Do you have a source that rebuts her account of the participants?

Second step: are human rights better implemented within Western countries? Yes — neomac

This step does not support your argument. To do so it would have to be possible for all countries to be like western countries, but if the human rights in western countries are bought at the expense of human rights in chattel countries, then it is not. You’d have to demonstrate not only that human rights are better in western countries, but that western countries do not worsen human rights elsewhere in achieving that state. — Isaac

I don’t mind to review my past arguments once again (for the thousand time?), however it wasn’t the reason why I quoted them in the first place. The point was that I can argue for my moral claims only if there is sufficient understanding on how I conceptualise them because otherwise you will likely make outlandish objections. As the one you just made. The question “are human rights better implemented within Western countries?” is a question, not an argument, so you should address it as a question. And that question can be answered affirmatively or negatively independently from the possibility for all non-Western countries to be like western countries. Besides I do not need AT ALL to exclude that human rights in Western countries are bought at the expense of human rights in non-Western countries, maybe human rights institutions can emerge only as a result of zero-sum game (and if you had read my “entire wall of text”, you would have imagined why). So no, I do not have to demonstrate that “not only that human rights are better in western countries, but that western countries do not worsen human rights elsewhere in achieving that state” AT ALL.

is Ukraine more pro-West than Russia? Yes. Asking to join NATO and EU, and be ready to suffer a war against Russia to defend their choice wrt anti-Western rhetoric and hostility from Russia are unquestionable evidences for that. And if this is no evidence I don’t know what is. — neomac

Seriously? A bit of pro-western rhetoric is the gold-standard evidence of a desire to adopt western human rights values?
The human rights record of Ukraine is on record for all to see. You can't bluff your way out of it. Read the reports. — Isaac

Again the question is “is Ukraine more pro-West than Russia?”, the answer can be affirmative or negative independently from your further clumsy objections. That’s why I was reasoning step-by-step to make you follow my line of reasoning to the end instead of jumping in all random directions as you did when you objected to it in the past, and as you are re-doing it now. So it's pretty symptomatic that you can't follow such a simple exercise.
Anyways, being pro-Western for Ukraine means at least what I exactly wrote: wanting to enter the Western sphere of influence through 2 organisations EU and NATO, and the readiness to suffer the consequences for this choice intolerable to the Russians corroborates it.
Said that, even though being pro-West doesn’t equate to the desire to adopt western human rights values, I don’t find that troubling at all, for 3 reasons:
1. The West imposes certain conditions that need to be satisfied before becoming an actual EU/NATO member, so nobody will accept Ukraine if it doesn’t comply enough to Western requirements. Its integration will require time before happening and even after to deeply reform the Ukrainian society (as for all post-Soviet republics).
2. This war proved that Ukrainians have great tolerance for sacrifices, so making the necessary institutional steps to satisfy Western conditions to membership should be a much more tolerable sacrifice.
3. Two potential problems in Ukraine, corruption and ultranationalism, persisted so far due to historical conflicts and ties with Russia: many Ukrainian ultranationalist (including Nazis) are essentially anti-Russian, Ukrainian corruption was abundantly nurtured by past pro-Russian regimes (Russia itself being a renowned example of “mafia state”). So if entering the Western sphere of influence means severing these ties and downgrading such historical tensions, the 2 problems may be more easy to deal with.
And if all that’s not enough to you (to me it is), a 4th reason will most certainly be: nothing in those reports says that Ukrainians can't act differently.

anti-West Russia with a poorer implementation of human rights — neomac

It does not have a poorer human rights record. Again, this is all on record. Read the reports. — Isaac

The claim that anti-West Russia does have poorer human rights record than most Western countries comes from reading the records (as already reported in our past exchanges).

the democracy index is telling — neomac

Democracy is not exhaustive of human rights, not even close. It's one of 30 articles. Usually the one chosen by neoliberals like you to excuse nations for trampling over the other 29. — Isaac

Indeed, that’s not the only evidence I reported. We are just looping all over it again:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physical-integrity-rights-fkr?tab=chart&country=RUS~CHN~IRN~DEU~ITA~ESP~POL~LTU~ROU~BGR~SVK

Is this enough evidence? If not why not? — neomac

See above. What could possibly make you think that the satisfaction on one out of thirty articles of human rights would be all the evidence needed? — Isaac

Here is a summary for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Russia

Here is a summary for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Russia — neomac

John is taller than jack because John is 6 foot.

See any problem with that argument.

Christ! You didn't even put Ukraine on the fucking chart (which if you had, would have put them next to Russia).

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physical-integrity-rights-fkr?tab=chart&country=UKR~RUS

It's like arguing with children.

Here is a summary for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Russia — neomac

John is taller than jack because John is 6 foot.
See any problem with that argument. — Isaac

I gave you the chart:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physical-integrity-rights-fkr?tab=chart&country=RUS~CHN~IRN~DEU~ITA~ESP~POL~LTU~ROU~BGR~SVK

The wikipedia article was to make you appreciate the remarkable breath of evidences one can find about the poor status of human rights in Russia (especially under Putin).

Christ! You didn't even put Ukraine on the fucking chart (which if you had, would have put them next to Russia).
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physical-integrity-rights-fkr?tab=chart&country=UKR~RUS
It's like arguing with children. — Isaac

Why would I need to put Ukraine? I was comparing Russia with the West (including ex-Soviet republic joining the West) not Russia with Ukraine, for the obvious reason that I expect that the Western integration process of Ukraine will improve its human rights conditions as it did with other ex-Soviet republics (indeed it's one of the condition of EU membership https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/conditions-membership_en). That's exactly the line of reasoning that you can't even follow on a step-by-step basis.
But good you posted your chart, because it still neatly fits into my line of reasoning: Ukraine outside the Western influence, under Russian sphere of influence or in conflict with Russia, shows as poor human rights conditions as Russia wrt West (according to those charts). Not to mention that Ukrainian very poor human rights conditions may very well include the human rights violations of the pro-Russian Ukrainian regions [1] during the years of the conflict (including the tragedy of the Crimean Tatars). So the resulting border changes may also positively impact Ukrainian stats in terms of human rights.


[1]
UN monitoring of abuses

At a press conference in Kyiv on 15 December 2014, UN Assistant Secretary-General for human rights Ivan Šimonović stated that the majority of human rights violations committed during the conflict were carried out by the separatists.[115] He also said, however, that this could not be used as an excuse by Ukrainian forces to commit human rights violations.

UN observers also registered multiple episodes of sexual abuse against locals, mainly women, at the border checkpoints run by both Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian armed groups. The presence of combatants in civil communities also brings up a danger of sexual violence against their population and increase the risk of rape and human trafficking.[116][117]

During 2014 and 2015 the UN Monitoring Mission documented multiple reports about people abducted by pro-Russian armed groups and Ukrainian military forces.[118][119]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_situation_during_the_war_in_Donbas

So you think that was the first [...] — Isaac

Not relevant.

Virtue signalling — Isaac

Nope:

(spraying bombs, spreading destruction, letting their mercs run free, flattening towns, killing, shamming, re-enculturating, fear-mongering and calls for nationalism at home)
[...]
trajectory
[...]
ruthless oppressive regressive autocratic untrustworthy land-grabber
[...]
risky — Jan 23, 2023

Crimea — Isaac

You missed:

(spraying bombs, spreading destruction, letting their mercs run free, flattening towns, killing, shamming, re-enculturating, fear-mongering and calls for nationalism at home)
[...]
trajectory
[...]
ruthless oppressive regressive autocratic untrustworthy land-grabber
[...]
risky — Jan 23, 2023

I'm not a newspaper — Isaac

EU on government reshuffle: ‘We welcome Ukrainian authorities taking corruption allegations seriously’
^{— The Kyiv Independent · Jan 24, 2023}
Russia’s Longest Standing Human Rights Organization Dissolved by State Courts
^{— Tony Spitz · Veuer · Jan 26, 2023 (1m:14s)}

Mildly amusing despite the alternate interpretation:

German foreign office "sorry" for tweet taking a dig at Russia's African outreach with a leopard emoji
^{— CBS News · Jan 26, 2023}
Germany apologizes for leopard jibe that upset some Africans
^{— Gerald Imray · AP News · Jan 26, 2023}

I expect that the Western integration process of Ukraine will improve its human rights conditions as it did with other ex-Soviet republics (indeed it's one of the condition of EU membership https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/conditions-membership_en). That's exactly the line of reasoning that you can't even follow on a step-by-step basis.
But good you posted your chart, because it still neatly fits into my line of reasoning: Ukraine outside the Western influence, under Russian sphere of influence or in conflict with Russia, shows as poor human rights conditions as Russia wrt West. — neomac

So because western countries have better human rights records than Russia, it's morally legitimate to support Ukraine's fight over territory?

If Ukraine would then join the west's approach, and if the west's human rights are not simply bought at the expense of others, and if the utter destruction of Ukraine's economy and the flooding of its black markets with weapons aren't enough to tip it back over into nationalist extremism... then you might, just might, get an improvement in human rights.

And this slim chance is worth the deaths of tens of thousands?

Tell me. Those other ex-soviet countries which came under western influence, did we fight a proxy war with Russia over each of them? Or did economic development, local political action and covert support bring that about?

So in what way is fighting a long protracted proxy war with Russia necessary for this vague and speculative end goal of yours?

You missed: — jorndoe

What's Russia's conduct in war got to do with estimates about their relative management of peacetime conditions?

How do Ukraine's armed forces conduct invasions? We don't know. So comparing like-with-like is impossible. we can compare their management of contested regions and see they're about the same. so why would you avoid the evidence for which we do have comparative data and only seek to present the evidence for which we don't?

The wikipedia article was to make you appreciate the remarkable breath of evidences one can find about the poor status of human rights in Russia (especially under Putin). — neomac

If we were to do a side by side comparison of human rights violations in the 21st century of the United States and Russia, I'm not sure who would come out on top, but my bet would be on the Americans taking the cake.

We're all up in arms about supposed Russian torture of Ukrainian POWs (which if true is horrible and inexcusable, don't get me wrong), but have we already forgotten Guantanamo?

Apparently @neomac is capable of comparing two entities only by looking at data on one of them. We don't yet know how...

Apparently neomac is capable of comparing two entities only by looking at data on one of them — Isaac

Where did I do that?

If we were to do a side by side comparison of human rights violations in the 21st century of the United States and Russia, I'm not sure who would come out on top, but my bet would be on the Americans taking the cake. — Tzeentch

Here all the stats you want:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physical-integrity-rights-fkr?tab=chart&country=RUS~CHN~IRN~DEU~ITA~ESP~POL~LTU~ROU~BGR~SVK~GBR~USA~AUS~CAN~JPN~KOR
Ukraine is better than Russia, and the US is better than Ukraine and Russia. The rest of Western countries (including ex-Soviet republics) are much better than the US, Ukraine and Russia.

We're all up in arms about supposed Russian torture of Ukrainian POWs (which if true is horrible and inexcusable, don't get me wrong), but have we already forgotten Guantanamo? — Tzeentch

No we didn't. It simply doesn't abso-fucking-lutely have anything to do with the line of reasoning I was making (is Ukraine going to be like the US by joining EU/NATO?) and you two keep abso-fucking-lutely ignoring.

Here all the stats you want: — neomac

And you're using physical integrity rights as a proxy for human rights because...?

The rest of Western countries (including ex-Soviet republics) are much better than the US, Ukraine and Russia. — neomac

Here's your preferred statistics relevant to the actual argument.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physical-integrity-rights-fkr?tab=chart&country=HRV~BLR~IRQ~RUS~SAU~UKR~USA

1. Note Croatia, the most recent accession to the EU, whose record has gone down since joining.

2. Note Belarus, undoubtedly a Russian puppet state whose score is higher than the US.

3. Note Saudi Arabia, an ally of the US, performing identically to Russia.

4. Note Iraq, a famous beneficiary of the US's military help, at the bottom of the list below everyone.


Even with your own cherry-picked proxy for human rights (which are so much more than just democracy and government freedoms), your argument falls flat on its face.

Oh, and one last for you all

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physical-integrity-rights-fkr?tab=chart&time=2009..latest&country=HRV~BLR~IRQ~RUS~SAU~UKR~USA

Which are the only two countries to have shown a net improvement in the last decade?

Russia and Belarus.

One more for fun. Since we've not touched on NATO.

Out of the longest running ex-soviet states in NATO... Lithuania.

Here's it's chart (again with your preferred metric), since joining...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physical-integrity-rights-fkr?tab=chart&time=2004..latest&country=~LTU

Bugger all progress.

Here's it's chart that it achieved all on its own first ...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physical-integrity-rights-fkr?tab=chart&time=earliest..2004&country=~LTU

Notice the difference? In 2004 Lithuania joined the EU and NATO. That move ended all progress in your chosen metric of human rights.

Note the steep decline of the United States after the fall of the Soviet Union, at which point it became unipolar hegemon. It seems power does indeed corrupt.

So because western countries have better human rights records than Russia, it's morally legitimate to support Ukraine's fight over territory?

If Ukraine would then join the west's approach, and if the west's human rights are not simply bought at the expense of others (1), and if the utter destruction of Ukraine's economy and the flooding of its black markets with weapons aren't enough to tip it back over into nationalist extremism (2)… then you might, just might, get an improvement in human rights.

And this slim chance is worth the deaths of tens of thousands? (3) — Isaac

Concerning claim (1), my reasoning is about the likely fate of human rights institutions in Ukraine once they join EU/NATO as other ex-Soviet republics did IN COMPARISON WITH the likely fate of human rights institutions in Ukraine under the influence of an anti-West Russia (e.g. as Belarus is). So unless you can bring actual arguments (what does it even literally mean “human rights are simply bought at the expense of others”? e.g. In what way the West is “buying” its human rights status out of say Iran’s, China’s, North Korea’s, Russia’s human rights?), evidences to support your bare conjecture, and argue for its pertinence wrt what I’m arguing, I don’t feel rationally compelled by it.
Concerning claim (2), again bare conjecture which still ignores the membership conditions of EU/NATO and Ukrainian motivations to join the West, as premised by my line of reasoning.
Concerning your moral question (3), first, I prefer to assess chances over actual pertinent evidences and arguments about their relevance, instead of rummaging biased conjectures as you do, but only when it goes against your opponents’ arguments (because you yourself don’t abso-fucking-lutely give a shit about chances when it’s matter to support your moral claims). Second, yes it’s arguably worth it as the lesser evil for Ukrainians and Westerners. But given the Western hesitancy to support Ukraine and the internal conflicts of national interests wrt this war my expectations about the evolution of this war change over time as much as my conviction about future consequences at the end of the war. So I too have my doubts. Obviously.

Tell me. Those other ex-soviet countries which came under western influence, did we fight a proxy war with Russia over each of them? Or did economic development, local political action and covert support bring that about? — Isaac

No to the first question. Yes to the second. Now you tell me: do you agree with that? If not, for what reason?

So in what way is fighting a long protracted proxy war with Russia necessary for this vague and speculative end goal of yours? — Isaac

The random charge of being “vague and speculative” is simply preposterous because I’m an avg dude (not en expert), we are reasoning under uncertainties of many relevant facts, and exchange in a philosophy forum from our armchair during leisure time. Didn’t we explicitly factor in all that in our claims many times already? Yet I care about the clarity/logic of my arguments and the evidences available to me to assess them (including the input from all sorts of news/stats/reports/experts of course). Since I take such arguments and evidence assessment to be affordable also by other avg dudes in a philosophy forum post format, I expect such avg dudes to reciprocate in intellectually honest and challenging ways. So in relative terms that charge is more apt to qualify roughly all your arguments and objections as I abundantly proved.
Besides the charge must be abso-fucking-lutely irrelevant especially to you: bare conjectures (nothing in any empirical theory excludes that things can’t go differently, right?) and “not enough imagination”-kind of objections are enough to you.
Finally, why on earth would I even care to answer such “vague and speculative” question of yours? In what sense, would this proxy war be “necessary” ? It you merely conjecture historical possibilities for Ukraine by comparison to the ex-Soviet republics, of course there is a counterfactual possibility that for Ukrainians things could have gone differently, the proxy war is “necessary” at all. Besides we should consider related choices by political strategic agents, so if those were free choices and free choice is understood as a non-necessary choice, then of course the proxy war is “necessary” at all. Still there are dramatic events, reasoning over them and choices by involved strategic players that led them step-by-step where we are. So I try to understand them as input for my arguments, whenever pertinent.

BTW, I forgot to mention the context where I extrapolated that line of reasoning from:

As compassionate outsiders, our concern should solely be for the well-being of the people there. — Isaac

What is the well-being of the people? — neomac
That's up to us to decide. Personally I think the notion of human rights is a good starting point. — Isaac

That’s what inspired the first step of my line of reasoning, namely "human rights is an acceptable way to identify collective well-being? Yes”, as a good starting point (not because I find it self-evident).

And you're using physical integrity rights as a proxy for human rights because…? — Isaac

Because physical integrity rights are covered by human rights, aren’t they? And I care to assess my claims against actual and pertinent evidences accessible to me. So if they support my claims, that’s good. Anyways you’ve got plenty of charts in that site. Here:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-vdem?tab=chart&country=~RUS
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-vdem?tab=chart&country=~USA
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-vdem?tab=chart&country=~UKR
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-vdem?tab=chart&country=~POL
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-vdem?tab=chart&country=~LTU
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-vdem?tab=chart&country=~ROU
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-vdem?tab=chart&country=~BGR
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-vdem?tab=chart&country=~SVK
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-vdem?tab=chart&country=~BLR

Anything else you want to randomly quibble about?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physical-integrity-rights-fkr?tab=chart&country=HRV~BLR~IRQ~RUS~SAU~UKR~USA

1. Note Croatia, the most recent accession to the EU, whose record has gone down since joining.
2. Note Belarus, undoubtedly a Russian puppet state whose score is higher than the US.
3. Note Saudi Arabia, an ally of the US performing identically to Russia.
4. Note Iraq, a famous beneficiary of the US's military help, at the bottom of the list below everyone.

Even with your own cherry-picked proxy for human rights (which are so much more than just democracy and government freedoms), your argument falls flat on its face. — Isaac

The charge of “cherry-picking” is random (as it was when you raised the same charge months ago, so re-looping again over the same stuff). You evidently don’t even understand what the charge of “cherry-picking” actually means.
My speculation concerns specifically the fate of Ukraine which wants to enter EU and NATO, so it makes perfect sense to make comparisons with other countries to the extent they share relevant similarities with Ukraine for that hypothesis (cherry-picking happens when part of the dataset falling within the scope of the hypothesis is ignored to support the hypothesis, defining the theoretical scope of the hypothesis is not cherry-picking at all!). Ukraine, ex-Soviet Republics, Belarus and Russia share part of recent history and many aspects of their social background again due to historical and geographic reasons. Due to these similarities it makes perfect sense to compare them more than including Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the US in the comparison, and delimit the scope of the hypothesis accordingly. Besides certain ex-Soviet republics joined EU/NATO, which is also what Ukraine wants. While Russia and Belarus didn’t. So we have a test for COMPARING their trends wrt question “what could happen to ex-Soviet countries joining EU/NATO instead of remaining under Russian sphere of influence in terms of human rights?”.
Getting back to your random objection: you can take the examples of US, Saudi Arabia and Iraq into the garbage. And leave them there forever and ever.
How about Croatia? Well it wasn’t an ex-Soviet Republic, it wasn’t even an ex-Warsaw pact member. So it’s the least similar in the group and we could throw Croatia into the garbage for ever and ever too. But I get that it’s an interesting case for comparison if the scope of the hypothesis was extended to ex-communist European countries. However the decline is not so sharp to significantly question the extended hypothesis either, so I don't mind if you play with it. Just don't forget to throw it in the garbage once you finished.

In any case, what you fail to understand is much deeper. There is no need for me to ignore deviant cases because I’m talking in terms of relative likelihood (and supporting evidences) wrt alternative hypotheses (like having Ukraine fall under Russian influence as Belarus). So not mathematical certainties. Besides I’m not assuming anywhere that the original hypothesis (nor even the extended one which I didn’t make) identifies the only relevant driving factor in the evolution of a country wrt human rights, because there may be other domestic or foreign factors that can get in the way.
Nor I’m assuming anywhere that a boost in human rights is the main motivating factor for countries to join EU/NATO: there are also economic/security benefits too, of course. For that reason I’m not even assuming that joining EU/NATO is necessarily a booster in human rights (indeed, the main booster looks national independence after the collapse of Soviet Union and ensuing reforms). Still the membership may be a relevant counterbalancing factor against potential declining trends due to domestic politics (like the EU for Orban’s Hungary).

BTW, I forgot to mention the context of our exchange in introducing that line of reasoning:

As compassionate outsiders, our concern should solely be for the well-being of the people there. — Isaac

What is the well-being of the people? — neomac
That's up to us to decide. Personally I think the notion of human rights is a good starting point. — Isaac

That’s what inspired the first step of my line of reasoning, namely "human rights is an acceptable way to identify collective well-being? Yes”, as a good starting point (not because I find it as a self-evident, or the only possible, or the best starting point).

Here's it's chart that it achieved all on its own first ...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physical-integrity-rights-fkr?tab=chart&time=earliest..2004&country=~LTU

Notice the difference? In 2004 Lithuania joined the EU and NATO. That move ended all progress in your chosen metric of human rights. — Isaac

Mind blowing, innit?

:100: :up:

In all, both revolutions were something quite Ukrainian. Not something planned and controlled from other countries, even if these countries wanted to influence and likely did influence the outcomes.

That academic work btw that you referred to simply brings sanity to the whimsical anti-US propaganda spout on this thread to the real light:

Foreign NGOs and IGOs did indeed provide some small levels of support to several independent news groups, and SMOs in 2013, but this was clearly ad hoc and recipient actioned. Moreover, as was explained by one Kyiv based embassy worker, most foreign actors, be they diplomats or NGOs focused on elite actors and attempted to help broker a deal (author’s correspondence February 14, 2014, NYC). Ukrainian political insiders, have informally also complained about the lack of initial interest and then later mismanagement of the EuroMaidan crisis specifically by leaders of the EU (and EU member states) and the United States. Thus it is difficult to discern the real influence these actors had on the mobilization process.

It is possible, as I have argued elsewhere, that our focus on foreign actors oftentimes over-exaggerates not only their role in the mobilization process, but also their ability to influence actors and events.

And this latter I would agree, as Ukraine had elections (which changed the power structure) not only in 2014, but afterwards which change the political landscape a lot.

But some seem to go with Putin's delusional propaganda and think Ukraine is run by neonazis, which the US put into power years ago. I just hope it's simple ignorance about the actual history.

Not something planned and controlled from other countries, ... — ssu

You are aware of the tapped telephone conversations from 2014 in which US officials were literally discussing who was going to be in the new Ukrainian government?



If conversations were leaked about US officials deciding who was going to govern your country, would you consider that normal?


And before you latch onto claims that this was fake - the United States actually apologized for some of the things that were said in the leaked phone call.



Clearly the United States was deeply involved in this, and this was publicly acknowledged. So much for your anti-US 'propaganda' allegations, I suppose. These are straight facts.

The coup speculators point to associations to particular groups but do not cover the broad coalition of people who otherwise were not aligned with each other. If this was supposed be something like Operation Condor in Chile, how these very different agents were being leveraged simultaneously needs to be explained.

When Mearsheimer speaks of a coup, no effort is made to show how the revolution was managed as a project.

The coup speculators... — Paine

Here's a lovely little clip of Victory Nuland, former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, at the end of 2013 as the Maidan revolution was in full swing, loudly proclaiming the United States spent more than 5 billion USD on Ukraine between 1991 and 2013. (timestamp: 7:27)





You're getting it straight from the horse's mouth.

These aren't "speculations". It was official US policy and they didn't even hide it!

There is no secret about the pursuit of U.S. interests and their intention to support ties to the E.U.

This influx of support does not show that the revolution was engineered by outsiders.

Since the violence wielded by the Yanukovych regime was a decisive factor in the growth of the revolution, your planners would have had to have been behind that as well. Pretty crafty.

I just hope it's simple ignorance about the actual history. — ssu

So the BBC's diplomatic correspondent is likely to be ignorant about the actual history?

this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals...Washington clearly has its own game-plan — https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26079957

And George Friedman, director of Stratfor, U.S. intelligence strategic advisory institute? Also likely to be ignorant about the actual history when he calls the euromaidan...

it truly was the most blatant coup in history. — George Friedman, director of Stratfor

Or the Guardian's associate editor...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict

... Basically, until it came time to rewrite history to conveniently fit the new narrative, the idea that the US were knee deep in this was commonplace.

Now, of course, it's time to dig up some Ukrainian government-sponsored academic and pretend that the idea of the US's involvement is ridiculous.

The trouble is, the internet exists and we can all see quite clearly what the view was at the time.

Since the violence wielded by the Yanukovych regime was a decisive factor in the growth of the revolution, your planners would have had to have been behind that as well. Pretty crafty. — Paine

That's not necessary at all.

You've already been given evidence of substantial US involvement.

Pretending that in order to be involved in the coup the US would've had to plan everything is dishonest to the extreme, especially since a few pages back you and scarcely acknowledged the possibility of US involvement.

if they support my claims, that’s good — neomac

They don't. I've just demonstrated that. Croatia's human rights record declined on joining the EU.

Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania, and Hungary made no progress at all.

But I see you have a new favourite metric. So here's Poland since joining the EU. Declined.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-vdem?tab=chart&time=2004..latest&country=~POL

Estonia. Declined. Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria... None of these countries made any significant improvement in human rights since joining the EU and most worsened.

You argument is simply not supported by the evidence. Joining the EU is unlikely to improve human rights in Ukraine based on the unequivocal evidence that it has not done so for any other country.

I acknowledge that U.S. was an influence in the country. If that involvement included taking part in a coup, that means they had worked with those who executed it. If the coup was the result of a plan, the revolution was engineered by the ones who plotted it. That would require leveraging a huge number of otherwise different people, including some in the Yanukovych regime. Showing how that happened requires a lot more explanation than saying a foreign power threw money around.

It seems that some modicum of the burden of proof here should be on those claiming the change was caused by the U.S. instead of developments in Ukrainian society in relation to Russian influence. How was that manipulation actually carried out?

Otherwise, the notion is as vague and binary as the theory on Color Revolutions developed by the Kremlin to explain popular movements as a tool of U.S. imperialism.

It seems that some modicum of the burden of proof here should be on those claiming the change was caused by the U.S. instead of developments in Ukrainian society in relation to Russian influence. How was that manipulation actually carried out? — Paine

And you don't think US officials putting together the new Kiev government in a tapped telephone conversation and $5 billion of "aid" goes a long way towards providing that proof?

Nothing to see here folks, just some US officials deciding who gets to be in charge in a country that just underwent a coup d'etat.

You expect people to believe that is coincidence? More importantly, you expect the Russians to believe that is coincidence? To assume the US is an innocent player in this?

Otherwise, the notion is as vague and binary as the theory on Color Revolutions developed by the Kremlin ... — Paine

Developed by the Kremlin? Are there still people who believe the United States doesn't actively pursue regime change in every place and in every way it possibly can?

How gulilble are you really?

The cases of the US staging coups are more than I care to count.

There is no secret about the pursuit of U.S. interests and their intention to support ties to the E.U.

This influx of support does not show that the revolution was engineered by outsiders.

Since the violence wielded by the Yanukovych regime was a decisive factor in the growth of the revolution, your planners would have had to have been behind that as well. Pretty crafty. — Paine

Exactly and well put.

What the people here obsessed with the US fail to understand that diplomats and foreign politicians trying to influence events simply isn't the same as foreign entities planning and staging a coup.

And naturally this idea totally forgets that for example the "Right Sector", the basis for all neonazi accusations, lost heavily in the 2014 elections and were out of the government (which that then has changed again when Zelenskyi and his party got into power):

That phone call certainly demonstrated hubris and self-importance. It doesn't shed any light on how the revolution was manipulated.

Your alignment with the Kremlin view is noted. My problem with it is that it shrinks all efforts of people to change their civil society into pawns sliding on a board game.

The cases of the US staging coups are more than I care to count. — Tzeentch

Indeed. That is why I referred to a famous example to contrast the difference of conditions in Chile and Ukraine.

It seems that some modicum of the burden of proof here should be on those claiming the change was caused by the U.S — Paine

Why?

The US is the most powerful nation on earth. It's necessary to hold power to account otherwise it can just do whatever it likes.

So on what possible ground is it right to give the most powerful nation on earth the benefit of the doubt here?

If they did it, and we let them get away with it, then we've allowed power to dictate foreign governments to suit their needs.

If they didn't, and we assume they did, we hurt the feelings of the people who actually brought about the revolution.

Which is the more dangerous outcome to hedge against?

↪ssu scarcely acknowledged the possibility of US involvement. — Tzeentch

Don't put words in my mouth. What I'm against is the reurgitation of Russian propaganda and to say that the US staged the Revolution of Dignity, not that it (the US) tried to influence Ukrainian actors (and those actors trying to get help from the US)when the protests were already under way, but that the US literally staged a coup.

I think we a had already this discussion 11 months ago. And then (and now) nothing else is given, but the Nuland tapes and articles from that time as "proof" of this conspiracy theory of a "US coup".