5 ms·

Most people in the West seem to believe the removal of democratically elected, pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine after a popular uprising in 201

by brabel 1y ago

Most people in the West seem to believe the removal of democratically elected, pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine after a popular uprising in 2014 was somehow democratic. That should show that depending on who is being ousted and your opinion on them, yes the two things can be comparable.

motorest 1y ago
> Most people in the West seem to believe the removal of democratically elected, pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine (...) You should seriously learn about Yanukovych before making any sort of claim regarding him. He was elected based on an enthusiastically pro-EU and pro-western programme, only to turn out to be a Russian puppet that not only enforced policies completely contrary to his programme but also pushed Ukraine into a dictatorship. The "popular uprising" you glance over was actually months of demonstrations protesting Yanukovych unilateral rejection of the EU–Ukraine association agreement as ordered by Russia, which he campaigned and was elected for and contrary to Ukraine's parliament overwhelming approval. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan You're talking about the same Yanukovych who felt compelled to exile in Russia. > That should show that depending on who is being ousted (...) Those who favour freedom under democracies are indeed partial against dictators who try to destroy democratic states and deny people's rights, specially if it to serve the interests of other totalitarian regimes.
- lenkite 1y ago
  And all your arguments don't matter. He was a legally elected President - whose election was even EU Vetted by many, many observers and found to be completely valid. He could have been overthrown in the next elections and if that had happened, the Russian ethnic regions wouldn't have rebelled. You would have yet another corrupt Ukrainian President and no-one would have batted an eye. Life would have just continued as usual. But the US was far too eager to carry out regime change and so we have the dreadful situation today.
  - 9dev 1y ago
    That is an awful retelling of history. There was no revolution in Ukraine, but protests and demonstrations that were brutally crushed by government forces. The people persevered though and the president fled the country, leading to a formal and correct process of electing a new government after. The US didn’t have anything more to do with this.
    - lenkite 1y ago
      > The US didn’t have anything more to do with this. Only if one is utterly blind and put fingers in their ears, can one truly believe that. Nuland's call was leaked where she was proudly deciding who would form the next government in Ukraine and who should be kept on the outside. And her personal choice of puppet: "Yats" did in-fact become the prime minister. Nuland was even handing out cookies to anti-Yanukovych protests for Christ's sake. Mc Cain actually flew in and congratulated the protesters. Imagine if that was happening in the US against a US President - members of foreign nation's government cheering on a coup and deciding who would be the next President. There would be Absolute War.
      - 9dev 1y ago
        For those reading this and doubting: Read the call transcript for yourself, annotated by Jonathan Marcus of the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 Yes, the USA is attempting to facilitate talks here. No, that does not mean they have "decided" who is going to form the next government. That claim is just Russian propaganda.
        lenkite 1y ago
        I also fully support not just reading the call transcript, but also listening to the leaked call so you get Nuland's firm tone. I would reserve very skeptical judgement on the "annotations". Those weren't part of the call. Listen to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUCCR4jAS3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUCCR4jAS3Y > No, that does not mean they have "decided" who is going to form the next government. That claim is just Russian propaganda Anyone with a rational brain who separates themselves from biases and emotions and carefully listens to the call would realize there is no propaganda involved here. Also, for better clarity of judgement, please perform a thought exercise and consider what would happen if a foreign government's members were discussing the personal choices , makeup and "talks" for members of the next American government.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
lawn 1y ago
How nice of you to insert some Russian bullshit narrative into the discussion.
WesolyKubeczek 1y ago
Yes it was. Democracy is not only about casting your vote once every few years and then shutting up and staying put, it’s also about holding your elected representatives accountable.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

by brabel 1y ago

motorest 1y ago

> Most people in the West seem to believe the removal of democratically elected, pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine (...) You should seriously learn about Yanukovych before making any sort of claim regarding him. He was elected based on an enthusiastically pro-EU and pro-western programme, only to turn out to be a Russian puppet that not only enforced policies completely contrary to his programme but also pushed Ukraine into a dictatorship. The "popular uprising" you glance over was actually months of demonstrations protesting Yanukovych unilateral rejection of the EU–Ukraine association agreement as ordered by Russia, which he campaigned and was elected for and contrary to Ukraine's parliament overwhelming approval. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan You're talking about the same Yanukovych who felt compelled to exile in Russia. > That should show that depending on who is being ousted (...) Those who favour freedom under democracies are indeed partial against dictators who try to destroy democratic states and deny people's rights, specially if it to serve the interests of other totalitarian regimes.

lenkite 1y ago
And all your arguments don't matter. He was a legally elected President - whose election was even EU Vetted by many, many observers and found to be completely valid. He could have been overthrown in the next elections and if that had happened, the Russian ethnic regions wouldn't have rebelled. You would have yet another corrupt Ukrainian President and no-one would have batted an eye. Life would have just continued as usual. But the US was far too eager to carry out regime change and so we have the dreadful situation today.
- 9dev 1y ago
  That is an awful retelling of history. There was no revolution in Ukraine, but protests and demonstrations that were brutally crushed by government forces. The people persevered though and the president fled the country, leading to a formal and correct process of electing a new government after. The US didn’t have anything more to do with this.
  - lenkite 1y ago
    > The US didn’t have anything more to do with this. Only if one is utterly blind and put fingers in their ears, can one truly believe that. Nuland's call was leaked where she was proudly deciding who would form the next government in Ukraine and who should be kept on the outside. And her personal choice of puppet: "Yats" did in-fact become the prime minister. Nuland was even handing out cookies to anti-Yanukovych protests for Christ's sake. Mc Cain actually flew in and congratulated the protesters. Imagine if that was happening in the US against a US President - members of foreign nation's government cheering on a coup and deciding who would be the next President. There would be Absolute War.
    - 9dev 1y ago
      For those reading this and doubting: Read the call transcript for yourself, annotated by Jonathan Marcus of the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 Yes, the USA is attempting to facilitate talks here. No, that does not mean they have "decided" who is going to form the next government. That claim is just Russian propaganda.
      - lenkite 1y ago
        I also fully support not just reading the call transcript, but also listening to the leaked call so you get Nuland's firm tone. I would reserve very skeptical judgement on the "annotations". Those weren't part of the call. Listen to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUCCR4jAS3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUCCR4jAS3Y > No, that does not mean they have "decided" who is going to form the next government. That claim is just Russian propaganda Anyone with a rational brain who separates themselves from biases and emotions and carefully listens to the call would realize there is no propaganda involved here. Also, for better clarity of judgement, please perform a thought exercise and consider what would happen if a foreign government's members were discussing the personal choices , makeup and "talks" for members of the next American government.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

lawn 1y ago

How nice of you to insert some Russian bullshit narrative into the discussion.

WesolyKubeczek 1y ago

Yes it was. Democracy is not only about casting your vote once every few years and then shutting up and staying put, it’s also about holding your elected representatives accountable.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]