d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Russia / Ukraine 2025+
Prev13940414243129Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 15,919
Joined: Jun 27 2010
Gold: 102,354.50
Nov 13 2025 08:28am
More...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsxLrlh5QCY


Cute Zalushny thumbnail :thumbsup:

He was ousted by Zelensky in Feb 2024 because he'd gotten too popular for his liking.

Nice try Said lmao
Member
Posts: 17,253
Joined: Dec 5 2007
Gold: 2,087.80
Nov 13 2025 09:48am
Ive read a similar story about us involvement in ukraine where they clearly expressed preferences for the new government in question and that they also financially backed dissent. I couldn't find anything on protestors killing the police first but that would legitimize the response and if the us/cia had a direct hand in instigating that incident I wouldn't be surprised.

All this rhetoric denies the agency of Ukrainians in the matter. Do you think their revolution was purely driven by western Imperialism?


I didn’t say a protestor killed police first, I said someone fired first and shot both protestors and police, implying that it was a third party.

Everyone has agency, but they can be pushed in the “right” direction. These exact tactics have been in use since Kermit Roosevelt overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh with 2 million dollars. There’s always opposition, a population who wants change even to the point of revolution. All you have to do is get them together, shake them up, stoke their fears and watch them explode. And there are always native politicians who can be found to help you for a slice of the pie.
Member
Posts: 54,056
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Nov 14 2025 09:25am
Duff, this is a terrible spin also. the former president told the army to avoid casualties at all costs. the whole revolution was only able to happen because he showed restraint. the guy had an army, most of the revolutionaries had malatov cocktails and not even any guns. he could have put the whole thing down in a day, but didnt because he didnt want to shoot his countrymen. he also had broad support from the domestic population, it was in the capital that he faced a massive amount of pressure.

this whole situation was a mess start to finish, but Yanukovych deserves a lot of credit for avoiding bloodshed. the fact that he may have been a deeply imbeded russian asset doesnt change that, and all signs point to him trying (and failing) to play a middle ground between the west and russia, not just favor russia.


Yanukovych triggered the protests by going back on his campaign promise to not stand in the way of an agreement with the EU. You can argue that the Euromaidan was a color revolution all you want, without this trigger, the oh-so nefarious West wouldn't have had a leverage point to start its alleged color revolution.

Yanukovych started the escalation of violence. The Maidan protests were peaceful at first and only turned violent after Yanukovych's Berkut secret police started brutalizing them. It should be noted that the Berkut was infamous for its brutality long before the Maidan, and that its ranks were disproportionally filled with pro-Russian people from the Eastern provinces.

Yanukovych did not have "broad support from the population", with only a few nutjobs opposing him who unfortunately happened to all be concentrated in the capital. He came into office with 49% of the vote and benefitted from pro-Western Tymoshenko (the braid chick) and an ultrantionalist/neonazi splitting the rest of the vote. Additionally, the recent parliamentary election had resulted in a legislature with a (narrow) pro-Western majority. Simply put, the country was politically split right down the middle on the eve of the Maidan. This narrative that Yanukovych was massively popular and got violently overthrown by a CIA-led coup in spite of his broad backing by the Ukrainian people is lie perpetuated by the Russian propaganda. Basically their version of the stab-in-the-back myth.


as to his flight, what's his alterative? wait to get hung in the street or worse Gadhafi'd? he abdicated the govt to the mob, all that follows that for him if he stays is death.

He could have stayed in Kharkiv or Donetsk, where the pro-Russian forces were in control and tried to fight for his right as the duly elected president of Ukraine, and/or to keep the country together and prevent the outbreak of a civil war. By fucking off to Russia within a day, Yanukovych badly damaged the legitimate claims to power that the pro-Russian half of Ukraine still had. The Maidan revolutionaries taking over and the Eastern provinces seceding became inevitable at that point.

As to why he fucked off right away instead of staying and fighting for Ukraine: when the Maidan fighters entered the presidential palace in Kyiv, and Yanukovych's private residence a little later, they found obscene riches and evidence for egregious levels of corruption, even by Ukraine's lopsided standards. :santa:

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 14 2025 09:27am
Member
Posts: 56,263
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 575,405.03
Nov 14 2025 09:48am
As to why he fucked off right away instead of staying and fighting for Ukraine: when the Maidan fighters entered the presidential palace in Kyiv, and Yanukovych's private residence a little later, they found obscene riches and evidence for egregious levels of corruption, even by Ukraine's lopsided standards. :santa:


this does not make sense. your saying that Yanukovych was stinking rich and are suggesting that this is why he did not violently suppress the uprising against him? this does not make sense. your forcing a narrative.

also this makes no sense either
The Maidan revolutionaries taking over and the Eastern provinces seceding became inevitable at that point.


the eastern provinces were BOMBED for 7 years!!

come on. its not hard for me to say putin is a dictator and that russia does not have alot to offer, but at the same time i can outline some rational reasons as to why Russia invaded Ukraine. 1+1=2. what you are doing here is 1+1=7

This post was edited by ferdia on Nov 14 2025 09:51am
Member
Posts: 50,703
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 4,861.00
Nov 14 2025 09:51am
Yanukovych triggered the protests by going back on his campaign promise to not stand in the way of an agreement with the EU. You can argue that the Euromaidan was a color revolution all you want, without this trigger, the oh-so nefarious West wouldn't have had a leverage point to start its alleged color revolution.

Yanukovych started the escalation of violence. The Maidan protests were peaceful at first and only turned violent after Yanukovych's Berkut secret police started brutalizing them. It should be noted that the Berkut was infamous for its brutality long before the Maidan, and that its ranks were disproportionally filled with pro-Russian people from the Eastern provinces.

Yanukovych did not have "broad support from the population", with only a few nutjobs opposing him who unfortunately happened to all be concentrated in the capital. He came into office with 49% of the vote and benefitted from pro-Western Tymoshenko (the braid chick) and an ultrantionalist/neonazi splitting the rest of the vote. Additionally, the recent parliamentary election had resulted in a legislature with a (narrow) pro-Western majority. Simply put, the country was politically split right down the middle on the eve of the Maidan. This narrative that Yanukovych was massively popular and got violently overthrown by a CIA-led coup in spite of his broad backing by the Ukrainian people is lie perpetuated by the Russian propaganda. Basically their version of the stab-in-the-back myth.

He could have stayed in Kharkiv or Donetsk, where the pro-Russian forces were in control and tried to fight for his right as the duly elected president of Ukraine, and/or to keep the country together and prevent the outbreak of a civil war. By fucking off to Russia within a day, Yanukovych badly damaged the legitimate claims to power that the pro-Russian half of Ukraine still had. The Maidan revolutionaries taking over and the Eastern provinces seceding became inevitable at that point.

As to why he fucked off right away instead of staying and fighting for Ukraine: when the Maidan fighters entered the presidential palace in Kyiv, and Yanukovych's private residence a little later, they found obscene riches and evidence for egregious levels of corruption, even by Ukraine's lopsided standards.


Yanukovych was voted in with the majority of voters, and they were concentrated in the east. The rebels who opposed him were concentrated in the capitol, and that's how they overthrew the government.
Whether it was a color revolution or not, regardless of the provable fact of US/EU puppeteering of the revolutionary government- it was the overthrow of a democratically elected government by a revolutionary minority led by a vanguard of nazis. Its true that Yanukovych was only supported by half the country, that the country was deeply divided, but that's just how democracies function. That's been the case in America for 250 years, and it also led to a civil war here.

If Ukrainians wanted to democratically change their country they could have voted for it in the next elections, just a few months removed from the revolution. And as I've said many times, maybe in some alternate history the Russians would have been forced to crush a democratic movement to move to ally with the west. But it didn't happen. Putin's interests happened to align with the democratic interests of Ukraine and the majority of its people, and so the democracy was undone by an anti-democratic minority who overthrew it by force and instituted the overt autocracy we have now.


But all this, both framings for and against 'legitimacy', how relevant are they?
There are two important lenses we can use to examine this conflict. One of international legitimacy and rule of law and democratic idealism. One of realpolitik and balance of power.
It wouldn't matter if the overthrow of Ukraine was illegitimate, if the western rebels had conquered the entire country and declared themselves legitimate. That's the reality of force of arms
The fundamental question of sovereignty vs morality in the US civil war wasn't settled by debate, our union was reforged in cannon fire.
So the reality is the western revolutionaries never for a day seized the strongholds of the eastern separatists, and since the Russian invasion their control over contested lines in the DPR/LPR has been steadily rolled back and taken by force. That's where we are today. Western media claiming legitimacy for the Ukrainian government is as irrelevant as it is insincere.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Nov 14 2025 09:52am
Member
Posts: 56,263
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 575,405.03
Nov 14 2025 09:52am
critically Ukraine REFUSED to hold new elections after the coup and thats why it decended into civil war, because the western paymasters could not countenance losing in the elections. its there for anyone willing to read about it.

This post was edited by ferdia on Nov 14 2025 09:53am
Member
Posts: 15,919
Joined: Jun 27 2010
Gold: 102,354.50
Nov 14 2025 10:28am
they found obscene riches and evidence for egregious levels of corruption, even by Ukraine's lopsided standards. :santa:


USD 100 million corruption scandal rocks Zelensky as we speak.

Pile that on top of previous Zelensky corruption scandals and his attempt to get rid of Ukraine's official corruption prosecutors, lol

Nothing to see here I guess...
Member
Posts: 56,263
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 575,405.03
Nov 14 2025 11:04am
a minor clarification to my above. as i understand it, after Yanukovych fled, his supports highlighted that what had happened was not constitutional, and demanded his re-instatement prior to any new elections. this was refused. therefore they saw the new government as illegitimate for this reason. the fact that this new government was hand picked by the US was a by product, but not the original issue. very logically, they discounted the government, not because of who picked it, but because it was formed unconstitutionally.

This post was edited by ferdia on Nov 14 2025 11:09am
Member
Posts: 92,903
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Nov 14 2025 12:01pm
Yanukovych triggered the protests by going back on his campaign promise to not stand in the way of an agreement with the EU. You can argue that the Euromaidan was a color revolution all you want, without this trigger, the oh-so nefarious West wouldn't have had a leverage point to start its alleged color revolution.

Yanukovych started the escalation of violence. The Maidan protests were peaceful at first and only turned violent after Yanukovych's Berkut secret police started brutalizing them. It should be noted that the Berkut was infamous for its brutality long before the Maidan, and that its ranks were disproportionally filled with pro-Russian people from the Eastern provinces.

Yanukovych did not have "broad support from the population", with only a few nutjobs opposing him who unfortunately happened to all be concentrated in the capital. He came into office with 49% of the vote and benefitted from pro-Western Tymoshenko (the braid chick) and an ultrantionalist/neonazi splitting the rest of the vote. Additionally, the recent parliamentary election had resulted in a legislature with a (narrow) pro-Western majority. Simply put, the country was politically split right down the middle on the eve of the Maidan. This narrative that Yanukovych was massively popular and got violently overthrown by a CIA-led coup in spite of his broad backing by the Ukrainian people is lie perpetuated by the Russian propaganda. Basically their version of the stab-in-the-back myth.



He could have stayed in Kharkiv or Donetsk, where the pro-Russian forces were in control and tried to fight for his right as the duly elected president of Ukraine, and/or to keep the country together and prevent the outbreak of a civil war. By fucking off to Russia within a day, Yanukovych badly damaged the legitimate claims to power that the pro-Russian half of Ukraine still had. The Maidan revolutionaries taking over and the Eastern provinces seceding became inevitable at that point.

As to why he fucked off right away instead of staying and fighting for Ukraine: when the Maidan fighters entered the presidential palace in Kyiv, and Yanukovych's private residence a little later, they found obscene riches and evidence for egregious levels of corruption, even by Ukraine's lopsided standards. :santa:


the whole "who started the violence" is a bit of chicken and egg. did he start busting up protesters that weren't backed by the CIA first? or did the CIA back them first and then they got busted up? answers seem to differ, no surprise there.

as to the trying to start a "legitimate" revolution in the eastern districts i think that's a fantasy. the new govt bombed the hell out of them even before Russia invaded, i doubt he'd have had any more success, and his presence there wouldnt have triggers UN or NATO action. the new govt was given free rein.

semantics on my use of "broad support" arent really worth arguing. he won the election, he did go back on a campaign promise, and it did get violent as a result. that's a long way contextually from what prompted my comment. He didnt send in the army to violently and quickly put down protests, but he could have. he didnt instruct them to shoot at will when the protests turns to a revolution, and he could have. that's not a defense of him or his presidency, not a denial of his corruption. its just a contrast from Duffs post which seemed to imply he was a butcher, and he wasn't.
Member
Posts: 56,263
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 575,405.03
Nov 14 2025 03:32pm
the whole "who started the violence" is a bit of chicken and egg. did he start busting up protesters that weren't backed by the CIA first? or did the CIA back them first and then they got busted up? answers seem to differ, no surprise there.

as to the trying to start a "legitimate" revolution in the eastern districts i think that's a fantasy. the new govt bombed the hell out of them even before Russia invaded, i doubt he'd have had any more success, and his presence there wouldnt have triggers UN or NATO action. the new govt was given free rein.

semantics on my use of "broad support" arent really worth arguing. he won the election, he did go back on a campaign promise, and it did get violent as a result. that's a long way contextually from what prompted my comment. He didnt send in the army to violently and quickly put down protests, but he could have. he didnt instruct them to shoot at will when the protests turns to a revolution, and he could have. that's not a defense of him or his presidency, not a denial of his corruption. its just a contrast from Duffs post which seemed to imply he was a butcher, and he wasn't.


snipa you have been speaking very well of late.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev13940414243129Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll