That’s completely ahistorical. The maidan coup was a color revolution that was instigated by US and one of the goals was to integrate Ukraine militarily into NATO. This is undeniably a fact based on the fact that it’s precisely what’s been happening over the past 8 years.
It seems to me that you are once again using what happened after Crimea’s annexation as an a posteriori justification for it. You are basically saying that Ukraine collaborating with NATO after being invaded by Russia shows that it was previously being aggressive towards Russia. Is there any fact predating Russia’s annexion of Crimea that shows Maidan government’s ambition to join NATO?
Note also that my original point is not contradicting anyithing you said. If Russia invaded Ukraine because of mere signs that it might want to join NATO, what prevents it from doing the same with Finland?
Finland is a EU country that shares a border with Russia and collaborates with NATO, so it is (qualitatively) as much a threat to Russia’s existence as Ukraine was, so it may be invaded by Russia someday for the same reason, so it has a motivation to join NATO to protect itself against that possibility.
Crimea annexation happened as a direct response to A US sponsored coup. The goal of the coup was to install a nationalist government, that Nuland is on the record handpicking, that would collaborate with US agenda to expand NATO into Ukraine.
Before Russia invaded Ukraine, they made clear demands that Ukraine declare neutrality, abandon pursuit of NATO membership, and respect Minsk agreements. Ukraine chose to risk conflict instead. Of course, it’s possible to argue that Russia would’ve invaded anyways, but the fact remains that Ukraine did not attempt to avoid this conflict.
Note also that my original point is not contradicting anyithing you said. If Russia invaded Ukraine because of mere signs that it might want to join NATO, what prevents it from doing the same with Finland?
Russia invaded Ukraine because they saw NATO expansion into Ukraine as a threat to their national security. They made a calculation that a war on their own terms would put them in a stronger position in the long term. Whether Russia would invade Finland or any other country would depend on this sort of calculus.
If you read article 5, then you’ll see that there is no obligation of NATO members to engage militarily. In fact, the level of support Ukraine currently receives from NATO is above and beyond what article 5 stipulates. So, it’s not even clear that NATO membership changes anything in practice.
Ultimately, if both sides continue to escalate then there will be a war between Russia and NATO. This will benefit nobody, and it will certainly be an incredible tragedy for both Europe and Russia. This is where we are headed at the moment.
US sponsored coup. The goal of the coup was to install a nationalist government, that Nuland is on the record handpicking, that would collaborate with US agenda to expand NATO into Ukraine.
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Could you specifically point out the sources relevant to the statement that the Maidan revolution was orchestrated by the US and directed at integrating Ukraine into NATO?
Literally all the sources I provided are relevant to the maidan coup and US direction of that coup. As someone else pointed out in this thread, Ukraine expressed ambitions to join NATO back in 2008.
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.
That’s completely ahistorical. The maidan coup was a color revolution that was instigated by US and one of the goals was to integrate Ukraine militarily into NATO. This is undeniably a fact based on the fact that it’s precisely what’s been happening over the past 8 years.
It seems to me that you are once again using what happened after Crimea’s annexation as an a posteriori justification for it. You are basically saying that Ukraine collaborating with NATO after being invaded by Russia shows that it was previously being aggressive towards Russia. Is there any fact predating Russia’s annexion of Crimea that shows Maidan government’s ambition to join NATO?
Note also that my original point is not contradicting anyithing you said. If Russia invaded Ukraine because of mere signs that it might want to join NATO, what prevents it from doing the same with Finland?
Finland is a EU country that shares a border with Russia and collaborates with NATO, so it is (qualitatively) as much a threat to Russia’s existence as Ukraine was, so it may be invaded by Russia someday for the same reason, so it has a motivation to join NATO to protect itself against that possibility.
Crimea annexation happened as a direct response to A US sponsored coup. The goal of the coup was to install a nationalist government, that Nuland is on the record handpicking, that would collaborate with US agenda to expand NATO into Ukraine.
Before Russia invaded Ukraine, they made clear demands that Ukraine declare neutrality, abandon pursuit of NATO membership, and respect Minsk agreements. Ukraine chose to risk conflict instead. Of course, it’s possible to argue that Russia would’ve invaded anyways, but the fact remains that Ukraine did not attempt to avoid this conflict.
Russia invaded Ukraine because they saw NATO expansion into Ukraine as a threat to their national security. They made a calculation that a war on their own terms would put them in a stronger position in the long term. Whether Russia would invade Finland or any other country would depend on this sort of calculus.
If you read article 5, then you’ll see that there is no obligation of NATO members to engage militarily. In fact, the level of support Ukraine currently receives from NATO is above and beyond what article 5 stipulates. So, it’s not even clear that NATO membership changes anything in practice.
Ultimately, if both sides continue to escalate then there will be a war between Russia and NATO. This will benefit nobody, and it will certainly be an incredible tragedy for both Europe and Russia. This is where we are headed at the moment.
Source?
Here are a few sources with the background of the coup and the civil war that followed:
here’s what the researchers and experts have been saying:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Academics, such as John Mearsheimer, gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Could you specifically point out the sources relevant to the statement that the Maidan revolution was orchestrated by the US and directed at integrating Ukraine into NATO?
Literally all the sources I provided are relevant to the maidan coup and US direction of that coup. As someone else pointed out in this thread, Ukraine expressed ambitions to join NATO back in 2008.
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.
The disinformation tactic he’s using against you is called “gish gallop”, just FYI.