Mick Clifford: Daly and Wallace crashed out due to their weird idea of ‘peace-building’

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-41415997.html

Remember this thief ? It's gone, at least.





Sorry i prefer official and trusted sources than this "both sides" youtube guy.

https://i.ibb.co/b7cn5hK/Image.png

You mean you prefer Denys Davydov youtube guy LMAO

Willy OAM is a neutral source and not a pathetic Ukrainian propaganda outlet

Someone with a clear mind

Which side does Zelensky represent at D-day? SS division "Galicia"?

How about in 2008? Why was it after Maiden all of the sudden all bets are off and we needed to go on the offensive to try to snatch Ukraine from their grasp? Or the more plausible explanation that for years before that we were laying the groundwork through NGO's/state department/CIA initiatives to turn Ukraine from their sphere, and in reality we have always been on the offensive since mid 2000s? And the coup we had a direct hand in that's why the CIA chief flew out there to orchestrate things afterwards?








Goattee youtube douche making a comeback to the thread. Been awhile.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jun 14 2024 01:29pm

while ive come around to the idea that the intel agencies were fairly involved i still dont like this absolutist perspective. it takes away agency from the ukranian people altogether. who have firstly been fostering an anti-russian sentiment for a long time, which goes back to soviet atrocities historically. we can track it simply just by looking at pro-western candidates for their presidency being a thing and gaining popularity election after election. and like any country they have differing factions, and the western half of the country is far more pro-western. then there's the fact that the ousted president wasn't in reality the russian puppet he was portrayed as, and instead strove for neutrality. so it's not an idea of west vs russia, its more west vs neutrality. that agency removal is also an issue because these people marched block by block and took the capital taking heavy losses the entire way from sniper fire, killing very few soldier in return. i think it takes a bit more than CIA sweet talk to force a campaign like that.

all this to say im still not convinced the CIA was a causal factor or instrumental. certainly a catalyst, but the coup could have still happened with next to zero promises from the USA. people did not want to do business with russia, then they lost an election which was a referendum on that topic. then they did a jan 6th times 100 coup, after months of escalating tensions and violence.

Few things, not all Ukrainian people, because literally half the country voted for the Pro-Russian guy, not decades, not years prior to the coup, but literally there and then.

Coups only happen when a critical mass of the underlying power structure changes. It's not as if Ukrainian generals, judges & other of the countries power brokers overnight or within weeks said fuck the long established order and let's do an about face to the other side and lets go chase out all the pro-Russians out of the country. It was years of priming this critical mass to be westward facing which involved (we will never truly know) a lot of dollars.


If we didn't have a long track record of doing color revolutions in about a dozen countries in South America, Asia, w.e. else during the cold war, i'd maybe be more skeptical and agree maybe the CIA didn't have a hand in it. But IMO it takes more faith to believe they didn't. I mean did they decide to turn a new leaf? For decades we got rid of commies in some of these exact same ways, empowering the side we want, to overthrow or keep out of power the commies, so why should i buy that all of the sudden our modus operandi changed?

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jun 14 2024 02:06pm

We've been over this topic so often, I'm really not in the mood to relitigate all of it. There already was a pro-Western revolution in 2004. Even in the 2010 presidential elections, when large swaths of the Ukrainian people were disappointed by the ineptitude and corruption of the folks who came into power after 2004, there was still a majority for anti-Russian candidates; Yanukovych only came into power on a plurality because Tymoshenko and an ultra-nationalist split the anti-Russian vote. In reality, Ukraine had been balanced on a knife's edge for at least a full decade before the Maidan; at least half the population wanted to either orient the country more toward the West, or to do its own thing (ultra-nationalists). Both Western NGOs and intelligence services as well as their Russian counterparts were propping up their respective side.

Anyway, this notion that the euromaidan was astroturfed or the work of the CIA just doesn't add up. The West didn't nefariously pull out a domino from a stable construct - instead, Ukraine was very already unstable and things had organically reached a breaking point. The West definitely tried to seize the moment as it began to unfold, see McCain and Nuland in Kyiv and so on and forth. So yes, the West positioned itself to capture at least the pro-Western parts of Ukraine. So what? Russia did exactly the same thing. They also made their move immediately and positioned themselves to capture the Russia-aligned parts of the country. Their intelligence service orchestrated pro-Russian protests on Crimea and in the Donbass oblasts - protests which by the way also had a very real, organic core. Then, a few days/weeks later, they sent their unmarked soldiers to annex Crimea and establish the people's republics in Donetsk and Luhansk which broke away from the government in Kyiv.

I really fail to see the argument for Russia having a stronger claim to Ukraine than the West in all of this, or for the West being the aggressor which went to greater lengths in its attempt at exerting influence in Ukraine. Heck, going as far back as 2004, the Russians literally tried to assassinate the pro-Western presidential candidate who was gaining momentum. But the West are the baddies because McCain once gave a speech in Kyiv? Give me a break.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 14 2024 02:29pm

Correct, it was opposed factions, not all ukranians. i didnt mean to suggest otherwise.

ive heard this narrative before, but i think it comes down to a choice. civil war or accepting the changes. sure the generals could have been called in, and they could have killed many thousands of people, but the president himself quelled that. and surrendered and fled rather than kill that many people. then what? the generals dont even have a president to answer to, so go rogue? same for judges. this happens in coups a lot, people go with it even if they hate it rather than shed more blood. although id agree without proof that if there was an arena the US was involved in it was greasing the palms of key generals and judges. it fits the bill, i just dont see the evidence.

Ah the omnipotent West trope. If Putin presses his shiny red button, the shills will STILL find an explanation as to why it was actually John McCain and Michael Myers that fired the nukes.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Jun 14 2024 03:27pm