Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

If AI says so, it must be true.

---

AI is pretty darn accurate on base facts. Far more accurate than trust me bro. If there were groundbreaking reporting out there on silly US/CIA coup theory, I'm thinking AI would pick it up.

---

AI picks up a lot of facts, but it couches them in the same newspeak used by American intel and its front groups. What used to be bribery, propaganda, and incitement is now "grants, advocacy, and civic action." See for example:

Quote:

---

USAID's UNITER project operated from 2008 to 2016 and funded advocacy, coalition-building, organizational training, media work, and grants to Ukrainian NGOs. Its own final report says that the New Citizen coalition, led by Centre UA, became a "powerful advocacy platform" and that the coalition helped mobilize civil-society organizations.

The same report says that the reversal of Yanukovych's European policy in November 2013 triggered protests initiated by pro-European civil-society leaders, which later escalated into a national crisis.

---

We were there fueling that escalation and making sure it continued every step of the way.

---

We certainly supported the protestors. We were very open about that, just as we have long supported freedom protestors in other countries. Definitely not challenging that. But at the same time we (and our allies) were doing that we supported a deal between VY and the protestors that would have kept him in office.

---

In office, for the time being, but not really in power. Including him at all seems to have been an afterthought.

---

Interesting because Russia supported the terms of the agreement, too.

---

No, they refused to sign it.

---

I'd love to know where you get your info. Did you follow it at the time or are you reading something?

It was very public that Russia was strongly encouraging everyone to sign the agreement. Your post misses the entire context of the time. Yes, it is true, Russia did not sign when others did. But while there were conflicting signals as to why, its bargaining rep said they wanted stronger and clearer enforcement terms.

But Russia continued to publicly support the deal and encourages implementation.

Glad to provide sources, including Russia, but I think you'll see it was common knowledge, and it's all out there.

---

They said it was unclear who would enforce it, which is part of the problem I'm talking about. Yanukovych was more or less neutered, and we were lining up all sorts of others to share power, including the right-wing creep Tyahnybok from the Svoboda Party. The head of the Russian Duma encouraged implementation in the sense of demanding that Ukraine honor the agreement (better than nothing, presumably), but he also said this: "We understand where and by whom this agreement was written. It is entirely in the interests of the United States and other powers that want to split Ukraine from Russia." They obviously didn't find it legitimate.

---

Putin and Lavrov disagreed (publicly) and their bargaining represented complimented the terms while being concerned about enforcement - not about the core terms.

But, let's say for sake of argument, it's somewhat of a gray area. It still undermines the argument for a US coup. We (and the West) clearly supported a diplomatic solution that kept VY in power. And the solution was at the very least supported in material part by Russia (and of course by VY and his party and allies).

Of course the opposition was going to be involved. After the violence and killings, it was inevitable.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

If AI says so, it must be true.

---

AI is pretty darn accurate on base facts. Far more accurate than trust me bro. If there were groundbreaking reporting out there on silly US/CIA coup theory, I'm thinking AI would pick it up.

---

AI picks up a lot of facts, but it couches them in the same newspeak used by American intel and its front groups. What used to be bribery, propaganda, and incitement is now "grants, advocacy, and civic action." See for example:

Quote:

---

USAID's UNITER project operated from 2008 to 2016 and funded advocacy, coalition-building, organizational training, media work, and grants to Ukrainian NGOs. Its own final report says that the New Citizen coalition, led by Centre UA, became a "powerful advocacy platform" and that the coalition helped mobilize civil-society organizations.

The same report says that the reversal of Yanukovych's European policy in November 2013 triggered protests initiated by pro-European civil-society leaders, which later escalated into a national crisis.

---

We were there fueling that escalation and making sure it continued every step of the way.

---

We certainly supported the protestors. We were very open about that, just as we have long supported freedom protestors in other countries. Definitely not challenging that. But at the same time we (and our allies) were doing that we supported a deal between VY and the protestors that would have kept him in office.

---

In office, for the time being, but not really in power. Including him at all seems to have been an afterthought.

---

Interesting because Russia supported the terms of the agreement, too.

---

No, they refused to sign it.

---

I'd love to know where you get your info. Did you follow it at the time or are you reading something?

It was very public that Russia was strongly encouraging everyone to sign the agreement. Your post misses the entire context of the time. Yes, it is true, Russia did not sign when others did. But while there were conflicting signals as to why, its bargaining rep said they wanted stronger and clearer enforcement terms.

But Russia continued to publicly support the deal and encourages implementation.

Glad to provide sources, including Russia, but I think you'll see it was common knowledge, and it's all out there.

---

They said it was unclear who would enforce it, which is part of the problem I'm talking about. Yanukovych was more or less neutered, and we were lining up all sorts of others to share power, including the right-wing creep Tyahnybok from the Svoboda Party. The head of the Russian Duma encouraged implementation in the sense of demanding that Ukraine honor the agreement (better than nothing, presumably), but he also said this: "We understand where and by whom this agreement was written. It is entirely in the interests of the United States and other powers that want to split Ukraine from Russia." They obviously didn't find it legitimate.

---

Putin and Lavrov disagreed (publicly) and their bargaining represented complimented the terms while being concerned about enforcement - not about the core terms.

But, let's say for sake of argument, it's somewhat of a gray area. It still undermines the argument for a US coup. We (and the West) clearly supported a diplomatic solution that kept VY in power. And the solution was at the very least supported in material part by Russia (and of course by VY and his party and allies).

Of course the opposition was going to be involved. After the violence and killings, it was inevitable.

---

It's not that unusual for a leader to remain as a figurehead after a coup. Who replaces him in reality is very much a core term. As for Putin and Lavrov, I'd be very surprised if they publicly disagreed on anything.

But you're missing the forest for the trees. You talk about toppling a government because of a failed treaty negotiation like it's the most normal thing in the world. It isn't. It's like if the J6 riot went on for weeks and months, with militias running rampant, people getting shot and killed, Russian politicians and diplomats flying in to egg on the protesters and hand-pick the new government, plus Russia owns 90% of the media, openly talks about bringing us into the military axis, etc. You'd be the last one to blithely say "hey, that's democracy." Any objective observer would see it for what it was.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

If AI says so, it must be true.

---

AI is pretty darn accurate on base facts. Far more accurate than trust me bro. If there were groundbreaking reporting out there on silly US/CIA coup theory, I'm thinking AI would pick it up.

---

AI picks up a lot of facts, but it couches them in the same newspeak used by American intel and its front groups. What used to be bribery, propaganda, and incitement is now "grants, advocacy, and civic action." See for example:

Quote:

---

USAID's UNITER project operated from 2008 to 2016 and funded advocacy, coalition-building, organizational training, media work, and grants to Ukrainian NGOs. Its own final report says that the New Citizen coalition, led by Centre UA, became a "powerful advocacy platform" and that the coalition helped mobilize civil-society organizations.

The same report says that the reversal of Yanukovych's European policy in November 2013 triggered protests initiated by pro-European civil-society leaders, which later escalated into a national crisis.

---

We were there fueling that escalation and making sure it continued every step of the way.

---

We certainly supported the protestors. We were very open about that, just as we have long supported freedom protestors in other countries. Definitely not challenging that. But at the same time we (and our allies) were doing that we supported a deal between VY and the protestors that would have kept him in office.

---

In office, for the time being, but not really in power. Including him at all seems to have been an afterthought.

---

Interesting because Russia supported the terms of the agreement, too.

---

No, they refused to sign it.

---

I'd love to know where you get your info. Did you follow it at the time or are you reading something?

It was very public that Russia was strongly encouraging everyone to sign the agreement. Your post misses the entire context of the time. Yes, it is true, Russia did not sign when others did. But while there were conflicting signals as to why, its bargaining rep said they wanted stronger and clearer enforcement terms.

But Russia continued to publicly support the deal and encourages implementation.

Glad to provide sources, including Russia, but I think you'll see it was common knowledge, and it's all out there.

---

They said it was unclear who would enforce it, which is part of the problem I'm talking about. Yanukovych was more or less neutered, and we were lining up all sorts of others to share power, including the right-wing creep Tyahnybok from the Svoboda Party. The head of the Russian Duma encouraged implementation in the sense of demanding that Ukraine honor the agreement (better than nothing, presumably), but he also said this: "We understand where and by whom this agreement was written. It is entirely in the interests of the United States and other powers that want to split Ukraine from Russia." They obviously didn't find it legitimate.

---

Putin and Lavrov disagreed (publicly) and their bargaining represented complimented the terms while being concerned about enforcement - not about the core terms.

But, let's say for sake of argument, it's somewhat of a gray area. It still undermines the argument for a US coup. We (and the West) clearly supported a diplomatic solution that kept VY in power. And the solution was at the very least supported in material part by Russia (and of course by VY and his party and allies).

Of course the opposition was going to be involved. After the violence and killings, it was inevitable.

---

It's not that unusual for a leader to remain as a figurehead after a coup. Who replaces him in reality is very much a core term. As for Putin and Lavrov, I'd be very surprised if they publicly disagreed on anything.

But you're missing the forest for the trees. You talk about toppling a government because of a failed treaty negotiation like it's the most normal thing in the world. It isn't. It's like if the J6 riot went on for weeks and months, with militias running rampant, people getting shot and killed, Russian politicians and diplomats flying in to egg on the protesters and hand-pick the new government, plus Russia owns 90% of the media, openly talks about bringing us into the military axis, etc. You'd be the last one to blithely say "hey, that's democracy." Any objective observer would see it for what it was.

---

Lavrov made multiple public statements supporting the deal before signing and even complained its terms were not followed. In doing so, he made it clear Putin was on board also.

We're talking about different issues here. I'm not an expert on the Ukraine Constitution or parliamentary procedures. And although I followed things closely at the time and have studied it for years, I still don't feel I know the whole story as to the government killing protestors. I also don't feel I know the whole story on VY leaving, although my view is he made a business decision to flee to Russia. So, I'm not arguing for or against every aspect of the protests or the end result.

I've posted that I totally understand the protests and knew it would happen even at the time. Again, VY did a 180 on what he and every other candidate ran on and went against 80% of the public. He also was horribly corrupt despite running as a reformer. So the backlash was inevitable. Indeed, documents and statements made by his friends and allies showed they knew there would be mass protests. Russians knew it (and prepared for it) also.

What I'm arguing - and argued even at the time - was it was silly to blame the US for planning and engineering a coup and there was (and is) no evidence for that.

There is blame to go around relative to everything that happened with the protests - including Russia BTW. I don't see how anyone could be surprised that bad people try to take advantage of situations.

But despite all of that, there was a deal for VY to remain and for another election.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

If AI says so, it must be true.

---

AI is pretty darn accurate on base facts. Far more accurate than trust me bro. If there were groundbreaking reporting out there on silly US/CIA coup theory, I'm thinking AI would pick it up.

---

AI picks up a lot of facts, but it couches them in the same newspeak used by American intel and its front groups. What used to be bribery, propaganda, and incitement is now "grants, advocacy, and civic action." See for example:

Quote:

---

USAID's UNITER project operated from 2008 to 2016 and funded advocacy, coalition-building, organizational training, media work, and grants to Ukrainian NGOs. Its own final report says that the New Citizen coalition, led by Centre UA, became a "powerful advocacy platform" and that the coalition helped mobilize civil-society organizations.

The same report says that the reversal of Yanukovych's European policy in November 2013 triggered protests initiated by pro-European civil-society leaders, which later escalated into a national crisis.

---

We were there fueling that escalation and making sure it continued every step of the way.

---

We certainly supported the protestors. We were very open about that, just as we have long supported freedom protestors in other countries. Definitely not challenging that. But at the same time we (and our allies) were doing that we supported a deal between VY and the protestors that would have kept him in office.

---

In office, for the time being, but not really in power. Including him at all seems to have been an afterthought.

---

Interesting because Russia supported the terms of the agreement, too.

---

No, they refused to sign it.

---

I'd love to know where you get your info. Did you follow it at the time or are you reading something?

It was very public that Russia was strongly encouraging everyone to sign the agreement. Your post misses the entire context of the time. Yes, it is true, Russia did not sign when others did. But while there were conflicting signals as to why, its bargaining rep said they wanted stronger and clearer enforcement terms.

But Russia continued to publicly support the deal and encourages implementation.

Glad to provide sources, including Russia, but I think you'll see it was common knowledge, and it's all out there.

---

They said it was unclear who would enforce it, which is part of the problem I'm talking about. Yanukovych was more or less neutered, and we were lining up all sorts of others to share power, including the right-wing creep Tyahnybok from the Svoboda Party. The head of the Russian Duma encouraged implementation in the sense of demanding that Ukraine honor the agreement (better than nothing, presumably), but he also said this: "We understand where and by whom this agreement was written. It is entirely in the interests of the United States and other powers that want to split Ukraine from Russia." They obviously didn't find it legitimate.

---

Putin and Lavrov disagreed (publicly) and their bargaining represented complimented the terms while being concerned about enforcement - not about the core terms.

But, let's say for sake of argument, it's somewhat of a gray area. It still undermines the argument for a US coup. We (and the West) clearly supported a diplomatic solution that kept VY in power. And the solution was at the very least supported in material part by Russia (and of course by VY and his party and allies).

Of course the opposition was going to be involved. After the violence and killings, it was inevitable.

---

It's not that unusual for a leader to remain as a figurehead after a coup. Who replaces him in reality is very much a core term. As for Putin and Lavrov, I'd be very surprised if they publicly disagreed on anything.

But you're missing the forest for the trees. You talk about toppling a government because of a failed treaty negotiation like it's the most normal thing in the world. It isn't. It's like if the J6 riot went on for weeks and months, with militias running rampant, people getting shot and killed, Russian politicians and diplomats flying in to egg on the protesters and hand-pick the new government, plus Russia owns 90% of the media, openly talks about bringing us into the military axis, etc. You'd be the last one to blithely say "hey, that's democracy." Any objective observer would see it for what it was.

---

Lavrov made multiple public statements supporting the deal before signing and even complained its terms were not followed. In doing so, he made it clear Putin was on board also.

We're talking about different issues here. I'm not an expert on the Ukraine Constitution or parliamentary procedures. And although I followed things closely at the time and have studied it for years, I still don't feel I know the whole story as to the government killing protestors. I also don't feel I know the whole story on VY leaving, although my view is he made a business decision to flee to Russia. So, I'm not arguing for or against every aspect of the protests or the end result.

I've posted that I totally understand the protests and knew it would happen even at the time. Again, VY did a 180 on what he and every other candidate ran on and went against 80% of the public. He also was horribly corrupt despite running as a reformer. So the backlash was inevitable. Indeed, documents and statements made by his friends and allies showed they knew there would be mass protests. Russians knew it (and prepared for it) also.

What I'm arguing - and argued even at the time - was it was silly to blame the US for planning and engineering a coup and there was (and is) no evidence for that.

There is blame to go around relative to everything that happened with the protests - including Russia BTW. I don't see how anyone could be surprised that bad people try to take advantage of situations.

But despite all of that, there was a deal for VY to remain and for another election.

---

Of course we knew the protests would happen. We trained and funded the professional agitators who started them, after all. No doubt the Russians remembered the bag of tricks we used in 2004, which naturally included exaggerating Yanukovych's corruption and downplaying that of his rivals. Not to say he wasn't corrupt (even Putin acknowledged that), but not nearly on the scale we've seen since.

Putin's position on the agreement was that Yanukovych had effectively given up power the day he signed it. We know the US planned and engineered it because our diplomats are on tape doing just that. Russia's acquiescence served a number of purposes, not least of which was highlighting the thuggishness and duplicity of the Maidan leaders. Putin also wanted to avoid the prospect of a nationwide collapse, which would not have been in Russia's interest at the time (and arguably still isn't).

As we've often discussed, the issues with the EU deal were far more complex than you make them out to be. The proposed austerity measures were widely unpopular. The agreement burdened Ukrainian industry with all sorts of new costs. Gas prices were to increase dramatically. Business failures and unemployment were a certainty, at least in the short term. It made the trade relationship with Russia difficult or impossible, even assuming Russia chose not to retaliate. It maintained restrictions on agricultural exports. It did nothing to solve Ukraine's immediate financial crisis, nor did it promise EU membership. And on and on. Even so, Yanukovych didn't "do a 180." He continued to press for further negotiations (which the West refused) until he was ousted.

Anyone who thinks tax payer money should be going to ANY foreign country when we are $40 trillion in debt deserves to be mercilessly punched in the face.