Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree with a lot of that, but you're missing the key point. The mass destruction of civilians by nuclear and fire-bombing wasn't just an accident of technology. We didn't have the precision weapons that we have now, but we had the ability to identify and target military sites, even if there was collateral damage. I'm not calling that a crime. What we did in these cases was target whole cities mainly in order to terrorize. Any military value was at best secondary if not pretextual. In that sense it was no different from the more up close and personal atrocities committed by the Japanese, even if the methods were more sophisticated. We're not more civilized just because we lack the will to look our victims in the eye.

---

I disagree on several levels. But the primary one is that conquered civilians and POWs have surrendered and there is absolutely no military objective, secondary, pretextual, or otherwise. That's the difference between the brutality of war and just brutality.

---

In any case, the fact that Japan may have committed worse crimes doesn't mean a crime isn't a crime. Denial only makes it more likely to be repeated (and yes, the Japanese are guilty of that too).

---

Your fallacy is believing that during that era it was a crime to bomb an enemy city during an active war. Neither the Nazis or Japanese were evaluated on war crimes having to do with, for example, bombing London or Manila, etc. Had we returned to Tokyo with a bombing run after surrender, you might have a point. Again, you're applying the modern prism on a review of history.

---

McNamara disagreed:

Quote:

---

LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

---

---

Please read all of the Fog of War interview.

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree with a lot of that, but you're missing the key point. The mass destruction of civilians by nuclear and fire-bombing wasn't just an accident of technology. We didn't have the precision weapons that we have now, but we had the ability to identify and target military sites, even if there was collateral damage. I'm not calling that a crime. What we did in these cases was target whole cities mainly in order to terrorize. Any military value was at best secondary if not pretextual. In that sense it was no different from the more up close and personal atrocities committed by the Japanese, even if the methods were more sophisticated. We're not more civilized just because we lack the will to look our victims in the eye.

---

I disagree on several levels. But the primary one is that conquered civilians and POWs have surrendered and there is absolutely no military objective, secondary, pretextual, or otherwise. That's the difference between the brutality of war and just brutality.

---

In any case, the fact that Japan may have committed worse crimes doesn't mean a crime isn't a crime. Denial only makes it more likely to be repeated (and yes, the Japanese are guilty of that too).

---

Your fallacy is believing that during that era it was a crime to bomb an enemy city during an active war. Neither the Nazis or Japanese were evaluated on war crimes having to do with, for example, bombing London or Manila, etc. Had we returned to Tokyo with a bombing run after surrender, you might have a point. Again, you're applying the modern prism on a review of history.

---

Churchill certainly thought the bombing of London was a war crime .

Right up until the moment the British began bombing Berlin .

---

That was a transition to the new era of warfare. It's good we reevaluated after, but we all fought the war with nascent but extra powerful weaponry never seen or used in theater before. I have no issues with our new moral approach to war and what constitutes crime/atrocity now. My only point is that we feel that way now because of what we learned then.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree with a lot of that, but you're missing the key point. The mass destruction of civilians by nuclear and fire-bombing wasn't just an accident of technology. We didn't have the precision weapons that we have now, but we had the ability to identify and target military sites, even if there was collateral damage. I'm not calling that a crime. What we did in these cases was target whole cities mainly in order to terrorize. Any military value was at best secondary if not pretextual. In that sense it was no different from the more up close and personal atrocities committed by the Japanese, even if the methods were more sophisticated. We're not more civilized just because we lack the will to look our victims in the eye.

---

I disagree on several levels. But the primary one is that conquered civilians and POWs have surrendered and there is absolutely no military objective, secondary, pretextual, or otherwise. That's the difference between the brutality of war and just brutality.

---

In any case, the fact that Japan may have committed worse crimes doesn't mean a crime isn't a crime. Denial only makes it more likely to be repeated (and yes, the Japanese are guilty of that too).

---

Your fallacy is believing that during that era it was a crime to bomb an enemy city during an active war. Neither the Nazis or Japanese were evaluated on war crimes having to do with, for example, bombing London or Manila, etc. Had we returned to Tokyo with a bombing run after surrender, you might have a point. Again, you're applying the modern prism on a review of history.

---

McNamara disagreed:

Quote:

---

LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

---

---

Please read all of the Fog of War interview.

---

All 20 hours, or just what's in the film? I've seen the latter several times. I don't know that the former is publicly available.

If you're saying there was a different mindset, I understand that. Most people weren't even thinking along these lines, especially in the lower ranks. But to say people like McNamara didn't understand the fundamental nature of what they were doing or how it might be viewed by history just isn't true.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Russia's so-called invasion began at Sloviansk, where it was supported by local authorities. It was also relatively bloodless by your standard, with about 100 deaths reported. Until then Russia had been involved in uprisings across the Donbas in much the same way we were involved in Maidan. The difference being that separatists in the Donbas didn't claim to speak for all of Ukraine. Maidan was a great evil because, among other reasons, it cemented the extremist position in Kiev and disenfranchised much of the rest of the country. It was an act of aggression not only by the usurpers in Kiev against the Donbas, but by the West against Russia as part of our effort to overthrow the regime. Keep in mind that this is a proxy war. Russia has never considered Ukraine to be the real opponent, and rightly so.

---

Not sure there's anything else to call it other than invasion when your neighbor enters your sovereign territory and takes control of same by force. That's kind of the textbook definition of invasion, is it not?

As for Maidan, it's pretty difficult to call the protestor's position extremist given the fact that the majority of the country agreed with it. The vast majority of Ukrainians supported the European UnionUkraine Association Agreement, and all indications were that Yanukovych did as well, and intended to sign it, only for him to cave to threats and pressure from Russia and scuttle the deal. It was a great betrayal to most Ukrainians, the vast majority of which desired greater freedoms and closer associations with the western democracies of Europe rather than the bad actor and bully to the east. If by "evil" you mean it didn't benefit the Russians, well sure, but what business of that is theirs? Ukraine is a sovereign country that should have been able to choose its own path.

As for the West, you really give it way too much credit for Maidan. It's involvement has been vastly overblown.

Edit: BTW, when I said the Maidan Revolution was relatively bloodless, with a little more than 100 protestors dying at the hands of Ukrainian armed forces, the protestors who died supported the ouster of Yanukovych, just FYI. So the people dying were those who you accuse of committing a "grave evil," not those who supported Mother Russia. That being the case, I am a bit surprised you have a problem with their deaths.

---

The economic agreement wasn't some simplistic ideological choice. It wasn't about accepting or rejecting "freedom." According to a USAID poll from late 2013, 47% of Ukrainians thought closer economic ties with the EU would benefit Ukraine. 48% thought closer economic ties with Russia would benefit Ukraine. The poll didn't ask about closer economic ties with both, since USAID wasn't interested in that, but the response would have been overwhelmingly positive. Russia itself was open to trilateral negotiations, and Yanukovych made that request to the EU. They refused to talk.

One thing Ukrainians did agree on was their dislike of the IMF's proposed austerity measures. These measures were harshly criticized even in Western media. See for example here, here, and here. This was a major point of contention and the main reason Yanukovych delayed signing the agreement. There's no reason it couldn't have been resolved with further talks if he hadn't been overthrown. But again there was zero interest in the West. We immediately jumped on the revolutionary bandwagon and focused on getting our hand-picked people in power.

---

Never said or suggested it was a simple ideological choice. But the idea that Ukraine and Yanukovych (up until the end, at least) didn't prefer closer ties with Europe, as opposed to the big brother to the east that was attempting to bully them into a deal through strong arm tactics, just isn't reality. The idea that this was all on the EU as opposed to the bully to the east likewise isn't reality.

You have certainly given us the Russian perspective (or propaganda, if you prefer). However, the truth as always is somewhere in the middle. Reuters published a good article at that time that highlights some of the issues that scuttled the deal. While the austerity measures were a factor, so was Russian strong arm tactics and Yanukovych's disdain for a jailed political rival. Yanukovych also had Putin's "emissaries" (who some described as "direct agents" of Putin) that were close advisors who were strongly pushing him toward a deal with Russia. And then when protests started to erupt (prior to Maidan) due to his corruption and ineffectiveness, and Yanukovych started beating, jailing, and in some cases, killing protestors, what little popularity Yanukovych had among Ukrainians tanked. And then of course he spurns the EU deal without even giving the EU a chance to re-negotiate terms. All of this set the stage for Maidan. In short, Yanukovych was a corrupt, unpopular politician in Ukraine, not only among the opposition, but also among his supporters, and he scuttled a deal that might have been salvaged, largely because of undue influence from Russia.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9BI0E2/

But of course, none of this supports the idea that Russia was justified in invading a sovereign country. As a proponent of non-interventionism, it is remarkable to me that when the US intervenes, that's always a bad thing in your book. But when it comes to Russia, it's not only perfectly fine but morally justified under Christian Just War principles.

You are a walking dichotomy.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Russia's so-called invasion began at Sloviansk, where it was supported by local authorities. It was also relatively bloodless by your standard, with about 100 deaths reported. Until then Russia had been involved in uprisings across the Donbas in much the same way we were involved in Maidan. The difference being that separatists in the Donbas didn't claim to speak for all of Ukraine. Maidan was a great evil because, among other reasons, it cemented the extremist position in Kiev and disenfranchised much of the rest of the country. It was an act of aggression not only by the usurpers in Kiev against the Donbas, but by the West against Russia as part of our effort to overthrow the regime. Keep in mind that this is a proxy war. Russia has never considered Ukraine to be the real opponent, and rightly so.

---

Not sure there's anything else to call it other than invasion when your neighbor enters your sovereign territory and takes control of same by force. That's kind of the textbook definition of invasion, is it not?

As for Maidan, it's pretty difficult to call the protestor's position extremist given the fact that the majority of the country agreed with it. The vast majority of Ukrainians supported the European UnionUkraine Association Agreement, and all indications were that Yanukovych did as well, and intended to sign it, only for him to cave to threats and pressure from Russia and scuttle the deal. It was a great betrayal to most Ukrainians, the vast majority of which desired greater freedoms and closer associations with the western democracies of Europe rather than the bad actor and bully to the east. If by "evil" you mean it didn't benefit the Russians, well sure, but what business of that is theirs? Ukraine is a sovereign country that should have been able to choose its own path.

As for the West, you really give it way too much credit for Maidan. It's involvement has been vastly overblown.

Edit: BTW, when I said the Maidan Revolution was relatively bloodless, with a little more than 100 protestors dying at the hands of Ukrainian armed forces, the protestors who died supported the ouster of Yanukovych, just FYI. So the people dying were those who you accuse of committing a "grave evil," not those who supported Mother Russia. That being the case, I am a bit surprised you have a problem with their deaths.

---

The economic agreement wasn't some simplistic ideological choice. It wasn't about accepting or rejecting "freedom." According to a USAID poll from late 2013, 47% of Ukrainians thought closer economic ties with the EU would benefit Ukraine. 48% thought closer economic ties with Russia would benefit Ukraine. The poll didn't ask about closer economic ties with both, since USAID wasn't interested in that, but the response would have been overwhelmingly positive. Russia itself was open to trilateral negotiations, and Yanukovych made that request to the EU. They refused to talk.

One thing Ukrainians did agree on was their dislike of the IMF's proposed austerity measures. These measures were harshly criticized even in Western media. See for example here, here, and here. This was a major point of contention and the main reason Yanukovych delayed signing the agreement. There's no reason it couldn't have been resolved with further talks if he hadn't been overthrown. But again there was zero interest in the West. We immediately jumped on the revolutionary bandwagon and focused on getting our hand-picked people in power.

---

And then of course he spurns the EU deal without even giving the EU a chance to re-negotiate terms.

---

Completely false, as your own article confirms:

Quote:

---

To Ukraine, there seemed little prospect of getting the EU, already struggling to help its indebted members, to offer a better deal than its original offer.

Oliynyk, who is Ukraine's permanent representative for NATO, and others were furious. He told Reuters that when Ukraine turned to Europe's officials for help, they "spat on us."

---

But of course none of this would justify overthrowing a government even if it were true.

wow!

vlad upping his game....

sending a signal???

- kkm

I mean the non stop 'vodka' shots mixed w/ the guttural stalin-esque curses and ramblings followed by a khrushchevian staccato shoe heel slammed on the 50 foot table to the beat of the russian war hymn was quite moving.

D!

it's got a good (if not monotonous) beat and I can lob cruise missiles to it.

I give it a 9.

BID.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Russia's so-called invasion began at Sloviansk, where it was supported by local authorities. It was also relatively bloodless by your standard, with about 100 deaths reported. Until then Russia had been involved in uprisings across the Donbas in much the same way we were involved in Maidan. The difference being that separatists in the Donbas didn't claim to speak for all of Ukraine. Maidan was a great evil because, among other reasons, it cemented the extremist position in Kiev and disenfranchised much of the rest of the country. It was an act of aggression not only by the usurpers in Kiev against the Donbas, but by the West against Russia as part of our effort to overthrow the regime. Keep in mind that this is a proxy war. Russia has never considered Ukraine to be the real opponent, and rightly so.

---

Not sure there's anything else to call it other than invasion when your neighbor enters your sovereign territory and takes control of same by force. That's kind of the textbook definition of invasion, is it not?

As for Maidan, it's pretty difficult to call the protestor's position extremist given the fact that the majority of the country agreed with it. The vast majority of Ukrainians supported the European UnionUkraine Association Agreement, and all indications were that Yanukovych did as well, and intended to sign it, only for him to cave to threats and pressure from Russia and scuttle the deal. It was a great betrayal to most Ukrainians, the vast majority of which desired greater freedoms and closer associations with the western democracies of Europe rather than the bad actor and bully to the east. If by "evil" you mean it didn't benefit the Russians, well sure, but what business of that is theirs? Ukraine is a sovereign country that should have been able to choose its own path.

As for the West, you really give it way too much credit for Maidan. It's involvement has been vastly overblown.

Edit: BTW, when I said the Maidan Revolution was relatively bloodless, with a little more than 100 protestors dying at the hands of Ukrainian armed forces, the protestors who died supported the ouster of Yanukovych, just FYI. So the people dying were those who you accuse of committing a "grave evil," not those who supported Mother Russia. That being the case, I am a bit surprised you have a problem with their deaths.

---

The economic agreement wasn't some simplistic ideological choice. It wasn't about accepting or rejecting "freedom." According to a USAID poll from late 2013, 47% of Ukrainians thought closer economic ties with the EU would benefit Ukraine. 48% thought closer economic ties with Russia would benefit Ukraine. The poll didn't ask about closer economic ties with both, since USAID wasn't interested in that, but the response would have been overwhelmingly positive. Russia itself was open to trilateral negotiations, and Yanukovych made that request to the EU. They refused to talk.

One thing Ukrainians did agree on was their dislike of the IMF's proposed austerity measures. These measures were harshly criticized even in Western media. See for example here, here, and here. This was a major point of contention and the main reason Yanukovych delayed signing the agreement. There's no reason it couldn't have been resolved with further talks if he hadn't been overthrown. But again there was zero interest in the West. We immediately jumped on the revolutionary bandwagon and focused on getting our hand-picked people in power.

---

And then of course he spurns the EU deal without even giving the EU a chance to re-negotiate terms.

---

Completely false, as your own article confirms:

Quote:

---

To Ukraine, there seemed little prospect of getting the EU, already struggling to help its indebted members, to offer a better deal than its original offer.

Oliynyk, who is Ukraine's permanent representative for NATO, and others were furious. He told Reuters that when Ukraine turned to Europe's officials for help, they "spat on us."

---

But of course none of this would justify overthrowing a government even if it were true.

---

I understand why you're hyper-focused on that one statement to the exclusion of all others, since the article dispels a lot of your propaganda. But you're wrong on that one as well. You must have missed this portion of the article:

"In September, just after his government had approved signing the pact with the EU, Azarov had painted a glowing future for Ukraine in Europe. "We all want clean air and water, safe food, good education for our children, up-to-date medical services, reliable legal representation, etc. All these are not abstract terms, but norms and rules that are already in place in the EU, which we need in Ukraine," he said.

But on November 21, Azarov suspended discussions with the EU in the interests of "national security" and ordered a renewal of "active dialogue" with Moscow.

EU negotiators had no time to renegotiate before a meeting in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius seven days later, where Yanukovich had been expected to sign an agreement with the EU. He failed to do so."

Whether it was a Ukrainian coup that overthrew the Ukrainian govt., that is an internal issue and has nothing to do with other countries, remember?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Russia's so-called invasion began at Sloviansk, where it was supported by local authorities. It was also relatively bloodless by your standard, with about 100 deaths reported. Until then Russia had been involved in uprisings across the Donbas in much the same way we were involved in Maidan. The difference being that separatists in the Donbas didn't claim to speak for all of Ukraine. Maidan was a great evil because, among other reasons, it cemented the extremist position in Kiev and disenfranchised much of the rest of the country. It was an act of aggression not only by the usurpers in Kiev against the Donbas, but by the West against Russia as part of our effort to overthrow the regime. Keep in mind that this is a proxy war. Russia has never considered Ukraine to be the real opponent, and rightly so.

---

Not sure there's anything else to call it other than invasion when your neighbor enters your sovereign territory and takes control of same by force. That's kind of the textbook definition of invasion, is it not?

As for Maidan, it's pretty difficult to call the protestor's position extremist given the fact that the majority of the country agreed with it. The vast majority of Ukrainians supported the European UnionUkraine Association Agreement, and all indications were that Yanukovych did as well, and intended to sign it, only for him to cave to threats and pressure from Russia and scuttle the deal. It was a great betrayal to most Ukrainians, the vast majority of which desired greater freedoms and closer associations with the western democracies of Europe rather than the bad actor and bully to the east. If by "evil" you mean it didn't benefit the Russians, well sure, but what business of that is theirs? Ukraine is a sovereign country that should have been able to choose its own path.

As for the West, you really give it way too much credit for Maidan. It's involvement has been vastly overblown.

Edit: BTW, when I said the Maidan Revolution was relatively bloodless, with a little more than 100 protestors dying at the hands of Ukrainian armed forces, the protestors who died supported the ouster of Yanukovych, just FYI. So the people dying were those who you accuse of committing a "grave evil," not those who supported Mother Russia. That being the case, I am a bit surprised you have a problem with their deaths.

---

The economic agreement wasn't some simplistic ideological choice. It wasn't about accepting or rejecting "freedom." According to a USAID poll from late 2013, 47% of Ukrainians thought closer economic ties with the EU would benefit Ukraine. 48% thought closer economic ties with Russia would benefit Ukraine. The poll didn't ask about closer economic ties with both, since USAID wasn't interested in that, but the response would have been overwhelmingly positive. Russia itself was open to trilateral negotiations, and Yanukovych made that request to the EU. They refused to talk.

One thing Ukrainians did agree on was their dislike of the IMF's proposed austerity measures. These measures were harshly criticized even in Western media. See for example here, here, and here. This was a major point of contention and the main reason Yanukovych delayed signing the agreement. There's no reason it couldn't have been resolved with further talks if he hadn't been overthrown. But again there was zero interest in the West. We immediately jumped on the revolutionary bandwagon and focused on getting our hand-picked people in power.

---

And then of course he spurns the EU deal without even giving the EU a chance to re-negotiate terms.

---

Completely false, as your own article confirms:

Quote:

---

To Ukraine, there seemed little prospect of getting the EU, already struggling to help its indebted members, to offer a better deal than its original offer.

Oliynyk, who is Ukraine's permanent representative for NATO, and others were furious. He told Reuters that when Ukraine turned to Europe's officials for help, they "spat on us."

---

But of course none of this would justify overthrowing a government even if it were true.

---

I understand why you're hyper-focused on that one statement to the exclusion of all others, since the article dispels a lot of your propaganda. But you're wrong on that one as well. You must have missed this portion of the article:

"In September, just after his government had approved signing the pact with the EU, Azarov had painted a glowing future for Ukraine in Europe. "We all want clean air and water, safe food, good education for our children, up-to-date medical services, reliable legal representation, etc. All these are not abstract terms, but norms and rules that are already in place in the EU, which we need in Ukraine," he said.

But on November 21, Azarov suspended discussions with the EU in the interests of "national security" and ordered a renewal of "active dialogue" with Moscow.

EU negotiators had no time to renegotiate before a meeting in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius seven days later, where Yanukovich had been expected to sign an agreement with the EU. He failed to do so."

Whether it was a Ukrainian coup that overthrew the Ukrainian govt., that is an internal issue and has nothing to do with other countries, remember?

---

No, I don't remember saying the coup had nothing to do with other countries. There's not much in the article I disagree with, so I don't know what you mean by dispelling propaganda. I just don't think it supports your conclusion of "undue influence." The meeting you refer to was all the way back in November, so it was hardly the only opportunity to negotiate. The fact remains, which your article alludes to, that it was the US and EU that needed to be forced back to the table if the deal was going to succeed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Russia's so-called invasion began at Sloviansk, where it was supported by local authorities. It was also relatively bloodless by your standard, with about 100 deaths reported. Until then Russia had been involved in uprisings across the Donbas in much the same way we were involved in Maidan. The difference being that separatists in the Donbas didn't claim to speak for all of Ukraine. Maidan was a great evil because, among other reasons, it cemented the extremist position in Kiev and disenfranchised much of the rest of the country. It was an act of aggression not only by the usurpers in Kiev against the Donbas, but by the West against Russia as part of our effort to overthrow the regime. Keep in mind that this is a proxy war. Russia has never considered Ukraine to be the real opponent, and rightly so.

---

Not sure there's anything else to call it other than invasion when your neighbor enters your sovereign territory and takes control of same by force. That's kind of the textbook definition of invasion, is it not?

As for Maidan, it's pretty difficult to call the protestor's position extremist given the fact that the majority of the country agreed with it. The vast majority of Ukrainians supported the European UnionUkraine Association Agreement, and all indications were that Yanukovych did as well, and intended to sign it, only for him to cave to threats and pressure from Russia and scuttle the deal. It was a great betrayal to most Ukrainians, the vast majority of which desired greater freedoms and closer associations with the western democracies of Europe rather than the bad actor and bully to the east. If by "evil" you mean it didn't benefit the Russians, well sure, but what business of that is theirs? Ukraine is a sovereign country that should have been able to choose its own path.

As for the West, you really give it way too much credit for Maidan. It's involvement has been vastly overblown.

Edit: BTW, when I said the Maidan Revolution was relatively bloodless, with a little more than 100 protestors dying at the hands of Ukrainian armed forces, the protestors who died supported the ouster of Yanukovych, just FYI. So the people dying were those who you accuse of committing a "grave evil," not those who supported Mother Russia. That being the case, I am a bit surprised you have a problem with their deaths.

---

The economic agreement wasn't some simplistic ideological choice. It wasn't about accepting or rejecting "freedom." According to a USAID poll from late 2013, 47% of Ukrainians thought closer economic ties with the EU would benefit Ukraine. 48% thought closer economic ties with Russia would benefit Ukraine. The poll didn't ask about closer economic ties with both, since USAID wasn't interested in that, but the response would have been overwhelmingly positive. Russia itself was open to trilateral negotiations, and Yanukovych made that request to the EU. They refused to talk.

One thing Ukrainians did agree on was their dislike of the IMF's proposed austerity measures. These measures were harshly criticized even in Western media. See for example here, here, and here. This was a major point of contention and the main reason Yanukovych delayed signing the agreement. There's no reason it couldn't have been resolved with further talks if he hadn't been overthrown. But again there was zero interest in the West. We immediately jumped on the revolutionary bandwagon and focused on getting our hand-picked people in power.

---

And then of course he spurns the EU deal without even giving the EU a chance to re-negotiate terms.

---

Completely false, as your own article confirms:

Quote:

---

To Ukraine, there seemed little prospect of getting the EU, already struggling to help its indebted members, to offer a better deal than its original offer.

Oliynyk, who is Ukraine's permanent representative for NATO, and others were furious. He told Reuters that when Ukraine turned to Europe's officials for help, they "spat on us."

---

But of course none of this would justify overthrowing a government even if it were true.

---

I understand why you're hyper-focused on that one statement to the exclusion of all others, since the article dispels a lot of your propaganda. But you're wrong on that one as well. You must have missed this portion of the article:

"In September, just after his government had approved signing the pact with the EU, Azarov had painted a glowing future for Ukraine in Europe. "We all want clean air and water, safe food, good education for our children, up-to-date medical services, reliable legal representation, etc. All these are not abstract terms, but norms and rules that are already in place in the EU, which we need in Ukraine," he said.

But on November 21, Azarov suspended discussions with the EU in the interests of "national security" and ordered a renewal of "active dialogue" with Moscow.

EU negotiators had no time to renegotiate before a meeting in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius seven days later, where Yanukovich had been expected to sign an agreement with the EU. He failed to do so."

Whether it was a Ukrainian coup that overthrew the Ukrainian govt., that is an internal issue and has nothing to do with other countries, remember?

---

No, I don't remember saying the coup had nothing to do with other countries. There's not much in the article I disagree with, so I don't know what you mean by dispelling propaganda. I just don't think it supports your conclusion of "undue influence." The meeting you refer to was all the way back in November, so it was hardly the only opportunity to negotiate. The fact remains, which your article alludes to, that it was the US and EU that needed to be forced back to the table if the deal was going to succeed.

---

It dispels the following narratives:

1) Russia didn't invade Ukraine in 2014.
2) The Maidan protestors' positions were "extreme"
3) Ukrainians preferred closer ties to Russia than Europe.
4) Russia was justified in invading and annexing Crimea.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Russia's so-called invasion began at Sloviansk, where it was supported by local authorities. It was also relatively bloodless by your standard, with about 100 deaths reported. Until then Russia had been involved in uprisings across the Donbas in much the same way we were involved in Maidan. The difference being that separatists in the Donbas didn't claim to speak for all of Ukraine. Maidan was a great evil because, among other reasons, it cemented the extremist position in Kiev and disenfranchised much of the rest of the country. It was an act of aggression not only by the usurpers in Kiev against the Donbas, but by the West against Russia as part of our effort to overthrow the regime. Keep in mind that this is a proxy war. Russia has never considered Ukraine to be the real opponent, and rightly so.

---

Not sure there's anything else to call it other than invasion when your neighbor enters your sovereign territory and takes control of same by force. That's kind of the textbook definition of invasion, is it not?

As for Maidan, it's pretty difficult to call the protestor's position extremist given the fact that the majority of the country agreed with it. The vast majority of Ukrainians supported the European UnionUkraine Association Agreement, and all indications were that Yanukovych did as well, and intended to sign it, only for him to cave to threats and pressure from Russia and scuttle the deal. It was a great betrayal to most Ukrainians, the vast majority of which desired greater freedoms and closer associations with the western democracies of Europe rather than the bad actor and bully to the east. If by "evil" you mean it didn't benefit the Russians, well sure, but what business of that is theirs? Ukraine is a sovereign country that should have been able to choose its own path.

As for the West, you really give it way too much credit for Maidan. It's involvement has been vastly overblown.

Edit: BTW, when I said the Maidan Revolution was relatively bloodless, with a little more than 100 protestors dying at the hands of Ukrainian armed forces, the protestors who died supported the ouster of Yanukovych, just FYI. So the people dying were those who you accuse of committing a "grave evil," not those who supported Mother Russia. That being the case, I am a bit surprised you have a problem with their deaths.

---

The economic agreement wasn't some simplistic ideological choice. It wasn't about accepting or rejecting "freedom." According to a USAID poll from late 2013, 47% of Ukrainians thought closer economic ties with the EU would benefit Ukraine. 48% thought closer economic ties with Russia would benefit Ukraine. The poll didn't ask about closer economic ties with both, since USAID wasn't interested in that, but the response would have been overwhelmingly positive. Russia itself was open to trilateral negotiations, and Yanukovych made that request to the EU. They refused to talk.

One thing Ukrainians did agree on was their dislike of the IMF's proposed austerity measures. These measures were harshly criticized even in Western media. See for example here, here, and here. This was a major point of contention and the main reason Yanukovych delayed signing the agreement. There's no reason it couldn't have been resolved with further talks if he hadn't been overthrown. But again there was zero interest in the West. We immediately jumped on the revolutionary bandwagon and focused on getting our hand-picked people in power.

---

And then of course he spurns the EU deal without even giving the EU a chance to re-negotiate terms.

---

Completely false, as your own article confirms:

Quote:

---

To Ukraine, there seemed little prospect of getting the EU, already struggling to help its indebted members, to offer a better deal than its original offer.

Oliynyk, who is Ukraine's permanent representative for NATO, and others were furious. He told Reuters that when Ukraine turned to Europe's officials for help, they "spat on us."

---

But of course none of this would justify overthrowing a government even if it were true.

---

I understand why you're hyper-focused on that one statement to the exclusion of all others, since the article dispels a lot of your propaganda. But you're wrong on that one as well. You must have missed this portion of the article:

"In September, just after his government had approved signing the pact with the EU, Azarov had painted a glowing future for Ukraine in Europe. "We all want clean air and water, safe food, good education for our children, up-to-date medical services, reliable legal representation, etc. All these are not abstract terms, but norms and rules that are already in place in the EU, which we need in Ukraine," he said.

But on November 21, Azarov suspended discussions with the EU in the interests of "national security" and ordered a renewal of "active dialogue" with Moscow.

EU negotiators had no time to renegotiate before a meeting in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius seven days later, where Yanukovich had been expected to sign an agreement with the EU. He failed to do so."

Whether it was a Ukrainian coup that overthrew the Ukrainian govt., that is an internal issue and has nothing to do with other countries, remember?

---

No, I don't remember saying the coup had nothing to do with other countries. There's not much in the article I disagree with, so I don't know what you mean by dispelling propaganda. I just don't think it supports your conclusion of "undue influence." The meeting you refer to was all the way back in November, so it was hardly the only opportunity to negotiate. The fact remains, which your article alludes to, that it was the US and EU that needed to be forced back to the table if the deal was going to succeed.

---

It dispels the following narratives:

1) Russia didn't invade Ukraine in 2014.
2) The Maidan protestors' positions were "extreme"
3) Ukrainians preferred closer ties to Russia than Europe.
4) Russia was justified in invading and annexing Crimea.

---

That it does not.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Russia's so-called invasion began at Sloviansk, where it was supported by local authorities. It was also relatively bloodless by your standard, with about 100 deaths reported. Until then Russia had been involved in uprisings across the Donbas in much the same way we were involved in Maidan. The difference being that separatists in the Donbas didn't claim to speak for all of Ukraine. Maidan was a great evil because, among other reasons, it cemented the extremist position in Kiev and disenfranchised much of the rest of the country. It was an act of aggression not only by the usurpers in Kiev against the Donbas, but by the West against Russia as part of our effort to overthrow the regime. Keep in mind that this is a proxy war. Russia has never considered Ukraine to be the real opponent, and rightly so.

---

Not sure there's anything else to call it other than invasion when your neighbor enters your sovereign territory and takes control of same by force. That's kind of the textbook definition of invasion, is it not?

As for Maidan, it's pretty difficult to call the protestor's position extremist given the fact that the majority of the country agreed with it. The vast majority of Ukrainians supported the European UnionUkraine Association Agreement, and all indications were that Yanukovych did as well, and intended to sign it, only for him to cave to threats and pressure from Russia and scuttle the deal. It was a great betrayal to most Ukrainians, the vast majority of which desired greater freedoms and closer associations with the western democracies of Europe rather than the bad actor and bully to the east. If by "evil" you mean it didn't benefit the Russians, well sure, but what business of that is theirs? Ukraine is a sovereign country that should have been able to choose its own path.

As for the West, you really give it way too much credit for Maidan. It's involvement has been vastly overblown.

Edit: BTW, when I said the Maidan Revolution was relatively bloodless, with a little more than 100 protestors dying at the hands of Ukrainian armed forces, the protestors who died supported the ouster of Yanukovych, just FYI. So the people dying were those who you accuse of committing a "grave evil," not those who supported Mother Russia. That being the case, I am a bit surprised you have a problem with their deaths.

---

The economic agreement wasn't some simplistic ideological choice. It wasn't about accepting or rejecting "freedom." According to a USAID poll from late 2013, 47% of Ukrainians thought closer economic ties with the EU would benefit Ukraine. 48% thought closer economic ties with Russia would benefit Ukraine. The poll didn't ask about closer economic ties with both, since USAID wasn't interested in that, but the response would have been overwhelmingly positive. Russia itself was open to trilateral negotiations, and Yanukovych made that request to the EU. They refused to talk.

One thing Ukrainians did agree on was their dislike of the IMF's proposed austerity measures. These measures were harshly criticized even in Western media. See for example here, here, and here. This was a major point of contention and the main reason Yanukovych delayed signing the agreement. There's no reason it couldn't have been resolved with further talks if he hadn't been overthrown. But again there was zero interest in the West. We immediately jumped on the revolutionary bandwagon and focused on getting our hand-picked people in power.

---

And then of course he spurns the EU deal without even giving the EU a chance to re-negotiate terms.

---

Completely false, as your own article confirms:

Quote:

---

To Ukraine, there seemed little prospect of getting the EU, already struggling to help its indebted members, to offer a better deal than its original offer.

Oliynyk, who is Ukraine's permanent representative for NATO, and others were furious. He told Reuters that when Ukraine turned to Europe's officials for help, they "spat on us."

---

But of course none of this would justify overthrowing a government even if it were true.

---

I understand why you're hyper-focused on that one statement to the exclusion of all others, since the article dispels a lot of your propaganda. But you're wrong on that one as well. You must have missed this portion of the article:

"In September, just after his government had approved signing the pact with the EU, Azarov had painted a glowing future for Ukraine in Europe. "We all want clean air and water, safe food, good education for our children, up-to-date medical services, reliable legal representation, etc. All these are not abstract terms, but norms and rules that are already in place in the EU, which we need in Ukraine," he said.

But on November 21, Azarov suspended discussions with the EU in the interests of "national security" and ordered a renewal of "active dialogue" with Moscow.

EU negotiators had no time to renegotiate before a meeting in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius seven days later, where Yanukovich had been expected to sign an agreement with the EU. He failed to do so."

Whether it was a Ukrainian coup that overthrew the Ukrainian govt., that is an internal issue and has nothing to do with other countries, remember?

---

No, I don't remember saying the coup had nothing to do with other countries. There's not much in the article I disagree with, so I don't know what you mean by dispelling propaganda. I just don't think it supports your conclusion of "undue influence." The meeting you refer to was all the way back in November, so it was hardly the only opportunity to negotiate. The fact remains, which your article alludes to, that it was the US and EU that needed to be forced back to the table if the deal was going to succeed.

---

It dispels the following narratives:

1) Russia didn't invade Ukraine in 2014.
2) The Maidan protestors' positions were "extreme"
3) Ukrainians preferred closer ties to Russia than Europe.
4) Russia was justified in invading and annexing Crimea.

---

That it does not.

---

Sorry, but it does.