So maybe let’s try a simple one. How does an open letter written to Clinton in 97 show that the US orchestrated the Maidan revolution? Seems a bit too early…
I should at least try one that mentions Ukraine. This one looks to have a very relevant title. No mention of Maidan or Crimea though. Some old-time things, some newer-time things, but not a mention to 2014, to the so-called Maidan coup or to Crimea.
Looks like it will take me more time, I’ll come back when I have gone through the hundreds of pages and hours of videos that you sent me. Or you could stop flooding me with red herrings and point out a source to the single claim I asked you a source for. Your call.
Ukraine expressed ambitions to join NATO back in 2008.
And as I answered there the procedure was put aside in 2010 for the sake of neutrality, neutrality that was reaffirmed by the Maidan government.
You asked for sources because I assume you wanted to be informed on the subject you’re opining on. Then when you’re provided with sources you bizarrely complain about it. I’m sorry that 30 years of history can’t be summed up in a convenient soundbite for you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The video directly addresses the points you were asking about, and hence why I linked it at the top.
So maybe let’s try a simple one. How does an open letter written to Clinton in 97 show that the US orchestrated the Maidan revolution? Seems a bit too early…
An open letter to Clinton in 97 sets up context and background for why the conflict happen. It shows that western experts knew perfectly well that orchestrating a regime change in Ukraine would provoke a reaction from Russia.
Chomsky article along with other articles provide further context and establish the overall picture of how the west acted and the nature of the coup.
And as I answered there the procedure was put aside in 2010 for the sake of neutrality, neutrality that was reaffirmed by the Maidan government.
The ambition to join NATO was never renounced, and it was simply put on hold by the coup regime.
Again, I find it fascinating that you have strong opinions on the subject, but when you’re presented with background and context you start complaining about that. It’s rather strange that somebody would not want to educate themselves on a topic they feel the need to debate.
I’m sorry that 30 years of history can’t be summed up in a convenient soundbite for you.
I didn’t ask for a summary, I asked you about evidence to back up your specific point that the Maidan government planned to join NATO, and that Russia wouldn’t have attacked otherwise.
It is nice of you to provide extra context, what I am calling out is that you didn’t separate the context from the actual answer to my clear specific question
That application was shelved in 2010 by the Yanukovich government. The Maidan government changed nothing to that status, and explicitly said that it had no intention to join NATO. So from that perspective it is hard to see the Crimean invasion as a direct consequence of that 2008 application.
It was rather, I guess we agree on that, a direct consequence to the Maidan revolution. The link being, you claim, that this government was set up by the US and planned to join NATO. What did it say or do that indicated that it wanted to join NATO? The fact that it didn’t, over a few weeks, cancel the shelved application that the Yanukovych government didn’t cancel over 6 years?
Thanks a lot, didn’t know the English word ! Was looking for a translation of “mille-feuille argumentatif” from French and didn’t find better than the quantitatively weaker “red herrings”
All of them? Great!
First thing first, what does the first one say? Oh, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtOx6dW_0vU
So maybe let’s try a simple one. How does an open letter written to Clinton in 97 show that the US orchestrated the Maidan revolution? Seems a bit too early…
I should at least try one that mentions Ukraine. This one looks to have a very relevant title. No mention of Maidan or Crimea though. Some old-time things, some newer-time things, but not a mention to 2014, to the so-called Maidan coup or to Crimea.
Looks like it will take me more time, I’ll come back when I have gone through the hundreds of pages and hours of videos that you sent me. Or you could stop flooding me with red herrings and point out a source to the single claim I asked you a source for. Your call.
And as I answered there the procedure was put aside in 2010 for the sake of neutrality, neutrality that was reaffirmed by the Maidan government.
You asked for sources because I assume you wanted to be informed on the subject you’re opining on. Then when you’re provided with sources you bizarrely complain about it. I’m sorry that 30 years of history can’t be summed up in a convenient soundbite for you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’m sorry I didn’t realize the censorship machine already scrubbed the video, here you go https://web.archive.org/web/20220329174945/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtOx6dW_0vU
The video directly addresses the points you were asking about, and hence why I linked it at the top.
An open letter to Clinton in 97 sets up context and background for why the conflict happen. It shows that western experts knew perfectly well that orchestrating a regime change in Ukraine would provoke a reaction from Russia.
Chomsky article along with other articles provide further context and establish the overall picture of how the west acted and the nature of the coup.
The ambition to join NATO was never renounced, and it was simply put on hold by the coup regime.
Again, I find it fascinating that you have strong opinions on the subject, but when you’re presented with background and context you start complaining about that. It’s rather strange that somebody would not want to educate themselves on a topic they feel the need to debate.
I didn’t ask for a summary, I asked you about evidence to back up your specific point that the Maidan government planned to join NATO, and that Russia wouldn’t have attacked otherwise.
It is nice of you to provide extra context, what I am calling out is that you didn’t separate the context from the actual answer to my clear specific question
The evidence that the government explicitly said it wanted to join NATO that you yourself already admitted?
Sorry, what did I say that you interpret as admitting that?
https://lemmy.ml/post/262111/comment/179510
You admit it and then coach it with saying they shelved the plans, which obviously does not change the original intent.
That application was shelved in 2010 by the Yanukovich government. The Maidan government changed nothing to that status, and explicitly said that it had no intention to join NATO. So from that perspective it is hard to see the Crimean invasion as a direct consequence of that 2008 application.
It was rather, I guess we agree on that, a direct consequence to the Maidan revolution. The link being, you claim, that this government was set up by the US and planned to join NATO. What did it say or do that indicated that it wanted to join NATO? The fact that it didn’t, over a few weeks, cancel the shelved application that the Yanukovych government didn’t cancel over 6 years?
If you don’t understand why US ran a coup in Ukraine and installed the government they did, I really don’t know what else to tell you.
The disinformation tactic he’s using against you is called “gish gallop”, just FYI.
Thanks a lot, didn’t know the English word ! Was looking for a translation of “mille-feuille argumentatif” from French and didn’t find better than the quantitatively weaker “red herrings”