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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.