Harrison Bergeron said:

---

sombear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Why are the idiots still yelling at clouds?

Let's agree:
1. Ukraine kicks ass
2. We can cut off all the aide and support because of its superior military

www.moveon.org

---

Once again, we cut off aid long ago and yes, Ukraine is kicking ass.

---

Tell us more about the "genocide" that led to population growth?

---

No idea what you mean

sombear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

sombear said:

---

BellCountyBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Awesome. Let's stop giving billions to their corrupt oligarchy. It clearly does not need it. Cut off all aid now.

---

This. If they're so badass, why do they need our help?

---

Because they were invaded by a world power 4 times its size and a military 10X bigger that is supported by China, Iran, and North Korea.

And, yes, Ukrainians have proven to be MF-ing bad asses.

---

If you could only choose one expensive, frivolous counter-productive foreign war to destroy the US economy over... which would you choose - Ukraine War or Iran War?

---

I obviously disagree with the lead up, but I opposed the Iran war and support helping Ukraine. It is not expensive nor counterproductive. It's a tiny fraction of 1% of our spending, and we're helping the greatest freedom fighters since WW2.

---

We are literally helping the people we fought against in WW2.

---

Good thing we never helped post-war Germany or Japan, isn't it?

---

We helped purge Germany of the Nazi affliction. Now we're giving medals to former Waffen-SS troops. As the son of a WW2 vet, it's one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen.

---

Lacks documentation. Please provide it, including names. Thanks in advance. Also, give us the average age of said former Waffen-SS troops and why we're giving them medals at that age.

---

https://www.google.com

---

I couldn't find anything. I tried.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_Hunka_scandal

---

- Canada
- No medal
- Virtually nobody there knew his background and all disavowed following
- As I'm sure you know given your knowledge of the region, Ukrainians in that area who fought for Germany did so because Russia invaded and occupied them first. Their goal was to get rid of the Russians who terrorized them.

---

Their goal was to get rid of anyone they considered inferior, including Russians, Poles, and over a million Jews. While he may have been disavowed after public shaming, he represents exactly the kind of racist nationalism that we've supported in Ukraine ever since the end of the war.

---

You're way further adrift in Putin land than I thought . . . .

Racist nationalism in Ukraine?

Do you somehow deny Russia invaded Ukraine and terrorized Ukrainians before the Germans?

And unlike Russia, Ukraine has never stated that Russia and Russians don't really exist, Ukraine has never invaded Russia or threatened to. Ukraine has not stolen Russian children. Ukraine is not murdering Russian civilians. Ukraine has not tried to change Russian textbooks. Ukraine has not allied with North Korea, Iran, and China. Ukraine does not harass or kill Evangelicals and Catholics. Ukraine does not control its Orthodox church and the church is not led by spies. And on and on and on.

---

You're adrift in propaganda. Ukraine has done most of those things and more.

---

As with the blind support of Israel, Boomers have been soaked in anti-Russian propaganda for so long there is no changing their minds. It will require a generational reset.

---

I'm not a boomer, my wife and her family are Russian, I've been to and done business in Russia, I've been to Ukraine, and my disdain for Russia is based on what I know and have seen and not what anyone else has told me. Putin is one of our two main adversaries. He tries to undermine us all over the world and his closest friends are our primary enemies. Russia is a poverty stricken police state, with an economy controlled by nepotists, oligarchs, and the mob. Putin kills political opponents, jails citizens for speech and expression, and harasses Evangelicals, Protestants, and Catholics. It is one of the least Christian European nations with among the highest rates of abortion, STDs, divorce, and booming and brutal underground prostitution industry. Putin took over the Orthodox Church and dictates its every move. And, yes, Putin invaded and terrorized a free sovereign neighbor that is one of the most Christian countries in the world.

---

Bingo. Well said.

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Czar Putin. Russia changes its governmental style over the last 200 years, but not really, The police state is continuous. A shame.

---

A narrative that completely contradicts what we heard during the Cold War, yet somehow leads to the same conclusion that hostilities with Russia are inevitable. Funny how that works.

---

You will have to explain that narrative. Good luck showing how the Russian police state hasn't been pretty darn consistent between czarist Russia, communist Russia, and post Cold War Russia. And I don't recall a big narrative in the Cold War about how wonderful Russia was under the czars. I do recall the crushing of the glimmer of representative government between the czar's abdication and Bolshevik takeover.

---

We were always told that communism was uniquely evil, that it was the source Russia's imperial ambitions, that glasnost brought real change, and that Russians welcomed the idea of friendship with the West. Now the story is that Russians are congenitally hostile, every Russian regime is as bad as the next, and the agreement to end the Cold War was a sham (which would make Reagan one of the biggest dupes in presidential history). Very different narratives indeed.

---

You listened to the wrong sirens. Better under the czars? Marginally. The Russian monarchy was failing under Nicholas II. The Bolsheviks took the secret police of the czar and made it worse. They destroyed all attempts to turn Russia into a representative government. Russia has never known personal freedom like most of the west. They just keep going from one oppression to the next. Putin squashed the freedom seekers after the brief attempt at more western freedoms post Soviet Union. That's what I was taught. You must be mixing up what the Russians told you that were taught.

---

The question isn't whether Russia was ever democratic. It's whether the totalitarian state was worse than the monarchy. Our answer was emphatically yes.

Political power and oligarchy were synonymous during the Yeltsin years, or what you call the "brief attempt at more western freedoms." Putin put some distance between the two and ensured that Russia wouldn't be stripped clean by its Western "partners." That more than anything else is the source of our animosity.

Russia is undoubtedly more free than it was under communism, but it still has a way to go. The best thing we can do if we care to help is to foster conditions of stability, including arms control agreements and clearly defined zones of security, instead of constantly increasing the pressure on them. Conflict and authoritarianism have always gone hand in hand.

---

Economically free? Some. It has gone backwards under Putin. Politically free? Not so much unless you like being poisoned or jumping out of high rise windows Again, no one with a mainstream teacher was ever taught how wonderful life ever was for the Russian people. You're talking nonsense.

---

When did I say life was wonderful under the czars?

It's ironic that you're reading from a Russian script, albeit one that's a century out of date.

---

Where did I say that you said that?

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It depends on which Ukrainians you're talking about. Not caring, wanting neutrality, and wanting Russian rule are all very different things. Attitudes in the west obviously hardened in 2022, but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK, and the Nazi militias (who assassinated a couple of negotiators and threatened to assassinate Zelensky if he made any kind of deal). As for the Donbas militias, they either joined the Russian military or fought alongside it.

---

"Attitudes in the West obviously hardened in 2022." Yeah, you think? That tends to happen when one country launches a brutal military invasion of an ally.

"but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK..." You could have just said--Ukraine would have been forced to cave if not for the assistance of its Western friends. Meaning, Ukraine as a puppet state, and many countries in Eastern Europe wondering if they were next. Which I guess would have been okay with you

The Nazi militia comment tries to elevate a marginal group to a decisive actor, which is just untrue.

And yes, there are Ukrainians with pro-Russian sentiment. There are also Texans who think we should secede. But countries don't work that way. One of the hard-and-fast rules is that one country does not take another country's land by military force. Russia broke that rule and I don't understand why you would defend it.

---

Yes, it tends to happen.

Russia was basically trying to implement the Minsk Agreements. Zelensky won his office by promising to do just that. It would not have made Ukraine a puppet state, at least not of Russia.

The only truly decisive actors are Russia and the US, but the Nazi militias are an important tool of the US and always have been. They're by no means marginal in their effect.

There are a lot of hard and fast rules, and we tend to be quite selective about which ones we recognize at a given time. Aggression against another country's political independence, for example our participation in the toppling of Ukraine's government in 2014, is every bit as unlawful as aggression against a country's territory.

---

1. If it was trying to enforce the Minsk agreements, why did Russia declare them defunct before attacking?

2. Ukraine is the actor that has sacrificed blood and treasure. I would call the decisive.

3. We supported the protests; we didn't create them. And the protestors had a point.

4. There tends to be a lot more dead and maimed when territories are invaded.

---

My mistake, I forgot that Russia had officially recognized the Donbas republics at the time. The point remains, as much as that might have been an insult to Ukraine's territorial integrity, it had no effect on the central government and was far from rendering it a puppet state.

The protests were largely a Western operation, like the ones in 2004 and countless others around the globe. Election interference and regime change are standard operating procedure.

Ukraine punished the Donbas for many years and was preparing to double down on its attacks in 2022. Russia's decision to invade caused more suffering for Ukraine but less for the territories it annexed.

My point isn't to argue who has a right to what territory. That's a political question, or perhaps more accurately a military one. What's vitally important is to understand what the principal parties are doing and why.

---

It's funny … Russia never complained about the CIA in Ukraine or the supposed mistreatment of Russian speakers in the East until it had to somehow justify its invasion.

And this makes perfect sense. Ukrainian intel was infested with Russians or Russia supporters. Any sort of material collusion with the US would have been impossible.

Just as public opinion polls showed Russian speakers were happy in the East. Putin is a master of after-the-fact rationales, but he's too dumb to even be consistent. I mean, let's just list some of his excuses for the 2022 invasion:
- NATO (which was not supported by any prominent Ukr politicians or the public)
- Ukr not a real country and always has been part of Russia (with Putin's BS history lessons to boot)
- Ukr is a Nazi country and stopping the spread of Naziism
- Protecting Christianity (which just might be the funniest)
- Preventing Ukr invasion (No, this is the funniest)
- Demilitarization of Ukr
- Stopping the Donbas genocide (no my mistake again, this is the funniest)
- And more

---

You don't understand how the "open door" policy works. Zelensky didn't campaign on joining NATO immediately, but he made his support clear within a few weeks of taking office. We didn't take long to set him straight. And it was already endorsed by their parliament and enshrined in their constitution.

I don't recall Putin ever saying there was one and only one issue with Ukraine.

---

Zelensky was elected 5 years after the first invasion

And he did not come out strongly supporting NATO membership until after the second invasion

---

You said NATO was no excuse for the 2022 invasion because no prominent politician supported it. That's incorrect. So is the idea that Russian spies would have made collusion with the US impossible. What were they going to do, announce their presence and slap the CIA people upside the head with a copy of War and Peace? It doesn't work that way.

---

Who openly supported it pre-invasion?

What we clearly would seen was Russia accusing the CIA of infiltrating Ukraine long before Maidan. Instead what we got is what we always get from Putin: after-the-fact BS and excuses that he can't even keep straight.

As I've posted several times over the years and nobody has answered because they can't: How could the CIA have known a president was going to suddenly do a 180 on exactly what he ran on?

It defies logic, common sense, and the facts on the ground. I mean … shocking that the public would rise up when 80% and every prominent politician supported the EU deal ….

---

The CIA has been in Ukraine for as long as there's been a CIA. That's not especially newsworthy from Putin's point of view.

Yanukovych's decision not to sign the agreement was telegraphed months in advance, disclosed to EU officials more than a week before the summit, and publicly announced a few days later. If the Americans were paying any attention at all, it was no surprise.

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

sombear said:

---

BellCountyBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Awesome. Let's stop giving billions to their corrupt oligarchy. It clearly does not need it. Cut off all aid now.

---

This. If they're so badass, why do they need our help?

---

Because they were invaded by a world power 4 times its size and a military 10X bigger that is supported by China, Iran, and North Korea.

And, yes, Ukrainians have proven to be MF-ing bad asses.

---

If you could only choose one expensive, frivolous counter-productive foreign war to destroy the US economy over... which would you choose - Ukraine War or Iran War?

---

I obviously disagree with the lead up, but I opposed the Iran war and support helping Ukraine. It is not expensive nor counterproductive. It's a tiny fraction of 1% of our spending, and we're helping the greatest freedom fighters since WW2.

---

We are literally helping the people we fought against in WW2.

---

Good thing we never helped post-war Germany or Japan, isn't it?

---

We helped purge Germany of the Nazi affliction. Now we're giving medals to former Waffen-SS troops. As the son of a WW2 vet, it's one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen.

---

Lacks documentation. Please provide it, including names. Thanks in advance. Also, give us the average age of said former Waffen-SS troops and why we're giving them medals at that age.

---

https://www.google.com

---

I couldn't find anything. I tried.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_Hunka_scandal

---

- Canada
- No medal
- Virtually nobody there knew his background and all disavowed following
- As I'm sure you know given your knowledge of the region, Ukrainians in that area who fought for Germany did so because Russia invaded and occupied them first. Their goal was to get rid of the Russians who terrorized them.

---

Their goal was to get rid of anyone they considered inferior, including Russians, Poles, and over a million Jews. While he may have been disavowed after public shaming, he represents exactly the kind of racist nationalism that we've supported in Ukraine ever since the end of the war.

---

You're way further adrift in Putin land than I thought . . . .

Racist nationalism in Ukraine?

Do you somehow deny Russia invaded Ukraine and terrorized Ukrainians before the Germans?

And unlike Russia, Ukraine has never stated that Russia and Russians don't really exist, Ukraine has never invaded Russia or threatened to. Ukraine has not stolen Russian children. Ukraine is not murdering Russian civilians. Ukraine has not tried to change Russian textbooks. Ukraine has not allied with North Korea, Iran, and China. Ukraine does not harass or kill Evangelicals and Catholics. Ukraine does not control its Orthodox church and the church is not led by spies. And on and on and on.

---

You're adrift in propaganda. Ukraine has done most of those things and more.

---

As with the blind support of Israel, Boomers have been soaked in anti-Russian propaganda for so long there is no changing their minds. It will require a generational reset.

---

I'm not a boomer, my wife and her family are Russian, I've been to and done business in Russia, I've been to Ukraine, and my disdain for Russia is based on what I know and have seen and not what anyone else has told me. Putin is one of our two main adversaries. He tries to undermine us all over the world and his closest friends are our primary enemies. Russia is a poverty stricken police state, with an economy controlled by nepotists, oligarchs, and the mob. Putin kills political opponents, jails citizens for speech and expression, and harasses Evangelicals, Protestants, and Catholics. It is one of the least Christian European nations with among the highest rates of abortion, STDs, divorce, and booming and brutal underground prostitution industry. Putin took over the Orthodox Church and dictates its every move. And, yes, Putin invaded and terrorized a free sovereign neighbor that is one of the most Christian countries in the world.

---

Bingo. Well said.

---

Indeed. When thing impacts your people, you may have a different take. We had an Echange Student from Ukraine for 2 years. Her parents and her childhood home in Kiev was bombed out the first week. They had to flea and now have to live with her in Warsaw where she is a lawyer.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It depends on which Ukrainians you're talking about. Not caring, wanting neutrality, and wanting Russian rule are all very different things. Attitudes in the west obviously hardened in 2022, but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK, and the Nazi militias (who assassinated a couple of negotiators and threatened to assassinate Zelensky if he made any kind of deal). As for the Donbas militias, they either joined the Russian military or fought alongside it.

---

"Attitudes in the West obviously hardened in 2022." Yeah, you think? That tends to happen when one country launches a brutal military invasion of an ally.

"but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK..." You could have just said--Ukraine would have been forced to cave if not for the assistance of its Western friends. Meaning, Ukraine as a puppet state, and many countries in Eastern Europe wondering if they were next. Which I guess would have been okay with you

The Nazi militia comment tries to elevate a marginal group to a decisive actor, which is just untrue.

And yes, there are Ukrainians with pro-Russian sentiment. There are also Texans who think we should secede. But countries don't work that way. One of the hard-and-fast rules is that one country does not take another country's land by military force. Russia broke that rule and I don't understand why you would defend it.

---

Yes, it tends to happen.

Russia was basically trying to implement the Minsk Agreements. Zelensky won his office by promising to do just that. It would not have made Ukraine a puppet state, at least not of Russia.

The only truly decisive actors are Russia and the US, but the Nazi militias are an important tool of the US and always have been. They're by no means marginal in their effect.

There are a lot of hard and fast rules, and we tend to be quite selective about which ones we recognize at a given time. Aggression against another country's political independence, for example our participation in the toppling of Ukraine's government in 2014, is every bit as unlawful as aggression against a country's territory.

---

1. If it was trying to enforce the Minsk agreements, why did Russia declare them defunct before attacking?

2. Ukraine is the actor that has sacrificed blood and treasure. I would call the decisive.

3. We supported the protests; we didn't create them. And the protestors had a point.

4. There tends to be a lot more dead and maimed when territories are invaded.

---

My mistake, I forgot that Russia had officially recognized the Donbas republics at the time. The point remains, as much as that might have been an insult to Ukraine's territorial integrity, it had no effect on the central government and was far from rendering it a puppet state.

The protests were largely a Western operation, like the ones in 2004 and countless others around the globe. Election interference and regime change are standard operating procedure.

Ukraine punished the Donbas for many years and was preparing to double down on its attacks in 2022. Russia's decision to invade caused more suffering for Ukraine but less for the territories it annexed.

My point isn't to argue who has a right to what territory. That's a political question, or perhaps more accurately a military one. What's vitally important is to understand what the principal parties are doing and why.

---

It's funny … Russia never complained about the CIA in Ukraine or the supposed mistreatment of Russian speakers in the East until it had to somehow justify its invasion.

And this makes perfect sense. Ukrainian intel was infested with Russians or Russia supporters. Any sort of material collusion with the US would have been impossible.

Just as public opinion polls showed Russian speakers were happy in the East. Putin is a master of after-the-fact rationales, but he's too dumb to even be consistent. I mean, let's just list some of his excuses for the 2022 invasion:
- NATO (which was not supported by any prominent Ukr politicians or the public)
- Ukr not a real country and always has been part of Russia (with Putin's BS history lessons to boot)
- Ukr is a Nazi country and stopping the spread of Naziism
- Protecting Christianity (which just might be the funniest)
- Preventing Ukr invasion (No, this is the funniest)
- Demilitarization of Ukr
- Stopping the Donbas genocide (no my mistake again, this is the funniest)
- And more

---

You don't understand how the "open door" policy works. Zelensky didn't campaign on joining NATO immediately, but he made his support clear within a few weeks of taking office. We didn't take long to set him straight. And it was already endorsed by their parliament and enshrined in their constitution.

I don't recall Putin ever saying there was one and only one issue with Ukraine.

---

Zelensky was elected 5 years after the first invasion

And he did not come out strongly supporting NATO membership until after the second invasion

---

You said NATO was no excuse for the 2022 invasion because no prominent politician supported it. That's incorrect. So is the idea that Russian spies would have made collusion with the US impossible. What were they going to do, announce their presence and slap the CIA people upside the head with a copy of War and Peace? It doesn't work that way.

---

Who openly supported it pre-invasion?

What we clearly would seen was Russia accusing the CIA of infiltrating Ukraine long before Maidan. Instead what we got is what we always get from Putin: after-the-fact BS and excuses that he can't even keep straight.

As I've posted several times over the years and nobody has answered because they can't: How could the CIA have known a president was going to suddenly do a 180 on exactly what he ran on?

It defies logic, common sense, and the facts on the ground. I mean … shocking that the public would rise up when 80% and every prominent politician supported the EU deal ….

---

The CIA has been in Ukraine for as long as there's been a CIA. That's not especially newsworthy from Putin's point of view.

Yanukovych's decision to sign the agreement was telegraphed months in advance, disclosed privately to EU officials more than a week before the summit, and publicly announced a few days later. If the Americans were paying any attention at all, it was no surprise.

---

Well, yeah … the CIA, like the intel of every major country, is basically everywhere. The issue is how much true influence they could have given Russia's well documented (and even bragged about by Russia) infiltration of Ukraine intel and government, and also how Russia could have been so blind to the CIA's success and ability to create the mass demonstrations.

Sometimes the obvious answer is the answer. 80% or more of Ukrainians were pissed that VY spurned the EU and crawled into the personal bed of Putin.

So we all agree with stop giving these corrupt idiots mote of out money since there so much better?

Anyone disagree?

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It depends on which Ukrainians you're talking about. Not caring, wanting neutrality, and wanting Russian rule are all very different things. Attitudes in the west obviously hardened in 2022, but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK, and the Nazi militias (who assassinated a couple of negotiators and threatened to assassinate Zelensky if he made any kind of deal). As for the Donbas militias, they either joined the Russian military or fought alongside it.

---

"Attitudes in the West obviously hardened in 2022." Yeah, you think? That tends to happen when one country launches a brutal military invasion of an ally.

"but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK..." You could have just said--Ukraine would have been forced to cave if not for the assistance of its Western friends. Meaning, Ukraine as a puppet state, and many countries in Eastern Europe wondering if they were next. Which I guess would have been okay with you

The Nazi militia comment tries to elevate a marginal group to a decisive actor, which is just untrue.

And yes, there are Ukrainians with pro-Russian sentiment. There are also Texans who think we should secede. But countries don't work that way. One of the hard-and-fast rules is that one country does not take another country's land by military force. Russia broke that rule and I don't understand why you would defend it.

---

Yes, it tends to happen.

Russia was basically trying to implement the Minsk Agreements. Zelensky won his office by promising to do just that. It would not have made Ukraine a puppet state, at least not of Russia.

The only truly decisive actors are Russia and the US, but the Nazi militias are an important tool of the US and always have been. They're by no means marginal in their effect.

There are a lot of hard and fast rules, and we tend to be quite selective about which ones we recognize at a given time. Aggression against another country's political independence, for example our participation in the toppling of Ukraine's government in 2014, is every bit as unlawful as aggression against a country's territory.

---

1. If it was trying to enforce the Minsk agreements, why did Russia declare them defunct before attacking?

2. Ukraine is the actor that has sacrificed blood and treasure. I would call the decisive.

3. We supported the protests; we didn't create them. And the protestors had a point.

4. There tends to be a lot more dead and maimed when territories are invaded.

---

My mistake, I forgot that Russia had officially recognized the Donbas republics at the time. The point remains, as much as that might have been an insult to Ukraine's territorial integrity, it had no effect on the central government and was far from rendering it a puppet state.

The protests were largely a Western operation, like the ones in 2004 and countless others around the globe. Election interference and regime change are standard operating procedure.

Ukraine punished the Donbas for many years and was preparing to double down on its attacks in 2022. Russia's decision to invade caused more suffering for Ukraine but less for the territories it annexed.

My point isn't to argue who has a right to what territory. That's a political question, or perhaps more accurately a military one. What's vitally important is to understand what the principal parties are doing and why.

---

It's funny … Russia never complained about the CIA in Ukraine or the supposed mistreatment of Russian speakers in the East until it had to somehow justify its invasion.

And this makes perfect sense. Ukrainian intel was infested with Russians or Russia supporters. Any sort of material collusion with the US would have been impossible.

Just as public opinion polls showed Russian speakers were happy in the East. Putin is a master of after-the-fact rationales, but he's too dumb to even be consistent. I mean, let's just list some of his excuses for the 2022 invasion:
- NATO (which was not supported by any prominent Ukr politicians or the public)
- Ukr not a real country and always has been part of Russia (with Putin's BS history lessons to boot)
- Ukr is a Nazi country and stopping the spread of Naziism
- Protecting Christianity (which just might be the funniest)
- Preventing Ukr invasion (No, this is the funniest)
- Demilitarization of Ukr
- Stopping the Donbas genocide (no my mistake again, this is the funniest)
- And more

---

You don't understand how the "open door" policy works. Zelensky didn't campaign on joining NATO immediately, but he made his support clear within a few weeks of taking office. We didn't take long to set him straight. And it was already endorsed by their parliament and enshrined in their constitution.

I don't recall Putin ever saying there was one and only one issue with Ukraine.

---

Zelensky was elected 5 years after the first invasion

And he did not come out strongly supporting NATO membership until after the second invasion

---

You said NATO was no excuse for the 2022 invasion because no prominent politician supported it. That's incorrect. So is the idea that Russian spies would have made collusion with the US impossible. What were they going to do, announce their presence and slap the CIA people upside the head with a copy of War and Peace? It doesn't work that way.

---

Who openly supported it pre-invasion?

What we clearly would seen was Russia accusing the CIA of infiltrating Ukraine long before Maidan. Instead what we got is what we always get from Putin: after-the-fact BS and excuses that he can't even keep straight.

As I've posted several times over the years and nobody has answered because they can't: How could the CIA have known a president was going to suddenly do a 180 on exactly what he ran on?

It defies logic, common sense, and the facts on the ground. I mean … shocking that the public would rise up when 80% and every prominent politician supported the EU deal ….

---

The CIA has been in Ukraine for as long as there's been a CIA. That's not especially newsworthy from Putin's point of view.

Yanukovych's decision to sign the agreement was telegraphed months in advance, disclosed privately to EU officials more than a week before the summit, and publicly announced a few days later. If the Americans were paying any attention at all, it was no surprise.

---

Well, yeah … the CIA, like the intel of every major country, is basically everywhere. The issue is how much true influence they could have given Russia's well documented (and even bragged about by Russia) infiltration of Ukraine intel and government, and also how Russia could have been so blind to the CIA's success and ability to create the mass demonstrations.

Sometimes the obvious answer is the answer. 80% or more of Ukrainians were pissed that VY spurned the EU and crawled into the personal bed of Putin.

---

If Russian spies couldn't stop the Orange Revolution, it's far from obvious how they could have stopped the Maidan coup. Again, much of that kind of work has been farmed out to weaponized NGOs rather than the government.

NATO membership was broadly supported by the Ukrainian government before the 2022 invasion, which is what you asked about. This was the predictable result of the 2014 coup and one of the main reasons for Russia's actions since then.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So we all agree with stop giving these corrupt idiots mote of out money since there so much better?

Anyone disagree?

---

No one under 50 disagrees w/ you.

Sam Lowry said:

---

NATO membership was broadly supported by the Ukrainian government before the 2022 invasion, which is what you asked about. This was the predictable result of the 2014 coup and one of the main reasons for Russia's actions since then.

---

Of course it was. Russia had invaded and annnexed and was threatening to do so again!

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

NATO membership was broadly supported by the Ukrainian government before the 2022 invasion, which is what you asked about. This was the predictable result of the 2014 coup and one of the main reasons for Russia's actions since then.

---

Of course it was. Russia had invaded and annnexed and was threatening to do so again!

---

Russia didn't annex anything until 2022.

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:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It depends on which Ukrainians you're talking about. Not caring, wanting neutrality, and wanting Russian rule are all very different things. Attitudes in the west obviously hardened in 2022, but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK, and the Nazi militias (who assassinated a couple of negotiators and threatened to assassinate Zelensky if he made any kind of deal). As for the Donbas militias, they either joined the Russian military or fought alongside it.

---

"Attitudes in the West obviously hardened in 2022." Yeah, you think? That tends to happen when one country launches a brutal military invasion of an ally.

"but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK..." You could have just said--Ukraine would have been forced to cave if not for the assistance of its Western friends. Meaning, Ukraine as a puppet state, and many countries in Eastern Europe wondering if they were next. Which I guess would have been okay with you

The Nazi militia comment tries to elevate a marginal group to a decisive actor, which is just untrue.

And yes, there are Ukrainians with pro-Russian sentiment. There are also Texans who think we should secede. But countries don't work that way. One of the hard-and-fast rules is that one country does not take another country's land by military force. Russia broke that rule and I don't understand why you would defend it.

---

Yes, it tends to happen.

Russia was basically trying to implement the Minsk Agreements. Zelensky won his office by promising to do just that. It would not have made Ukraine a puppet state, at least not of Russia.

The only truly decisive actors are Russia and the US, but the Nazi militias are an important tool of the US and always have been. They're by no means marginal in their effect.

There are a lot of hard and fast rules, and we tend to be quite selective about which ones we recognize at a given time. Aggression against another country's political independence, for example our participation in the toppling of Ukraine's government in 2014, is every bit as unlawful as aggression against a country's territory.

---

1. If it was trying to enforce the Minsk agreements, why did Russia declare them defunct before attacking?

2. Ukraine is the actor that has sacrificed blood and treasure. I would call the decisive.

3. We supported the protests; we didn't create them. And the protestors had a point.

4. There tends to be a lot more dead and maimed when territories are invaded.

---

My mistake, I forgot that Russia had officially recognized the Donbas republics at the time. The point remains, as much as that might have been an insult to Ukraine's territorial integrity, it had no effect on the central government and was far from rendering it a puppet state.

The protests were largely a Western operation, like the ones in 2004 and countless others around the globe. Election interference and regime change are standard operating procedure.

Ukraine punished the Donbas for many years and was preparing to double down on its attacks in 2022. Russia's decision to invade caused more suffering for Ukraine but less for the territories it annexed.

My point isn't to argue who has a right to what territory. That's a political question, or perhaps more accurately a military one. What's vitally important is to understand what the principal parties are doing and why.

---

It's funny … Russia never complained about the CIA in Ukraine or the supposed mistreatment of Russian speakers in the East until it had to somehow justify its invasion.

And this makes perfect sense. Ukrainian intel was infested with Russians or Russia supporters. Any sort of material collusion with the US would have been impossible.

Just as public opinion polls showed Russian speakers were happy in the East. Putin is a master of after-the-fact rationales, but he's too dumb to even be consistent. I mean, let's just list some of his excuses for the 2022 invasion:
- NATO (which was not supported by any prominent Ukr politicians or the public)
- Ukr not a real country and always has been part of Russia (with Putin's BS history lessons to boot)
- Ukr is a Nazi country and stopping the spread of Naziism
- Protecting Christianity (which just might be the funniest)
- Preventing Ukr invasion (No, this is the funniest)
- Demilitarization of Ukr
- Stopping the Donbas genocide (no my mistake again, this is the funniest)
- And more

---

You don't understand how the "open door" policy works. Zelensky didn't campaign on joining NATO immediately, but he made his support clear within a few weeks of taking office. We didn't take long to set him straight. And it was already endorsed by their parliament and enshrined in their constitution.

I don't recall Putin ever saying there was one and only one issue with Ukraine.

---

Zelensky was elected 5 years after the first invasion

And he did not come out strongly supporting NATO membership until after the second invasion

---

You said NATO was no excuse for the 2022 invasion because no prominent politician supported it. That's incorrect. So is the idea that Russian spies would have made collusion with the US impossible. What were they going to do, announce their presence and slap the CIA people upside the head with a copy of War and Peace? It doesn't work that way.

---

Who openly supported it pre-invasion?

What we clearly would seen was Russia accusing the CIA of infiltrating Ukraine long before Maidan. Instead what we got is what we always get from Putin: after-the-fact BS and excuses that he can't even keep straight.

As I've posted several times over the years and nobody has answered because they can't: How could the CIA have known a president was going to suddenly do a 180 on exactly what he ran on?

It defies logic, common sense, and the facts on the ground. I mean … shocking that the public would rise up when 80% and every prominent politician supported the EU deal ….

---

The CIA has been in Ukraine for as long as there's been a CIA. That's not especially newsworthy from Putin's point of view.

Yanukovych's decision to sign the agreement was telegraphed months in advance, disclosed privately to EU officials more than a week before the summit, and publicly announced a few days later. If the Americans were paying any attention at all, it was no surprise.

---

Well, yeah … the CIA, like the intel of every major country, is basically everywhere. The issue is how much true influence they could have given Russia's well documented (and even bragged about by Russia) infiltration of Ukraine intel and government, and also how Russia could have been so blind to the CIA's success and ability to create the mass demonstrations.

Sometimes the obvious answer is the answer. 80% or more of Ukrainians were pissed that VY spurned the EU and crawled into the personal bed of Putin.

---

If Russian spies couldn't stop the Orange Revolution, it's far from obvious how they could have stopped the Maidan coup. Again, much of that kind of work has been farmed out to weaponized NGOs rather than the government.

---

Yet 12 years later we still have no info on how it was all done! All we have is CIA!!! NGO!!! Nuland!!!

And nobody has ever explained why the U.S. and the west would help negotiate the very peace deal that would have kept VY in office.

This truly is one of those conspiracy theories that has zero merit. It's comical.

---

I've explained all of that in detail (and specifically to you, IIRC) on other threads. It isn't a Hollywood movie where everyone synchronizes their watches and they trigger a coup at a precise moment according to some master plan. They reacted to developments on the ground using their existing infrastructure, primarily media outlets and militia connections.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

NATO membership was broadly supported by the Ukrainian government before the 2022 invasion, which is what you asked about. This was the predictable result of the 2014 coup and one of the main reasons for Russia's actions since then.

---

Of course it was. Russia had invaded and annnexed and was threatening to do so again!

---

Russia didn't annex anything until 2022.

---

You're 8 years off

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:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It depends on which Ukrainians you're talking about. Not caring, wanting neutrality, and wanting Russian rule are all very different things. Attitudes in the west obviously hardened in 2022, but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK, and the Nazi militias (who assassinated a couple of negotiators and threatened to assassinate Zelensky if he made any kind of deal). As for the Donbas militias, they either joined the Russian military or fought alongside it.

---

"Attitudes in the West obviously hardened in 2022." Yeah, you think? That tends to happen when one country launches a brutal military invasion of an ally.

"but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK..." You could have just said--Ukraine would have been forced to cave if not for the assistance of its Western friends. Meaning, Ukraine as a puppet state, and many countries in Eastern Europe wondering if they were next. Which I guess would have been okay with you

The Nazi militia comment tries to elevate a marginal group to a decisive actor, which is just untrue.

And yes, there are Ukrainians with pro-Russian sentiment. There are also Texans who think we should secede. But countries don't work that way. One of the hard-and-fast rules is that one country does not take another country's land by military force. Russia broke that rule and I don't understand why you would defend it.

---

Yes, it tends to happen.

Russia was basically trying to implement the Minsk Agreements. Zelensky won his office by promising to do just that. It would not have made Ukraine a puppet state, at least not of Russia.

The only truly decisive actors are Russia and the US, but the Nazi militias are an important tool of the US and always have been. They're by no means marginal in their effect.

There are a lot of hard and fast rules, and we tend to be quite selective about which ones we recognize at a given time. Aggression against another country's political independence, for example our participation in the toppling of Ukraine's government in 2014, is every bit as unlawful as aggression against a country's territory.

---

1. If it was trying to enforce the Minsk agreements, why did Russia declare them defunct before attacking?

2. Ukraine is the actor that has sacrificed blood and treasure. I would call the decisive.

3. We supported the protests; we didn't create them. And the protestors had a point.

4. There tends to be a lot more dead and maimed when territories are invaded.

---

My mistake, I forgot that Russia had officially recognized the Donbas republics at the time. The point remains, as much as that might have been an insult to Ukraine's territorial integrity, it had no effect on the central government and was far from rendering it a puppet state.

The protests were largely a Western operation, like the ones in 2004 and countless others around the globe. Election interference and regime change are standard operating procedure.

Ukraine punished the Donbas for many years and was preparing to double down on its attacks in 2022. Russia's decision to invade caused more suffering for Ukraine but less for the territories it annexed.

My point isn't to argue who has a right to what territory. That's a political question, or perhaps more accurately a military one. What's vitally important is to understand what the principal parties are doing and why.

---

It's funny … Russia never complained about the CIA in Ukraine or the supposed mistreatment of Russian speakers in the East until it had to somehow justify its invasion.

And this makes perfect sense. Ukrainian intel was infested with Russians or Russia supporters. Any sort of material collusion with the US would have been impossible.

Just as public opinion polls showed Russian speakers were happy in the East. Putin is a master of after-the-fact rationales, but he's too dumb to even be consistent. I mean, let's just list some of his excuses for the 2022 invasion:
- NATO (which was not supported by any prominent Ukr politicians or the public)
- Ukr not a real country and always has been part of Russia (with Putin's BS history lessons to boot)
- Ukr is a Nazi country and stopping the spread of Naziism
- Protecting Christianity (which just might be the funniest)
- Preventing Ukr invasion (No, this is the funniest)
- Demilitarization of Ukr
- Stopping the Donbas genocide (no my mistake again, this is the funniest)
- And more

---

You don't understand how the "open door" policy works. Zelensky didn't campaign on joining NATO immediately, but he made his support clear within a few weeks of taking office. We didn't take long to set him straight. And it was already endorsed by their parliament and enshrined in their constitution.

I don't recall Putin ever saying there was one and only one issue with Ukraine.

---

Zelensky was elected 5 years after the first invasion

And he did not come out strongly supporting NATO membership until after the second invasion

---

You said NATO was no excuse for the 2022 invasion because no prominent politician supported it. That's incorrect. So is the idea that Russian spies would have made collusion with the US impossible. What were they going to do, announce their presence and slap the CIA people upside the head with a copy of War and Peace? It doesn't work that way.

---

Who openly supported it pre-invasion?

What we clearly would seen was Russia accusing the CIA of infiltrating Ukraine long before Maidan. Instead what we got is what we always get from Putin: after-the-fact BS and excuses that he can't even keep straight.

As I've posted several times over the years and nobody has answered because they can't: How could the CIA have known a president was going to suddenly do a 180 on exactly what he ran on?

It defies logic, common sense, and the facts on the ground. I mean … shocking that the public would rise up when 80% and every prominent politician supported the EU deal ….

---

The CIA has been in Ukraine for as long as there's been a CIA. That's not especially newsworthy from Putin's point of view.

Yanukovych's decision to sign the agreement was telegraphed months in advance, disclosed privately to EU officials more than a week before the summit, and publicly announced a few days later. If the Americans were paying any attention at all, it was no surprise.

---

Well, yeah … the CIA, like the intel of every major country, is basically everywhere. The issue is how much true influence they could have given Russia's well documented (and even bragged about by Russia) infiltration of Ukraine intel and government, and also how Russia could have been so blind to the CIA's success and ability to create the mass demonstrations.

Sometimes the obvious answer is the answer. 80% or more of Ukrainians were pissed that VY spurned the EU and crawled into the personal bed of Putin.

---

If Russian spies couldn't stop the Orange Revolution, it's far from obvious how they could have stopped the Maidan coup. Again, much of that kind of work has been farmed out to weaponized NGOs rather than the government.

---

Yet 12 years later we still have no info on how it was all done! All we have is CIA!!! NGO!!! Nuland!!!

And nobody has ever explained why the U.S. and the west would help negotiate the very peace deal that would have kept VY in office.

This truly is one of those conspiracy theories that has zero merit. It's comical.

---

I've explained all of that in detail (and specifically to you, IIRC) on other threads. It isn't a Hollywood movie where everyone synchronizes their watches and they trigger a coup at a precise moment according to some master plan. They reacted to developments on the ground using their existing infrastructure, primarily media outlets and militia connections.

---

Not only have you not provided details, I'm unaware of Russia even trying to provide details - names, events, etc.

sombear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So we all agree with stop giving these corrupt idiots mote of out money since there so much better?

Anyone disagree?

---

I disagree as do majority of Americans. We should be supporting Ukraine.

---

Why?

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:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It depends on which Ukrainians you're talking about. Not caring, wanting neutrality, and wanting Russian rule are all very different things. Attitudes in the west obviously hardened in 2022, but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK, and the Nazi militias (who assassinated a couple of negotiators and threatened to assassinate Zelensky if he made any kind of deal). As for the Donbas militias, they either joined the Russian military or fought alongside it.

---

"Attitudes in the West obviously hardened in 2022." Yeah, you think? That tends to happen when one country launches a brutal military invasion of an ally.

"but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK..." You could have just said--Ukraine would have been forced to cave if not for the assistance of its Western friends. Meaning, Ukraine as a puppet state, and many countries in Eastern Europe wondering if they were next. Which I guess would have been okay with you

The Nazi militia comment tries to elevate a marginal group to a decisive actor, which is just untrue.

And yes, there are Ukrainians with pro-Russian sentiment. There are also Texans who think we should secede. But countries don't work that way. One of the hard-and-fast rules is that one country does not take another country's land by military force. Russia broke that rule and I don't understand why you would defend it.

---

Yes, it tends to happen.

Russia was basically trying to implement the Minsk Agreements. Zelensky won his office by promising to do just that. It would not have made Ukraine a puppet state, at least not of Russia.

The only truly decisive actors are Russia and the US, but the Nazi militias are an important tool of the US and always have been. They're by no means marginal in their effect.

There are a lot of hard and fast rules, and we tend to be quite selective about which ones we recognize at a given time. Aggression against another country's political independence, for example our participation in the toppling of Ukraine's government in 2014, is every bit as unlawful as aggression against a country's territory.

---

1. If it was trying to enforce the Minsk agreements, why did Russia declare them defunct before attacking?

2. Ukraine is the actor that has sacrificed blood and treasure. I would call the decisive.

3. We supported the protests; we didn't create them. And the protestors had a point.

4. There tends to be a lot more dead and maimed when territories are invaded.

---

My mistake, I forgot that Russia had officially recognized the Donbas republics at the time. The point remains, as much as that might have been an insult to Ukraine's territorial integrity, it had no effect on the central government and was far from rendering it a puppet state.

The protests were largely a Western operation, like the ones in 2004 and countless others around the globe. Election interference and regime change are standard operating procedure.

Ukraine punished the Donbas for many years and was preparing to double down on its attacks in 2022. Russia's decision to invade caused more suffering for Ukraine but less for the territories it annexed.

My point isn't to argue who has a right to what territory. That's a political question, or perhaps more accurately a military one. What's vitally important is to understand what the principal parties are doing and why.

---

It's funny … Russia never complained about the CIA in Ukraine or the supposed mistreatment of Russian speakers in the East until it had to somehow justify its invasion.

And this makes perfect sense. Ukrainian intel was infested with Russians or Russia supporters. Any sort of material collusion with the US would have been impossible.

Just as public opinion polls showed Russian speakers were happy in the East. Putin is a master of after-the-fact rationales, but he's too dumb to even be consistent. I mean, let's just list some of his excuses for the 2022 invasion:
- NATO (which was not supported by any prominent Ukr politicians or the public)
- Ukr not a real country and always has been part of Russia (with Putin's BS history lessons to boot)
- Ukr is a Nazi country and stopping the spread of Naziism
- Protecting Christianity (which just might be the funniest)
- Preventing Ukr invasion (No, this is the funniest)
- Demilitarization of Ukr
- Stopping the Donbas genocide (no my mistake again, this is the funniest)
- And more

---

You don't understand how the "open door" policy works. Zelensky didn't campaign on joining NATO immediately, but he made his support clear within a few weeks of taking office. We didn't take long to set him straight. And it was already endorsed by their parliament and enshrined in their constitution.

I don't recall Putin ever saying there was one and only one issue with Ukraine.

---

Zelensky was elected 5 years after the first invasion

And he did not come out strongly supporting NATO membership until after the second invasion

---

You said NATO was no excuse for the 2022 invasion because no prominent politician supported it. That's incorrect. So is the idea that Russian spies would have made collusion with the US impossible. What were they going to do, announce their presence and slap the CIA people upside the head with a copy of War and Peace? It doesn't work that way.

---

Who openly supported it pre-invasion?

What we clearly would seen was Russia accusing the CIA of infiltrating Ukraine long before Maidan. Instead what we got is what we always get from Putin: after-the-fact BS and excuses that he can't even keep straight.

As I've posted several times over the years and nobody has answered because they can't: How could the CIA have known a president was going to suddenly do a 180 on exactly what he ran on?

It defies logic, common sense, and the facts on the ground. I mean … shocking that the public would rise up when 80% and every prominent politician supported the EU deal ….

---

The CIA has been in Ukraine for as long as there's been a CIA. That's not especially newsworthy from Putin's point of view.

Yanukovych's decision to sign the agreement was telegraphed months in advance, disclosed privately to EU officials more than a week before the summit, and publicly announced a few days later. If the Americans were paying any attention at all, it was no surprise.

---

Well, yeah … the CIA, like the intel of every major country, is basically everywhere. The issue is how much true influence they could have given Russia's well documented (and even bragged about by Russia) infiltration of Ukraine intel and government, and also how Russia could have been so blind to the CIA's success and ability to create the mass demonstrations.

Sometimes the obvious answer is the answer. 80% or more of Ukrainians were pissed that VY spurned the EU and crawled into the personal bed of Putin.

---

If Russian spies couldn't stop the Orange Revolution, it's far from obvious how they could have stopped the Maidan coup. Again, much of that kind of work has been farmed out to weaponized NGOs rather than the government.

---

Yet 12 years later we still have no info on how it was all done! All we have is CIA!!! NGO!!! Nuland!!!

And nobody has ever explained why the U.S. and the west would help negotiate the very peace deal that would have kept VY in office.

This truly is one of those conspiracy theories that has zero merit. It's comical.

---

I've explained all of that in detail (and specifically to you, IIRC) on other threads. It isn't a Hollywood movie where everyone synchronizes their watches and they trigger a coup at a precise moment according to some master plan. They reacted to developments on the ground using their existing infrastructure, primarily media outlets and militia connections.

---

Not only have you not provided details, I'm unaware of Russia even trying to provide details - names, events, etc.

---

You don't need to rely on Russia. The evidence I've shown includes a finding by a Ukrainian court that the Maidan shootings were most likely committed by right-wing militias, as well as a statement by a former Ukrainian official who witnessed militia leaders colluding with American diplomats.

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:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It depends on which Ukrainians you're talking about. Not caring, wanting neutrality, and wanting Russian rule are all very different things. Attitudes in the west obviously hardened in 2022, but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK, and the Nazi militias (who assassinated a couple of negotiators and threatened to assassinate Zelensky if he made any kind of deal). As for the Donbas militias, they either joined the Russian military or fought alongside it.

---

"Attitudes in the West obviously hardened in 2022." Yeah, you think? That tends to happen when one country launches a brutal military invasion of an ally.

"but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK..." You could have just said--Ukraine would have been forced to cave if not for the assistance of its Western friends. Meaning, Ukraine as a puppet state, and many countries in Eastern Europe wondering if they were next. Which I guess would have been okay with you

The Nazi militia comment tries to elevate a marginal group to a decisive actor, which is just untrue.

And yes, there are Ukrainians with pro-Russian sentiment. There are also Texans who think we should secede. But countries don't work that way. One of the hard-and-fast rules is that one country does not take another country's land by military force. Russia broke that rule and I don't understand why you would defend it.

---

Yes, it tends to happen.

Russia was basically trying to implement the Minsk Agreements. Zelensky won his office by promising to do just that. It would not have made Ukraine a puppet state, at least not of Russia.

The only truly decisive actors are Russia and the US, but the Nazi militias are an important tool of the US and always have been. They're by no means marginal in their effect.

There are a lot of hard and fast rules, and we tend to be quite selective about which ones we recognize at a given time. Aggression against another country's political independence, for example our participation in the toppling of Ukraine's government in 2014, is every bit as unlawful as aggression against a country's territory.

---

1. If it was trying to enforce the Minsk agreements, why did Russia declare them defunct before attacking?

2. Ukraine is the actor that has sacrificed blood and treasure. I would call the decisive.

3. We supported the protests; we didn't create them. And the protestors had a point.

4. There tends to be a lot more dead and maimed when territories are invaded.

---

My mistake, I forgot that Russia had officially recognized the Donbas republics at the time. The point remains, as much as that might have been an insult to Ukraine's territorial integrity, it had no effect on the central government and was far from rendering it a puppet state.

The protests were largely a Western operation, like the ones in 2004 and countless others around the globe. Election interference and regime change are standard operating procedure.

Ukraine punished the Donbas for many years and was preparing to double down on its attacks in 2022. Russia's decision to invade caused more suffering for Ukraine but less for the territories it annexed.

My point isn't to argue who has a right to what territory. That's a political question, or perhaps more accurately a military one. What's vitally important is to understand what the principal parties are doing and why.

---

It's funny … Russia never complained about the CIA in Ukraine or the supposed mistreatment of Russian speakers in the East until it had to somehow justify its invasion.

And this makes perfect sense. Ukrainian intel was infested with Russians or Russia supporters. Any sort of material collusion with the US would have been impossible.

Just as public opinion polls showed Russian speakers were happy in the East. Putin is a master of after-the-fact rationales, but he's too dumb to even be consistent. I mean, let's just list some of his excuses for the 2022 invasion:
- NATO (which was not supported by any prominent Ukr politicians or the public)
- Ukr not a real country and always has been part of Russia (with Putin's BS history lessons to boot)
- Ukr is a Nazi country and stopping the spread of Naziism
- Protecting Christianity (which just might be the funniest)
- Preventing Ukr invasion (No, this is the funniest)
- Demilitarization of Ukr
- Stopping the Donbas genocide (no my mistake again, this is the funniest)
- And more

---

You don't understand how the "open door" policy works. Zelensky didn't campaign on joining NATO immediately, but he made his support clear within a few weeks of taking office. We didn't take long to set him straight. And it was already endorsed by their parliament and enshrined in their constitution.

I don't recall Putin ever saying there was one and only one issue with Ukraine.

---

Zelensky was elected 5 years after the first invasion

And he did not come out strongly supporting NATO membership until after the second invasion

---

You said NATO was no excuse for the 2022 invasion because no prominent politician supported it. That's incorrect. So is the idea that Russian spies would have made collusion with the US impossible. What were they going to do, announce their presence and slap the CIA people upside the head with a copy of War and Peace? It doesn't work that way.

---

Who openly supported it pre-invasion?

What we clearly would seen was Russia accusing the CIA of infiltrating Ukraine long before Maidan. Instead what we got is what we always get from Putin: after-the-fact BS and excuses that he can't even keep straight.

As I've posted several times over the years and nobody has answered because they can't: How could the CIA have known a president was going to suddenly do a 180 on exactly what he ran on?

It defies logic, common sense, and the facts on the ground. I mean … shocking that the public would rise up when 80% and every prominent politician supported the EU deal ….

---

The CIA has been in Ukraine for as long as there's been a CIA. That's not especially newsworthy from Putin's point of view.

Yanukovych's decision to sign the agreement was telegraphed months in advance, disclosed privately to EU officials more than a week before the summit, and publicly announced a few days later. If the Americans were paying any attention at all, it was no surprise.

---

Well, yeah … the CIA, like the intel of every major country, is basically everywhere. The issue is how much true influence they could have given Russia's well documented (and even bragged about by Russia) infiltration of Ukraine intel and government, and also how Russia could have been so blind to the CIA's success and ability to create the mass demonstrations.

Sometimes the obvious answer is the answer. 80% or more of Ukrainians were pissed that VY spurned the EU and crawled into the personal bed of Putin.

---

If Russian spies couldn't stop the Orange Revolution, it's far from obvious how they could have stopped the Maidan coup. Again, much of that kind of work has been farmed out to weaponized NGOs rather than the government.

---

Yet 12 years later we still have no info on how it was all done! All we have is CIA!!! NGO!!! Nuland!!!

And nobody has ever explained why the U.S. and the west would help negotiate the very peace deal that would have kept VY in office.

This truly is one of those conspiracy theories that has zero merit. It's comical.

---

I've explained all of that in detail (and specifically to you, IIRC) on other threads. It isn't a Hollywood movie where everyone synchronizes their watches and they trigger a coup at a precise moment according to some master plan. They reacted to developments on the ground using their existing infrastructure, primarily media outlets and militia connections.

---

Not only have you not provided details, I'm unaware of Russia even trying to provide details - names, events, etc.

---

You don't need to rely on Russia. The evidence I've shown includes a finding by a Ukrainian court that the Maidan shootings were most likely committed by right-wing militias, as well as a statement by a former Ukrainian official who witnessed militia leaders colluding with American diplomats.

---

Official Court Rulings

The Sviatoshyn District Court Verdict: In October 2023, Kyiv's Sviatoshyn District Court issued its landmark verdict regarding the fatal shootings on Instytutska Street during the final, bloodiest days of the Euromaidan protests. The court convicted specific former members of the Berkut special police unit for their roles in the deaths of protesters. The trial proceedings and rulings focused strictly on local law enforcement actions and chain-of-command accountability under the former regime of Viktor Yanukovych; they did not address or make any findings regarding U.S. or Western government involvement.

Origin of the Claim: Claims that a court legally recognized Maidan as a U.S.-backed coup stem instead from a 2016 ruling by a Russian court (in Moscow), which upheld a petition filed by a former pro-Russian Ukrainian MP labeling the event a coup based on testimony from exiled figures like Yanukovych. That ruling carried no legal or territorial jurisdiction in Ukraine.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

sombear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So we all agree with stop giving these corrupt idiots mote of out money since there so much better?

Anyone disagree?

---

I disagree as do majority of Americans. We should be supporting Ukraine.

---

Why?

---

Because I support Christian freedom fighters defending their country against an evil invader.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

NATO membership was broadly supported by the Ukrainian government before the 2022 invasion, which is what you asked about. This was the predictable result of the 2014 coup and one of the main reasons for Russia's actions since then.

---

Of course it was. Russia had invaded and annnexed and was threatening to do so again!

---

Russia didn't annex anything until 2022.

---

You're 8 years off

---

Apologies...Crimea may not have gotten the memo that they were invaded, but I should have remembered. As far as the Donbas, special status was still on the table as of early 2022.

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:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It depends on which Ukrainians you're talking about. Not caring, wanting neutrality, and wanting Russian rule are all very different things. Attitudes in the west obviously hardened in 2022, but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK, and the Nazi militias (who assassinated a couple of negotiators and threatened to assassinate Zelensky if he made any kind of deal). As for the Donbas militias, they either joined the Russian military or fought alongside it.

---

"Attitudes in the West obviously hardened in 2022." Yeah, you think? That tends to happen when one country launches a brutal military invasion of an ally.

"but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK..." You could have just said--Ukraine would have been forced to cave if not for the assistance of its Western friends. Meaning, Ukraine as a puppet state, and many countries in Eastern Europe wondering if they were next. Which I guess would have been okay with you

The Nazi militia comment tries to elevate a marginal group to a decisive actor, which is just untrue.

And yes, there are Ukrainians with pro-Russian sentiment. There are also Texans who think we should secede. But countries don't work that way. One of the hard-and-fast rules is that one country does not take another country's land by military force. Russia broke that rule and I don't understand why you would defend it.

---

Yes, it tends to happen.

Russia was basically trying to implement the Minsk Agreements. Zelensky won his office by promising to do just that. It would not have made Ukraine a puppet state, at least not of Russia.

The only truly decisive actors are Russia and the US, but the Nazi militias are an important tool of the US and always have been. They're by no means marginal in their effect.

There are a lot of hard and fast rules, and we tend to be quite selective about which ones we recognize at a given time. Aggression against another country's political independence, for example our participation in the toppling of Ukraine's government in 2014, is every bit as unlawful as aggression against a country's territory.

---

1. If it was trying to enforce the Minsk agreements, why did Russia declare them defunct before attacking?

2. Ukraine is the actor that has sacrificed blood and treasure. I would call the decisive.

3. We supported the protests; we didn't create them. And the protestors had a point.

4. There tends to be a lot more dead and maimed when territories are invaded.

---

My mistake, I forgot that Russia had officially recognized the Donbas republics at the time. The point remains, as much as that might have been an insult to Ukraine's territorial integrity, it had no effect on the central government and was far from rendering it a puppet state.

The protests were largely a Western operation, like the ones in 2004 and countless others around the globe. Election interference and regime change are standard operating procedure.

Ukraine punished the Donbas for many years and was preparing to double down on its attacks in 2022. Russia's decision to invade caused more suffering for Ukraine but less for the territories it annexed.

My point isn't to argue who has a right to what territory. That's a political question, or perhaps more accurately a military one. What's vitally important is to understand what the principal parties are doing and why.

---

It's funny … Russia never complained about the CIA in Ukraine or the supposed mistreatment of Russian speakers in the East until it had to somehow justify its invasion.

And this makes perfect sense. Ukrainian intel was infested with Russians or Russia supporters. Any sort of material collusion with the US would have been impossible.

Just as public opinion polls showed Russian speakers were happy in the East. Putin is a master of after-the-fact rationales, but he's too dumb to even be consistent. I mean, let's just list some of his excuses for the 2022 invasion:
- NATO (which was not supported by any prominent Ukr politicians or the public)
- Ukr not a real country and always has been part of Russia (with Putin's BS history lessons to boot)
- Ukr is a Nazi country and stopping the spread of Naziism
- Protecting Christianity (which just might be the funniest)
- Preventing Ukr invasion (No, this is the funniest)
- Demilitarization of Ukr
- Stopping the Donbas genocide (no my mistake again, this is the funniest)
- And more

---

You don't understand how the "open door" policy works. Zelensky didn't campaign on joining NATO immediately, but he made his support clear within a few weeks of taking office. We didn't take long to set him straight. And it was already endorsed by their parliament and enshrined in their constitution.

I don't recall Putin ever saying there was one and only one issue with Ukraine.

---

Zelensky was elected 5 years after the first invasion

And he did not come out strongly supporting NATO membership until after the second invasion

---

You said NATO was no excuse for the 2022 invasion because no prominent politician supported it. That's incorrect. So is the idea that Russian spies would have made collusion with the US impossible. What were they going to do, announce their presence and slap the CIA people upside the head with a copy of War and Peace? It doesn't work that way.

---

Who openly supported it pre-invasion?

What we clearly would seen was Russia accusing the CIA of infiltrating Ukraine long before Maidan. Instead what we got is what we always get from Putin: after-the-fact BS and excuses that he can't even keep straight.

As I've posted several times over the years and nobody has answered because they can't: How could the CIA have known a president was going to suddenly do a 180 on exactly what he ran on?

It defies logic, common sense, and the facts on the ground. I mean … shocking that the public would rise up when 80% and every prominent politician supported the EU deal ….

---

The CIA has been in Ukraine for as long as there's been a CIA. That's not especially newsworthy from Putin's point of view.

Yanukovych's decision to sign the agreement was telegraphed months in advance, disclosed privately to EU officials more than a week before the summit, and publicly announced a few days later. If the Americans were paying any attention at all, it was no surprise.

---

Well, yeah … the CIA, like the intel of every major country, is basically everywhere. The issue is how much true influence they could have given Russia's well documented (and even bragged about by Russia) infiltration of Ukraine intel and government, and also how Russia could have been so blind to the CIA's success and ability to create the mass demonstrations.

Sometimes the obvious answer is the answer. 80% or more of Ukrainians were pissed that VY spurned the EU and crawled into the personal bed of Putin.

---

If Russian spies couldn't stop the Orange Revolution, it's far from obvious how they could have stopped the Maidan coup. Again, much of that kind of work has been farmed out to weaponized NGOs rather than the government.

---

Yet 12 years later we still have no info on how it was all done! All we have is CIA!!! NGO!!! Nuland!!!

And nobody has ever explained why the U.S. and the west would help negotiate the very peace deal that would have kept VY in office.

This truly is one of those conspiracy theories that has zero merit. It's comical.

---

I've explained all of that in detail (and specifically to you, IIRC) on other threads. It isn't a Hollywood movie where everyone synchronizes their watches and they trigger a coup at a precise moment according to some master plan. They reacted to developments on the ground using their existing infrastructure, primarily media outlets and militia connections.

---

Not only have you not provided details, I'm unaware of Russia even trying to provide details - names, events, etc.

---

You don't need to rely on Russia. The evidence I've shown includes a finding by a Ukrainian court that the Maidan shootings were most likely committed by right-wing militias, as well as a statement by a former Ukrainian official who witnessed militia leaders colluding with American diplomats.

---

Official Court Rulings

The Sviatoshyn District Court Verdict: In October 2023, Kyiv's Sviatoshyn District Court issued its landmark verdict regarding the fatal shootings on Instytutska Street during the final, bloodiest days of the Euromaidan protests. The court convicted specific former members of the Berkut special police unit for their roles in the deaths of protesters. The trial proceedings and rulings focused strictly on local law enforcement actions and chain-of-command accountability under the former regime of Viktor Yanukovych; they did not address or make any findings regarding U.S. or Western government involvement.

Origin of the Claim: Claims that a court legally recognized Maidan as a U.S.-backed coup stem instead from a 2016 ruling by a Russian court (in Moscow), which upheld a petition filed by a former pro-Russian Ukrainian MP labeling the event a coup based on testimony from exiled figures like Yanukovych. That ruling carried no legal or territorial jurisdiction in Ukraine.

---

I'm not claiming there was any finding of US involvement by Ukrainian courts.

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:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It depends on which Ukrainians you're talking about. Not caring, wanting neutrality, and wanting Russian rule are all very different things. Attitudes in the west obviously hardened in 2022, but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK, and the Nazi militias (who assassinated a couple of negotiators and threatened to assassinate Zelensky if he made any kind of deal). As for the Donbas militias, they either joined the Russian military or fought alongside it.

---

"Attitudes in the West obviously hardened in 2022." Yeah, you think? That tends to happen when one country launches a brutal military invasion of an ally.

"but there would almost certainly have been a negotiated peace if not for the influence of the US, the UK..." You could have just said--Ukraine would have been forced to cave if not for the assistance of its Western friends. Meaning, Ukraine as a puppet state, and many countries in Eastern Europe wondering if they were next. Which I guess would have been okay with you

The Nazi militia comment tries to elevate a marginal group to a decisive actor, which is just untrue.

And yes, there are Ukrainians with pro-Russian sentiment. There are also Texans who think we should secede. But countries don't work that way. One of the hard-and-fast rules is that one country does not take another country's land by military force. Russia broke that rule and I don't understand why you would defend it.

---

Yes, it tends to happen.

Russia was basically trying to implement the Minsk Agreements. Zelensky won his office by promising to do just that. It would not have made Ukraine a puppet state, at least not of Russia.

The only truly decisive actors are Russia and the US, but the Nazi militias are an important tool of the US and always have been. They're by no means marginal in their effect.

There are a lot of hard and fast rules, and we tend to be quite selective about which ones we recognize at a given time. Aggression against another country's political independence, for example our participation in the toppling of Ukraine's government in 2014, is every bit as unlawful as aggression against a country's territory.

---

1. If it was trying to enforce the Minsk agreements, why did Russia declare them defunct before attacking?

2. Ukraine is the actor that has sacrificed blood and treasure. I would call the decisive.

3. We supported the protests; we didn't create them. And the protestors had a point.

4. There tends to be a lot more dead and maimed when territories are invaded.

---

My mistake, I forgot that Russia had officially recognized the Donbas republics at the time. The point remains, as much as that might have been an insult to Ukraine's territorial integrity, it had no effect on the central government and was far from rendering it a puppet state.

The protests were largely a Western operation, like the ones in 2004 and countless others around the globe. Election interference and regime change are standard operating procedure.

Ukraine punished the Donbas for many years and was preparing to double down on its attacks in 2022. Russia's decision to invade caused more suffering for Ukraine but less for the territories it annexed.

My point isn't to argue who has a right to what territory. That's a political question, or perhaps more accurately a military one. What's vitally important is to understand what the principal parties are doing and why.

---

It's funny … Russia never complained about the CIA in Ukraine or the supposed mistreatment of Russian speakers in the East until it had to somehow justify its invasion.

And this makes perfect sense. Ukrainian intel was infested with Russians or Russia supporters. Any sort of material collusion with the US would have been impossible.

Just as public opinion polls showed Russian speakers were happy in the East. Putin is a master of after-the-fact rationales, but he's too dumb to even be consistent. I mean, let's just list some of his excuses for the 2022 invasion:
- NATO (which was not supported by any prominent Ukr politicians or the public)
- Ukr not a real country and always has been part of Russia (with Putin's BS history lessons to boot)
- Ukr is a Nazi country and stopping the spread of Naziism
- Protecting Christianity (which just might be the funniest)
- Preventing Ukr invasion (No, this is the funniest)
- Demilitarization of Ukr
- Stopping the Donbas genocide (no my mistake again, this is the funniest)
- And more

---

You don't understand how the "open door" policy works. Zelensky didn't campaign on joining NATO immediately, but he made his support clear within a few weeks of taking office. We didn't take long to set him straight. And it was already endorsed by their parliament and enshrined in their constitution.

I don't recall Putin ever saying there was one and only one issue with Ukraine.

---

Zelensky was elected 5 years after the first invasion

And he did not come out strongly supporting NATO membership until after the second invasion

---

You said NATO was no excuse for the 2022 invasion because no prominent politician supported it. That's incorrect. So is the idea that Russian spies would have made collusion with the US impossible. What were they going to do, announce their presence and slap the CIA people upside the head with a copy of War and Peace? It doesn't work that way.

---

Who openly supported it pre-invasion?

What we clearly would seen was Russia accusing the CIA of infiltrating Ukraine long before Maidan. Instead what we got is what we always get from Putin: after-the-fact BS and excuses that he can't even keep straight.

As I've posted several times over the years and nobody has answered because they can't: How could the CIA have known a president was going to suddenly do a 180 on exactly what he ran on?

It defies logic, common sense, and the facts on the ground. I mean … shocking that the public would rise up when 80% and every prominent politician supported the EU deal ….

---

The CIA has been in Ukraine for as long as there's been a CIA. That's not especially newsworthy from Putin's point of view.

Yanukovych's decision to sign the agreement was telegraphed months in advance, disclosed privately to EU officials more than a week before the summit, and publicly announced a few days later. If the Americans were paying any attention at all, it was no surprise.

---

Well, yeah … the CIA, like the intel of every major country, is basically everywhere. The issue is how much true influence they could have given Russia's well documented (and even bragged about by Russia) infiltration of Ukraine intel and government, and also how Russia could have been so blind to the CIA's success and ability to create the mass demonstrations.

Sometimes the obvious answer is the answer. 80% or more of Ukrainians were pissed that VY spurned the EU and crawled into the personal bed of Putin.

---

If Russian spies couldn't stop the Orange Revolution, it's far from obvious how they could have stopped the Maidan coup. Again, much of that kind of work has been farmed out to weaponized NGOs rather than the government.

---

Yet 12 years later we still have no info on how it was all done! All we have is CIA!!! NGO!!! Nuland!!!

And nobody has ever explained why the U.S. and the west would help negotiate the very peace deal that would have kept VY in office.

This truly is one of those conspiracy theories that has zero merit. It's comical.

---

I've explained all of that in detail (and specifically to you, IIRC) on other threads. It isn't a Hollywood movie where everyone synchronizes their watches and they trigger a coup at a precise moment according to some master plan. They reacted to developments on the ground using their existing infrastructure, primarily media outlets and militia connections.

---

Not only have you not provided details, I'm unaware of Russia even trying to provide details - names, events, etc.

---

You don't need to rely on Russia. The evidence I've shown includes a finding by a Ukrainian court that the Maidan shootings were most likely committed by right-wing militias, as well as a statement by a former Ukrainian official who witnessed militia leaders colluding with American diplomats.

---

Official Court Rulings

The Sviatoshyn District Court Verdict: In October 2023, Kyiv's Sviatoshyn District Court issued its landmark verdict regarding the fatal shootings on Instytutska Street during the final, bloodiest days of the Euromaidan protests. The court convicted specific former members of the Berkut special police unit for their roles in the deaths of protesters. The trial proceedings and rulings focused strictly on local law enforcement actions and chain-of-command accountability under the former regime of Viktor Yanukovych; they did not address or make any findings regarding U.S. or Western government involvement.

Origin of the Claim: Claims that a court legally recognized Maidan as a U.S.-backed coup stem instead from a 2016 ruling by a Russian court (in Moscow), which upheld a petition filed by a former pro-Russian Ukrainian MP labeling the event a coup based on testimony from exiled figures like Yanukovych. That ruling carried no legal or territorial jurisdiction in Ukraine.

---

I'm not claiming there was any finding of US involvement by Ukrainian courts.

---

No evidence of U.S. collusion

No credible evidence shows that Maidan militias or activist self-defense units colluded with or were commanded by U.S. diplomats during the 2014 Euromaidan protests. While American officials expressed political support for the opposition and discussed desired outcomes for Ukraine's political leadership in intercepted phone calls, investigations have found no operational coordination or command ties with militant groups on the ground.Context of U.S. Diplomatic InvolvementPolitical Expression: U.S. diplomats, including Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, openly met with mainstream Ukrainian opposition figures and civil society leaders.The "Nuland-Pyatt" Leak: A intercepted and leaked 2014 telephone conversation revealed American diplomats discussing their preferences for the composition of a post-Yanukovych transitional government.Nature of Engagement: International monitors and investigative bodies concluded that U.S. actions amounted to diplomatic maneuvering and political preference, rather than directing or organizing street-level paramilitaries or tactical militia operations.

Origins of the Collusion ClaimsRussian State Narratives: Claims asserting that the U.S. or the CIA directly organized, armed, or colluded with radical and far-right elements on the Maidan have been repeatedly examined and categorized as unsubstantiated disinformation by international fact-checkers and agencies like EUvsDisinfo.Domestic Dynamics: Independent assessments of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity attribute the mobilization and actions of protest groups to internal Ukrainian civil unrest and a reaction against the Yanukovych administration's use of force, rather than a foreign-commanded operation.

If AI says so, it must be true.

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.

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.

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.