I originally thought these two didn't look like the same guy, but somehow came to accept it as true. Well, Scott Ritter just said to Judge Napolitano that the guy on the left is a different man & was presented as Utkin by Western propagandists because of the visible nazi tattoos. pic.twitter.com/1b7sOZU76m

— They Say Billionaires Taste Like Pork (@DaBeaverMeister) August 24, 2023

Bear8084 said:

---

In the Russian propaganda "Neo-Nazis" are a synonym with the ZSU, volunteer battalions, and territorial defense forces. The goal with this rhetoric is to dehumanize the enemy: everybody hates nazis, and they SHOULD be treated badly and even killed.

11/12 pic.twitter.com/F3lfVvcxUG

— Pekka Kallioniemi (@P_Kallioniemi) November 28, 2022

---

It should really open some eyes here that our own liberal rulers increasingly call their conservative domestic opposition "Nazis and neo-confederates"


If Putin's regime is dehumanizing the Ukrainian nationalists over there then why is our regime here at home dehumanizing the American people?

sombear said:

---

Russian soldier from the 1st Kantemirovsky Tank Regiment captured by the Ukrainians in the Luhansk region.

He was sent there by Putin to “de-nazify” Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/x1BW3wqTXf

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 12, 2024

---

Well they did tell us that Putin was emptying the Russian prisons….


Another reason Russian's conscript army is no threat to Western Europe.

They are literally having to use neo-Nazi prison gang members to fight their war

Sam Lowry said:

---

I originally thought these two didn't look like the same guy, but somehow came to accept it as true. Well, Scott Ritter just said to Judge Napolitano that the guy on the left is a different man & was presented as Utkin by Western propagandists because of the visible nazi tattoos. pic.twitter.com/1b7sOZU76m

— They Say Billionaires Taste Like Pork (@DaBeaverMeister) August 24, 2023

---

https://topcargo200.com/900/

Same guy, no matter what the pedophile traitor and RU mouthpiece Scott Ritter says.

You could say Enrique Iglesias was the new Hitler, and Americans would buy it without a second thought. As soon as someone tries to fight actual Nazis, we're the first to cry "PROPAGANDA!" The irony is rich.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Russian soldier from the 1st Kantemirovsky Tank Regiment captured by the Ukrainians in the Luhansk region.

He was sent there by Putin to “de-nazify” Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/x1BW3wqTXf

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 12, 2024

---

This would be an example of the smoking gun fallacy which ATLBear tried (and failed) to identify in my earlier post. I'm sure there are American servicemen with similar sympathies, but they're not part of an organized movement with any real influence. That's the difference. You don't see Milley or Austin flaunting Nazi symbolism like Zaluzhny did (which was also an implicit threat to Zelensky, by the way).

---

I can tell you that Nazi-type gangs and movements are a big issue in Russia. 1000 times the number of Azov.

Well, he's certainly more reliable than your Pekka Whatever-his-name-is. That's the guy who wants us to believe Robert Kagan's wife went to Ukraine to work as a deli waitress. Ritter was 100% right about Iraq, and he's been right about Ukraine so far. You're welcome to post evidence to the contrary…or you could just post "vatnik" again. It's a free country, unlike Ukraine.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Russian soldier from the 1st Kantemirovsky Tank Regiment captured by the Ukrainians in the Luhansk region.

He was sent there by Putin to “de-nazify” Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/x1BW3wqTXf

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 12, 2024

---

This would be an example of the smoking gun fallacy which ATLBear tried (and failed) to identify in my earlier post. I'm sure there are American servicemen with similar sympathies, but they're not part of an organized movement with any real influence. That's the difference. You don't see Milley or Austin flaunting Nazi symbolism like Zaluzhny did (which was also an implicit threat to Zelensky, by the way).

---

I can tell you that Nazi-type gangs and movements are a big issue in Russia. 1000 times the number of Azov.

---

It wouldn't be surprising since Russia has a much larger population. It's a problem here too, though some would deny it. The difference is that they aren't running the show.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Well, he's certainly more reliable than your Pekka Whatever-his-name-is. That's the guy who wants us to believe Robert Kagan's wife went to Ukraine to work as a deli waitress. Ritter was 100% right about Iraq, and he's been right about Ukraine so far. You're welcome to post evidence to the contrary…or you could just post "vatnik" again. It's a free country, unlike Ukraine.

---

LOL keep shilling and posting pedo RU propaganda people as your sources. It only makes you look that much idiotic. I know Pekka can be hard to follow for some vatniks, using actual sources and big words.

This charge was later dismissed, but he was arrested again in Nov, 2009, after he had exposed himself to a police officer posing as a 15-year old girl. Ritter rejected a plea bargain and was in prison from Mar, 2012 until Sep, 2014.

10/16 pic.twitter.com/y1nDboVP2a

— Pekka Kallioniemi (@P_Kallioniemi) February 2, 2023

... "nothing more than a puppet of NATO". Around Feb-Mar of 2022, Ritter made some interesting predictions of which all turned out to be false. For example, on 25, Feb, 2022 he said that "Ukraine is getting schooled in the art of Urban warfare" in Kyiv.

12/16 pic.twitter.com/u9I72DO2ip

— Pekka Kallioniemi (@P_Kallioniemi) February 2, 2023

He's said that the National Police of Ukraine are responsible for the Bucha massacre, and called Joe Biden a "war criminal" for shifting the blame on the massacre on the Russians. He also writes anti-NATO and anti-US themed articles for the RT.

13/16 pic.twitter.com/6Watlqms2y

— Pekka Kallioniemi (@P_Kallioniemi) February 2, 2023

Sam Lowry said:

---

Normally I would criticize another poster for ad hominem arguments, but in your case it's a step up from the usual word vomit. Keep on improving.

---

Keep being butthurt for being called out for what you are: a Russian shill.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Normally I would criticize another poster for ad hominem arguments, but in your case it's a step up from the usual word vomit. Keep on improving.

---

Keep being butthurt for being called out for what you are: a Russian shill.

---

Get on over there and fight if you want to. I'm sure the last sexagenarian to be kidnapped off a bus would be glad for you to replace him (or her).

---

"WhY DON't yOU fiGHt oVEr THere?!?!" And then doubles down on Russian propaganda. Shill gonna shill.

ron.reagan said:

---

The low hanging fruit is just too tempting. Using 10% of what Putin said to claim he is a rational leader with conservative values and ignoring the other 90% that shows that he is a mass murderer that will stop at nothing to improve his legacy and Russian expansionism.

I'm not sure Putin will live long enough to pose a legitimate threat to the west but if his successor is anything like him we will surely be facing Russia in the coming decades in WW3.

---

If we do, we will destroy their military. It's a complete paper tiger, just like China's military.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

---

This would be an example of the smoking gun fallacy which ATLBear tried (and failed) to identify in my earlier post. I'm sure there are American servicemen with similar sympathies, but they're not part of an organized movement with any real influence. That's the difference. You don't see Milley or Austin flaunting Nazi symbolism like Zaluzhny did (which was also an implicit threat to Zelensky, by the way).

---

I can tell you that Nazi-type gangs and movements are a big issue in Russia. 1000 times the number of Azov.

---

It wouldn't be surprising since Russia has a much larger population. It's a problem here too, though some would deny it. The difference is that they aren't running the show.

---

I'm curious if you could provide us with evidence that the Zelinsky government is filled with neo-Nazis.

Otherwise, I'm calling bull**** on your Russian propaganda.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

So in that instance, you would be ok with us invading Canada and Mexico, carpet bombing their cities, and overthrowing their govts.?

Contrary to your assertions, the 2014 uprising wasn't a US or European led "coup." It was organic, composed of mostly younger Ukrainians who were unhappy that the regime in place at that time wouldn't vote on free trade agreements and a closer association with Europe. Thankfully, we were not involved, and neither was Europe. So this is another apples to oranges comparison.

---

It depends. For example, is there a large Anglo population under attack by the Mexican army? Your scenario omits almost all of the pertinent facts.

The idea that we weren't involved in Maidan is just ridiculous. If that's what you believe, I can see why you don't think Russia was under threat. In fact we were involved, and Russia had every reason to believe we'd do more of the same. The presence of a large army to back up any regime change effort in Russia significantly increases that threat. Remember when Biden stated that Putin can't remain in power? He said it after the war started, but it was no surprise to anyone who was paying attention, particularly not in Russia. They are taking him at his word.

---

I'm still waiting on someone to tell us exactly how we were involved in Maidan aside from that nothingburger Nuland the Conqueror phone call.

---

Lots of unanswered questions on this thread by the Putin supporters. I suspect this is going to remain a mystery.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

So in that instance, you would be ok with us invading Canada and Mexico, carpet bombing their cities, and overthrowing their govts.?

Contrary to your assertions, the 2014 uprising wasn't a US or European led "coup." It was organic, composed of mostly younger Ukrainians who were unhappy that the regime in place at that time wouldn't vote on free trade agreements and a closer association with Europe. Thankfully, we were not involved, and neither was Europe. So this is another apples to oranges comparison.

---

It depends. For example, is there a large Anglo population under attack by the Mexican army? Your scenario omits almost all of the pertinent facts.

The idea that we weren't involved in Maidan is just ridiculous. If that's what you believe, I can see why you don't think Russia was under threat. In fact we were involved, and Russia had every reason to believe we'd do more of the same. The presence of a large army to back up any regime change effort in Russia significantly increases that threat. Remember when Biden stated that Putin can't remain in power? He said it after the war started, but it was no surprise to anyone who was paying attention, particularly not in Russia. They are taking him at his word.

---

Exactly


Ask any college educated Mexican what they feel about giving up 25% of their territory to the United States just to get the yankee army out of their country .

Ask Germans about the Dresden fire bombing or the Japanese about the atomic bomb attacks.

Tell the Iraqis and Syrians how noble the US is when our laser guided missiles wipe out hundreds of civilians deep in a bomb shelter.

It's all about perspective, ours versus that of the rest of the world.

Is the US better than the communists, better than nazis , better than Putin ?

Absolutely

But let's not get amnesia about our own travesties.

---

So because the US has committed bad acts in the past, and has engaged in interventionist policies that you are critical of, that is somehow justification for Putin invading Ukraine in present day?

We agree, probably 90% of the time, but with all due respect, this is, perhaps the dumbest justification I've ever seen for the Ukrainian war.

Again, my fellow conservatives, we can be against an interventionist foreign policy, and assisting Ukraine, without justifying the actions of a tyrant. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The dangers of ignoring Ukraine's neo-Nazis

Kyiv's tolerance for fascist extremism should cause the U.S. government to re-evaluate its support of Ukraine.

By Ben Choucroun
Published October 13, 2023

The name "Azov Brigade" should be recognizable to anyone who follows the conflict in Ukraine. To Ukraine, it is a key military unit composed of motivated fighters who have resisted Russian aggression. To Russia, the Azov Brigade is a neo-Nazi terrorist formation. Both of these narratives contain elements of truth. Azov Battalion is an important part of Ukraine's war effort, and it is a neo-Nazi formation that has committed numerous atrocities. The U.S.'s continuing military support for Ukraine despite its neo-Nazi problem and the whitewashing of the Azov by media outlets are fueling racism both in and outside of Ukraine.

The origins of the Azov Battalion lie in the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution, in which demonstrators overthrew the Ukrainian government. The revolutionaries were led by Andriy Parubiy, the founder of the neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (renamed Svoboda). After the revolution, members of Svoboda were appointed to key government positions, including minister of defense, head of the general prosecutor's office and deputy prime minister.

After Euromaidan, Russian-speaking territories in the eastern region of Donbas launched a rebellion against the far-right government in Kyiv. Volunteer militias, including the Azov Battalion (which was formed by the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine party), arose to fight the rebels.

Between 2014 and 2022, as the war in Donbas dragged on, Ukraine's far-right government continuously passed laws glorifying Nazi collaborators. In 2018, then-president Petro Poroshenko created a national holiday for Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator whose soldiers murdered up to 100,000 people during the Holocaust. Poroshenko even made it a criminal offense to denigrate Bandera's organization, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and a government-funded museum opened an exhibit in their honor.

Unsurprisingly, Azov only grew. Between 2014 and 2022, Azov trained neo-Nazi terrorists and even recruited Brazilian fascists to fight in Ukraine. They were banned from Facebook for racist and antisemitic content (they titled one page "Gas Chambers"). Yet, they were described by Poroshenko as "our best warriors," and Vadim Troyan, a veteran of the Azov Battalion and Patriot of Ukraine, was appointed to be deputy minister of the interior, putting a neo-Nazi in charge of Ukraine's National Police.

When Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Azov gained more prominence. The unit garnered praise from the Ukrainian government and was further integrated into the Ukrainian military, being expanded from a regiment into a brigade. Some media outlets changed the way they describe Azov; German state-owned media outlet Deutsche Welle, which once described Azov as a neo-Nazi regiment, soon began labeling allegations of neo-Nazism as Russian propaganda. The BBC followed a similar line, moving from investigating Azov's neo-Nazi ideology in depth to downplaying Azov's neo-Nazism.

Azov has not been "de-Nazified" after it was further integrated into the Ukrainian military in 2022, as Azov and some media outlets claim. Much of Azov's leadership has been in the group since 2014 and has demonstrated neo-Nazi ties. Azov's press officer and the head of Azov's military school run social media accounts adorned with neo-Nazi symbolism. Azov's logo even contains the Wolfsangel, a neo-Nazi symbol. Not only is Azov a neo-Nazi military unit, but Western media outlets are complicit in whitewashing that fact, commiting journalistic malpractice of the highest order.

As Lev Golkin discussed in one article, Azov has a symbiotic relationship with Putin. Azov's existence allows Putin to justify his illegal invasion by claiming he is "de-Nazifying" Ukraine. Putin's rhetoric allows Azov to further justify its existence to Western countries based on its opposition to Putin, and receive more support from the Ukrainian government. This gives Putin even more rhetorical weight to justify his invasion of Ukraine, and so the cycle continues.

The losers of this dynamic are sure to be Ukrainian Jews and Roma people. In 2017, according to one report, Ukraine had more incidents of antisemitism than all other post-Soviet countries combined. In 2018, Nazi groups and police marched door to door, terrorizing Roma people. Among the groups marching was C14, a neo-Nazi organization which has in the past received funding from the Ukrainian government.

Additionally, the presence of neo-Nazi ideology in the Ukrainian government goes beyond Azov and similar gangs. Ukraine's parliament recently quoted Stepan Bandera in a statement. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense posted a picture of a Ukrainian soldier wearing a patch with neo-Nazi symbols before deleting it after outcry. A Ukrainian general was filmed threatening to destroy Jews.

By integrating Azov into its armed forces and outlawing the denigration of Holocaust perpetrators, the Ukrainian government has shown it is willing to tolerate neo-Nazi extremism, which directly threatens Ukrainian Jews and Roma people. If the U.S. cares about its stated commitment to human rights, it should immediately re-evaluate its support for Ukraine and stop ignoring the radicalization of Ukraine's military. Once a government starts employing neo-Nazis, it loses all moral superiority.

https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2023/10/the-dangers-of-ignoring-ukraines-neo-nazis

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

So in that instance, you would be ok with us invading Canada and Mexico, carpet bombing their cities, and overthrowing their govts.?

Contrary to your assertions, the 2014 uprising wasn't a US or European led "coup." It was organic, composed of mostly younger Ukrainians who were unhappy that the regime in place at that time wouldn't vote on free trade agreements and a closer association with Europe. Thankfully, we were not involved, and neither was Europe. So this is another apples to oranges comparison.

---

It depends. For example, is there a large Anglo population under attack by the Mexican army? Your scenario omits almost all of the pertinent facts.

The idea that we weren't involved in Maidan is just ridiculous. If that's what you believe, I can see why you don't think Russia was under threat. In fact we were involved, and Russia had every reason to believe we'd do more of the same. The presence of a large army to back up any regime change effort in Russia significantly increases that threat. Remember when Biden stated that Putin can't remain in power? He said it after the war started, but it was no surprise to anyone who was paying attention, particularly not in Russia. They are taking him at his word.

---

Exactly


Ask any college educated Mexican what they feel about giving up 25% of their territory to the United States just to get the yankee army out of their country .

Ask Germans about the Dresden fire bombing or the Japanese about the atomic bomb attacks.

Tell the Iraqis and Syrians how noble the US is when our laser guided missiles wipe out hundreds of civilians deep in a bomb shelter.

It's all about perspective, ours versus that of the rest of the world.

Is the US better than the communists, better than nazis , better than Putin ?

Absolutely

But let's not get amnesia about our own travesties.

---

So because the US has committed bad acts in the past, and has engaged in interventionist policies that you are critical of, that is somehow justification for Putin invading Ukraine in present day?

We agree, probably 90% of the time, but with all due respect, this is, perhaps the dumbest justification I've ever seen for the Ukrainian war.

Again, my fellow conservatives, we can be against an interventionist foreign policy, and assisting Ukraine, without justifying the actions of a tyrant. The two are not mutually exclusive.

---

No one is justifying Putin ( or Biden ) for this war.

Both leaders miscalculated badly.

All I am pointing out is the US has done the same kind of callous stupidity several times throughout its history. Has Russia been far mote callous and ruthless…..without question.

Yes we agree 90% of the time.

Suspect this is more of a misunderstanding than disagreement.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

So in that instance, you would be ok with us invading Canada and Mexico, carpet bombing their cities, and overthrowing their govts.?

Contrary to your assertions, the 2014 uprising wasn't a US or European led "coup." It was organic, composed of mostly younger Ukrainians who were unhappy that the regime in place at that time wouldn't vote on free trade agreements and a closer association with Europe. Thankfully, we were not involved, and neither was Europe. So this is another apples to oranges comparison.

---

It depends. For example, is there a large Anglo population under attack by the Mexican army? Your scenario omits almost all of the pertinent facts.

The idea that we weren't involved in Maidan is just ridiculous. If that's what you believe, I can see why you don't think Russia was under threat. In fact we were involved, and Russia had every reason to believe we'd do more of the same. The presence of a large army to back up any regime change effort in Russia significantly increases that threat. Remember when Biden stated that Putin can't remain in power? He said it after the war started, but it was no surprise to anyone who was paying attention, particularly not in Russia. They are taking him at his word.

---

I'm still waiting on someone to tell us exactly how we were involved in Maidan aside from that nothingburger Nuland the Conqueror phone call.

---

At that time we were deep in preparations to oppose Yanukovych in the upcoming election, as we had done in 2004. The strategy included generating and analyzing poll data, marshaling opposition under the leadership of Yanukovych's opponent, training thousands of partisan "election monitors," and disseminating propaganda in the guise of voter education. We exaggerated reports of Yanukovych's corruption while downplaying his opponent's (much like we've exaggerated Russian atrocities during the war and ignored those of Ukraine). We bused in paid protesters from across the country, produced TV shows, and distributed protest signs and other items. The massing of protesters following the election, according to British journalist Daniel Wolf, was "a meticulous operation of careful, secret planning by Yushchenko's inner circle over a period of years that oversaw distribution of thousands of cameras, backup teams of therapists and psychologists, transportation, heaters, sleeping bags, gas canisters, toilets, soup kitchens, tents, TV and radio coverage, all of which needed large sums of cash, in this case, much of it American."

The same or similar tactics were used in 2014, but this time with the additional leverage of the right-wing forces we've been talking about. There is evidence that they, and not Yanukovych's police, were responsible for shooting and killing anti-government protesters at Maidan. The killings re-energized mob violence that might otherwise have died down. One can only speculate about American involvement, but Putin's claim that we deceitfully offered to call off the extremists is food for thought.

As for Nuland, you should read the full transcript of the phone call if you haven't. Far from being passive supporters, it's clear that they are actively involved in making sure the illegal coup is successful and the new government suits American wishes down to the last detail.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

So in that instance, you would be ok with us invading Canada and Mexico, carpet bombing their cities, and overthrowing their govts.?

Contrary to your assertions, the 2014 uprising wasn't a US or European led "coup." It was organic, composed of mostly younger Ukrainians who were unhappy that the regime in place at that time wouldn't vote on free trade agreements and a closer association with Europe. Thankfully, we were not involved, and neither was Europe. So this is another apples to oranges comparison.

---

It depends. For example, is there a large Anglo population under attack by the Mexican army? Your scenario omits almost all of the pertinent facts.

The idea that we weren't involved in Maidan is just ridiculous. If that's what you believe, I can see why you don't think Russia was under threat. In fact we were involved, and Russia had every reason to believe we'd do more of the same. The presence of a large army to back up any regime change effort in Russia significantly increases that threat. Remember when Biden stated that Putin can't remain in power? He said it after the war started, but it was no surprise to anyone who was paying attention, particularly not in Russia. They are taking him at his word.

---

I'm still waiting on someone to tell us exactly how we were involved in Maidan aside from that nothingburger Nuland the Conqueror phone call.

---

Yanukovych's corruption while downplaying his opponent's (much like we've exaggerated Russian atrocities during the war and ignored those of Ukraine).

---

Disgusting comment. Not really surprising from the resident Russian shill. The rest is a Kremlin pipe dream you keep sucking down and crapping out on here.

Sam Lowry said:

---

As Lev Golkin discussed in one article, Azov has a symbiotic relationship with Putin. Azov's existence allows Putin to justify his illegal invasion by claiming he is "de-Nazifying" Ukraine. Putin's rhetoric allows Azov to further justify its existence to Western countries based on its opposition to Putin, and receive more support from the Ukrainian government. This gives Putin even more rhetorical weight to justify his invasion of Ukraine, and so the cycle continues.

---

I wonder what Lev has to say about Israel's campaign in Gaza?

Israel is mass murdering more non-combatants, women and children, than Russia and Ukraine combined.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

So in that instance, you would be ok with us invading Canada and Mexico, carpet bombing their cities, and overthrowing their govts.?

Contrary to your assertions, the 2014 uprising wasn't a US or European led "coup." It was organic, composed of mostly younger Ukrainians who were unhappy that the regime in place at that time wouldn't vote on free trade agreements and a closer association with Europe. Thankfully, we were not involved, and neither was Europe. So this is another apples to oranges comparison.

---

It depends. For example, is there a large Anglo population under attack by the Mexican army? Your scenario omits almost all of the pertinent facts.

The idea that we weren't involved in Maidan is just ridiculous. If that's what you believe, I can see why you don't think Russia was under threat. In fact we were involved, and Russia had every reason to believe we'd do more of the same. The presence of a large army to back up any regime change effort in Russia significantly increases that threat. Remember when Biden stated that Putin can't remain in power? He said it after the war started, but it was no surprise to anyone who was paying attention, particularly not in Russia. They are taking him at his word.

---

I'm still waiting on someone to tell us exactly how we were involved in Maidan aside from that nothingburger Nuland the Conqueror phone call.

---

At that time we were deep in preparations to oppose Yanukovych in the upcoming election, as we had done in 2004. The strategy included generating and analyzing poll data, marshaling opposition under the leadership of Yanukovych's opponent, training thousands of partisan "election monitors," and disseminating propaganda in the guise of voter education. We exaggerated reports of Yanukovych's corruption while downplaying his opponent's (much like we've exaggerated Russian atrocities during the war and ignored those of Ukraine). We bused in paid protesters from across the country, produced TV shows, and distributed protest signs and other items. The massing of protesters following the election, according to British journalist Daniel Wolf, was "a meticulous operation of careful, secret planning by Yushchenko's inner circle over a period of years that oversaw distribution of thousands of cameras, backup teams of therapists and psychologists, transportation, heaters, sleeping bags, gas canisters, toilets, soup kitchens, tents, TV and radio coverage, all of which needed "large sums of cash, in this case, much of it American."

The same or similar tactics were used in 2014, but this time with the additional leverage of the right-wing forces we've been talking about. There is evidence that they, and not Yanukovych's police, were responsible for shooting and killing anti-government protesters at Maidan. The killings re-energized mob violence that might otherwise have died down. One can only speculate about American involvement, but Putin's claim that we deceitfully offered to call off the extremists is food for thought.

As for Nuland, you should read the full transcript of the phone call if you haven't. Far from being passive supporters, it's clear that they are actively involved in making sure the illegal coup is successful and the new government suits American wishes down to the last detail.

---

Source and sources?

And anyone with a brain not fogged by US hate or Russian love knows the phone call was about the possible leadership changes and upcoming election that had already been agreed to.

Sam Lowry said:

---

As Lev Golkin discussed in one article, Azov has a symbiotic relationship with Putin. Azov's existence allows Putin to justify his illegal invasion by claiming he is "de-Nazifying" Ukraine.

---

Ummm....

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

So in that instance, you would be ok with us invading Canada and Mexico, carpet bombing their cities, and overthrowing their govts.?

Contrary to your assertions, the 2014 uprising wasn't a US or European led "coup." It was organic, composed of mostly younger Ukrainians who were unhappy that the regime in place at that time wouldn't vote on free trade agreements and a closer association with Europe. Thankfully, we were not involved, and neither was Europe. So this is another apples to oranges comparison.

---

It depends. For example, is there a large Anglo population under attack by the Mexican army? Your scenario omits almost all of the pertinent facts.

The idea that we weren't involved in Maidan is just ridiculous. If that's what you believe, I can see why you don't think Russia was under threat. In fact we were involved, and Russia had every reason to believe we'd do more of the same. The presence of a large army to back up any regime change effort in Russia significantly increases that threat. Remember when Biden stated that Putin can't remain in power? He said it after the war started, but it was no surprise to anyone who was paying attention, particularly not in Russia. They are taking him at his word.

---

I'm still waiting on someone to tell us exactly how we were involved in Maidan aside from that nothingburger Nuland the Conqueror phone call.

---

At that time we were deep in preparations to oppose Yanukovych in the upcoming election, as we had done in 2004. The strategy included generating and analyzing poll data, marshaling opposition under the leadership of Yanukovych's opponent, training thousands of partisan "election monitors," and disseminating propaganda in the guise of voter education. We exaggerated reports of Yanukovych's corruption while downplaying his opponent's (much like we've exaggerated Russian atrocities during the war and ignored those of Ukraine). We bused in paid protesters from across the country, produced TV shows, and distributed protest signs and other items. The massing of protesters following the election, according to British journalist Daniel Wolf, was "a meticulous operation of careful, secret planning by Yushchenko's inner circle over a period of years that oversaw distribution of thousands of cameras, backup teams of therapists and psychologists, transportation, heaters, sleeping bags, gas canisters, toilets, soup kitchens, tents, TV and radio coverage, all of which needed "large sums of cash, in this case, much of it American."

The same or similar tactics were used in 2014, but this time with the additional leverage of the right-wing forces we've been talking about. There is evidence that they, and not Yanukovych's police, were responsible for shooting and killing anti-government protesters at Maidan. The killings re-energized mob violence that might otherwise have died down. One can only speculate about American involvement, but Putin's claim that we deceitfully offered to call off the extremists is food for thought.

As for Nuland, you should read the full transcript of the phone call if you haven't. Far from being passive supporters, it's clear that they are actively involved in making sure the illegal coup is successful and the new government suits American wishes down to the last detail.

---

Source and sources?

And anyone with a brain not fogged by US hate or Russian love knows the phone call was about the possible leadership changes and upcoming election that had already been agreed to.

---

No one had agreed to anything at that point. The violence was still escalating, there was no agreement for an interim government much less an election, and Yanukovych had yet to flee the country.

Some sources below.

Quote:

---

For our purpose, it is interesting to note that compared to humanitarian and development Ingos, which have often promoted US foreign-policy objectives, democratisation and human-rights Ingos boast of a far greater preponderance of US government and intelligence operatives. This owes much to the fact that democratisation is a sensitive political minefield with direct bearings on international relations. It is too important a foreign policy subject for the US government to hand over reins to the voluntary sector.

Usaid's avowal that democracy can be promoted around the world without "being political" is totally fictional, because the onus of NED and its family is on altering the balance of political forces in the target country in the pretext of "civil society assistance."

Neutral assessments would rate these as electoral manipulations.


Having penetrated Ukraine in 1990 at the behest of the George H Bush administration with the assent of the pro-American Leonid Kravchuk, the effective leader of the republic, these Ingos had the power to finance and create the local NGO sector from scratch, controlling its agenda and direction.

The neo-liberal Pora organisation, for instance, was an offshoot of the groundwork done by the "Freedom of Choice Coalition" that was put together in 1999 by the US embassy, the World Bank, NED and the Soros Foundation. On the eve of the orange revolution, NED Gongos hired American pollsters and professional consultants to mine psephological data and unite the opposition under Yushchenko's electoral coalition, months before the poll; trained thousands of local and international election monitors partisan to Yushchenko; organised exit polls in collaboration with western embassies that predicted Yushchenkos victory; and imported "consultants" who had experience in the Serbian overthrow of Milosevic and the Georgian rose revolution.

The mass mobilisation in Kiev was handpicked from Yushchenko's western Ukraine bastions and did not reflect nationwide sentiments. "A few tens of thousands in central Kiev were proclaimed to be 'the people', notwithstanding the fact that many demonstrators nursed violent and anti-democratic viewpoints", writes John Laughland. The NGO monitors, teamed up with western media outlets, deliberately exaggerated electoral fraud involving Yanukovych's party, ignoring serious violations by Yushchenko's.

US government expenditure on the orange revolution has been put at $14 million, while the overall civil-society promotion budget set by Washington for Ukraine (2003-2004) was $57.8-$65 million. The Soros Foundation and Freedom House pumped in a steady flow of funds through Ingos and local NGOs for "elections-related projects."


The NED family's role in first following the Bush administrations lead and anointing Yushchenko's outfit as the only valid manifestation of "civil society" (at the expense of non-neoliberal, anti-authoritarian parties) and then consistently bolstering it with funds and regime-toppling expertise completely blurs lines between impartial democracy promotion and meddling in Ukraines political process.

It tinkers with Robert Dahls basic dimension of democratisation contestation, i.e. the playing-field of political competition and the relative strengths of contenders. Much that was done by the Ingos in the name of democratisation in Ukraine was outright biased, including voter education that is supposed to neutrally inform citizens to make free choices rather than to campaign for a particular candidate: "Yushchenko got the western nod, and floods of money poured in to groups which support him, ranging from the youth organisation, Pora, to various opposition websites."

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/colour_revolutions_3196jsp/

---

Quote:

---

Arriving in the Ukrainian capital on August 3, Pyatt almost immediately authorized a grant for an online television outlet called Hromadske.TV, which would prove essential to building the Euromaidan street demonstrations against Yanukovych. The grant was only $43,737, with an additional $4,796 by November 13. Just enough to buy the modest equipment the project needed.

Many of Hromadske's journalists had worked in the past with American benefactors. Editor-in-chief Roman Skrypin was a frequent contributor to Washington's Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and the US-funded Ukrayinska Pravda. In 2004, he had helped create Channel 5 television, which played a major role in the Orange Revolution that the US and its European allies masterminded in 2004.

Skrypin had already gotten $10,560 from George Soros's International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), which came as a recommendation to Pyatt. Sometime between December and the following April, IRF would give Hromadske another $19,183.

Hromadske's biggest funding in that period came from the Embassy of the Netherlands, which gave a generous $95,168. As a departing US envoy to the Hague said in a secret cable that Wikileaks later made public, "Dutch pragmatism and our similar world-views make the Netherlands fertile ground for initiatives others in Europe might be reluctant, at least initially, to embrace."

For Pyatt, the payoff came on November 21, when President Yanukovych pulled back from an Association Agreement with the European Union. Within hours Hromadske.TV went online and one of its journalists set the spark that brought Yanukovych down.

"Enter a lonely, courageous Ukrainian rebel, a leading investigative journalist," writes Snyder. "A dark-skinned journalist who gets racially profiled by the regime. And a Muslim. And an Afghan. This is Mustafa Nayem, the man who started the revolution. Using social media, he called students and other young people to rally on the main square of Kiev in support of a European choice for Ukraine."

All credit to Nayem for his undeniable courage. But bad, bad history. Snyder fails to mention that Pyatt, Soros, and the Dutch had put Web TV at the uprising's disposal. Without their joint funding of Hromadske and its streaming video from the Euromaidan, the revolution might never have been televised and Yanukovych might have crushed the entire effort before it gained traction.

For better or for worse, popular uprisings have changed history long before radio, television, or the Internet. The new technologies only speed up the game. Pyatt and his team understood that and masterfully turned soft power and the exercise of free speech, press, and assembly into a televised revolution on demand, complete with an instant overdub in English.

https://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/22758-meet-the-americans-who-put-together-the-coup-in-kiev

---

Quote:

---

Across the political spectrum in Washington, soft-power intervention has enormous support, especially now that the State Department and its offshoots have taken over so much of it from the CIA. Former secretary of State Madelyn Albright chairs one of the National Endowment for Democracy's "core institutes," the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI). Her board members and senior advisors include everyone from former presidential candidates Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, and Michael Dukakis to one of the true heroes of the civil rights movement, Congressman John Lewis. NDI has offices and staff from Afghanistan to Silicon Valley.

Senator John McCain chairs the parallel International Republican Institute, with a board that stretches from his longtime advisor and a paid lobbyist for Georgia, neocon Randy Scheuneman, to foreign policy realist Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to President George H.W. Bush.

Controlled by the State Department rather than by either political party, both groups have operated for years in Ukraine, as have NED's two other core institutes. The Center for International Private Enterprise works closely with the US Chamber of Commerce and "strengthens democracy around the globe through private enterprise and market-oriented reform." The American Center for International Labor Solidarity, or "Solidarity Center," is formally part of the American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations and is chaired by AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. Funding comes from NED, USAID, the State Department, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Labor, the AFL-CIO, private foundations, and national and international labor organizations.

Add these groups to NED itself, USAID with all its private contractors, allied NGOs and foundations, largely government-funded groups like Freedom House, and State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. What emerges is the non-military infrastructure of an American empire that no one but boastful neocons admits we have. In countries like Ukraine, they and their NGOs regularly meet with local officials, advising on what and what not to do. At home, they lobby endlessly for more imperial intervention, often military. And they feed the ideological notion that the US has some God-given right to intervene, "not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interest of all," as Obama told the UN General Assembly last year.

https://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/22940-focus-part-ii-meet-the-americans-who-put-together-the-coup-in-kiev

---

Quote:

---

The far right, of course, cared nothing for democracy, nor did it have any love for the EU. Instead, the popular uprising was an opportunity. Dmytro Yarosh, the Right Sector leader, had urged his compatriots in 2009 to "start an armed struggle against the regime of internal occupation and Moscow's empire" if pro-Russian forces took control. As early as March 2013, Tryzub, one of the organizations that formed Right Sector, had called for the Ukrainian opposition to move "from a peaceful demonstration to a street-revolutionary plane."

They may also have played an even more sinister role in the events that unfolded. One enduring mystery of the Maidan Revolution is who was behind the February 20 sniper killings that set off the final, most bloody stage of protests, with accusations against everyone from government forces and the Kremlin to US-backed mercenaries. Without precluding these possibilities, there's now considerable evidence that the same far-right forces who piggybacked on the protesters' cause were also at least among the forces firing that night.

At the time, men resembling protesters had been witnessed shooting from protester-controlled buildings in the capital, and multiple Maidan medics had said the bullet wounds in police and protesters looked to have come from the same weapon. A Maidan protester later admitted to killing two officers and wounding others on the day, and crates of empty Kalashnikov bullets were found in the protester-occupied Ukraina Hotel, the same place a decorated military pilot and anti-Russian resistance hero later said she had seen an opposition MP leading snipers to. The government's investigation, meanwhile, which focused only on the protester murders, started out filled with serious flaws and irregularities.

The University of Ottawa's Ivan Katchanovski has analyzed evidence that's come out in the course of the investigation and trial into the murders. According to Katchanovski, a majority of wounded protesters testified they either saw snipers in protester-controlled buildings or were shot by bullets coming from their direction, testimony backed by forensic examinations. Closure on the matter is unlikely, though, since the post-Yanukovych interim government, in which leading far-right figures took prominent positions, swiftly passed a law giving Maidan participants immunity for any violence.

https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea

---

Well if the commie rags and democratic socialists say it....

"Washington officials have been terrifying the world with warnings of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine. But everyone else in a position to know seems pretty sure there isn't one coming."

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

As Lev Golkin discussed in one article, Azov has a symbiotic relationship with Putin. Azov's existence allows Putin to justify his illegal invasion by claiming he is "de-Nazifying" Ukraine.

---

Ummm....

---

The source wasn't offered to justify Putin or support the legality of the invasion. In was offered in response to this post from you: "I'm curious if you could provide us with evidence that the Zelinsky government is filled with neo-Nazis. Otherwise, I'm calling bull**** on your Russian propaganda."

I gave you the evidence. Any substantive response?

Bear8084 said:

---

Well if the commie rags and democratic socialists say it....

"Washington officials have been terrifying the world with warnings of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine. But everyone else in a position to know seems pretty sure there isn't one coming."

---

Don't know where you got that quote, but it isn't mine. Incidentally, Weissman wrote for Ramparts magazine, which famously exposed this kind of activity when it was under the auspices of the CIA. It was also the first publication that the CIA illegally investigated in search of Russian ties. None were found.

After watching the interview a 2nd time I couldn't help but wish Biden could speak even half as intelligently as Putin.

Putin was clear, calm, confident and could lie like the cold blooded killer he is.

Biden doesn't have what it takes to beat this guy.

Dems need to admit the obvious and replace him.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Well if the commie rags and democratic socialists say it....

"Washington officials have been terrifying the world with warnings of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine. But everyone else in a position to know seems pretty sure there isn't one coming."

---

Don't know where you got that quote, but it isn't mine. Incidentally, Weissman wrote for Ramparts magazine, which famously exposed this kind of activity when it was under the auspices of the CIA. It was also the first publication that the CIA illegally investigated in search of Russian ties. None were found.

---

Like I said.

KaiBear said:

---

After watching the interview a 2nd time I couldn't help but wish Biden could speak even half as intelligently as Putin.

Putin was clear, calm, confident and could lie like the cold blooded killer he is.

Biden doesn't have what it takes to beat this guy.

Dems need to admit the obvious and replace him.

---

That interview is going over well in many parts of the world and the world is turning against us and the vampires who run the EU.

This isnt 1950 America. The Marshall plan doesnt work anymore. The money's all gone!

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

So in that instance, you would be ok with us invading Canada and Mexico, carpet bombing their cities, and overthrowing their govts.?

Contrary to your assertions, the 2014 uprising wasn't a US or European led "coup." It was organic, composed of mostly younger Ukrainians who were unhappy that the regime in place at that time wouldn't vote on free trade agreements and a closer association with Europe. Thankfully, we were not involved, and neither was Europe. So this is another apples to oranges comparison.

---

It depends. For example, is there a large Anglo population under attack by the Mexican army? Your scenario omits almost all of the pertinent facts.

The idea that we weren't involved in Maidan is just ridiculous. If that's what you believe, I can see why you don't think Russia was under threat. In fact we were involved, and Russia had every reason to believe we'd do more of the same. The presence of a large army to back up any regime change effort in Russia significantly increases that threat. Remember when Biden stated that Putin can't remain in power? He said it after the war started, but it was no surprise to anyone who was paying attention, particularly not in Russia. They are taking him at his word.

---

I'm still waiting on someone to tell us exactly how we were involved in Maidan aside from that nothingburger Nuland the Conqueror phone call.

---

At that time we were deep in preparations to oppose Yanukovych in the upcoming election, as we had done in 2004. The strategy included generating and analyzing poll data, marshaling opposition under the leadership of Yanukovych's opponent, training thousands of partisan "election monitors," and disseminating propaganda in the guise of voter education. We exaggerated reports of Yanukovych's corruption while downplaying his opponent's (much like we've exaggerated Russian atrocities during the war and ignored those of Ukraine). We bused in paid protesters from across the country, produced TV shows, and distributed protest signs and other items. The massing of protesters following the election, according to British journalist Daniel Wolf, was "a meticulous operation of careful, secret planning by Yushchenko's inner circle over a period of years that oversaw distribution of thousands of cameras, backup teams of therapists and psychologists, transportation, heaters, sleeping bags, gas canisters, toilets, soup kitchens, tents, TV and radio coverage, all of which needed "large sums of cash, in this case, much of it American."

The same or similar tactics were used in 2014, but this time with the additional leverage of the right-wing forces we've been talking about. There is evidence that they, and not Yanukovych's police, were responsible for shooting and killing anti-government protesters at Maidan. The killings re-energized mob violence that might otherwise have died down. One can only speculate about American involvement, but Putin's claim that we deceitfully offered to call off the extremists is food for thought.

As for Nuland, you should read the full transcript of the phone call if you haven't. Far from being passive supporters, it's clear that they are actively involved in making sure the illegal coup is successful and the new government suits American wishes down to the last detail.

---

Source and sources?

And anyone with a brain not fogged by US hate or Russian love knows the phone call was about the possible leadership changes and upcoming election that had already been agreed to.

---

No one had agreed to anything at that point. The violence was still escalating, there was no agreement for an interim government much less an election, and Yanukovych had yet to flee the country.

Some sources below.

Quote:

---

For our purpose, it is interesting to note that compared to humanitarian and development Ingos, which have often promoted US foreign-policy objectives, democratisation and human-rights Ingos boast of a far greater preponderance of US government and intelligence operatives. This owes much to the fact that democratisation is a sensitive political minefield with direct bearings on international relations. It is too important a foreign policy subject for the US government to hand over reins to the voluntary sector.

Usaid's avowal that democracy can be promoted around the world without "being political" is totally fictional, because the onus of NED and its family is on altering the balance of political forces in the target country in the pretext of "civil society assistance."

Neutral assessments would rate these as electoral manipulations.


Having penetrated Ukraine in 1990 at the behest of the George H Bush administration with the assent of the pro-American Leonid Kravchuk, the effective leader of the republic, these Ingos had the power to finance and create the local NGO sector from scratch, controlling its agenda and direction.

The neo-liberal Pora organisation, for instance, was an offshoot of the groundwork done by the "Freedom of Choice Coalition" that was put together in 1999 by the US embassy, the World Bank, NED and the Soros Foundation. On the eve of the orange revolution, NED Gongos hired American pollsters and professional consultants to mine psephological data and unite the opposition under Yushchenko's electoral coalition, months before the poll; trained thousands of local and international election monitors partisan to Yushchenko; organised exit polls in collaboration with western embassies that predicted Yushchenkos victory; and imported "consultants" who had experience in the Serbian overthrow of Milosevic and the Georgian rose revolution.

The mass mobilisation in Kiev was handpicked from Yushchenko's western Ukraine bastions and did not reflect nationwide sentiments. "A few tens of thousands in central Kiev were proclaimed to be 'the people', notwithstanding the fact that many demonstrators nursed violent and anti-democratic viewpoints", writes John Laughland. The NGO monitors, teamed up with western media outlets, deliberately exaggerated electoral fraud involving Yanukovych's party, ignoring serious violations by Yushchenko's.

US government expenditure on the orange revolution has been put at $14 million, while the overall civil-society promotion budget set by Washington for Ukraine (2003-2004) was $57.8-$65 million. The Soros Foundation and Freedom House pumped in a steady flow of funds through Ingos and local NGOs for "elections-related projects."


The NED family's role in first following the Bush administrations lead and anointing Yushchenko's outfit as the only valid manifestation of "civil society" (at the expense of non-neoliberal, anti-authoritarian parties) and then consistently bolstering it with funds and regime-toppling expertise completely blurs lines between impartial democracy promotion and meddling in Ukraines political process.

It tinkers with Robert Dahls basic dimension of democratisation contestation, i.e. the playing-field of political competition and the relative strengths of contenders. Much that was done by the Ingos in the name of democratisation in Ukraine was outright biased, including voter education that is supposed to neutrally inform citizens to make free choices rather than to campaign for a particular candidate: "Yushchenko got the western nod, and floods of money poured in to groups which support him, ranging from the youth organisation, Pora, to various opposition websites."

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/colour_revolutions_3196jsp/

---

Quote:

---

Arriving in the Ukrainian capital on August 3, Pyatt almost immediately authorized a grant for an online television outlet called Hromadske.TV, which would prove essential to building the Euromaidan street demonstrations against Yanukovych. The grant was only $43,737, with an additional $4,796 by November 13. Just enough to buy the modest equipment the project needed.

Many of Hromadske's journalists had worked in the past with American benefactors. Editor-in-chief Roman Skrypin was a frequent contributor to Washington's Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and the US-funded Ukrayinska Pravda. In 2004, he had helped create Channel 5 television, which played a major role in the Orange Revolution that the US and its European allies masterminded in 2004.

Skrypin had already gotten $10,560 from George Soros's International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), which came as a recommendation to Pyatt. Sometime between December and the following April, IRF would give Hromadske another $19,183.

Hromadske's biggest funding in that period came from the Embassy of the Netherlands, which gave a generous $95,168. As a departing US envoy to the Hague said in a secret cable that Wikileaks later made public, "Dutch pragmatism and our similar world-views make the Netherlands fertile ground for initiatives others in Europe might be reluctant, at least initially, to embrace."

For Pyatt, the payoff came on November 21, when President Yanukovych pulled back from an Association Agreement with the European Union. Within hours Hromadske.TV went online and one of its journalists set the spark that brought Yanukovych down.

"Enter a lonely, courageous Ukrainian rebel, a leading investigative journalist," writes Snyder. "A dark-skinned journalist who gets racially profiled by the regime. And a Muslim. And an Afghan. This is Mustafa Nayem, the man who started the revolution. Using social media, he called students and other young people to rally on the main square of Kiev in support of a European choice for Ukraine."

All credit to Nayem for his undeniable courage. But bad, bad history. Snyder fails to mention that Pyatt, Soros, and the Dutch had put Web TV at the uprising's disposal. Without their joint funding of Hromadske and its streaming video from the Euromaidan, the revolution might never have been televised and Yanukovych might have crushed the entire effort before it gained traction.

For better or for worse, popular uprisings have changed history long before radio, television, or the Internet. The new technologies only speed up the game. Pyatt and his team understood that and masterfully turned soft power and the exercise of free speech, press, and assembly into a televised revolution on demand, complete with an instant overdub in English.

https://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/22758-meet-the-americans-who-put-together-the-coup-in-kiev

---

Quote:

---

Across the political spectrum in Washington, soft-power intervention has enormous support, especially now that the State Department and its offshoots have taken over so much of it from the CIA. Former secretary of State Madelyn Albright chairs one of the National Endowment for Democracy's "core institutes," the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI). Her board members and senior advisors include everyone from former presidential candidates Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, and Michael Dukakis to one of the true heroes of the civil rights movement, Congressman John Lewis. NDI has offices and staff from Afghanistan to Silicon Valley.

Senator John McCain chairs the parallel International Republican Institute, with a board that stretches from his longtime advisor and a paid lobbyist for Georgia, neocon Randy Scheuneman, to foreign policy realist Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to President George H.W. Bush.

Controlled by the State Department rather than by either political party, both groups have operated for years in Ukraine, as have NED's two other core institutes. The Center for International Private Enterprise works closely with the US Chamber of Commerce and "strengthens democracy around the globe through private enterprise and market-oriented reform." The American Center for International Labor Solidarity, or "Solidarity Center," is formally part of the American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations and is chaired by AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. Funding comes from NED, USAID, the State Department, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Labor, the AFL-CIO, private foundations, and national and international labor organizations.

Add these groups to NED itself, USAID with all its private contractors, allied NGOs and foundations, largely government-funded groups like Freedom House, and State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. What emerges is the non-military infrastructure of an American empire that no one but boastful neocons admits we have. In countries like Ukraine, they and their NGOs regularly meet with local officials, advising on what and what not to do. At home, they lobby endlessly for more imperial intervention, often military. And they feed the ideological notion that the US has some God-given right to intervene, "not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interest of all," as Obama told the UN General Assembly last year.

https://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/22940-focus-part-ii-meet-the-americans-who-put-together-the-coup-in-kiev

---

Quote:

---

The far right, of course, cared nothing for democracy, nor did it have any love for the EU. Instead, the popular uprising was an opportunity. Dmytro Yarosh, the Right Sector leader, had urged his compatriots in 2009 to "start an armed struggle against the regime of internal occupation and Moscow's empire" if pro-Russian forces took control. As early as March 2013, Tryzub, one of the organizations that formed Right Sector, had called for the Ukrainian opposition to move "from a peaceful demonstration to a street-revolutionary plane."

They may also have played an even more sinister role in the events that unfolded. One enduring mystery of the Maidan Revolution is who was behind the February 20 sniper killings that set off the final, most bloody stage of protests, with accusations against everyone from government forces and the Kremlin to US-backed mercenaries. Without precluding these possibilities, there's now considerable evidence that the same far-right forces who piggybacked on the protesters' cause were also at least among the forces firing that night.

At the time, men resembling protesters had been witnessed shooting from protester-controlled buildings in the capital, and multiple Maidan medics had said the bullet wounds in police and protesters looked to have come from the same weapon. A Maidan protester later admitted to killing two officers and wounding others on the day, and crates of empty Kalashnikov bullets were found in the protester-occupied Ukraina Hotel, the same place a decorated military pilot and anti-Russian resistance hero later said she had seen an opposition MP leading snipers to. The government's investigation, meanwhile, which focused only on the protester murders, started out filled with serious flaws and irregularities.

The University of Ottawa's Ivan Katchanovski has analyzed evidence that's come out in the course of the investigation and trial into the murders. According to Katchanovski, a majority of wounded protesters testified they either saw snipers in protester-controlled buildings or were shot by bullets coming from their direction, testimony backed by forensic examinations. Closure on the matter is unlikely, though, since the post-Yanukovych interim government, in which leading far-right figures took prominent positions, swiftly passed a law giving Maidan participants immunity for any violence.

https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea

---

---

The phone call specifically discusses Klitschko as Deputy PM which was announced ending Jan. beginning of Feb 2014. This was solid spycraft by the KGB. Took a Nuland intercept to undermine the new government transition plans. They also emboldened Yushenko and the protestor body count got ugly not long after this.

I took the time to read your links. Given the impossibility of disproving a lie and fabricated framing of circumstances, I'd prefer to deal with the situational facts. For example if you're going to push the disproven idea of a Maiden protester false flag op when a number of arrests and convictions have occurred of Berkut police, you're not dealing in reality. If you're going to tie every NGO or other effort in Ukraine going back to denuclearization post Soviet break up as some grand CIA scheme, that's just bizarre world.