What is true is that Victoria Nuland and the US state department helped organize the government. In regards to Tahnybok, she said this:

“ I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

After influencing a deal “Yats” did indeed become leader, and a few Svoboda members ended up occupying positions such as deputy prime minister and prosecutor general.

It’s no surprise that Biden installed Victoria Nuland as Under Secretary for Political Affairs last year, all before the current hubbub kicked off again.

A new cold war. Will it turn hot? According to Murphy's law everything that can go wrong will go wrong, no matter how cool played. It can always turn hot. Oh what save nuclear weapons keep the world!

Or weapons in general.

After influencing a deal “Yats” did indeed become leader — NOS4A2

Can you explain what deal was reached?

Observe that this was from a phone call that the FSB/SVR tapped and leaked. Then the Russian intelligence services worked far better than now. (Or have you seen "proof" of the genocide Putin was talking about?)

And Yat's interim government ruled for some months, and then Petro Poroshenko was elected as President (who doesn't appear in the Nuland tapes) and Yat's second government (now elected) continued without Svoboda.

That Yanukovich fled to Russia and even the break-away Republics loathed him so much that they didn't want him (even if he came from the Donbass and obviously would have given them credence) tells a lot that it actually was a popular revolution and Yanukovich didn't have support anywhere. The revolution wasn't an astro-turf event. For some the "Revolution of Dignity" is still something orchestrated by the US, not a popular uprising that the US got involved (as usual). Which, the first option, is also the Putin line.

You're sounding a little unhinged, to be honest. — frank

Well, it took less time than usual for the "anyone who disagrees with me must be insane" card. Conversation over then I guess.

Playing dumb just makes you look dumb. In 1945 the Red Army was sitting on half of Europe and made it clear it wouldn't be leaving. That was the impetus for NATO.

Sure, some people had wanted something like it long before, but isolation was popular in the US and it wasn't feasible before the realities of WWII.

More nations with nuclear weapons = more chances for misuse or theft. The US extends nuclear security as a means of reducing this risk. It's been quite effective. Obviously Japan, Germany, and Korea have the technological capacity for them. Nuclear anti-proliferation efforts have held up quite well all things considered (just Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Israel since the first wave of nuclear states).

Notably, the Soviets acted similarly, not sharing nuclear technology widely.

Of course, the whole Ukraine thing is a bit of a blow to those efforts. Ukraine had a nuclear arsenal at the end of the Cold War and gave it up based on security assurances.

A new cold war. Will it turn hot? According to Murphy's law everything that can go wrong will go wrong, no matter how cool played. It can always turn hot. Oh what save nuclear weapons keep the world! — EugeneW

Looks more like Russia is going the way of North Korea so this isn't gonna be the US vs. the USSR part 2. Hell at this point a lot of former Soviet states probably want nothing to do with Russia (Ukraine obviously included).

Not that I don't think a new Cold War is happening since it is with China, but that's already been going on for a while now.

Not that I don't think a new Cold War is happening since it is with China, but that's already been going on for a while now. — Mr Bee

Notice that now Russia is de facto quite attached to China. If Russia can't sell the gas and oil to Western Europe, where can Putin sell it? Yet China isn't a pariah state, it hasn't invaded Taiwan, so it has room to move. All this is an advantage to China.

Just like after the clamp down of the Belarus protests Lukashenko is in a vassal position to Putin now, a sidekick. Before Lukashenko did snap at Russia with sometimes taking the side with Ukraine in the conflict, but now there isn't any other room than to be the satellite of Russia. Which is perfect for Putin.

For some the "Revolution of Dignity" is still something orchestrated by the US, not a popular uprising that the US got involved (as usual) — ssu

The Jacobin article said it wasnt orchestrated by the US.

So will they kill Zelensky and his family?

@ssu, @frank et al

Let me ask you, what's your aim here?

Mine's simple. I want to hold my government and its allies to account for their role in this, I want to make sure they don't get to play the white knight, saviours of the innocent.

The aim (of the attitude, not necessarily the actual post) is to make sure governments and the powerful know they can't just get away with their behaviour by getting everyone to look the other way, look at the big monster over there.

But I just can't fathom your aim.

To excuse government? To make sure only the strongest of evidence is sufficient to accuse them? Why would you do that?

Is it Truth™? Do you think you're warriors of truth, making sure that rightness prevails?

Is it just conservatism, not wanting to rock the boat? I've some sympathy with that, but the boat's well and truly capsising, surely?

Must they queue up, perhaps? Can we not condemn our governments until those with more crass records of oppression are roundly castigated? Is Putin really escaping castigation here though?

So what? What motivates this drive for such passionate defense of the already powerful?

Or put him in a mock trial, if they get him. That he's target 1 and his family target 2 is quite probable. It's very logical to try to strike at the enemy leadership in war.

Notice that now Russia is de facto quite attached to China. If Russia can't sell the gas and oil to Western Europe, where can Putin sell it? Yet China isn't a pariah state, it hasn't invaded Taiwan, so it has room to move. All this is an advantage to China. — ssu

Yep, Russia is gonna become completely reliant on China now if it doesn't want to collapse, just like North Korea. That's really the best possible outcome for them in all of this and it's not even that great since China would have all the leverage in such a relationship. I mean sure oil and gas prices are at an all time high right now, but if you can only sell it to one customer then China can probably dictate whatever price they want.

In an odd twist of fate, this could end up pushing China away from coal just as much as it could push Europe away from natural gas and into renewables, which would be a welcome development.

It seems like a very dangerous situation because Putin will pay a heavy political toll for a loss, but he also can't afford a drawn out, unpopular war of aggression against a brother nation while hemorrhaging men and material and tanking his economy.

If reports of Russia calling in Belorussian forces are true it shows that Russia is likely in more of a crisis than is apparent. The military there was just recently the main thing keeping an anti-Russian revolution from sweeping away the political order. Sending its mostly conscripted army into Ukraine in aging Soviet equipment that is proving to be incredibly vulnerable to NATO anti-tank arms is absolutely desperate.

But I also wouldn't have thought they'd send in the Chechen forces either. Given how Putin sells himself to ethnonationalist elements abroad, sending a Muslim army into Europe, an army known for war crimes, with the explicit mission of killing civilian leaders, seems like a bad optics move that will enrage the one group that tends to support him.

Conflicting reports on Belarus though. It does seem like a logistical nightmare for the Russians already, and they aren't far outside their border. Commanding officers getting captured shows an inability to control the battle space to any solid degree. Having airborne elements get cut off, outrunning their supplies and support also seems to have happened on multiple occasions.

Mine's simple. I want to hold my government and its allies to account for their role in this, I want to make sure they don't get to play the white knight, saviours of the innocent. — Isaac

Ok, fair enough, Isaac.

Let me put it this way: If governments usually lie, there sometimes can be the rare occasion when the truth serves them and they will say the truth. In that case one should note that accepting this truth doesn't make you a supporter of their usual lies.

As has been many times said, no one is saying that US is a white knight, a savior of the innocent. But sometimes it's obvious that the other (here Russia) is doing something that is totally wrong. That even many Russians are against. That it is stupid and likely extremely counterproductive and a tragedy.

But I just can't fathom your aim. — Isaac

How about that sovereign independent states should be left alone. Military force shouldn't be used. That countries ought not to first underwrite that they accept the borders and the territories of others and then brake on that promise. That there should be peace.

Listen, we can talk about the wrongs that the US and the West has done. Yes, Putin has referred to them too. But this thread is about the Ukraine crisis. Or now the Russo-Ukrainian war.

Hopefully this clears my views to you.

But I also wouldn't have thought they'd send in the Chechen forces either. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Putin won the war in Checnya. Putin has already used Chechen mercenaries in Donbass in 2014. And he has used them also in Syria.

(REUTERS, 2014): Seasoned Chechen fighters, whose combat experience often dates back to the 1994-96 and 1999-2000 wars, fight on both sides in east Ukraine, adding to the complexity of a conflict in which the West says Russian troops are involved.

(From 2014)


Putin isn't a leader that withdraws from wars. Up until now he has either won his wars or continues them (as in Syria).

If reports of Russia calling in Belorussian forces are true it shows that Russia is likely in more of a crisis than is apparent. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That would be bad. A real escalation of that war.

I hope they didn't call the Ukrainians to agree to their terms or then face also the Belorussian armed forces too.

In 1945 the Red Army was sitting on half of Europe and made it clear it wouldn't be leaving. That was the impetus for NATO. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Your statement was:

The US forces were there during the Cold War when the Warsaw Pact represented a much more substantial threat to Europe than Russia does today — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the US forces were there before the Cold War, there was no Warsaw Pact in 1945, and there was a US-European military alliance already during WW1.

Moreover, Anglo-American plans to contain Germany and Russia already existed in the early 1900's. NATO is just the latest manifestation of that.

More nations with nuclear weapons = more chances for misuse or theft. The US extends nuclear security as a means of reducing this risk. Notably, the Soviets acted similarly, not sharing nuclear technology widely. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In other words, (1) the US is acting like the Soviets, (2) the US decides which European states have nuclear weapons, and (3) most European countries have to depend on the US for protection!

But you told us that Europe does not need the US for its defense:

yes, it is fair to say NATO doesn't need the US to stop Russia.

And why can't Europe extend its own nuclear security to America?

So, you still haven't provided any credible reason as to why US forces are still in Europe (except to enforce America's own self-interests).

Putin may be a dictator by Western standards, but I think one important point to remember is that Russia has a different political system with a much stronger presidency and weaker parliament and prime minister than European countries. And Putin has enjoyed the backing of the majority of the Russian people – at least up to now.

Additionally, I think some here tend to display a curious ignorance (or amnesia) of historical facts.
From the 9th century, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine (which really means “borderland”) were one country which was known as “Rus-land” or “Land of the Rus(sians)” (роусьскаѧ землѧ, rusĭskaę zemlę), and which became the core of the Russian Empire.

The “Ukraine issue” only emerged with the collapse of the Russian Empire in the wake of the 1917 revolution, when there was a conflict between the western and eastern parts of Ukraine, with one part forming the breakaway Ukrainian People’s Republic in Kiev in the west, and the other forming the Moscow-controlled Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in Kharkiv in the east.

The watershed period in the development of modern Ukrainian national consciousness was the struggle for independence during the creation of the Ukrainian People's Republic from 1917 to 1921 - Wikipedia

However, Ukraine remained an inalienable part of the Russian State until 1991.

When Putin said "Ukraine is not just a neighboring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space,” he was stating a fact.

Back in 1991, US ambassador to Moscow Robert Strauss admitted that Ukraine’s declaration of independence was a disaster for Russia. He said:

The most revolutionary event of 1991 for Russia may not be the collapse of Communism, but the loss of something Russians of all political stripes think of as part of their own body politic, and near to the heart at that: Ukraine.

Putin himself, when he gave his first-ever interview as deputy mayor of Saint Petersburg in 1992, stated that Ukraine was an artificial country created by the Bolsheviks.

If Putin has been saying the same thing for thirty years and his views were universally shared by other Russians from inception, the claim that Putin has suddenly gone “mad” can only be the product of Western propaganda and disinformation (or imagination). Whether right or wrong, his views regarding Ukraine only seem “mad” to those who are ignorant of Russian history.

As for Crimea, it had been colonized by the Greeks since antiquity and later it became part of the Roman and Byzantine empires. It was invaded and occupied by the Mongols (Tatars) in the 1400’s who converted it into a large slave market until its liberation by Russia. In recognition of its Greek heritage, its main port was given the Greek name of Sevastopol in 1783. (Crimean cities with Greek names also include Simferopol, Yalta (Yalita), Feodosia (Theodosia), Alupka (Alopex), Alushta (Alouston), etc.) Sevastopol itself has been a major base for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet ever since.

In any case, I for one fail to see how pointing this (and other facts) out makes one a “Putin apologist” or “troll”.

Or put him in a mock trial, if they get him. That he's target 1 and his family target 2 is quite probable. It's very logical to try to strike at the enemy leadership in war. — ssu

But would he become a martyr?

Can you explain what deal was reached?

I can’t, only that it came out exactly like Nuland wanted. In the end, it all hinged on Biden’s final word. So it’s not odd to me that all this reached a fever’s pitch as soon as he and Nuland are back in power.

Can you explain what deal was reached?

I can’t, — NOS4A2

Oh

Sure, listen I'm not going to dispute that. I don't know the history in anywhere near the level of detail as you (and others) do.

What I can say, is that the situation now is so tense and difficult, that, for the rest of the world, these facts don't matter. For some Russians, sure, though not all - as seen by the protestors in Moscow.

We are at the brink of something akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and while I maintain that this could have easily been avoided if NATO had not been expanding since the collapse of the Soviet Union, from this point on, it's about trying to see if there's any way out of this conflict that could serve in a way to save face for most involved.

Tomorrow Russia's economy will scream. I did not expect such a strong reaction from the West, and probably nor did other Russian elites, Putin included.

The way it looks to someone from the outside is, this one country is willing to bring the whole world down for some piece of land few people care about? And you just won't get enough people caring about the history, even if it helps elucidate why this is happening.

Why should someone in, say, Latin America or India care about this history?

So, I see your angle, but, by at this stage, too much is at stake.

god must be a conspiracy theorist?

We're probably privvy to about 2% of the truth of what is actually happening and the reasons behind it

:o

But...beer?

"We're probably privvy to about 2% of the truth of what is actually happening and the reasons behind it"



“Truth never damages a cause that is just.”

― Mahatma Gandhi

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/11414-truth-never-damages-a-cause-that-is-just

So what is the 2% truth we know and is it a moot point to discuss this with in 98% darkness?

Lets see what we know: (CNN)

Zelensky agrees to talks Monday as Putin raises nuclear alert and West adds sanctions — CNN

Again, CNN: (Fareed Zakaria )

In the case of Ukraine, the battle lines are already drawn: The opposition of the bulk of the population to any Russian puppet regime could not be clearer. Nearly 80% of the population identifies as Ukrainian and a similar proportion continues to support Ukrainian independence. Solid majorities favor joining both the EU and NATO and also have a low opinion of Russia; hardly a surprise given Russia's annexation of Crimea and sponsorship of violent separatists in the Donbas region.
Moreover, Ukrainians overthrew previous pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 in large part because he intended to steer Ukraine into Russia's orbit and away from the European Union. — Fareed Zakaria

Truth?

Putting aside all the historical and political subtleties, it is the instigator of war between one nation and another, the aggressor, that is to be condemned here. Which is to say it is Putin that is to be condemned, not Russia. There seems to be no doubt that there are many in Russia who also condemn him for this unjustifiable act of war.

The number of people cheering on escalation and fantasizing about Putin - a leader of a nuclear nation - going to the Hague is both depressing and horrifying.

Why should someone in, say, Latin America or India care about this history?

So, I see your angle, but, by at this stage, too much is at stake. — Manuel

There is no history that justifies this. It is a reckless destabilizing act of a maniac, and should be recognized as such, putting aside all the supposed political subtleties, which are no doubt so buried in propaganda from both sides as to be irrelevant.

At this point in the situation yes, the stakes are too high.

When we are facing a situation as horrifying as this, we should try to think for a way out of this mess.

Obviously this means diplomacy. IF that works, then we can argue about history and who is or is not a maniac or who is evil or whatever.

I know it's totally beyond my control - 100%. I don't think I ever been as scared for the world as now.

Maybe I'm being paranoid. But, this is really, really bad.

The TOS-1 is a heavy-duty sucker