5 ms·

"President Viktor Yanukovych rejected a deal for greater integration with the European Union , sparking mass protests, which Yanukovych attempted to put down vi

"President Viktor Yanukovych rejected a deal for greater integration with the European Union , sparking mass protests, which Yanukovych attempted to put down violently. Russia backed Yanukovych in the crisis, while the US and Europe supported the protesters. " why do you think he rejected it? greater integration meant NATO bases. And this guy knew (because putin and russia always said it) that NATO next to russia was a big no go. the next logical steps are easy to understand. europe and USA backing protesters meant that if russia did not act they would be NATO bases next to them. fair elections should have happened and people should have voted for yes/no they want to join europe. then putin wouldn't have been able to attack Ukraine. Instead USA just used their old playbook like they did in middle east

contravariant 4y ago
You'll have to clarify the link between EU memberships and NATO bases. The only thing that seems likely to lead to NATO bases in Sweden and Finland seems to be the invasion of Ukraine, not their long EU membership.
- fredestine 4y ago
  let's say mexico joins the shangai corporation. let's see how many days their president stays in power.
  - contravariant 4y ago
    You're making less sense, try moving your argument in the other direction.
dale_glass 4y ago
That's a whole bunch of nonsense. You get NATO bases by joining NATO, completely independently of how close to the EU you are. Putin would have always been able to attack Ukraine. He's not bound to some sort of world government contract. He can do anything in his power as the President of Russia, and that includes attacking Ukraine, even if for stupid or inconsistent reasons. There's nothing that could make him unable to, other than stopping being President.
- fredestine 4y ago
  i am not sure how its not playbook US policies. remove a pro-russian president. put a pro europe leader that you select and do whatever you want in the country including setting up bases. just look at any past leader/alliances in middle east with USA. they always did that. you a russian strategist you'd take that into account...
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    I didn't say anything about US policies, I have no idea what you're replying to.
    - fredestine 4y ago
      NATO is USA.
      - dale_glass 4y ago
        I still didn't say anything related to that
        fredestine 4y ago
        Putin wouldn't attack ukraine for no reason. He is probably one of the most open leader we had in recent years with trump. they both spoke exactly like they acted. Putin always said that ukraine should remain neutral and that if not russia will act with its army. same threats were pushed against finland for instance. Removing an elected president and backing up pro-european rioters definitly destroyed this neutrality. US knew that and prepared for this outcome willingly.
        dale_glass 4y ago
        You're still answering to something I didn't say. I said precisely what I meant to. Try answering to something I actually said.
netsharc 4y ago
How about you look at it from a different perspective? Putin and Yanukovych are corrupt fuckers. I know it's a lazy answer to google for sources, but google it. Joining the EU means having more scrutiny from Brussels, and if you're a corrupt autocrat, would you want that? No. How about you engage in some what-if thinking and think, "What if Yanukovych didn't want to join the EU because he didn't want his corruption be scrutinized?". What if Putin doesn't want Ex-Soviet countries join the EU because his own citizens might look at the non-autocratic countries and see how progress can be made, and they might start wondering why they're still dirt poor, is it because all the money in their own country went to Putin and friends' pockets? As to fair elections, here's some numbers about support for joining the EU from Ukranians (which you can conveniently dismiss by saying the pollers are "controlled by the West"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#Popular_support_of_Ukraine's_integration_with_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union...

contravariant 4y ago

You'll have to clarify the link between EU memberships and NATO bases. The only thing that seems likely to lead to NATO bases in Sweden and Finland seems to be the invasion of Ukraine, not their long EU membership.

fredestine 4y ago
let's say mexico joins the shangai corporation. let's see how many days their president stays in power.
- contravariant 4y ago
  You're making less sense, try moving your argument in the other direction.

dale_glass 4y ago

That's a whole bunch of nonsense. You get NATO bases by joining NATO, completely independently of how close to the EU you are. Putin would have always been able to attack Ukraine. He's not bound to some sort of world government contract. He can do anything in his power as the President of Russia, and that includes attacking Ukraine, even if for stupid or inconsistent reasons. There's nothing that could make him unable to, other than stopping being President.

fredestine 4y ago
i am not sure how its not playbook US policies. remove a pro-russian president. put a pro europe leader that you select and do whatever you want in the country including setting up bases. just look at any past leader/alliances in middle east with USA. they always did that. you a russian strategist you'd take that into account...
- dale_glass 4y ago
  I didn't say anything about US policies, I have no idea what you're replying to.
  - fredestine 4y ago
    NATO is USA.
    - dale_glass 4y ago
      I still didn't say anything related to that
      - fredestine 4y ago
        Putin wouldn't attack ukraine for no reason. He is probably one of the most open leader we had in recent years with trump. they both spoke exactly like they acted. Putin always said that ukraine should remain neutral and that if not russia will act with its army. same threats were pushed against finland for instance. Removing an elected president and backing up pro-european rioters definitly destroyed this neutrality. US knew that and prepared for this outcome willingly.
        dale_glass 4y ago
        You're still answering to something I didn't say. I said precisely what I meant to. Try answering to something I actually said.

netsharc 4y ago

How about you look at it from a different perspective? Putin and Yanukovych are corrupt fuckers. I know it's a lazy answer to google for sources, but google it. Joining the EU means having more scrutiny from Brussels, and if you're a corrupt autocrat, would you want that? No. How about you engage in some what-if thinking and think, "What if Yanukovych didn't want to join the EU because he didn't want his corruption be scrutinized?". What if Putin doesn't want Ex-Soviet countries join the EU because his own citizens might look at the non-autocratic countries and see how progress can be made, and they might start wondering why they're still dirt poor, is it because all the money in their own country went to Putin and friends' pockets? As to fair elections, here's some numbers about support for joining the EU from Ukranians (which you can conveniently dismiss by saying the pollers are "controlled by the West"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#Popular_support_of_Ukraine's_integration_with_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union...