5 ms·

Huh, it's pretty well known that the Coup Lady Victoria Nuland played a significant part here in assisting "regime change". The state dept was feeling confident

Huh, it's pretty well known that the Coup Lady Victoria Nuland played a significant part here in assisting "regime change". The state dept was feeling confident after the successful Arab Spring and were on a roll getting rid of unfriendly governments. (They didn't always succeed at propping up US friendly ones though). Are you going to get absolute, in-controvertible proof ? No, that's certainly not how these things work. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://blazetrends.com/victoria-nuland-a-shadowy-character-in-the-ukraine-crisis/ https://blazetrends.com/victoria-nuland-a-shadowy-character-... https://www.salon.com/2021/01/19/who-is-victoria-nuland-a-really-bad-idea-as-a-key-player-in-bidens-foreign-policy-team/ https://www.salon.com/2021/01/19/who-is-victoria-nuland-a-re... Nuland served as the deputy national advisor to to Vice President Dick Cheney, serving as the principal deputy foreign policy adviser and exercising an influential role during the Iraq War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland Her husband - Robert Kagan is the leading advocate of " "liberal interventionism" and was one of the early and strong advocates of military action in Syria, Iran, Afghanistan as well as to "remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kagan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kagan I would strongly suggest a reading of history with a deeply skeptical view of US state department. The saddest thing for me was comforting Libyan friends who were in shock after their nation dissolved to ashes - a nation which had universal health care.

Isinlor 5y ago
Yes - USA was involved, as was Russia, France, Poland and Germany. I agree that discussing who should and should not be in the government of an independent state is wrong. But there was no coup and Yanukovych himself signed an agreement whose first point stipulated government change, Yanukovych decided to flee on his own and Yanukovych was impeached by democratically elected parliament. USA did not start the protests. The protests started because people, especially around Kyiv, wanted and still want more than ever across the whole Ukraine to join EU. Yanukovych was elected with the promise of joining EU as a strategic goal. At the same time, on 27 February 2014, masked Russian troops without insignia took over the Supreme Council (parliament) of Crimea and captured strategic sites across Crimea. Crimea was annexed on 18 March 2014 by Russia.
- mrjangles 5y ago
  >Yanukovych decided to flee on his own What on earth does that even mean? If you watch the videos the entire city was on fire and the "peaceful protestors" were firing rocket propelled grenades at the police force. And the Democratically elected leader, Yanukovych, had to flee the country and give control over to the insurrectionists or he would have been murdered. I guess you can say "That wasn't a coup" if you like, but we would really just arguing about semantics here.
  - Isinlor 5y ago
    The protests were peaceful at the very begging in November 2013. Then protests were dispersed and the spiral of violence escalation started culminating in death of around 100 protesters and less than 20 police officers in February 2014. Towards the end it was certainly not a peaceful ordeal. It was more of a small uprising. I recall snipers shooting to protestors. But I don't recall RPGs being used by either side when I was following it. I could not find any mention of it right now. Any sources of that claim?
    - maratc 5y ago
      On Feb 21st 2014, the EU foreign ministers and Yanukovich signed on a deal where there would be speedy elections — that would most certainly remove Yanukovich from power, somewhere in spring. But on Feb 22nd, the protesters refuse that deal and seize Yanukovich's palace, stripping him of power immediately. After which he flees. It's that seizing of the palace and rejecting the EU-brokered deal is what is usually called "the coup".
      - Isinlor 5y ago
        The deal signed on Feb 21st 2014 says: 1. Within 48 hours after the signing of this agreement will be adopted, signed and promulgated a special law that will restore the action of the Constitution of 2004, as amended by this time. The signatories declare their intention to create a coalition and form a national unity government within 10 days thereafter. On February 22, 2014 as allowed by Article 111 of the Ukrainian Constitution, Verkhovna Rada decided to impeach Yanukovich with 328 votes for, 0 against and 122 not present or abstaining.

Isinlor 5y ago

Yes - USA was involved, as was Russia, France, Poland and Germany. I agree that discussing who should and should not be in the government of an independent state is wrong. But there was no coup and Yanukovych himself signed an agreement whose first point stipulated government change, Yanukovych decided to flee on his own and Yanukovych was impeached by democratically elected parliament. USA did not start the protests. The protests started because people, especially around Kyiv, wanted and still want more than ever across the whole Ukraine to join EU. Yanukovych was elected with the promise of joining EU as a strategic goal. At the same time, on 27 February 2014, masked Russian troops without insignia took over the Supreme Council (parliament) of Crimea and captured strategic sites across Crimea. Crimea was annexed on 18 March 2014 by Russia.

mrjangles 5y ago
>Yanukovych decided to flee on his own What on earth does that even mean? If you watch the videos the entire city was on fire and the "peaceful protestors" were firing rocket propelled grenades at the police force. And the Democratically elected leader, Yanukovych, had to flee the country and give control over to the insurrectionists or he would have been murdered. I guess you can say "That wasn't a coup" if you like, but we would really just arguing about semantics here.
- Isinlor 5y ago
  The protests were peaceful at the very begging in November 2013. Then protests were dispersed and the spiral of violence escalation started culminating in death of around 100 protesters and less than 20 police officers in February 2014. Towards the end it was certainly not a peaceful ordeal. It was more of a small uprising. I recall snipers shooting to protestors. But I don't recall RPGs being used by either side when I was following it. I could not find any mention of it right now. Any sources of that claim?
  - maratc 5y ago
    On Feb 21st 2014, the EU foreign ministers and Yanukovich signed on a deal where there would be speedy elections — that would most certainly remove Yanukovich from power, somewhere in spring. But on Feb 22nd, the protesters refuse that deal and seize Yanukovich's palace, stripping him of power immediately. After which he flees. It's that seizing of the palace and rejecting the EU-brokered deal is what is usually called "the coup".
    - Isinlor 5y ago
      The deal signed on Feb 21st 2014 says: 1. Within 48 hours after the signing of this agreement will be adopted, signed and promulgated a special law that will restore the action of the Constitution of 2004, as amended by this time. The signatories declare their intention to create a coalition and form a national unity government within 10 days thereafter. On February 22, 2014 as allowed by Article 111 of the Ukrainian Constitution, Verkhovna Rada decided to impeach Yanukovich with 328 votes for, 0 against and 122 not present or abstaining.