukovych's leading rival be released from prison over trumped-up charges, which he resisted.

But righteous though their cause may have been, the movement's critics had a point, too. For one thing, the Maidan protests didn't have majority support, with the Ukrainian public split along the regional and sociocultural lines that have long defined so many of the country's political difficulties. While the western regions where most of the protesters came from, and which had historically been ruled by other countries, some as late as 1939 backed the protests, the Russian-speaking East, ruled by Russia since the seventeenth century, were alienated by their explicit anti-Russian nationalism, especially only one year out from the chance to vote Yanukovych out.

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society.
And they were resorting to force. Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory...]

---

The only ones just "finding that out" are folks with zero knowledge of history or int'l relations and who get their foreign policy news and history from Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. I'll simplify it: In every corner of the world, the U.S. supported freedom, and the Soviet Union/Russia opposed it.

I have no idea what your post was intended to address,

---

1. The Soviet Union and the modern Russian Federation are two different entities (Marxist vs nationalist, etc)

2. The Cold War is over. New paradigms abound and new geo-strategic realities exist

3. You continue to put out the blatant lie that the mobs in Kyiv that overthrew the last government were supported by the majority of Ukrainians.

That passage again proves they did NOT have the support off all Ukrainians and at least half the country and the Eastern parts in particular hated the coup.

4. The US government interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine. This interference and attempt to pull Ukraine out of the orbit of Moscow has led directly to 10 years plus of war and conflict.

5. And this conflict still goes on bleeding the US tax payers out of billions of dollars.

---

Saying nearly half a country doesn't like one move when more than the other half did is bewildering. You're never going to get 100% agreement on anything. See our domestic political landscape for proof.

---

So in a divided country with a very divided political landscape maybe bloody street violence and coups in the Capital city are not the way the solve political disputes.

---

Maybe turning your back on the ticket you ran on and giving yourself to be subsumed by a nation you've been trying to get away from for a very long time isn't the way to solve them either. You and others would be calling for Civil War (and many on here were) if the same thing happened in the US.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

---

On the very week we are finding out how USAID was spending billions in influence events and politics in other nations you are on here trying to pretend the US had nothing to do with the events of Maidan and 2014

That is a tall order

Simply a strange coincidence he was overthrown (despite wining a majority of the vote)

Right after turning Ukraine away from NATO and giving a longer lease to Russia for its Black Sea naval base

[So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries even if much of it went nowhere along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor's move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament...

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society one of Yanukovych's sons is a dentist who somehow ended up among the country's wealthiest men, another was an MP as well as the increasingly authoritarian nature of Yanukovych's rule. In fact, the other major sticking point for the deal was Europe's demand that Yanukovych's leading rival be released from prison over trumped-up charges, which he resisted.

But righteous though their cause may have been, the movement's critics had a point, too. For one thing, the Maidan protests didn't have majority support, with the Ukrainian public split along the regional and sociocultural lines that have long defined so many of the country's political difficulties. While the western regions where most of the protesters came from, and which had historically been ruled by other countries, some as late as 1939 backed the protests, the Russian-speaking East, ruled by Russia since the seventeenth century, were alienated by their explicit anti-Russian nationalism, especially only one year out from the chance to vote Yanukovych out.

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society.
And they were resorting to force. Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory...]

---

The only ones just "finding that out" are folks with zero knowledge of history or int'l relations and who get their foreign policy news and history from Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. I'll simplify it: In every corner of the world, the U.S. supported freedom, and the Soviet Union/Russia opposed it.

I have no idea what your post was intended to address,

---

1. The Soviet Union and the modern Russian Federation are two different entities (Marxist vs nationalist, etc)

2. The Cold War is over. New paradigms abound and new geo-strategic realities exist

3. You continue to put out the blatant lie that the mobs in Kyiv that overthrew the last government were supported by the majority of Ukrainians.

That passage again proves they did NOT have the support off all Ukrainians and at least half the country and the Eastern parts in particular hated the coup.

4. The US government interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine. This interference and attempt to pull Ukraine out of the orbit of Moscow has led directly to 10 years plus of war and conflict.

5. And this conflict still goes on bleeding the US tax payers out of billions of dollars.

---

I disagree with most of what you just posted. But, even if it is 100% true, it is not in the same universe as "a U.S. coup to overthrow a government."

Yes, the Soviet Union and Russia are different. But they support the same causes.

---

They don't in fact support the same causes.

The USSR sponsored Marxist/Leftist revolutions around the globe.

Russia is no interested in Marxist/leftist revolution (its our own USAID that seems to be pumping billions into that racket)

Modern Russia and the old USSR do share some similar geo-strategic objectives in their near abroad....because the geography of Moscow and its area has not changed.

Any State that exists in Moscow will want to control Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia. (or at least have friendly government in place there)

That is a endless policy of any Moscow based power....any map will tell us why

That will never change unless you plan on destroying Russia or breaking it up like the former Yugoslavia into small statelets

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

---

On the very week we are finding out how USAID was spending billions in influence events and politics in other nations you are on here trying to pretend the US had nothing to do with the events of Maidan and 2014

That is a tall order

Simply a strange coincidence he was overthrown (despite wining a majority of the vote)

Right after turning Ukraine away from NATO and giving a longer lease to Russia for its Black Sea naval base

[So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries even if much of it went nowhere along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor's move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament...

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society one of Yanukovych's sons is a dentist who somehow ended up among the country's wealthiest men, another was an MP as well as the increasingly authoritarian nature of Yanukovych's rule. In fact, the other major sticking point for the deal was Europe's demand that Yanukovych's leading rival be released from prison over trumped-up charges, which he resisted.

But righteous though their cause may have been, the movement's critics had a point, too. For one thing, the Maidan protests didn't have majority support, with the Ukrainian public split along the regional and sociocultural lines that have long defined so many of the country's political difficulties. While the western regions where most of the protesters came from, and which had historically been ruled by other countries, some as late as 1939 backed the protests, the Russian-speaking East, ruled by Russia since the seventeenth century, were alienated by their explicit anti-Russian nationalism, especially only one year out from the chance to vote Yanukovych out.

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society.
And they were resorting to force. Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory...]

---

The only ones just "finding that out" are folks with zero knowledge of history or int'l relations and who get their foreign policy news and history from Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. I'll simplify it: In every corner of the world, the U.S. supported freedom, and the Soviet Union/Russia opposed it.

I have no idea what your post was intended to address,

---

1. The Soviet Union and the modern Russian Federation are two different entities (Marxist vs nationalist, etc)

2. The Cold War is over. New paradigms abound and new geo-strategic realities exist

3. You continue to put out the blatant lie that the mobs in Kyiv that overthrew the last government were supported by the majority of Ukrainians.

That passage again proves they did NOT have the support off all Ukrainians and at least half the country and the Eastern parts in particular hated the coup.

4. The US government interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine. This interference and attempt to pull Ukraine out of the orbit of Moscow has led directly to 10 years plus of war and conflict.

5. And this conflict still goes on bleeding the US tax payers out of billions of dollars.

---

Saying nearly half a country doesn't like one move when more than the other half did is bewildering. You're never going to get 100% agreement on anything. See our domestic political landscape for proof.

---

So in a divided country with a very divided political landscape maybe bloody street violence and coups in the Capital city are not the way the solve political disputes.

---

Maybe turning your back on the ticket you ran on and giving yourself to be subsumed by a nation you've been trying to get away from for a very long time isn't the way to solve them either. You and others would be calling for Civil War (and many on here were) if the same thing happened in the US.

---

Republicans politicians and Presidents have been betraying their voters for decades...and no one (certainly not me) has called for a civil war

Street violence just brings on more violence (Ukraine has now been engulfed in 10 years of bloody conflict thanks to your buddies in DC

PS

With all the DOGE stuff we might find out our own Gov. and Intelligence agencies tried something similar the first time around with Trump

Had protestors gotten into the White House on the night of June 1st of 2020 and overthrown Trump (using violence and street demonstrations sponsored by seedy NGOs and Security spooks) who knows what could have happened to the country.

[As protesters gathered outside the White House Friday night in Washington, DC, President Donald Trump was briefly taken to the underground bunker for a period of time, according to a White House official and a law enforcement source.

A law enforcement source and another source familiar with the matter tell CNN that first lady Melania Trump and their son, Barron, were also taken to the bunker..]

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

---

On the very week we are finding out how USAID was spending billions in influence events and politics in other nations you are on here trying to pretend the US had nothing to do with the events of Maidan and 2014

That is a tall order

Simply a strange coincidence he was overthrown (despite wining a majority of the vote)

Right after turning Ukraine away from NATO and giving a longer lease to Russia for its Black Sea naval base

[So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries even if much of it went nowhere along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor's move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament...

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society one of Yanukovych's sons is a dentist who somehow ended up among the country's wealthiest men, another was an MP as well as the increasingly authoritarian nature of Yanukovych's rule. In fact, the other major sticking point for the deal was Europe's demand that Yanukovych's leading rival be released from prison over trumped-up charges, which he resisted.

But righteous though their cause may have been, the movement's critics had a point, too. For one thing, the Maidan protests didn't have majority support, with the Ukrainian public split along the regional and sociocultural lines that have long defined so many of the country's political difficulties. While the western regions where most of the protesters came from, and which had historically been ruled by other countries, some as late as 1939 backed the protests, the Russian-speaking East, ruled by Russia since the seventeenth century, were alienated by their explicit anti-Russian nationalism, especially only one year out from the chance to vote Yanukovych out.

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society.
And they were resorting to force. Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory...]

---

The only ones just "finding that out" are folks with zero knowledge of history or int'l relations and who get their foreign policy news and history from Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. I'll simplify it: In every corner of the world, the U.S. supported freedom, and the Soviet Union/Russia opposed it.

I have no idea what your post was intended to address,

---

1. The Soviet Union and the modern Russian Federation are two different entities (Marxist vs nationalist, etc)

2. The Cold War is over. New paradigms abound and new geo-strategic realities exist

3. You continue to put out the blatant lie that the mobs in Kyiv that overthrew the last government were supported by the majority of Ukrainians.

That passage again proves they did NOT have the support off all Ukrainians and at least half the country and the Eastern parts in particular hated the coup.

4. The US government interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine. This interference and attempt to pull Ukraine out of the orbit of Moscow has led directly to 10 years plus of war and conflict.

5. And this conflict still goes on bleeding the US tax payers out of billions of dollars.

---

I disagree with most of what you just posted. But, even if it is 100% true, it is not in the same universe as "a U.S. coup to overthrow a government."

Yes, the Soviet Union and Russia are different. But they support the same causes.

---

They don't in fact support the same causes.

The USSR sponsored Marxist/Leftist revolutions around the globe.

Russia is no interested in Marxist/leftist revolution (its our own USAID that seems to be pumping billions into that racket)

Modern Russia and the old USSR do share some similar geo-strategic objectives in their near abroad....because the geography of Moscow and its area has not changed.

Any State that exists in Moscow will want to control Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia. (or at least have friendly government in place there)

That is a endless policy of any Moscow based power....any map will tell us why

That will never change unless you plan on destroying Russia or breaking it up like the former Yugoslavia into small statelets

---

Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, North Korea, Cuba, Bolivia, Columbia, Vietnam, and several other African and Asian countries all say hi. Heck, I'd thrown in Iran as Islamic Socialist/Communist.

From a poll of Ukrainians in February 2014, published by the Kyiv Post:

45% supported the Maidan protests.
48% opposed them.

45% supported VY's decision to postpone the EU agreement.
42% opposed it.

17% had participated in Maidan-related activities.
81% had not.

3% were willing to join armed opposition to VY.
1% were willing to personally seize government buildings or block roads.

The narrative that some of you keep repeating--of a spontaneous, "democratic," mass uprising against a despised autocrat--is classic US propaganda. It's the same narrative they use every time. It's what they've been doing for decades. It has nothing to do with reality.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

---

On the very week we are finding out how USAID was spending billions in influence events and politics in other nations you are on here trying to pretend the US had nothing to do with the events of Maidan and 2014

That is a tall order

Simply a strange coincidence he was overthrown (despite wining a majority of the vote)

Right after turning Ukraine away from NATO and giving a longer lease to Russia for its Black Sea naval base

[So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries even if much of it went nowhere along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor's move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament...

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society one of Yanukovych's sons is a dentist who somehow ended up among the country's wealthiest men, another was an MP as well as the increasingly authoritarian nature of Yanukovych's rule. In fact, the other major sticking point for the deal was Europe's demand that Yanukovych's leading rival be released from prison over trumped-up charges, which he resisted.

But righteous though their cause may have been, the movement's critics had a point, too. For one thing, the Maidan protests didn't have majority support, with the Ukrainian public split along the regional and sociocultural lines that have long defined so many of the country's political difficulties. While the western regions where most of the protesters came from, and which had historically been ruled by other countries, some as late as 1939 backed the protests, the Russian-speaking East, ruled by Russia since the seventeenth century, were alienated by their explicit anti-Russian nationalism, especially only one year out from the chance to vote Yanukovych out.

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society.
And they were resorting to force. Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory...]

---

The only ones just "finding that out" are folks with zero knowledge of history or int'l relations and who get their foreign policy news and history from Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. I'll simplify it: In every corner of the world, the U.S. supported freedom, and the Soviet Union/Russia opposed it.

I have no idea what your post was intended to address,

---

1. The Soviet Union and the modern Russian Federation are two different entities (Marxist vs nationalist, etc)

2. The Cold War is over. New paradigms abound and new geo-strategic realities exist

3. You continue to put out the blatant lie that the mobs in Kyiv that overthrew the last government were supported by the majority of Ukrainians.

That passage again proves they did NOT have the support off all Ukrainians and at least half the country and the Eastern parts in particular hated the coup.

4. The US government interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine. This interference and attempt to pull Ukraine out of the orbit of Moscow has led directly to 10 years plus of war and conflict.

5. And this conflict still goes on bleeding the US tax payers out of billions of dollars.

---

I disagree with most of what you just posted. But, even if it is 100% true, it is not in the same universe as "a U.S. coup to overthrow a government."

Yes, the Soviet Union and Russia are different. But they support the same causes.

---

They don't in fact support the same causes.

The USSR sponsored Marxist/Leftist revolutions around the globe.

Russia is no interested in Marxist/leftist revolution (its our own USAID that seems to be pumping billions into that racket)

Modern Russia and the old USSR do share some similar geo-strategic objectives in their near abroad....because the geography of Moscow and its area has not changed.

Any State that exists in Moscow will want to control Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia. (or at least have friendly government in place there)

That is a endless policy of any Moscow based power....any map will tell us why

That will never change unless you plan on destroying Russia or breaking it up like the former Yugoslavia into small statelets

---

Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, North Korea, Cuba, Bolivia, Columbia, Vietnam, and several other African and Asian countries all say hi. Heck, I'd thrown in Iran as Islamic Socialist/Communist.

---

That is just the global losers club looking for an ally somewhere and looking for someone to trade with them.

Moscow is not in bed with the Islamists in Tehran or the Stalinists in North Korea for ideology sake

Its because they are global pariahs and are untrustworthy partners

Moscow being in bed with them is a sign of weakness in Russia….not strength

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

When you sponsor a regime change operation that over throws the guy who got the majority of the votes you are in fact destabilizing the country and its political system

And you are subverting democracy

---

LOL but we didn't sponsor a "regime change operation." AFTER THAT CHANGE, we extended aid to the Ukrainian government, which had just emerged from civil unrest significant enough to cause the resignation of an elected leader and his replacement by entirely constitutional processes.

There was no coup. There was a president who broke a promise to sign wildly popular legislation passed by the Ukrainian parliament, thereby sparking an explosion of public demonstrations, which ultimately led to him fleeing the country. The successor government and subsequent elections occurred as directed by the Ukrainian constitution.

you are making stuff up to fit your narrative with an elementary fallacy = begging the question.
There was no coup.
"Supporting a new regime you like better than the prior one" is not synonymous with "sponsoring the processes which prompted the change in power."

Very shoddy reasoning flatly at odds with facts.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

When you sponsor a regime change operation that over throws the guy who got the majority of the votes you are in fact destabilizing the country and its political system

And you are subverting democracy

---

LOL but we didn't sponsor a "regime change operation." AFTER THAT CHANGE, we extended aid to the Ukrainian government, which had just emerged from civil unrest significant enough to cause the resignation of an elected leader and his replacement by entirely constitutional processes.

There was no coup. There was a president who broke a promise to sign wildly popular legislation passed by the Ukrainian parliament, thereby sparking an explosion of public demonstrations, which ultimately led to him fleeing the country. The successor government and subsequent elections occurred as directed by the Ukrainian constitution.

you are making stuff up to fit your narrative with an elementary fallacy = begging the question.
There was no coup.
"Supporting a new regime you like better than the prior one" is not synonymous with "sponsoring the processes which prompted the change in power."

Very shoddy reasoning flatly at odds with facts.

---

LOL

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

---

On the very week we are finding out how USAID was spending billions in influence events and politics in other nations you are on here trying to pretend the US had nothing to do with the events of Maidan and 2014

That is a tall order

Simply a strange coincidence he was overthrown (despite wining a majority of the vote)

Right after turning Ukraine away from NATO and giving a longer lease to Russia for its Black Sea naval base

[So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries even if much of it went nowhere along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor's move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament...

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society one of Yanukovych's sons is a dentist who somehow ended up among the country's wealthiest men, another was an MP as well as the increasingly authoritarian nature of Yanukovych's rule. In fact, the other major sticking point for the deal was Europe's demand that Yanukovych's leading rival be released from prison over trumped-up charges, which he resisted.

But righteous though their cause may have been, the movement's critics had a point, too. For one thing, the Maidan protests didn't have majority support, with the Ukrainian public split along the regional and sociocultural lines that have long defined so many of the country's political difficulties. While the western regions where most of the protesters came from, and which had historically been ruled by other countries, some as late as 1939 backed the protests, the Russian-speaking East, ruled by Russia since the seventeenth century, were alienated by their explicit anti-Russian nationalism, especially only one year out from the chance to vote Yanukovych out.

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society.
And they were resorting to force. Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory...]

---

The only ones just "finding that out" are folks with zero knowledge of history or int'l relations and who get their foreign policy news and history from Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. I'll simplify it: In every corner of the world, the U.S. supported freedom, and the Soviet Union/Russia opposed it.

I have no idea what your post was intended to address,

---

1. The Soviet Union and the modern Russian Federation are two different entities (Marxist vs nationalist, etc)
but they are pursuing the same, exact geopolitical objectives in Europe

2. The Cold War is over. New paradigms abound and new geo-strategic realities exist
Here's where your argument derails. the geo-strategic realities are not fundamentally different, because Russia and USSR occupy the same exact space and have the same exact neighbors. They have the same exact threats. As do we.

3. You continue to put out the blatant lie that the mobs in Kyiv that overthrew the last government were supported by the majority of Ukrainians.

That passage again proves they did NOT have the support off all Ukrainians and at least half the country and the Eastern parts in particular hated the coup.
A strong majority of Ukrainians wanted to join the EU. The outrage cause by Yanukovich's veto of the EU bill was genuine. And it is exceedingly rare for public unrest itself to have majority support. The American Revolution never had majority support.....which is different question from "do you support independence." This is not anything unique to America or Ukraine. It's just human nature. Some would like (it) in the abstract but not do anything to promote it because they think its impractical or impossible. Others might think (it) is a good idea worth pursuing but prefer peaceful means. And then there are people who are willing to toss gloves to the ground and start scrapping.

4. The US government interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine. This interference and attempt to pull Ukraine out of the orbit of Moscow has led directly to 10 years plus of war and conflict.
We damned sure did not interfere as much as Moscow did. Neither did we invade. In fact, we refused to provide lethal aid until the Trump admin.

And then there is the predictable mis-positioning of the issue to fit your narrative: We did not attempt to pull Ukraine out of the Moscow orbit. Ukraine was not in the Moscow orbit. It was independent and non-aligned at the time of the Maidan, at the time of the 2014 invasion, at the time of the 2022 invasion, etc.....

5. And this conflict still goes on bleeding the US tax payers out of billions of dollars.
Because: A) Russia adding Ukraine to its axis (if not polity) is a serious erosion of Nato's strategic position. B) NOT opposing the Russian takeover of Ukraine will cost us more than what we've spent to reposition assets throughout Nato. C) both A and B cost a fraction of what an actual conflict with Russia would cost.

---

Your reasoning is a chaotic mess, because you have assumed so many faulty premises and added so many factual inaccuracies to you calculus.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

---

On the very week we are finding out how USAID was spending billions in influence events and politics in other nations you are on here trying to pretend the US had nothing to do with the events of Maidan and 2014

That is a tall order

Simply a strange coincidence he was overthrown (despite wining a majority of the vote)

Right after turning Ukraine away from NATO and giving a longer lease to Russia for its Black Sea naval base

[So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries even if much of it went nowhere along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor's move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament...

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society one of Yanukovych's sons is a dentist who somehow ended up among the country's wealthiest men, another was an MP as well as the increasingly authoritarian nature of Yanukovych's rule. In fact, the other major sticking point for the deal was Europe's demand that Yanukovych's leading rival be released from prison over trumped-up charges, which he resisted.

But righteous though their cause may have been, the movement's critics had a point, too. For one thing, the Maidan protests didn't have majority support, with the Ukrainian public split along the regional and sociocultural lines that have long defined so many of the country's political difficulties. While the western regions where most of the protesters came from, and which had historically been ruled by other countries, some as late as 1939 backed the protests, the Russian-speaking East, ruled by Russia since the seventeenth century, were alienated by their explicit anti-Russian nationalism, especially only one year out from the chance to vote Yanukovych out.

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society.
And they were resorting to force. Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory...]

---

The only ones just "finding that out" are folks with zero knowledge of history or int'l relations and who get their foreign policy news and history from Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. I'll simplify it: In every corner of the world, the U.S. supported freedom, and the Soviet Union/Russia opposed it.

I have no idea what your post was intended to address,

---

1. The Soviet Union and the modern Russian Federation are two different entities (Marxist vs nationalist, etc)

2. The Cold War is over. New paradigms abound and new geo-strategic realities exist

3. You continue to put out the blatant lie that the mobs in Kyiv that overthrew the last government were supported by the majority of Ukrainians.

That passage again proves they did NOT have the support off all Ukrainians and at least half the country and the Eastern parts in particular hated the coup.

4. The US government interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine. This interference and attempt to pull Ukraine out of the orbit of Moscow has led directly to 10 years plus of war and conflict.

5. And this conflict still goes on bleeding the US tax payers out of billions of dollars.

---

I disagree with most of what you just posted. But, even if it is 100% true, it is not in the same universe as "a U.S. coup to overthrow a government."

Yes, the Soviet Union and Russia are different. But they support the same causes.

---

They don't in fact support the same causes.

The USSR sponsored Marxist/Leftist revolutions around the globe.

Russia is no interested in Marxist/leftist revolution (its our own USAID that seems to be pumping billions into that racket)

Modern Russia and the old USSR do share some similar geo-strategic objectives in their near abroad....because the geography of Moscow and its area has not changed.

Any State that exists in Moscow will want to control Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia. (or at least have friendly government in place there)

That is a endless policy of any Moscow based power....any map will tell us why

That will never change unless you plan on destroying Russia or breaking it up like the former Yugoslavia into small statelets

---

Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, North Korea, Cuba, Bolivia, Columbia, Vietnam, and several other African and Asian countries all say hi. Heck, I'd thrown in Iran as Islamic Socialist/Communist.

---

That is just the global losers club looking for an ally somewhere and looking for someone to trade with them.

Moscow is not in bed with the Islamists in Tehran or the Stalinists in North Korea for ideology sake

Its because they are global pariahs and are untrustworthy partners

Moscow being in bed with them is a sign of weakness in Russia….not strength

---

Debating Russia's strength is an entirely different matter.

Nothing Russia does is coincidence. Russia purposely aligns with socialists, communists, and other anti-capitalist/tyrannical regimes. Why? Because that is what Russia is. As we've discussed previously, Russia obviously is not traditional socialism or communism, but the combination of Putin, extreme nepotism/corruption, the mob, and oligarchs, it effectively has all the bad of socialism/communism but with little of the "good."

And it's not just existing regimes that Russia supports but movements and rival parties. Russia supports, openly or covertly, socialist-type movements in democratic and democratic-lite countries. Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, indeed throughout Central and South America, Africa, and Asia. And don't discount Putin's relationship with South Africa and the push there for socialist reforms. There truly are countless examples.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

When you sponsor a regime change operation that over throws the guy who got the majority of the votes you are in fact destabilizing the country and its political system

And you are subverting democracy

---

There was no coup.
.

---

Of course there was a coup.
Words mean things. A sitting president taking highly unpopular actions which lead to widespread public unrest is not a coup. That president launching police & military to disperse demonstrations is not a coup. That president resigning because he is unable to quell the unrest is not a coup. And remaining government entities working together under established constitutional processes to select a replacement and subsequently hold elections is not a coup. I mean, you keep SAYING it's a coup, only no such thing occurred by any commonly understood meaning of the word.

The whole world watched as violent street protests drove the elected President from power in Kyiv.
Indeed. That is not what a coup looks like.

The involvement of the USG is up for debate.
Only because policy opponents keep dragging up allegations of sponsorship for which there is literally zero evidence.

But strong evidence suggests their fingers were all over it….
LOL none of that is evidence of a coup.

USAID was used to fund the Ukrainian color revolution in 2014 and kick off the start of a massive war against Russia that has been raging since then. https://t.co/PSI1oLgngF

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 2, 2025

---

Dude. Providing aid to a government is not sponsorship of a coup. Providing aid to industries, businesses, etc....in a country is not sponsorship of a coup. Providing monies to journalists, NGOs, influential figures (to include elected officials) is not sponsorship of a coup. It's supporting people/things one believes advances US interests.

You are making stuff up. In fairness, lots & lots of people are.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

When you sponsor a regime change operation that over throws the guy who got the majority of the votes you are in fact destabilizing the country and its political system

And you are subverting democracy

---

There was no coup.
.

---

Of course there was a coup

The whole world watched as violent street protests drove the elected President from power in Kyiv

The involvement of the USG is up for debate.

But strong evidence suggests their fingers were all over it….

USAID was used to fund the Ukrainian color revolution in 2014 and kick off the start of a massive war against Russia that has been raging since then. https://t.co/PSI1oLgngF

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 2, 2025

---

Coup: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group . . . often by the military.

Sudden? No. months of citizen protest.
Military-led? No.
Small group? No.
Overthrow? No. VY fled; the legislature voted overwhelmingly to oust, including his own party.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

When you sponsor a regime change operation that over throws the guy who got the majority of the votes you are in fact destabilizing the country and its political system

And you are subverting democracy

---

There was no coup.
.

---

Of course there was a coup

The whole world watched as violent street protests drove the elected President from power in Kyiv

The involvement of the USG is up for debate.

But strong evidence suggests their fingers were all over it….

USAID was used to fund the Ukrainian color revolution in 2014 and kick off the start of a massive war against Russia that has been raging since then. https://t.co/PSI1oLgngF

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 2, 2025

---

Loving your country does not require one to turn a blind eye to reality.

The US manipulated Ukrainian politics, attempted to pull Ukraine from the traditional Russian sphere of influence ……then ignored Putin's complaints ; even when he put 200,000 troops along the border.

This has been a US proxy war since the moment Russia invaded.

And hundreds of thousands of people have been killed as a result.

Enjoy your morning coffee.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

---

On the very week we are finding out how USAID was spending billions in influence events and politics in other nations you are on here trying to pretend the US had nothing to do with the events of Maidan and 2014

That is a tall order

Simply a strange coincidence he was overthrown (despite wining a majority of the vote)

Right after turning Ukraine away from NATO and giving a longer lease to Russia for its Black Sea naval base

[So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries even if much of it went nowhere along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor's move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament...

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society one of Yanukovych's sons is a dentist who somehow ended up among the country's wealthiest men, another was an MP as well as the increasingly authoritarian nature of Yanukovych's rule. In fact, the other major sticking point for the deal was Europe's demand that Yanukovych's leading rival be released from prison over trumped-up charges, which he resisted.

But righteous though their cause may have been, the movement's critics had a point, too. For one thing, the Maidan protests didn't have majority support, with the Ukrainian public split along the regional and sociocultural lines that have long defined so many of the country's political difficulties. While the western regions where most of the protesters came from, and which had historically been ruled by other countries, some as late as 1939 backed the protests, the Russian-speaking East, ruled by Russia since the seventeenth century, were alienated by their explicit anti-Russian nationalism, especially only one year out from the chance to vote Yanukovych out.

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society.
And they were resorting to force. Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory...]

---

The only ones just "finding that out" are folks with zero knowledge of history or int'l relations and who get their foreign policy news and history from Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. I'll simplify it: In every corner of the world, the U.S. supported freedom, and the Soviet Union/Russia opposed it.

I have no idea what your post was intended to address,

---

1. The Soviet Union and the modern Russian Federation are two different entities (Marxist vs nationalist, etc)
but they are pursuing the same, exact geopolitical objectives in Europe

2. The Cold War is over. New paradigms abound and new geo-strategic realities exist
Here's where your argument derails. the geo-strategic realities are not fundamentally different, because Russia and USSR occupy the same exact space and have the same exact neighbors. They have the same exact threats. As do we.

3. You continue to put out the blatant lie that the mobs in Kyiv that overthrew the last government were supported by the majority of Ukrainians.

That passage again proves they did NOT have the support off all Ukrainians and at least half the country and the Eastern parts in particular hated the coup.
A strong majority of Ukrainians wanted to join the EU. The outrage cause by Yanukovich's veto of the EU bill was genuine. And it is exceedingly rare for public unrest itself to have majority support. The American Revolution never had majority support.....which is different question from "do you support independence." This is not anything unique to America or Ukraine. It's just human nature. Some would like (it) in the abstract but not do anything to promote it because they think its impractical or impossible. Others might think (it) is a good idea worth pursuing but prefer peaceful means. And then there are people who are willing to toss gloves to the ground and start scrapping.

4. The US government interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine. This interference and attempt to pull Ukraine out of the orbit of Moscow has led directly to 10 years plus of war and conflict.
We damned sure did not interfere as much as Moscow did. Neither did we invade. In fact, we refused to provide lethal aid until the Trump admin.

And then there is the predictable mis-positioning of the issue to fit your narrative: We did not attempt to pull Ukraine out of the Moscow orbit. Ukraine was not in the Moscow orbit. It was independent and non-aligned at the time of the Maidan, at the time of the 2014 invasion, at the time of the 2022 invasion, etc.....

5. And this conflict still goes on bleeding the US tax payers out of billions of dollars.
Because: A) Russia adding Ukraine to its axis (if not polity) is a serious erosion of Nato's strategic position. B) NOT opposing the Russian takeover of Ukraine will cost us more than what we've spent to reposition assets throughout Nato. C) both A and B cost a fraction of what an actual conflict with Russia would cost.

---

Your reasoning is a chaotic mess, because you have assumed so many faulty premises and added so many factual inaccuracies to you calculus.

---

Wow...we're used to a steady stream of lies, but you are really opening the floodgates today. Fewer and fewer people are believing it. And it's quickly becoming a moot point, as the Russians have won the war and even Trump seems to recognize the folly of Project Ukraine.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

---

On the very week we are finding out how USAID was spending billions in influence events and politics in other nations you are on here trying to pretend the US had nothing to do with the events of Maidan and 2014

That is a tall order

Simply a strange coincidence he was overthrown (despite wining a majority of the vote)

Right after turning Ukraine away from NATO and giving a longer lease to Russia for its Black Sea naval base

[So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries even if much of it went nowhere along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor's move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament...

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society one of Yanukovych's sons is a dentist who somehow ended up among the country's wealthiest men, another was an MP as well as the increasingly authoritarian nature of Yanukovych's rule. In fact, the other major sticking point for the deal was Europe's demand that Yanukovych's leading rival be released from prison over trumped-up charges, which he resisted.

But righteous though their cause may have been, the movement's critics had a point, too. For one thing, the Maidan protests didn't have majority support, with the Ukrainian public split along the regional and sociocultural lines that have long defined so many of the country's political difficulties. While the western regions where most of the protesters came from, and which had historically been ruled by other countries, some as late as 1939 backed the protests, the Russian-speaking East, ruled by Russia since the seventeenth century, were alienated by their explicit anti-Russian nationalism, especially only one year out from the chance to vote Yanukovych out.

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society.
And they were resorting to force. Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory...]

---

The only ones just "finding that out" are folks with zero knowledge of history or int'l relations and who get their foreign policy news and history from Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. I'll simplify it: In every corner of the world, the U.S. supported freedom, and the Soviet Union/Russia opposed it.

I have no idea what your post was intended to address,

---

1. The Soviet Union and the modern Russian Federation are two different entities (Marxist vs nationalist, etc)
but they are pursuing the same, exact geopolitical objectives in Europe

2. The Cold War is over. New paradigms abound and new geo-strategic realities exist
Here's where your argument derails. the geo-strategic realities are not fundamentally different, because Russia and USSR occupy the same exact space and have the same exact neighbors. They have the same exact threats. As do we.

3. You continue to put out the blatant lie that the mobs in Kyiv that overthrew the last government were supported by the majority of Ukrainians.

That passage again proves they did NOT have the support off all Ukrainians and at least half the country and the Eastern parts in particular hated the coup.
A strong majority of Ukrainians wanted to join the EU. The outrage cause by Yanukovich's veto of the EU bill was genuine. And it is exceedingly rare for public unrest itself to have majority support. The American Revolution never had majority support.....which is different question from "do you support independence." This is not anything unique to America or Ukraine. It's just human nature. Some would like (it) in the abstract but not do anything to promote it because they think its impractical or impossible. Others might think (it) is a good idea worth pursuing but prefer peaceful means. And then there are people who are willing to toss gloves to the ground and start scrapping.

4. The US government interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine. This interference and attempt to pull Ukraine out of the orbit of Moscow has led directly to 10 years plus of war and conflict.
We damned sure did not interfere as much as Moscow did. Neither did we invade. In fact, we refused to provide lethal aid until the Trump admin.

And then there is the predictable mis-positioning of the issue to fit your narrative: We did not attempt to pull Ukraine out of the Moscow orbit. Ukraine was not in the Moscow orbit. It was independent and non-aligned at the time of the Maidan, at the time of the 2014 invasion, at the time of the 2022 invasion, etc.....

5. And this conflict still goes on bleeding the US tax payers out of billions of dollars.
Because: A) Russia adding Ukraine to its axis (if not polity) is a serious erosion of Nato's strategic position. B) NOT opposing the Russian takeover of Ukraine will cost us more than what we've spent to reposition assets throughout Nato. C) both A and B cost a fraction of what an actual conflict with Russia would cost.

---

Your reasoning is a chaotic mess, because you have assumed so many faulty premises and added so many factual inaccuracies to you calculus.

---

Wow...we're used to a steady stream of lies, but you are really opening the floodgates today. Fewer and fewer people are believing it. And it's quickly becoming a moot point, as the Russians have won the war and even Trump seems to recognize the folly of Project Ukraine.

---

Speaking of lies.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

When you sponsor a regime change operation that over throws the guy who got the majority of the votes you are in fact destabilizing the country and its political system

And you are subverting democracy

---

There was no coup.
.

---

Of course there was a coup

The whole world watched as violent street protests drove the elected President from power in Kyiv

The involvement of the USG is up for debate.

But strong evidence suggests their fingers were all over it….

USAID was used to fund the Ukrainian color revolution in 2014 and kick off the start of a massive war against Russia that has been raging since then. https://t.co/PSI1oLgngF

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 2, 2025

---

Coup: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group . . . often by the military.

Sudden? No. months of citizen protest.
Military-led? No.
Small group? No.
Overthrow? No. VY fled; the legislature voted overwhelmingly to oust, including his own party.

---

It was led by small militia groups, and much of VY's party fled along with him. That's why the vote was illegal.

I love this idea that a leader isn't being overthrown if he flees for his life. I guess it was just pure whimsy that caused him to abandon his post while the mob coincidentally raged outside the gates...ha ha.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Man some of these questions sound familiar … but I guess it's just easier to scream American Coup!

I understand that trying to convince someone who has spent their entire life constructing insane conspiracy theories—built on a foundation of staggering ignorance mixed with an astronomical level of self-importance—is pointless.

However, that being said, as a Ukrainian, I have a… pic.twitter.com/JhCejQLQ3m

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) February 5, 2025

---

On the very week we are finding out how USAID was spending billions in influence events and politics in other nations you are on here trying to pretend the US had nothing to do with the events of Maidan and 2014

That is a tall order

Simply a strange coincidence he was overthrown (despite wining a majority of the vote)

Right after turning Ukraine away from NATO and giving a longer lease to Russia for its Black Sea naval base

[So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries even if much of it went nowhere along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor's move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament...

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society one of Yanukovych's sons is a dentist who somehow ended up among the country's wealthiest men, another was an MP as well as the increasingly authoritarian nature of Yanukovych's rule. In fact, the other major sticking point for the deal was Europe's demand that Yanukovych's leading rival be released from prison over trumped-up charges, which he resisted.

But righteous though their cause may have been, the movement's critics had a point, too. For one thing, the Maidan protests didn't have majority support, with the Ukrainian public split along the regional and sociocultural lines that have long defined so many of the country's political difficulties. While the western regions where most of the protesters came from, and which had historically been ruled by other countries, some as late as 1939 backed the protests, the Russian-speaking East, ruled by Russia since the seventeenth century, were alienated by their explicit anti-Russian nationalism, especially only one year out from the chance to vote Yanukovych out.

Demonstrators were fed up with the nepotism and corruption that pervaded Ukrainian society.
And they were resorting to force. Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory...]

---

The only ones just "finding that out" are folks with zero knowledge of history or int'l relations and who get their foreign policy news and history from Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. I'll simplify it: In every corner of the world, the U.S. supported freedom, and the Soviet Union/Russia opposed it.

I have no idea what your post was intended to address,

---

1. The Soviet Union and the modern Russian Federation are two different entities (Marxist vs nationalist, etc)

2. The Cold War is over. New paradigms abound and new geo-strategic realities exist

3. You continue to put out the blatant lie that the mobs in Kyiv that overthrew the last government were supported by the majority of Ukrainians.

That passage again proves they did NOT have the support off all Ukrainians and at least half the country and the Eastern parts in particular hated the coup.

4. The US government interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine. This interference and attempt to pull Ukraine out of the orbit of Moscow has led directly to 10 years plus of war and conflict.

5. And this conflict still goes on bleeding the US tax payers out of billions of dollars.

---

I disagree with most of what you just posted. But, even if it is 100% true, it is not in the same universe as "a U.S. coup to overthrow a government."

Yes, the Soviet Union and Russia are different. But they support the same causes.

---

They don't in fact support the same causes.

The USSR sponsored Marxist/Leftist revolutions around the globe.

Russia is no interested in Marxist/leftist revolution (its our own USAID that seems to be pumping billions into that racket)

Modern Russia and the old USSR do share some similar geo-strategic objectives in their near abroad....because the geography of Moscow and its area has not changed.

Any State that exists in Moscow will want to control Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia. (or at least have friendly government in place there)

That is a endless policy of any Moscow based power....any map will tell us why

That will never change unless you plan on destroying Russia or breaking it up like the former Yugoslavia into small statelets

---

Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, North Korea, Cuba, Bolivia, Columbia, Vietnam, and several other African and Asian countries all say hi. Heck, I'd thrown in Iran as Islamic Socialist/Communist.

---

That is just the global losers club looking for an ally somewhere and looking for someone to trade with them.

Moscow is not in bed with the Islamists in Tehran or the Stalinists in North Korea for ideology sake

Its because they are global pariahs and are untrustworthy partners

Moscow being in bed with them is a sign of weakness in Russia….not strength

---

Debating Russia's strength is an entirely different matter.

Nothing Russia does is coincidence. Russia purposely aligns with socialists, communists, and other anti-capitalist/tyrannical regimes. Why? Because that is what Russia is. As we've discussed previously, Russia obviously is not traditional socialism or communism, but the combination of Putin, extreme nepotism/corruption, the mob, and oligarchs, it effectively has all the bad of socialism/communism but with little of the "good."

And it's not just existing regimes that Russia supports but movements and rival parties. Russia supports, openly or covertly, socialist-type movements in democratic and democratic-lite countries. Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, indeed throughout Central and South America, Africa, and Asia. And don't discount Putin's relationship with South Africa and the push there for socialist reforms. There truly are countless examples.

---

"Socialism" is America's perennial excuse for crushing democracies and democratic movements around the world. Some things never change.

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

When you sponsor a regime change operation that over throws the guy who got the majority of the votes you are in fact destabilizing the country and its political system

And you are subverting democracy

---

There was no coup.
.

---

Of course there was a coup

The whole world watched as violent street protests drove the elected President from power in Kyiv

The involvement of the USG is up for debate.

But strong evidence suggests their fingers were all over it….

USAID was used to fund the Ukrainian color revolution in 2014 and kick off the start of a massive war against Russia that has been raging since then. https://t.co/PSI1oLgngF

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 2, 2025

---

Loving your country does not require one to turn a blind eye to reality.

The US manipulated Ukrainian politics, attempted to pull Ukraine from the traditional Russian sphere of influence ……then ignored Putin's complaints ; even when he put 200,00" troops along the border.

This has been a US proxy war since the moment Russia invaded.

And hundreds of thousands of people have been killed as a result.

Enjoy your morning coffee.

---

Amen

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

When you sponsor a regime change operation that over throws the guy who got the majority of the votes you are in fact destabilizing the country and its political system

And you are subverting democracy

---

There was no coup.
.

---

Of course there was a coup

The whole world watched as violent street protests drove the elected President from power in Kyiv

The involvement of the USG is up for debate.

But strong evidence suggests their fingers were all over it….

USAID was used to fund the Ukrainian color revolution in 2014 and kick off the start of a massive war against Russia that has been raging since then. https://t.co/PSI1oLgngF

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 2, 2025

---

Coup: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group . . . often by the military.

Sudden? No. months of citizen protest.
Military-led? No.
Small group? No.
Overthrow? No. VY fled; the legislature voted overwhelmingly to oust, including his own party.

---

It was led by small militia groups, and much of VY's party fled along with him. That's why the vote was illegal.

I love this idea that a leader isn't being overthrown if he flees for his life. I guess it was just whimsy that caused him to abandon his post while the mob coincidentally raged outside the gates...ha ha.

---

He didn't flee for his life, he fled for his money. Money that Russia paid him to try and go against Ukraine joining the EU.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

When you sponsor a regime change operation that over throws the guy who got the majority of the votes you are in fact destabilizing the country and its political system

And you are subverting democracy

---

There was no coup.
.

---

Of course there was a coup

The whole world watched as violent street protests drove the elected President from power in Kyiv

The involvement of the USG is up for debate.

But strong evidence suggests their fingers were all over it….

USAID was used to fund the Ukrainian color revolution in 2014 and kick off the start of a massive war against Russia that has been raging since then. https://t.co/PSI1oLgngF

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 2, 2025

---

Coup: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group . . . often by the military.

Sudden? No. months of citizen protest.
Military-led? No.
Small group? No.
Overthrow? No. VY fled; the legislature voted overwhelmingly to oust, including his own party.

---

1. Websters does not define a coup as needing to be military led

Often they are not

When the Nazis tried to take over the Bavarian government that was led by Nazi party non-official milita groups

Same as when the Bolsheviks took power in Russia during the October Revolution

[Coup: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics

especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group]

The group/protestors in Kyiv was small compare to the 40 million person Ukrainian political society.

Thousands of Nazis or thousands of Bolsheviks seizing power is still a small group....

2. Again, you won't deal with the facts. The Ukrainian parliament did not even have the votes needed to remove him from power.....it was an illegal vote via the actual Ukrainian constitution.

They did no reach the 338 votes needed for removal, did not get a case before the Ukrainian Constitutional Court as was required by law, and did not follow the rule in the Constitution about the successor process.

[The 1996 and the 2004 constitutions are uniform when it comes to the reasons for removing a president, with Article 111 stating the parliament has the right to initiate a procedure of impeachment "if he commits treason or other crime."

However, it is not clear that the hasty February 22 vote upholds constitutional guidelines, which call for a review of the case by Ukraine's Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada -- i.e., 338 lawmakers.

Pro-Yanukovych lawmakers may also argue that under the 1996 constitution, it should have been the current acting prime minister, Serhiy Arbuzov, who assumed power after Yanukovych's removal.]

https://www.rferl.org/a/was-yanukovychs-ouster-constitutional/25274346.html

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

When you sponsor a regime change operation that over throws the guy who got the majority of the votes you are in fact destabilizing the country and its political system

And you are subverting democracy

---

There was no coup.
.

---

Of course there was a coup

The whole world watched as violent street protests drove the elected President from power in Kyiv

The involvement of the USG is up for debate.

But strong evidence suggests their fingers were all over it….

USAID was used to fund the Ukrainian color revolution in 2014 and kick off the start of a massive war against Russia that has been raging since then. https://t.co/PSI1oLgngF

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 2, 2025

---

Coup: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group . . . often by the military.

Sudden? No. months of citizen protest.
Military-led? No.
Small group? No.
Overthrow? No. VY fled; the legislature voted overwhelmingly to oust, including his own party.

---

It was led by small militia groups, and much of VY's party fled along with him. That's why the vote was illegal.

I love this idea that a leader isn't being overthrown if he flees for his life. I guess it was just whimsy that caused him to abandon his post while the mob coincidentally raged outside the gates...ha ha.

---

He didn't flee for his life, he fled for his money. Money that Russia paid him to try and go against Ukraine joining the EU.

---

Technically, he fled to Kharkiv inside Ukraine (a strong hold of his party and supporters....not to Russia)

"Mykhailo Dobkin later said Yanukovych was in Kharkiv that day"

He only fled to Russia after the Rada/Parliament voted (illegally) to remove him from power

And if he did not personally fear for his life a lot of his supporters in Kyiv certainly did....its why they fled....and why 96 of the 132 Party of Regions deputies in the Rada/Parliament were not present for the Vote to remove him from power.

A vote that the anti-Yanukovych faction still lost (did not reach the legal threshold of votes to remove)

[In the lead-up to the day's parliamentary session, it was reported that many members of the Party of Regions and their families had fled the capital, including acting Interior Minister Zakharchenko and Prosecutor General Viktor Pshonka.]

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

When you sponsor a regime change operation that over throws the guy who got the majority of the votes you are in fact destabilizing the country and its political system

And you are subverting democracy

---

There was no coup.
.

---

Of course there was a coup

The whole world watched as violent street protests drove the elected President from power in Kyiv

The involvement of the USG is up for debate.

But strong evidence suggests their fingers were all over it….

USAID was used to fund the Ukrainian color revolution in 2014 and kick off the start of a massive war against Russia that has been raging since then. https://t.co/PSI1oLgngF

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 2, 2025

---

Coup: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group . . . often by the military.

Sudden? No. months of citizen protest.
Military-led? No.
Small group? No.
Overthrow? No. VY fled; the legislature voted overwhelmingly to oust, including his own party.

---

It was led by small militia groups, and much of VY's party fled along with him. That's why the vote was illegal.

I love this idea that a leader isn't being overthrown if he flees for his life. I guess it was just pure whimsy that caused him to abandon his post while the mob coincidentally raged outside the gates...ha ha.

---

VY never claimed he fled for his life.

No, his party voted unanimously to oust him.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

When you sponsor a regime change operation that over throws the guy who got the majority of the votes you are in fact destabilizing the country and its political system

And you are subverting democracy

---

There was no coup.
.

---

Of course there was a coup

The whole world watched as violent street protests drove the elected President from power in Kyiv

The involvement of the USG is up for debate.

But strong evidence suggests their fingers were all over it….

USAID was used to fund the Ukrainian color revolution in 2014 and kick off the start of a massive war against Russia that has been raging since then. https://t.co/PSI1oLgngF

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 2, 2025

---

Coup: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group . . . often by the military.

Sudden? No. months of citizen protest.
Military-led? No.
Small group? No.
Overthrow? No. VY fled; the legislature voted overwhelmingly to oust, including his own party.

---

It was led by small militia groups, and much of VY's party fled along with him. That's why the vote was illegal.

I love this idea that a leader isn't being overthrown if he flees for his life. I guess it was just pure whimsy that caused him to abandon his post while the mob coincidentally raged outside the gates...ha ha.

---

VY never claimed he fled for his life.

No, his party voted unanimously to oust him.

---

Such a vote would not have been possible since the requisite party members weren't present. The situation was too volatile after the violence at Maidan Square, which we now know was most likely instigated by our right-wing militia friends.

Yanukovych requested protection from Russia "to ensure his personal security from extremists' actions," stating that he and his supporters were receiving threats of "inflicting bodily harm."

USAID was funding over 6,200 journalists across 707 media outlets and 279 "media" NGOs, including nine out of ten media outlets in Ukraine.https://t.co/tLUoBT2GfNhttps://t.co/Siq2RJOXQf pic.twitter.com/LyaUFuq3He

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 6, 2025

Recent events alongside the disclosure of Yanukovych's son and his coal deal. I don't think some of you understand just how corrupt Yanukovych was, and how Russia was enabling it. USAID is clearly a mess, but that isn't proof of anything. It's likely the big guy and his son were funneling opportunities to themselves but very unlikely the CIAs PAG was involved in any coup.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/46505

Quote:

---

Yanukovych-Linked Crime Boss Assassinated in Posh Moscow Apartment Complex

Armen Sarkisyan was on Ukraine's wanted list as one of the organizers of the Maidan killings in February 2014. He appears to have been targeted along with two others linked to Yanukovych.

by Julia Struck | February 3, 2025, 6:37 pm
Yanukovych-Linked Crime Boss Assassinated in Posh Moscow Apartment Complex

Armen Sarkisyan, a criminal figure from the era of fugitive President Viktor Yanukovych, was killed in Moscow, according to Russian state media.

Sarkisyan, also known as "Gorlovsky," was reportedly blown up at in the Alye Parusa luxury residential complex in northwest Moscow in an explosion that reportedly occurred at 9:45 a.m. local time.

Russian media speculated that a grenade or improvised explosive device based on a grenade had been detonated. Emergency services and bomb-sniffing dogs were deployed to the scene.

The Moscow branch of Russia's Investigative Committee released a picture from the blast site, showing shattered glass and a collapsed ceiling at the entrance of the building. Authorities have opened a criminal murder case and attempted murder of two or more people.

Olga Voronova, a resident of a neighboring building, told AFP that she struggled to understand how such an attack could have occurred, given the area's strict security. She added that guards thoroughly inspected every car at checkpoints and required residents to request passes even for family members.

Initial reports indicated that a resident of the complex who had entered the building alongside security personnel was killed in the explosion, while five others were injured.

At first, it was unclear who had died in the attack. However, a building concierge claimed she had recognized the victim, stating she had "seen this person on TV before."

Speculation soon arose that the deceased could be Sarkisyan, a known organized crime boss from the Yanukovych era. Russian media outlets conflicted on the details some reported that Sarkisyan had died in the explosion, while others claimed he was hospitalized in serious condition and that his bodyguard had been killed instead.

In the afternoon, Russian Telegram channels began circulating reports that Sarkisyan had died in intensive care without regaining consciousness. Then the TASS state news agency reported that Sarkisian died in hospital following an assassination.

The Kremlin stated that special services were working at the scene but declined to comment further, citing the need to "clarify information." At the time publication, Ukrainian officials have not made any comment on the event.

Social media reports suggest that among the victims of the explosion was Oleg Kasperovich, the former deputy commander of a special forces unit under the Crimean Territorial Command of Ukraine's Interior Ministry. Kasperovich defected to Russia in 2014 during the occupation of Crimea.

Among the injured, Russian media identified Sergei Shkryabatovsky and published his photographs, noting that in 2014, he was among the bodyguards of former President Viktor Yanukovych.

Sarkisyan's criminal past and connection to Russia

Sarkisyan had been on the international wanted list since May 2014 for organizing murders in central Kyiv. He was accused of supplying "titushki" paid provocateurs who violently attacked protesters during the Revolution of Dignity.

Born in Armenia, Sarkisyan later moved to Horlivka, an industrial city in eastern Ukraine, now occupied by Russian forces. Known by the alias Armen Gorlovsky, he was a close associate of former regional leader Yuriy Ivanyushchenko and was considered his "right-hand man." According to Ukraine's Interior Ministry, Sarkisyan's group was responsible for the murder of journalist Vyacheslav Veremiy during the 2013-14 Revolution of Dignity.

After Russia's full-scale invasion, Sarkisyan began working closely with the Federal Security Service (FSB) and was tasked with forming a new armed unit to fight against Ukraine.

He led the "ArBAT" special forces battalion, composed mainly of convicted criminals including murderers and robbers who were recruited from prisons. The FSB appointed Sarkisyan as the "watcher" of prisons in Russian-occupied areas of Donetsk, allowing him to oversee recruitment efforts.

Initially, ArBAT operated in the Toretsk sector, but it was later deployed to the Kursk region to take part in assaults on Ukrainian positions. According to Kommersant Russian media outlet, the unit had around 500 members, the majority of whom were ethnic Armenians.

Beyond his military role, Sarkisyan used front companies to procure thermal imagers, fuel, and building materials for Russian forces. He also served as the vice-president of the boxing federation of the so-called "Donetsk People's Republic" and controlled businesses in occupied Horlivka.

In December 2023, based on extensive evidence, Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) formally charged Sarkisyan under multiple articles of the Ukrainian Criminal Code: for voluntary participation in illegal armed groups or providing them with assistance in hostilities against the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and for assisting an aggressor state, committed by an organized group in prior conspiracy.

According to Russian Telegram channels, Sarkisyan had been living permanently in Moscow in recent years.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

When you sponsor a regime change operation that over throws the guy who got the majority of the votes you are in fact destabilizing the country and its political system

And you are subverting democracy

---

There was no coup.
.

---

Of course there was a coup

The whole world watched as violent street protests drove the elected President from power in Kyiv

The involvement of the USG is up for debate.

But strong evidence suggests their fingers were all over it….

USAID was used to fund the Ukrainian color revolution in 2014 and kick off the start of a massive war against Russia that has been raging since then. https://t.co/PSI1oLgngF

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 2, 2025

---

Coup: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group . . . often by the military.

Sudden? No. months of citizen protest.
Military-led? No.
Small group? No.
Overthrow? No. VY fled; the legislature voted overwhelmingly to oust, including his own party.

---

It was led by small militia groups, and much of VY's party fled along with him. That's why the vote was illegal.

I love this idea that a leader isn't being overthrown if he flees for his life. I guess it was just pure whimsy that caused him to abandon his post while the mob coincidentally raged outside the gates...ha ha.

---

VY never claimed he fled for his life.

No, his party voted unanimously to oust him.

---

Such a vote would not have been possible since the requisite party members weren't present. The situation was too volatile after the violence at Maidan Square, which we now know was most likely instigated by our right-wing militia friends.

Yanukovych requested protection from Russia "to ensure his personal security from extremists' actions," stating that he and his supporters were receiving threats of "inflicting bodily harm."

---

They convicted the people responsible for the Maiden killings. Found their weapons and everything. A few they imprisoned, until they were traded to Russia in a prisoner exchange, while the remainder fled and remain in Russia having been granted passports and citizenship.