this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
814 points (89.7% liked)
Memes
47218 readers
510 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
See, I can't tell if you're talking about America, Russia, or Ukraine.
I get what you’re saying, but to clarify I was speaking of the 2014 Maidan Coup where the US installed a far-right puppet government.
Sure, and Russia had their right-wing coup in 1991, and America is currently doing a self-coup.
People get these confused a lot, but russia has 2 coups in the 90s-
1991 was a failed anti-reformist "left wing" coup that deposed Gorbachev and ended with the fall of the USSR and Yeltsin in power.
1993 was a successful right wing self-coup that allowed Yeltsin to fully consolidate power away from the Russian parliament and towards the presidency. More hamfisted and violent, but in essence similar to what is happening in the US right now
The US was taken over in a coup when Kennedy was assassinated. We’ve been ruled by the CIA & Mossad ever since.
Eh, while they're part of maintaining the status quo, we're ruled by capital, and that was true before Kennedy too.
And the CIA has always been an attack dog of the capitalists. That’s its whole mission.
Self-coup would suggest someone is in control and actually wants what's happening. That'd be nice.
And your evidence for the US installing this government is what exactly?
Let me say this as a westerner - if someone all of a sudden tried to put me in a Putinist puppet state, shit would burn. To the ground.
Im assuming you aren't American, then 👀
Fact check me.
How should I prove that the Euromaidan wasn't some right wing CIA coup? How do you prove a negative?
So you’re not simply claiming the events weren’t as described. You’re claiming they didn’t happen at all, and there was no transfer of power at all? Wow.
That is not at all what I claimed and I don't understand how you could interpret what I said as meaning that.
So then clarify. What did you mean? What is your point? What is your claim?
Because it sounds like you’re just pushing NATO propaganda with no actual understanding of the events. You’re not claiming one narrative has credibility over another version of events. You’re just proclaiming blanket denial.
I'm saying that Euromaidan was a popular revolt against the corrupt, pro-Russian government which the CIA has no meaningful influence on.
I don't understand where this "blanket denial" stuff is coming from.
You are wrong.
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/yjae8gc8hp2p293tmt4dlr4z2dpe2s?format=amp
I am not. You're just parroting the nonsense the whores of the Kremlin have been putting out for a decade.
There was never any promise by the US not let Ukraine into NATO. Even if there was, Russia has done enough to justify saying that promise doesn't matter anymore.
Sure, the US supported Euromaidan. That doesn't make it a CIA plot. Why shouldn't we support protests against a corrupt, authoritarian regime backed by our biggest opponent on the international stage? You and the overestimated Mr. Sachs reach the conclusion that because Ukraine leaving the Russian sphere was in America's interest, America must have acted to cause it, despite the total lack of actual evidence.
Here's an idea: maybe Russia wouldn't have to worry about encirclement if it didn't constantly threaten it's neighbors.
You’re just parroting NATO propaganda. Glad to see you shifting goalposts on the US backing, though. Shows you understand on some level you’re lying.
Think I’ll trust the word of geopolitical experts over a NATO bot that can’t produce any of their own sources.
I'm not shifting the goalposts. The mere fact the US supported Euromaidan is not the same as the whole thing being a CIA coup.
Except you're not listening to geopolitical experts. You're listening to an economist's opinion on geopolitics, platformed only by Russian assets that is contradicted by most actual geopolitical experts on Earth.
I ask again: how do I source proof of something not happening.
LoL. “An economist.” Please tell me what your qualifications are that you believe you have a better understanding and closer involvement than Jeffrey fucking Sachs. Not “platformed by Russia,” but literally there to assist Ukraine in negotiations.
How many more geopolitical experts dissuading NATO escalation in Ukraine would you like? So you don’t move the goalposts further, let’s set it now: how many more? And what is it that you believe “backed by the US” to mean in a coup?
I'm not getting paid by Russia to shill for them on RT propaganda shows. That's what.
It don't see how blaming Ukraine for starting the war helps the Ukrainians.
You're begging the question. NATO isn't escalating. It wasn't a coup.
No one blamed the Ukrainians. Especially not Jeffrey Sachs.
Maybe if you weren’t talking out of your ass, you would be invited to participate in negotiations yourself or speaking in front of the EU on your expertise. But that’s not gonna happen because you are in no way his equal, regardless of how much esteem you hold for yourself for dutifully repeating NATO propaganda.
When you consider your beliefs and biases to be equivalent to the actual expertise of others, it’s time to talk to a doctor about a possible personality disorder.
Putting blame for the war anywhere but the Russians is effectively blaming Ukraine.
Putin has also spoken in front of the EU. It does not make Sachs's opinion anything other than stupid.
I'm basing my beliefs of off the expertise of the hundreds if not thousands of experts who agree that Sachs is a moron.
Ahh. Haha. Caught you moving that goalpost! So now holding the US accountable for their actions is also an attack on Ukrainians?!
Hahahaha. Fucking pathetic.
Since you’ve read hundreds of experts debunking Sachs, you should be able to provide at least one source. Right?
It's not moving the goalposts. Also, you haven't alleged any "actions" the US did other than not disaproving of the Kremlin's puppet getting booted out of office.
Blaming NATO expansionism is effectively denying the agency of Ukraine. So yeah, saying the US is responsible for Putin's hard on for Ukraine is an attack on Ukrainians.
What's pathetic is your apparent worship of Sachs.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230806172854/https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/03/20/open-letter-to-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-russia-ukraine-war/
Did you read your own link? It’s a blanket denial, even of US involvement which you’ve already acknowledged. And it’s written by someone with a conflict of interest, as an economist directly profiting from the regime.
Funny that you NAFO bots love to pretend you support Ukrainian agency, while you defend those who took over their government and refuse to allow the Ukrainian people to participate in elections. Almost like you don’t actually give a fuck about Ukrainian agency, unless they’re willing to die in a proxy war for the west. Feigning such care for their agency, while not having an ounce of interest in protecting their lives.
Btw you severely overplayed it with your ‘criticizing the US is also attacking Ukrainians’ attempt. Sloppy.
I don't consider "not actively opposing" to be the same thing as "involvement."
Your sole cite was by an economist directly profiting from the Putin regime.
For all your demands of sources you have not provided a single bit of evidence of anything you have alleged. Even that article sucking off Putin couldn't offer any evidence of US involvement other than Sullivan encouraging Ukraine not to bow to Putin. Do you have any actual evidence of US involvement in Euromaidan? Of Ukrainians being blocked from participating in elections?
Oh now you’re changing the story again to match your link?
Done with this NAFO shit. You’re not good enough to even keep your talking points in order. Blocked.
I didn't change my story. Anyone who looks at this argument will see that and that you have taken the Blue Pill until you ODed on it.
Did you just link some dude's blog as a source?
“Some dude”
No, I linked an article written by a trusted journalist and geopolitical expert, who has been deeply involved in de-escalation efforts and present as an advisor at negotiations.
Then shouldn't his content be published by some trusted outlet?
Many have, but this is the kind of guy they’ll be sourcing from.