do you have trouble with reading comprehension, mate? he's pointing out the hypocrisy of goon-shill, not making a statement about the morality of foreign election meddling.

The US was nowhere close to a violent revolution to overthrow the government and end democracy, no matter how much CNN wants to pretend it was 4 years later
The CIA didn't just support a coup in Ukraine, they micromanaged the regime afterwards. That's like having FSB agents fly in and handpick the US senate and cabinet.

If we're going with the moralizing lens, then the clear difference is in the threat of violence and disenfranchisement. There's no threat to our democracy by Russia exposing secret corruption in the DNC. Nobody is getting killed for it (not even seth rich), nobody is having their representation suppressed. The most damning thing you can say about Russian influence is that they potentially tried to sway people's minds so that they'd pursue democratic change. Well fucking shit, that's how a democracy is supposed to work. Its lobbying the public for their support, the long way around. There's such a huge chasm between that and stoking a violent coup d'etat to overthrow a democracy. You know, killing some people to suppress the votes of other people.
America wasn't in Ukraine handing out leaflets saying "canvas for support for a pro-EU referendum" or "vote against Yanukovych in 2016". They organized a militia, they set up a vichy regime.



Or perhaps they're fracturing the US hegemony over geopolitics that has boxed them in since the end of WW2 and ending the post-soviet-fall alignment of the world against them. Or perhaps they're establishing energy markets outside of US control, gaining a stranglehold on the world's critical food and energy resources. Can we appreciate for a minute how absolutely backwards it is to go from futurists doomsaying about how a scrabble for resources will spark conflict in the next 100 years and lead to WW3- and then turn around today and try to say that Russia is being isolated "as a fuel supplier"? Begging people to buy their resources?
The only production America is excelling at right now is money supply. Can't burn it, can't eat it. If Russia wound up in a world encircled by the new iron curtain we've put up in the last year, and had nobody to sell their immense amount of food and gas and oil to, you know what they'd do? Thrive. They'd have cheap domestic food and energy. Meanwhile we're talking about blackouts and famine in Africa in the next few years. But of course, Russia isn't really being isolated, because the rest of the world doesn't share our self destructive vision, so India and China and all the rest of Africa and Asia and the middle east are going to start trading for oil in RMB while we churn out more greenbacks.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Feb 28 2023 12:55pm

typically things are called into question, not put there. it's pretty fascist to not even try to call it into question and just go ahead and put it where you like.

Question answered.

+1 from me

russian action didnt change the outcome, US involvement didnt either. if you're of the opinion that CIA backing was required for the 2014 coup to happen i simply disagree, so that's a full stop.

it's a fact we were involved, it's my opinion that involvement was dumb, and partially because its my opinion wasnt needed.



triggering you with that buzzword was a pleasure.

What changed in 2014 that reached the tipping point of revolution? We know the US was involved, we know the CIA and state department were invested in it. Would it have gotten that groundswell elsewise? I don't think either of us can say. What if the absence of US support meant Russia would be provoked into intervening directly, not at some indeterminate future date, but right then in 2014. A lot of what-ifs we can make, all to make a point that is definitely irrelevant to the pragmatic and strategic lens. But does it even matter for a point about democracy and legitimacy?

Its clear Ukraine had a reasonably free and fair democracy prior to 2014, at least, insofar as both east and west had no contemporary disagreement after the previous round of elections. Even if the pro-EU revolution had occurred in some alternate reality without any US meddling, it would still be a violent coup d'etat attempting to overthrow a legitimate democracy and replace it with an authoritarian minority-led regime that tries to suppress the will of the majority. Would Russia's motivations and moral authority to annex the separatist regions be any different? There's been plenty of conflicts in african shitholes we don't care enough about to intervene, and they often end with the separatist regions becoming autonomous. I don't think we can construct any scenario where the post revolution regime holds any sovereign claim to the regions they disenfranchised and then laid siege for 8 years.

And on a similar note, what does it say that the US was caught red-handed directly orchestrating the post-revolution government, handpicking the officials? Even in our hypothetical with the coup carried out entirely without US involvement, if the US were then opportunists who then moved in and seized control of the government and set up a puppet regime, Russia would still have all the same motivations and grievances. How much do the finer twists and turns matter in the road we took from civilians protesting at Euromaidan to Russia fighting a war against a NATO-controlled government armed with NATO weapons, trained by NATO troops, fighting alongside NATO mercenaries?




...and again, I cannot possibly stress this enough, all this moral lens analysis I cannot make without pointing out the fact we're still talking about literal nazi war criminals and death squads that rushed to push child soldiers to the front lines (and still are, right now, there's some pretty disturbing videos trending). I've said a few times, I'm all for being a heartless cynical pragmatist far removed from bleeding heart liberalism, I can have my morning oatmeal unbothered if some fuckaluckistanis had to die for my country's imperialist ambitions that morning- but even I draw a line on literal nazis. Fuck'em

this was the spark that lit the powder keg. the will we go east or west debate had been present in Ukranian politics for a long time, this was the sign that it was now or never for pro western people.

but maybe you think the real culprit is the CIA who sent a (DO NOT REPLY) text message to all of them to burn shit in the streets.

Maybe 1 out of every 3 Euromaidan protesters was a Ray Epps

33% is a LOT when 66% are willing to stand back and roast marshmellows, or w/e the fuck they roast over there.

edit: but to follow your logic what did the CIA do to turn the tide, if the tide wasn't turned before we acted?

This post was edited by thesnipa on Feb 28 2023 02:15pm