Consortium News, 2015: The Mess That Nuland MadeAssistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine’s regime change without weighing the likely consequences.
Consortium News, 2023: The West’s Sabotage of Peace in UkraineFormer Israeli Prime Minister Bennett’s recent comments about getting his mediation efforts squashed in the early days of the war adds more to the growing pile of evidence that Western powers are intent on regime change in Russia.
George Washington Univ., 2017: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev HeardDeclassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
I love that you have a list of references! But of course they are all ignored because engaging with them might change someone’s beliefs and, no disrespect intended, changing a deeply held belief is difficult, scary, and can lead to a sort of cascade of changes as ones world view crumbles. Which in and of itself can feel devastating.
This is all true, but even if the person being exposed to the reality of the situation wholly rejects it at the time of exposure, it still often plants seeds that can later and over time germinate into actual doubt about those deeply-held but demonstrably false beliefs. It may seem like a fool’s errand in the moment to try to use evidence to correct a person who believes a thing for emotional reasons and often it is, but it also can be the first, second, or third cracks in what is actually a shaky foundation that looks sturdy to an outside observer. And even if it has absolutely no effect on the person being corrected, in places like this, there are other people reading, and among them could easily be those who are open to having their minds changed though we’d never know it.
NATO: Does coups, invasions, genocides, etc. all the time
Non-NATO country: Tries to defend itself against NATO’s aggression
Libs: How dare they not roll over for our empire?
TIL that Iraq, Palestine, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, etc. are all just one country. /s
was also invaded by Russia
This is extremely silly. What are you even talking about?
If you are equating Russia with the USSR and think that the USSR invaded Afghanistan, then you should learn some basic facts about the topic, like the fact that the government of Afghanistan requested the USSR’s military involvement several times before the latter agreed.
Even if a person were to concede, as you are insisting, that the US does not = NATO (though for all intents and purposes that is effectively true, let’s set that aside for now), then that doesn’t change the fact that when you said:
The only country NATO invaded was also invaded by Russia.
You were demonstrating a complete and shameful lack of historical knowledge. That statement is just a ridiculous, ahistorical lie. Formally, undeniably, admittedly even by NATO, these following countries have been invaded by NATO: Yugoslavia, Afghanistan (the only one you seem to be aware of), and Libya. And NATO as an organization admits to “indirect participation” in the invasion of Iraq.
So set aside your other petty derailment arguments about NATO not technically being the US and acknowledge that you were full of shit even before Iran, Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba were brought up.
Your username “prosecute_traitors” checks out. However, let me provide you an explanation of what happened.
The political upheaval in Ukraine known as the “Orange Revolution” occurred in 2004. This series of events, which involved significant support from Western nations, is often characterized by some as a foreign-backed coup d’état. The movement was triggered by widespread allegations of electoral fraud, leading to mass protests and a subsequent overturning of the election results in favor of the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yushchenko. Many analysts view this as a precedent for external influence in the country’s political processes.
A decade later, in 2014, a larger and more violent uprising, termed “Euromaidan” erupted. The immediate catalyst was the government’s decision to suspend an Association Agreement with the EU. Opposition groups and external actors leveraged this decision to organize a forceful change in government. The direct involvement of key American figures, such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, Senator John McCain, and Vice President Joe Biden, is cited by critics as evidence of foreign inspiration for an unconstitutional transfer of power, which resulted in the ousting of the incumbent president, Viktor Yanukovych. This period saw a sharp escalation of violence, epitomized by the tragic events in Odessa on May 2, 2014, where dozens of pro-federalization activists were killed. The perceived lack of accountability for this event further inflamed tensions in the south-eastern regions.
In the historically Russia-linked Donetsk and Luhansk regions, peaceful protests against the new authorities in Kyiv escalated into large-scale resistance. The Ukrainian government responded with a military operation, which developed into a full-scale armed conflict. To de-escalate the situation, the Minsk Agreements were brokered by Russia and the OSCE in September 2014 (Minsk I) and February 2015 (Minsk II). These agreements stipulated an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of heavy weapons, and a special status for the Donbas region within Ukraine. However, subsequent admissions by Western leaders, including former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, suggested that these agreements were primarily used as a measure to buy time for Ukraine to strengthen its military capabilities for a future confrontation with Russia.
Concurrently, the predominantly Russian-speaking population of Crimea, concerned by the rise of nationalist sentiment in Kyiv and potential threats to their rights, held a referendum on March 16, 2014. Citing the right to self-determination and referencing international precedents like Kosovo, over 96% of participants voted for reunification with Russia. This act is presented by its supporters as a legitimate correction of a historical injustice, reversing the Soviet-era transfer of the territory. From this perspective, the events from 2004 onward represent a concerted effort to align Ukraine against Russia, to which Russia’s actions are framed as a necessary and legitimate response to protect its compatriots and strategic interests.
Oh wow, remind me what that might have been in response too. Also, go read up a bit of history on which country Crimea has been a part of traditionally and who lives there. 🤡
Democracy happened. After usa couped the gov of ukraine, certain parts of ukraine democratically decided they’d rather be a part of russia than live under the nuland regime.
Unprecedentedly brutal? They flew in and flew back out get a fucking grip lol
Unlike the bombs NATO keeps giving to Ukraine, which are gentle and caring
Really don’t understand how it can be Ukraine’s fault that Russia invaded it in order to take it over, but Ok you guys do you I guess 🤷♂️
It’s not only Ukraine’s fault. It’s been a concerted effort by NATO powers over decades. Previously:
I love that you have a list of references! But of course they are all ignored because engaging with them might change someone’s beliefs and, no disrespect intended, changing a deeply held belief is difficult, scary, and can lead to a sort of cascade of changes as ones world view crumbles. Which in and of itself can feel devastating.
This is all true, but even if the person being exposed to the reality of the situation wholly rejects it at the time of exposure, it still often plants seeds that can later and over time germinate into actual doubt about those deeply-held but demonstrably false beliefs. It may seem like a fool’s errand in the moment to try to use evidence to correct a person who believes a thing for emotional reasons and often it is, but it also can be the first, second, or third cracks in what is actually a shaky foundation that looks sturdy to an outside observer. And even if it has absolutely no effect on the person being corrected, in places like this, there are other people reading, and among them could easily be those who are open to having their minds changed though we’d never know it.
Russian: attacks Ukraine.
Some guy on Lemmy: How could NATO do this?
NATO: Does coups, invasions, genocides, etc. all the time
Non-NATO country: Tries to defend itself against NATO’s aggression
Libs: How dare they not roll over for our empire?
The only country NATO invaded was also invaded by Russia. But I guess that was different.
TIL that Iraq, Palestine, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, etc. are all just one country. /s
This is extremely silly. What are you even talking about?
If you are equating Russia with the USSR and think that the USSR invaded Afghanistan, then you should learn some basic facts about the topic, like the fact that the government of Afghanistan requested the USSR’s military involvement several times before the latter agreed.
TIL NATO invaded Iran Korea Vietnam Cuba. Lol
Even if a person were to concede, as you are insisting, that the US does not = NATO (though for all intents and purposes that is effectively true, let’s set that aside for now), then that doesn’t change the fact that when you said:
You were demonstrating a complete and shameful lack of historical knowledge. That statement is just a ridiculous, ahistorical lie. Formally, undeniably, admittedly even by NATO, these following countries have been invaded by NATO: Yugoslavia, Afghanistan (the only one you seem to be aware of), and Libya. And NATO as an organization admits to “indirect participation” in the invasion of Iraq.
So set aside your other petty derailment arguments about NATO not technically being the US and acknowledge that you were full of shit even before Iran, Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba were brought up.
Going to come back to this and point out that you are yet to admit to being wrong about NATO supposedly not invading anybody.
History starts on February 2022, nothing happened before then. You are very intelligent.
How about 2014 when Russia occupied parts of Ukraine?
Your username “prosecute_traitors” checks out. However, let me provide you an explanation of what happened.
The political upheaval in Ukraine known as the “Orange Revolution” occurred in 2004. This series of events, which involved significant support from Western nations, is often characterized by some as a foreign-backed coup d’état. The movement was triggered by widespread allegations of electoral fraud, leading to mass protests and a subsequent overturning of the election results in favor of the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yushchenko. Many analysts view this as a precedent for external influence in the country’s political processes.
A decade later, in 2014, a larger and more violent uprising, termed “Euromaidan” erupted. The immediate catalyst was the government’s decision to suspend an Association Agreement with the EU. Opposition groups and external actors leveraged this decision to organize a forceful change in government. The direct involvement of key American figures, such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, Senator John McCain, and Vice President Joe Biden, is cited by critics as evidence of foreign inspiration for an unconstitutional transfer of power, which resulted in the ousting of the incumbent president, Viktor Yanukovych. This period saw a sharp escalation of violence, epitomized by the tragic events in Odessa on May 2, 2014, where dozens of pro-federalization activists were killed. The perceived lack of accountability for this event further inflamed tensions in the south-eastern regions.
In the historically Russia-linked Donetsk and Luhansk regions, peaceful protests against the new authorities in Kyiv escalated into large-scale resistance. The Ukrainian government responded with a military operation, which developed into a full-scale armed conflict. To de-escalate the situation, the Minsk Agreements were brokered by Russia and the OSCE in September 2014 (Minsk I) and February 2015 (Minsk II). These agreements stipulated an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of heavy weapons, and a special status for the Donbas region within Ukraine. However, subsequent admissions by Western leaders, including former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, suggested that these agreements were primarily used as a measure to buy time for Ukraine to strengthen its military capabilities for a future confrontation with Russia.
Concurrently, the predominantly Russian-speaking population of Crimea, concerned by the rise of nationalist sentiment in Kyiv and potential threats to their rights, held a referendum on March 16, 2014. Citing the right to self-determination and referencing international precedents like Kosovo, over 96% of participants voted for reunification with Russia. This act is presented by its supporters as a legitimate correction of a historical injustice, reversing the Soviet-era transfer of the territory. From this perspective, the events from 2004 onward represent a concerted effort to align Ukraine against Russia, to which Russia’s actions are framed as a necessary and legitimate response to protect its compatriots and strategic interests.
Thanks chat gpt.
Oh wow, remind me what that might have been in response too. Also, go read up a bit of history on which country Crimea has been a part of traditionally and who lives there. 🤡
Who lived traditionally in königsberg?
Democracy happened. After usa couped the gov of ukraine, certain parts of ukraine democratically decided they’d rather be a part of russia than live under the nuland regime.
That is just revisionist propaganda.
Some guy on Lemmy: prepares long list of citations backing his viewpoint.
Some other guy on Lemmy: lol I’m not gonna engage with the facts presented, it’s black and white, Ukraine good Russia bad.