10 years of Ukrainian coup d’état. Did the West provoke it?

What exactly has Putin done to protect Russia's borders though? The have significant illegal immigration problems too, they just don't get anything like as much attention, especially outside Russia, because they're largely in the East and due to legal and practical limitations on journalism there.

Russia generally doesn't have trial by jury as we understand it. They're very much influenced by the pre-Soviet systems rather than anything Western (even more so today) and it's only available in a limited range of cases. Putin's political opponents rarely get them for example. If Putin really wanted modern jury trials throughout the Russian legal system, he could make it happen. He hasn't.

Again, I'm not interested in comparisons with (your perceptions of) the US. Your argument isn't the Putin is not as bad as the evils of the US government, your argument is that Putin is a great hero. You need much more evidence that you're providing to support anything of the sort. I'm not saying Putin is quite as evil as some would make him out to be either, he is just a very powerful individual in a highly authoritarian and corrupt system.

 

Sounds like not wanting more Ukranians to die and for the world to calm the **** down. Russia paid a heavy enough tax and is in a worse position globally having taken that land.

But we get it. Progressives wanna start world war 3.

 

Oh, goody!

All the Russian trolls in one thread!

 

Although a loose use of the word 'neocon', it is a more precise term
than just 'progressive' to describe the political ideology driving both
the war starting force within the G W Bush Administration and
the Biden Administration.

Yes, it is present and dominated in G B Bush first term and in Biden's
demented term.

 

Did the West provoke it Ukrainian Maydan? Only demagogues or people who know nothing about politics can ask this question. There is constant fight between the West and countries who support dictatorship. Yes, in Ukraine there was a fight between pro West Ukrainians and pro Putin Ukrainians. Putin supported
Viktor Yanukovych faction lost and the West supported opposition won - this is exactly what happened.
Why Viktor Yanukovych faction lost? maybe this is the reason:




So the real question is - why Putin, experienced politician, put his bet on corrupted Viktor Yanukovych?

 

Putin has done much more to protect the borders of his country than POTUS has done to protect ours. After 10+ years of trying to find a diplomatic solution to the deception and encroachment of NATO to no avail, he was forced to the military solution to protect the Russians in Donbass. He has seen to it that Edward Snowden, a great american patriot, now has Russian citizenship which somewhat protects Snowden from the Nazi bastards in Washington who are for 15 years persecuting and prosecuting Julian Assange for exposing the crimes of the Nazi bastards.

I don't expect to convince you Joe. Not at all. I understand full well how indoctrinated humans see the world around them. Not to worry lad. It is true that it's easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled. Common situation in the US these days, 4 years after the Scamdemic was brought.

 

Another real question is why has the US democrat side put
it's trust in Obama and Hillary?

Hillary has made 500 million dollars from being in politics.

I think that's a lot more than Yanukovych spent on his
mansion and car collection.

 

Russia has the same number of nukes and better missiles

 

Russia needs to reach the United States, you could say that they can ( I don't think so) On the flip side, the United States has Russia surrounded. Has many nuclear subs. The vulnerability of Russia is much higher than that of the United States.

Russia's chess pieces are not in the right place right now.

 

Of course there is more than Yanukovych spent on his mansion and car collection - Ukrainians had a choice: government based on Western democracies or government based on Putin's Russia.
In 2024 election Americans will have similar choice: to elect a leader/party who trust Americas system based on courts and law or to elect a leader who claims he knows everything better than everyone and he will decide if the result of the elections is valid or stolen.

 

It's interesting that you call me indoctrinated when you're the one presenting a fixed binary opinion and when I ask questions to understand the logic, details and nuances of your understanding, you largely ignore them, just repeating your general opinion, tossing in a few pointed keywords and names without any real explanation or basis (since you presumably already have your fixed binary positions on them too).

 

Although the Russian Federation has only 7% of the GDP of the USA, and only half the population of the US, somehow they are outperforming us in many ways including a lot of military capabilities.

 

Your unbridled enthusiasm for Putin can't be contained. I wonder if you have considered the reason Russia doesn't have a problem with illegal immigration is the lack of desire to live in a dictatorship where dissenters are arrested and or killed?

 

Do you think the absence of the Baltimore Bridge shows a US vulnerability?

 

What is an example of a "fixed binary opinion"?

 

Here is an article from RT today. It undermines your claim that Russia doesn't have a problem with illegal immigration. Who am I to believe?

 

Your entire Putin/Russia = good, America/Ukraine = bad schtick. No leader or government is entirely good and few are entirely bad. Running a country, regardless of how they choose to approach it, is complex, multi-faceted and nuanced.

For example, it's interesting that you just mentioned the issue of illegal immigration in Russia in response to another poster yet ignored it when I mentioned it as a challenge to your assertion that Putin "protects the borders" so much better than Americans. Evidence only exists when (you think) it supports your conclusion.

 

A cargo ship? Is Russia going to attack us with Cargo ships? LOL. No. No sir.

 

If Russia wanted to harm the US it's already too late, Joe Biden and
the Neocons are already here trashing the place.

Our Southern Border is not secure, our national debt is getting very
serious.

We are in wars we are unlikely to win, and even if we did that would
do us no good, and do nobody else any good.

A simple check is to ask for each war - if another country did that to us
would we be happy? Would we benefit?

Drop the martyr persona and think clearly for a moment.

And not everyone who disagrees with Biden and the Neocons is Russian.
Most of the world disagrees with the Neocons.

 

You're telling me something I already know sir, that no individual is entirely good or bad. Each and every human is capable of both good and evil.

My criticism is specific to this case of what's been going on in Ukraine during my lifetime, born in 1947, and it's based upon patterns of behavior of the 2 parties.

The historical record shows that the US government lied to Russia regarding NATO pledges of no further encroachment eastward. The historical record shows that the US government is a pathological liar. The Native American Tribes saw that sort of behavior in the 1800s. The Pentagon Papers showed that behavior 50 years ago, and the actions of Nuland, McCain, Kerry and many other public figures demonstrate nothing has changed--the US government is mostly a deceptive Agent Provocateur on the world stage. MLK was correct in pointing out that the US government is the largest purveyor of violence in the world.

On the other hand, the record is clear that Russia has been attempting to find a diplomatic solution to this both before and after the Minsk Agreement. Putin consulted with POTUS Clinton about having Russia join NATO, so the Russian effort to find peace has been going on for a very long time.

 

So you say, yet you apparently refuse to consider the possibility of the US or Ukraine doing anything positive (or at least not bad) or of Russia or Putin doing anything negative (or at least not great). None of those countries or their governments have even had a singular character throughout their history so this monolithic thinking is beyond ridiculous.

Ukraine was part of the USSR for more than half your life then, and under significant Russia influence long after independence (a major factor in the events of 2014 in the first place).

NATO made no such pledge. It certainly seems there were discussions of the matter over the years and certain leaders of NATO members may have even made verbal promises, but none of them would have had the authority to unilaterally make any on behalf of NATO. Even if there was some form of pledge, it would be mirrored by a similar expectation that Russia that they would fully respect the independence of the former Soviet states like Ukraine. A lot of things changed since then, but it is nothing as simple as any one side crossing a definitive line first, both Russia and NATO pushed the envelope over the years. Again, nothing all good and nothing all bad, just all messy.

 

Russia is part of the Partnership for Peace, and you will get a different story
from NATO about Russian intentions from the really 'bought by the defense
industry' version Biden is giving out.

 

Biden is lying, everybody knows he is a liar and disqualified
from running for President in 1988 for telling too many obvious
lies. How a US politician can be faulted for telling too many
lies is a mystery to me.

The big problem is although the public knows not to trust
politicians, it is impossible not to because people automatically
accept anything told by 'our side' as true. It is human tribal
nature.

Find anything true in the opening lines of Biden's speech to
the press on Feb 24 2022.

"Sorry to keep you waiting

The Russian military has begun a brutal assault on the people of Ukraine without provocation, without justification, without necessity..."

But the people who heard it, as a rule, believed it and believe
it to this very day.

 

Maybe you could offer some examples of the good done by NATO, US and Ukraine? On second thought, don't bother. All you would offer is propaganda from Nuland, Biden and Obama.

NATO and the US very much DID promise Russia no further movement east. Trouble is, they didn't make it in writing. It was simply the statements of professional liars in government, James Baker and others.

 

So you accept that you refuse to consider even the possibility of the US or Ukraine doing anything positive. You would dismiss any examples proposed out of hand as "propaganda".

What about the possibility of Putin or Russia doing anything bad?

Yes, there was no formal pledge, and sure, some leaders may have lied, or at least overstepped their authority in making commitments. I'm not claiming that NATO or any individual leaders are perfect or unquestionable heroes.

Again though, Russia made similar informal commitments (and some formal ones) about the independence of former Soviet states. Why are you so quick to criticise one but not the other? Can't you accept the possibility that mistakes were made by both sides?