sillygoose
Well-known member
Nonsense, the US did the same thing in 2004 and the rest of the color revolutions. The core of US policy towards Russia is the Wolfowitz Doctrine:Coup which wouldn't have happened if Russia didn't treat Ukraine like a vassal state not allowed to choose its own foreign policy.
Treat your allies like dirt, suffer easy opportunity for hostile change of guard taken by competition, lose allies. Very important lesson for Russia right there, one it was trying and failing to learn since centuries.
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.
Russia has been acting defensively against a US/NATO that has been encroaching on it since the collapse of the USSR. Meddling in Ukraine is to give it a buffer zone wherein no potential foe is able to set up to invade them. Not respecting Russian history of it having to face repeated destructive invasions from the west is going to result serious conflict. Same as the US would react to say China couping the government in Mexico and starting to build up their military with Chinese advisors and intelligence personnel.
It was cultivated by the west. You could say the exactly same thing about the autonomous republics of the Donbass and Crimea; they were anti-Maidan and got Russian support to break off. It isn't like they simply only created by Russia and even western sources have said internal support for Russia is high in those areas.We all know that Maidan merely got western support, the sentiment behind it was brewing up since years and we can point out earlier events that contributed.
It is a ridiculous presumption that any revolution against a genuinely shitty government is inherently "western puppet coup" just because the west opportunistically supported that change, for obvious reasons.
It is a complex history and ultimately had the west not been pushing right up to the borders of Russia, something everyone knows Russia is VERY sensitive to due to their history, none of this would have been an issue.
Funny to how you say it was simply because of a shitty government when things remained as shitty if not got worse after the 2014 coup. Article from 2021:
Time to rethink Ukraine’s fight against corruption
The ongoing struggle against corruption in Ukraine would benefit from greater coordination among the country's international partners and a longer term strategy, argues Bohdan Vitvitsky.
www.atlanticcouncil.org
The real Zelensky: from celebrity populist to unpopular Pinochet-style neoliberal - The Grayzone
Ukrainian academic Olga Baysha details Volodymyr Zelensky's embrace of widely loathed neoliberal policies, his repression of rivals, and how his actions fueled the current war with Russia. A comedic actor who rose to the country’s highest office in 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky was virtually unknown...
thegrayzone.com
Funny too how Zelensky got into power due to being created by a oligarch who was exiled from the country:
Zelenskyy was viewed by some as Kolomoyskyi's candidate. Zelenskyy appointed Kolomoyskyi's personal lawyer as a key campaign advisor, travelled to Geneva and Tel Aviv to confer with the then-exiled Kolomoyskyi on multiple occasions, and benefited from the endorsement of Kolomoyskyi's media empire. Once in office, Zelencky appeared to remove officials deemed a threat to Kolomoyskyi's interests, among them the Prosecutor General, Ruslan Ryaboshapka and the Governor of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU), Yakiv Smolii, and Zelenskyy's first prime minister, Oleksiy Honcharuk, who tried to loosen Kolomoyskyi's control of a state-owned electricity company.[100][101]
Plus he helped finance some of the Azov type militias:
The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 again highlighted the presence in Dnipro of the volunteer "Dnieper Guard" (Варти Дніпра, Varty Dnipra), first formed in 2014 with Kolomoyskyi support in response to the war in Donbas. Mayor of Dnipro, Borys Filatov has dismissed suggestions that the group is Kolomoyskyi's "private army". The Ukrainian billionaire, according to Filatov has helped with some equipment purchases, but the volunteer guard performs defence and law and order functions under the leadership of the national police.[102]
“Democracy” in Ukraine—What is NATO risking a war for?
Honouring war criminals and Nazi collaborators, promoting fascist militias, mafia-like fights between oligarchs, corruption and massive social inequality are the most prominent features of Ukrainian “democracy.”
www.wsws.org
Oh and he also owned Burisma:
How Hunter Biden’s Interests ‘Overlapped’ With Banned Ukrainian Oligarch
Besides being connected through the Burisma energy giant, Hunter Biden did business with Igor Kolomoisky’s bank.
www.dailysignal.com
- Kolomoisky had a “controlling interest” in Burisma Holdings, the New York Post reported. Burisma employed Hunter Biden as a board member for a widely reported salary of $50,000 per month. Russian media, quoted in State Department emails, referred to Burisma as “part of Kolomoisky’s financial empire.”
- Kolomoisky publicly said in 2019 that he refused to cooperate with efforts by President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to get his help in investigating Hunter Biden and Burisma—and potentially Joe Biden, multiple news outlets reported. House Democrats’ impeachment report on Trump also cited the incident in late 2019.
- Emails from 2015, published last year by the New York Post, show a Kolomoisky protege communicated with Hunter Biden about a meeting between the protege and Joe Biden, then vice president under President Barack Obama.
- Court filings from 2019 by a private investigatory firm allege that legally obtained bank records of Hunter Biden show payments to him from the Kolomoisky-owned PrivatBank.
Not really:Because Ukraine doesn't want to be "left alone" and for a damn good reason. Being "left alone" means staying poor while Russia waits for a good opportunity to bring it back into the fold by hook or by crook. It is an untenable position, why would Ukraine want to be in it.
Vladimir Putin offers Ukraine financial incentives to stick with Russia
Moscow to buy $15bn of Ukrainian government bonds and cut gas price after Kiev resists signing EU deal amid mass protests
www.theguardian.com
Moscow to buy $15bn of Ukrainian government bonds and cut gas price after Kiev resists signing EU deal amid mass protests
Literally the same as the EU:
EU offers $15 billion aid package to Ukraine
Aid package offered as the country struggles with dwindling cash and a military standoff with Russia.
money.cnn.com
Given that Russia is at least 300% wealthier per capita than Ukraine ending the corruption and economically working with Russia would have been a boon. Thing is that most of poorest parts of the Ukraine are in the west, so they stand to profit from entering the EU, since they could flee west like Poles and Romanians did to earn more abroad, sent remittances home or save, and then return and live well at home later. In the east the situation is the opposite since they could stay at home and with greater integration with Russia make themselves wealthier at home or work in Russia where they have cultural overlap and improve their lives that way. So there is a serious divide in the country between those who want the west and those that want Russia. The US/NATO backed one faction, the Russians the other. The US/NATO side won by being more ruthless and how Russia is one upping them because they are out of options to keep Ukraine at very least neutral.
Last edited: