3 ms·

Seriously? did you read the article? Talk about selective observance to the extreme. The irony of such a response on thread that started with context is import

Seriously? did you read the article? Talk about selective observance to the extreme. The irony of such a response on thread that started with context is important and you immediately disregard all context not inline with your narrative. Just a bit of what you might missed. "...It was a grotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as a purely indigenous, popular uprising. The Nuland-Pyatt telephone conversation and other actions confirm that the United States was considerably more than a passive observer to the turbulence. Instead, U.S. officials were blatantly meddling in Ukraine. Such conduct was utterly improper. The United States had no right to try to orchestrate political outcomes in another country—especially one on the border of another great power. It is no wonder that Russia reacted badly to the unconstitutional ouster of an elected, pro-Russian government—an ouster that occurred not only with Washington’s blessing, but apparently with its assistance..."

codedokode 8y ago
So you are saying US paid to everyone of tens of thousand people protesting against cancelling agreements with EU? So you think that protests only happen when US pays for them? And whatever US did doesn't justify using political instability to annex a part of Ukraine. Russia did it because it could and there was an opportunity.
- 13years 8y ago
  1) no 2) no attempts to justify. Police search for motive for the purpose of understanding why, not to say any particular actions were just. However, understanding why is often important when attempting deescalation of conflicts and possibly preventing future conflicts. The point is that there is only one prevailing viewpoint without the context of contributors to the conflict. Why would this not be included? Maybe everyone would still reach the same conclusion; however, if historical context is being withheld, how can anyone know if their assessment is logical.

codedokode 8y ago

So you are saying US paid to everyone of tens of thousand people protesting against cancelling agreements with EU? So you think that protests only happen when US pays for them? And whatever US did doesn't justify using political instability to annex a part of Ukraine. Russia did it because it could and there was an opportunity.

13years 8y ago
1) no 2) no attempts to justify. Police search for motive for the purpose of understanding why, not to say any particular actions were just. However, understanding why is often important when attempting deescalation of conflicts and possibly preventing future conflicts. The point is that there is only one prevailing viewpoint without the context of contributors to the conflict. Why would this not be included? Maybe everyone would still reach the same conclusion; however, if historical context is being withheld, how can anyone know if their assessment is logical.