this post was submitted on 20 May 2022
-9 points (15.4% liked)

Europe

3896 readers
45 users here now

Europa

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
-9
Russian nuclear-capable missiles seen moving in video to Finland border. (nationalpost.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
59 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Finland sacrificing its neutrality to try and join NATO was a phenomenally idiotic move.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I believe they threw their president out because he stopped the EU progress they had made and had nothing to do with NATO. NATO came formally in to the picture in 2019 once the threat from Russia had mounted.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I highly recommend educating yourself on the subject before opining. Lots has been written over the years.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

US officials, unhappy with the scuttled EU deal, saw a similar chance in the Maidan protests.

,

It’s an overstatement to say, as some critics have charged, that Washington orchestrated the Maidan uprising. But there’s no doubt US officials backed and exploited it for their own ends.

Your source states very clearly that the US did not orchestrate the Maidan protests, and that its involvement was due to the aborted EU-deal.

Nothing in there about the Maidan government wanting to join NATO, aside from one reference to Putin's paranoia about it :

After Putin moved to secure the Crimean naval base from NATO control

Indeed, the article referenced in this sentence says:

“Our decision on Crimea was partly due to ... considerations that if we do nothing, then at some point, guided by the same principles, NATO will drag Ukraine in and they will say: ‘It doesn’t have anything to do with you.’”

So, according to your source, Crimea was not annexed in reaction to Ukraine giving up its neutrality, but in prevision of it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Nuland is literally on tape selecting the government after the coup, but you do you bud.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not my point, I never said the US did not participate.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Participate is such a great euphemism for saying US actively worked to overthrow the government.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"participating" means "actively working", how is this wordplay contradicting my comment?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

US orchestrated this coup, and I've linked you tons of documents supporting this in our previous discussion. I recall you whining that it was too much reading.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You did link a ton of documents, and I have not found yet the ones supporting that claim (does not help that you did not single them out). In fact, the article that we are discussing here, who as I highlighted explicitly states the opposite, was part of that ton of documents.

It is the second time that you use this document to support what it denies.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm sorry you have poor reading comprehension.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Please, help me understanding what I poorly comprehend in

US officials, unhappy with the scuttled EU deal, saw a similar chance in the Maidan protests.

It’s an overstatement to say, as some critics have charged, that Washington orchestrated the Maidan uprising. But there’s no doubt US officials backed and exploited it for their own ends.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I've already spent a lot of time explaining this in the past thread. It's pretty clear there's no point for me to continue wasting energy here. If you don't want to understand that Maidan coup was orchestrated by US, then there's nothing I can say that will change that.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Indeed you did repeat it a couple of times.

You never highlighted a source for that single claim though. Nor for the one that the Maidan government had plans to join NATO.

On the other hand you provided a source that explicitly denies those statements that you claim it contributes proving.

What is particularly ridiculous is that to a comment sourcing the claim that the Maidan revolts were caused by the aborted EU deal, you replied by citing the above article that agrees with @Ninmi 's point that you thought it disproved.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The sources I provided you with clearly demonstrate that US was directly involved in the coup, and hand picked the members of the puppet regime that it installed after. If you don't understand why US wanted to install this regime in Ukraine then you really need to read up on US geopolitical goals and history.

Here's an article from the Guardian from 2004 for you, that talks about US starting to meddle in Ukraine:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

In 2008, Bush openly stated plans to integrate Ukraine in to NATO

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/01/nato.georgia

Here's a Guardian article from 2014 stating the obvious

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict

When the Ukrainian president was replaced by a US-selected administration, in an entirely unconstitutional takeover, politicians such as William Hague brazenly misled parliament about the legality of what had taken place: the imposition of a pro-western government on Russia's most neuralgic and politically divided neighbour.

The reality is that, after two decades of eastward Nato expansion, this crisis was triggered by the west's attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit and defence structure, via an explicitly anti-Moscow EU association agreement. Its rejection led to the Maidan protests and the installation of an anti-Russian administration – rejected by half the country – that went on to sign the EU and International Monetary Fund agreements regardless.

US played a direct role in both funding and orchestrating the coup

As political turmoil engulfed the country in the leadup to 2014, the U.S. was fueling anti-government sentiment through mechanisms like USAID and National Endowment for Democracy (NED), just as they had done in 2004. In December 2013, Nuland, assistant secretary of state for European affairs and a long-time regime change advocate, said that the U.S. government had spent $5 billion promoting “democracy” in Ukraine since 1991. The money went toward supporting “senior officials in the Ukraine government…[members of] the business community as well as opposition civil society” who agree with U.S. goals.

Imagine arguing with a straight face that the regime had no intentions of joining NATO given that US openly stated desires to integrate Ukraine into NATO, and handpicked the regime in Ukraine after the coup.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Only relevant sources and no insults, thanks I guess?

US played a direct role in both funding and orchestrating the coup

It did play a role, we agree on that; my point is that it is very speculative to assume that it single-handedly had the whole decisive power. Whether they truly led the revolution is a disputed fact, even among your sources. Same for choosing the new government, the phone call shows they had a say in that, but to my knowledge nothing shows that they single-handedly picked the whole government, as there were other parties involved, including Ukrainian pro-EU and Ukrainian nazis.

That they were going to join NATO is a pure speculation based on the opinions that

  • US held all the decisive power over that government
  • US's only goal is military expansion

About the latter, do you think an economic weakening of Russia through the EU-deal would not already be a favorable turn for the US? I recall that the official position of the Maidan government was that it was not planning to become a NATO member, at least until the annexation of Crimea.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago

The fact that they were going to join NATO is the only reasonable explanation for why US wanted to do a regime change in Ukraine in the first place. Everything this regime has done while it was in power is in line with this explanation.