> The coming to power in Ukraine in 2010 of Viktor Yanukovych, with his globally pro-Russian policies, created the need for a new “revolution.” Taking advantage of the social mass protests of 2014, the United States once again organized a coup d’état and restored a fundamentally Russophobic, ultra-nationalist government.
This is complete nonsense. The Yanukovych regime was overthrown by the grassroots, non-partisan movement of the Ukrainian people (dubbed "revolution of dignity" or "Euromaidan" ) . Yes, various US-sponsored NGOs had been active since around 2000, training activists in non-violent protest tactics and promoting the values of western democracies. But the quoted paragraph is simply false.
The Ukrainians got frustrated by Yanukovych sudden departure from the course to join the EU. And then they got angered when he'd ordered to beat up the people (young students) who protested it. This set off the massive Euromaidan protests, which culminated in the killing of around 100 protesters by the regime and Yanukovych ultimately fleeing. The US, with all due respect, was nowhere near being an organizing force. On the contrary, from what I know, the representatives of the US government tried to get the Euromaidan leadership to "deescalate" and "negotiate".
The article insists in calling the invasive war a "conflict" and generally is a collection of russian talking points. It is propaganda and should not be here.
I see 1 big hole in this theory: The US needs to be capable of long term planning for this. Longer than the carreer of any single person in power.
Meanwhile, every human organisation where power is important, has plenty of backstabbing going on. There is no chance to plan even a few years ahead, as the background is constantly shifting.
I have no problem believing the US powers cynically furthered their agenda by laying a heavy thumb on the scales when things were in the balance. Iraq, Lybia, Ukraine. But I believe a lot more in short term opportunism than a 50+ year master plan.
6 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 21.3 ms ] threadThis is complete nonsense. The Yanukovych regime was overthrown by the grassroots, non-partisan movement of the Ukrainian people (dubbed "revolution of dignity" or "Euromaidan" ) . Yes, various US-sponsored NGOs had been active since around 2000, training activists in non-violent protest tactics and promoting the values of western democracies. But the quoted paragraph is simply false.
The Ukrainians got frustrated by Yanukovych sudden departure from the course to join the EU. And then they got angered when he'd ordered to beat up the people (young students) who protested it. This set off the massive Euromaidan protests, which culminated in the killing of around 100 protesters by the regime and Yanukovych ultimately fleeing. The US, with all due respect, was nowhere near being an organizing force. On the contrary, from what I know, the representatives of the US government tried to get the Euromaidan leadership to "deescalate" and "negotiate".
The article insists in calling the invasive war a "conflict" and generally is a collection of russian talking points. It is propaganda and should not be here.
https://fair.org/home/john-mccain-human-rights-ukrainian-naz...
How do you explain the Nuland-Pyatt call?
Meanwhile, every human organisation where power is important, has plenty of backstabbing going on. There is no chance to plan even a few years ahead, as the background is constantly shifting.
I have no problem believing the US powers cynically furthered their agenda by laying a heavy thumb on the scales when things were in the balance. Iraq, Lybia, Ukraine. But I believe a lot more in short term opportunism than a 50+ year master plan.