4 ms·

I think "in its very borders" was supposed to mean "to its very borders" And we could forgive them for that small particular exaggeration, if that was all it w

I think "in its very borders" was supposed to mean "to its very borders" And we could forgive them for that small particular exaggeration, if that was all it was. But they took extra special care to double down on the "pushing" part, and dial it up a notch, to "shoving [it] its borders", which is unmistakably an intentional use of emotionally manipulative language. Which is the precise moment which qualifies what they said as propaganda. As to what you're saying: Ukraine in NATO being "the brightest of red lines" Except there was no concrete "push" in Ukraine's case. Ukraine's NATO membership application was formally rejected by NATO in 2008. This was very, very big news at the time, and Merkel still can't keep bragging about it.† Despite NATO's also offering some secondary, mollifying words about Ukraine "eventually" joining the alliance, there was no significant action taken to move that forward in the critical window of 2008-2014, when Russia invaded. In fact, in 2010 Ukraine's path to NATO took a very significant step backward, when its parliament voted to abandon the goal of NATO membership and re-affirm Ukraine's neutral status. And as for the phrase "brightest of red lines": If you actually pull up the text of the cable, it specifically refers to the MAP, or Membership Application Plan, which was explicitly denied to Ukraine in 2008, as indicated above. Precisely due the level-headed advice of people like Burns et all. But Russia invaded in 2014 and 2022 anyway. Because its actual reasons were never rationally connected to NATO expansion in the first place. And yet - whatever sources you've been reading seem to have left you with the impression that Burns's "brightest of red lines" had in fact been crossed, and that this is what "caused" the invasion. Why is that? † https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e8y1qly52o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e8y1qly52o

pessimizer 2y ago
> 2014, when Russia invaded. Did anything else happen in Ukraine before that happened? Maybe somebody overthrew the government and installed a puppet who eventually left office with a 6% approval rating? Maybe a bunch of US congressmen literally flew out to show their support?
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Maybe somebody overthrew the government and installed a puppet And when you're completely cornered on one line of disinformation, not just maybe but sure enough -- somebody will chime in with another. The coup/puppet narrative in relation to these events is simply bogus. You can do your homework on it if you want, or not. I don't particularly care.
- rat87 2y ago
  What actually happened in Ukraine was that the president went back on his promise to try to work towards join the EU (possibly due to threats from Putin) and some young Ukranians organized a protest on social media because they saw the EU as the only hope for a bright Ukrainan future (if you want to know why just look at the economy and corruption levels in former communist EU countries compared to Ukraine) and the President as going back on his word and throwing it away. Instead of considering their points or even trying to ignore them he tried to suppress the protests with extreme violence and ridiculous anti protest laws people thought might lead to dictatorship like in neighboring Russia or Belarus. The Ukranian people didn't like this and the protests grew and grew and grew. The EU and US encouraged the political opposition to make a compromise with the President even if it was unsatisfactory. But then the police who has been fighting the protesters got cold feet that the president would throw them under the bus in the deal, so they disappeared and the President decided to do the same. Since he abandoned his country and his post the legislature had no choice but to remove him from office including many from his own party. A couple of US politicians voiced support for the people protesting for their rights against a corrupt and increasingly authorian leader, I see why they did it but how is that relevant to any of this? Also Poroshenko wasn't in any way installed or a puppet, he was elected by Ukranians in an election that was fair and free followed by another fair and free election which he lost in a landslide. That's democracy. Poroshenko may have not been the best leader but he was tons better then Yanukovych and it was pretty hard to run Ukraine even before Russia invaded.
  - senderista 2y ago
    Yanukovych (along with several members of the Rada) fled for his life from Right Sector and other fascist goons. The coup came after Yanukovych had already agreed to early elections.
    - rat87 2y ago
      Yanukovych chose to abandon his country and his duty without warning. He had options. Did he fear for his life due to the violence he had started, maybe. But there was no coup. He abandoned his country (he didn't try going to a different part of the country where there were fewer protests) and the legislature removed him because of it. They couldn't wait for him to decide to come back whenever he felt comfortable.
- ponector 2y ago
  You should consume less of Russia Today's products.
  - ragyheb 2y ago
    Not possible, it is banned in some parts of the EU. Publicly funded German TV is available, however. This is from the German equivalent of the BBC, titled "Coup in Kiev: What role did the fascists play?": https://www.ndr.de/fernsehen/sendungen/panorama/archiv/2014/Putsch-in-Kiew-Welche-Rolle-spielen-die-Faschisten,ukraine357.html https://www.ndr.de/fernsehen/sendungen/panorama/archiv/2014/... It uses the word "coup", but then says that the majority of the protesters demonstrated for a free Ukraine and were against the corruption of Yanukovich. The rest of the article is about the Swoboda party, which is ultranationalist and had good contacts to the German NPD. The NPD is a fringe party without any substantial numbers of voters that is classified as ultra right wing. It then mentions a Neonazi (their words) called Jarosch and his party "Right Sector". It goes on to say that the "Right Sector" was instrumental in ousting the old regime physically on the barricades. It says that the members then established new security forces that replaced the police. What does the BBC say? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 The same U.S. that complains about election interference in Romania is picking candidates in Ukraine after the revolution.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      The NPD is a fringe party without any substantial numbers of voters As is Svoboda, these days.
      - rgaht 2y ago
        It is, and that talking point is listed on united24media.com. But this subthread, where someone was accused of watching RT, was about the events leading up to the Maidan uprising.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Actually, to the extent that it was about Ukraine, the entry point was that day's version of the "because NATO" thread. When that hit a wall (as it always does), someone flipped it over the "Nazi puppet regime" narrative.
throw112ka 2y ago
> And yet - whatever sources you've been reading seem to have left you with the impression that Burns's "brightest of red lines" had in fact been crossed, and that this is what "caused" the invasion. Mainstream Western press like the Guardian and CNBC, both of which are fiercely pro-Ukraine now. In 2014, before the Crimea invasion: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/29/ukraine-fascists-oligarchs-eu-nato-expansion https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/29/ukrain... Nato's eastward expansion was halted by the Georgian war of 2008 and Yanukovych's later election on a platform of non-alignment. But any doubt that the EU's effort to woo Ukraine is closely connected with western military strategy was dispelled today by Nato's secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who declared that the abortive pact with Ukraine would have been "a major boost to Euro-Atlantic security". Notice that the Guardian's mention of "fascists" is also Russian propaganda now (given the propensity of the Western media to call anyone and anything "fascist" I do not attach too much value to that part, but it is there.) Before the 2022 invasion, from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/08/biden-didnt-accept-putins-red-line-on-ukraine-what-it-means.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/08/biden-didnt-accept-putins-re... President Biden didn’t accept Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s “red lines” on Ukraine during their high-stakes video call that came as Russia’s military builds its presence on the Ukrainian border. Namely, that means the U.S. isn’t accepting Putin’s demand that Ukraine be denied entrance into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is the world’s most powerful military alliance. > Why is that? Because they are standard mainstream sources. You seem to think that only a concrete and signed membership plan is a red line, whereas even CNBC cites Putin's red lines. I agree by the way that the invasions by Russia are horrible, but please let's not rewrite history.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  You seem to think that only a concrete and signed membership plan is a red line, It's the only one that the commenter was referring to. Whereas even CNBC cites Putin's red lines. Except you're shifting goal posts. The "red lines" referred to by the CNBC are entirely different (and separated by 13 years) from those referred to by the previous commenter. And anyway that's just CNBC's misreading of the events. Suffice it to say there was a lot more to Putin's noises at the time. More specifically, by that point the West did not (as you are strongly implying) have the option of deterring the invasion by simply complying with some specific, reasonable request Putin was making. The only thing we really know about whichever of Putin's supposed "red lines" were supposedly crossed (thus "causing" this whole thing) is that no one seems to be able to articulate what they supposedly were. And then we have this: given the propensity of the Western media to call anyone and anything "fascist" There is no such "propensity" within Western media. Or any other significant tendency. This is just complete nonsense. Another day, another throwaway account with a throwaway argument.
senderista 2y ago
Ukraine formally enshrined the goal of NATO membership into its constitution in 2019.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  5 years after Russia invaded in 2014. Which made any objections its regime might have had about Ukraine's potential NATO membership plainly and irrevocably moot. That's why the only years that matter (in terms of the "Ukraine/NATO caused it all" hypothesis) are 2008-2014. Once Russia's regime did chose to invade, any moral capital it may have had in regard to the issue was instantly extinguished.
  - senderista 2y ago
    Fair point!

pessimizer 2y ago

> 2014, when Russia invaded. Did anything else happen in Ukraine before that happened? Maybe somebody overthrew the government and installed a puppet who eventually left office with a 6% approval rating? Maybe a bunch of US congressmen literally flew out to show their support?

aguaviva 2y ago
Maybe somebody overthrew the government and installed a puppet And when you're completely cornered on one line of disinformation, not just maybe but sure enough -- somebody will chime in with another. The coup/puppet narrative in relation to these events is simply bogus. You can do your homework on it if you want, or not. I don't particularly care.
rat87 2y ago
What actually happened in Ukraine was that the president went back on his promise to try to work towards join the EU (possibly due to threats from Putin) and some young Ukranians organized a protest on social media because they saw the EU as the only hope for a bright Ukrainan future (if you want to know why just look at the economy and corruption levels in former communist EU countries compared to Ukraine) and the President as going back on his word and throwing it away. Instead of considering their points or even trying to ignore them he tried to suppress the protests with extreme violence and ridiculous anti protest laws people thought might lead to dictatorship like in neighboring Russia or Belarus. The Ukranian people didn't like this and the protests grew and grew and grew. The EU and US encouraged the political opposition to make a compromise with the President even if it was unsatisfactory. But then the police who has been fighting the protesters got cold feet that the president would throw them under the bus in the deal, so they disappeared and the President decided to do the same. Since he abandoned his country and his post the legislature had no choice but to remove him from office including many from his own party. A couple of US politicians voiced support for the people protesting for their rights against a corrupt and increasingly authorian leader, I see why they did it but how is that relevant to any of this? Also Poroshenko wasn't in any way installed or a puppet, he was elected by Ukranians in an election that was fair and free followed by another fair and free election which he lost in a landslide. That's democracy. Poroshenko may have not been the best leader but he was tons better then Yanukovych and it was pretty hard to run Ukraine even before Russia invaded.
- senderista 2y ago
  Yanukovych (along with several members of the Rada) fled for his life from Right Sector and other fascist goons. The coup came after Yanukovych had already agreed to early elections.
  - rat87 2y ago
    Yanukovych chose to abandon his country and his duty without warning. He had options. Did he fear for his life due to the violence he had started, maybe. But there was no coup. He abandoned his country (he didn't try going to a different part of the country where there were fewer protests) and the legislature removed him because of it. They couldn't wait for him to decide to come back whenever he felt comfortable.
ponector 2y ago
You should consume less of Russia Today's products.
- ragyheb 2y ago
  Not possible, it is banned in some parts of the EU. Publicly funded German TV is available, however. This is from the German equivalent of the BBC, titled "Coup in Kiev: What role did the fascists play?": https://www.ndr.de/fernsehen/sendungen/panorama/archiv/2014/Putsch-in-Kiew-Welche-Rolle-spielen-die-Faschisten,ukraine357.html https://www.ndr.de/fernsehen/sendungen/panorama/archiv/2014/... It uses the word "coup", but then says that the majority of the protesters demonstrated for a free Ukraine and were against the corruption of Yanukovich. The rest of the article is about the Swoboda party, which is ultranationalist and had good contacts to the German NPD. The NPD is a fringe party without any substantial numbers of voters that is classified as ultra right wing. It then mentions a Neonazi (their words) called Jarosch and his party "Right Sector". It goes on to say that the "Right Sector" was instrumental in ousting the old regime physically on the barricades. It says that the members then established new security forces that replaced the police. What does the BBC say? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 The same U.S. that complains about election interference in Romania is picking candidates in Ukraine after the revolution.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    The NPD is a fringe party without any substantial numbers of voters As is Svoboda, these days.
    - rgaht 2y ago
      It is, and that talking point is listed on united24media.com. But this subthread, where someone was accused of watching RT, was about the events leading up to the Maidan uprising.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Actually, to the extent that it was about Ukraine, the entry point was that day's version of the "because NATO" thread. When that hit a wall (as it always does), someone flipped it over the "Nazi puppet regime" narrative.

throw112ka 2y ago

> And yet - whatever sources you've been reading seem to have left you with the impression that Burns's "brightest of red lines" had in fact been crossed, and that this is what "caused" the invasion. Mainstream Western press like the Guardian and CNBC, both of which are fiercely pro-Ukraine now. In 2014, before the Crimea invasion: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/29/ukraine-fascists-oligarchs-eu-nato-expansion https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/29/ukrain... Nato's eastward expansion was halted by the Georgian war of 2008 and Yanukovych's later election on a platform of non-alignment. But any doubt that the EU's effort to woo Ukraine is closely connected with western military strategy was dispelled today by Nato's secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who declared that the abortive pact with Ukraine would have been "a major boost to Euro-Atlantic security". Notice that the Guardian's mention of "fascists" is also Russian propaganda now (given the propensity of the Western media to call anyone and anything "fascist" I do not attach too much value to that part, but it is there.) Before the 2022 invasion, from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/08/biden-didnt-accept-putins-red-line-on-ukraine-what-it-means.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/08/biden-didnt-accept-putins-re... President Biden didn’t accept Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s “red lines” on Ukraine during their high-stakes video call that came as Russia’s military builds its presence on the Ukrainian border. Namely, that means the U.S. isn’t accepting Putin’s demand that Ukraine be denied entrance into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is the world’s most powerful military alliance. > Why is that? Because they are standard mainstream sources. You seem to think that only a concrete and signed membership plan is a red line, whereas even CNBC cites Putin's red lines. I agree by the way that the invasions by Russia are horrible, but please let's not rewrite history.

aguaviva 2y ago
You seem to think that only a concrete and signed membership plan is a red line, It's the only one that the commenter was referring to. Whereas even CNBC cites Putin's red lines. Except you're shifting goal posts. The "red lines" referred to by the CNBC are entirely different (and separated by 13 years) from those referred to by the previous commenter. And anyway that's just CNBC's misreading of the events. Suffice it to say there was a lot more to Putin's noises at the time. More specifically, by that point the West did not (as you are strongly implying) have the option of deterring the invasion by simply complying with some specific, reasonable request Putin was making. The only thing we really know about whichever of Putin's supposed "red lines" were supposedly crossed (thus "causing" this whole thing) is that no one seems to be able to articulate what they supposedly were. And then we have this: given the propensity of the Western media to call anyone and anything "fascist" There is no such "propensity" within Western media. Or any other significant tendency. This is just complete nonsense. Another day, another throwaway account with a throwaway argument.

senderista 2y ago

Ukraine formally enshrined the goal of NATO membership into its constitution in 2019.

aguaviva 2y ago
5 years after Russia invaded in 2014. Which made any objections its regime might have had about Ukraine's potential NATO membership plainly and irrevocably moot. That's why the only years that matter (in terms of the "Ukraine/NATO caused it all" hypothesis) are 2008-2014. Once Russia's regime did chose to invade, any moral capital it may have had in regard to the issue was instantly extinguished.
- senderista 2y ago
  Fair point!