this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
247 points (87.3% liked)
Memes
47169 readers
1253 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's a problem with this, because Russia has had troops in Ukraine since early 2014, before Poroshenko's government
The Sbovoda interim was also financed by the USA, with Victoria Nuland discussing on a leaked call who to name after they deposed Yanukovich.
Russia had troops in Crimea as requested by the Crimean government, which also seceded via referendum after said coup, as is its right under Ukrainian law. That proved to be the right move given that they didn't have the astronomical number of casualties that Donbas had, with over 14 thousand dead before 2022, most of them civilians, and a huge number of injured civilians and destroyed infrastructure as per the Donbas documentary.
If America's goal was to put Svoboda in power, they didn't do a very good job of keeping them there, did they?
I have read the Nuland transcript. She's talking about the existing leader of the opposition. Of course she said Yatsenyuk was the guy, he was the goddamn leader of the opposition. He was the one guy avalable with the best democratic mandate at the last election. Yanukovych even offered to make him prime minister at one point.
Russia put troops into Crimea before the referendum, and the referendum was run by the occupying army. Do you normally trust occupying armies to run referendums about whether or not they should get to keep the land they're occupying?
Perhaps if Russia was so concerned about casualties in the Donbas, it should not have invaded and caused hundreds of thousands more casualties.
Lmao so the US did finance them, did appoint their best liked interim, did have congresspeople on the ground supporting the coup, did send in the money to arm the Nazis but just... quietly let democracy take its course once they spent all that time and money? America doesn't give a fuck if Sbovoda remains as long as the shock therapy has happened already, by then they'll take anyone who'll toe the line.
I want to give y'all the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you think we're stupid but sometimes I think there's a more obvious answer.
Ukrainians already wanted to align with the EU. The US didn't need to do a damn thing to influence that, a long history of Russian imperialism did it all for them
America spent fuck all on Ukraine in the entire history of its independence up until Euromaidan (pg 167). They simply did not spend "all that money", because a single digit millions of dollars a year is a rounding error in the US budget. American spending on Ukraine in 2013 was 0.00024% of the federal budget.
Oh fr? Let's ask as-US-backed-as-US-backed-gets Kyiv Independent then: https://kyivindependent.com/how-us-foreign-aid-transformed-ukraine-through-the-years/
Obfuscate it as much as you want, pro-western Ukrainians themselves are telling everyone how maintaining a pro-western system depends on US funds.
Nice deflection but the fact is that it did, often and extensively. If the US didn't need to spend that money, then you shouldn't worry, pretty soon they might not be. Let's see how friendly that world is to the US and their chickenshit vassals in the UK et al, I yearn to see it. Most of all I yearn that y'all see it.
If Ukrainians already wanted to align with the EU, then why did they democratically elect Yanukovych, which the US subsequently couped in coordination with the Banderites?
Why did they vote in the guy that said “For Ukraine, association with the European Union must become an important stimulus for forming a modern European state,” and that he was going to sign the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement? That does not seem at all contradictory to me. His sudden U-turn on that was what got the Ukrainian people so pissed at him
I wasn’t there, and I’m not going to assume that one quote is representative of his entire history or even that entire political campaign. The electoral map shows that in general he was liked by the Russian-aligned electorate and disliked by the European-aligned electorate.
I wasn't there either, but I do know that on his inaugration he said "Ukraine's integration with the EU remains our strategic aim."
Are you saying that since he was more popular in the east, he must have been against EU integration?
When Yanukovych was couped, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea seceded. If they had wanted EU integration, why would they have taken such extreme measures, and why did they turn to Russia for support? Russia ran into virtually no problems in annexing and integrating Crimea, because most Crimeans were on board with it. And good thing, too, because their Donetsk and Luhansk neighbors subsequently suffered nine years of Banderite terror.
You're retreading the exact same ground that I already went over with Grapho in this same thread
You handwaved it away and deflected back to your State department bullet points and atrocity propaganda.
Fact: there was a US financed coup.
Fact: states have a right to secede under Ukrainian law by referendum, and they exercised that right when their sovereignty was violated
Fact: sovereign nations have a right to request aid from their allies. Donetsk and Lugansk exercised that right when Ukrainian Nazis refused to abide by the many ceasefires Russia helped to negotiate.
Good thing we're talking about the money it spent on the coup and the aftermath, then.
So the fact that America funded through USAID 9 out of every 10 media outlets means they didn't spend "anything" in Ukraine because... It spends way more fucking money than that everywhere else too?
Also, implying the US only spends the money in a country via direct government cash injection lmao. Most of the money the US spends is channelled through NGOs for propaganda and covert action. Why the fuck would they ever just give money away to a government before it's thoroughly vassalized. What's more: there's ample evidence that US and UK propaganda specialists were employed by Subversive elements within Ukraine as well as extensive funding of NGOs and collaboration with psyop specialists.
In future resumes, they cited the Ukraine coup as well as the selling of the civil war as a "war against russian separatists" as an example of a successful psychological operation.
Congratulations on citing an article about what happened in 2022 to attempt to disprove my claim about what happened before 2014. Please learn to read dates. This is the third time in this thread that you have either gotten them completely wrong or actively misrepresented them.
It's one of many examples of US funding, many of which I've already cited in this very thread which you refuse to acknowledge (even to refute) unless you can find a fucking Phoenix Wright gotcha lmao.
It doesn't matter a single fucking bit why they would die without US funding, what matters is that they would, and thus they're entirely at the behest of their benefactors. It's also awfully convenient that you choose 2014 as a cutoff point for US involvement in Ukraine but you fail by that metric also. Regardless, Ukraine is thoroughly a puppet state of the US and its many crimes in the Donbas region are not a matter of debate. The ICJ has by and large rejected the atrocity propaganda lawfare of Ukraine and NATO and the probe has found evidence of genocidal intent in Donbas.