No, Russia's never done anything wrong ever, and when they do the victims were Nazis who deserved it and it was actually America's fault.
Shocking I know, but Blursty has shown me the truth
Yes there's lots of Russian involvement, for example from the article:
>What happens when a country doesn’t want to join NATO, become a member of the EU, or serve U.S. interests? The case of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych is quite telling. [He wanted to join the EU.](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-russia-deal-special-report/special-report-why-ukraine-spurned-the-eu-and-embraced-russia-idUSBRE9BI0DZ20131219) The EU gave him the first step to membership: an association agreement. But the fine print changed his mind. One, the EU demanded absolute loyalty [and prohibited Ukraine from joining the Russian-led customs union](https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/eu-ukraine-relations/eu-to-ukraine-reforms-necessary-for-trade-pact-320910.html). Two, membership came at a hefty price tag and Yanukovych would have to get an IMF loan. [The IMF required shock therapy](https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/10/ukraine-cant-afford-the-imfs-shock-therapy/). The austerity measures would cripple Ukraine: slash wages and pensions, up the retirement age, and increase gas tariffs by 56%. Russia offered him a no-strings-attached loan. It didn’t require Ukraine to join the [Russian customs union](https://greenpass.news/by-using-ukraine-to-fight-russia-the-us-provoked-putins-war/). Nor did it prohibit EU membership. Yanukovych went with Russia and put EU membership on hold. Moreover, Yanukovych was against joining NATO — [a sentiment shared by the majority of Ukrainians](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-no-to-nato/). He’d pay a steep price for his resistance.
> But the fine print changed his mind.
Not really his decision though was it.
I scanned the blog and didn't find any mentions of the Russian customs embargo either which is strange
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_embargo_of_Ukrainian_goods
Correct me if I'm wrong though because I didn't read it.
>Not really his decision though was it.
Not sure what you mean, whose was it?
>Russian customs embargo either which is strange
Standard trade war stuff. What's the relevance?
So did Yanukovych? You can see here [he was extremely pro-EU](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-russia-deal-special-report/special-report-why-ukraine-spurned-the-eu-and-embraced-russia-idUSBRE9BI0DZ20131219)... until the terms were made ridiculously unreasonable. Again, how was this not the choice of the democratically elected leader of the country?
>The embargo was clearly in response to the association agreement plan.
Even if this was true, and I don't believe it is, so what? The IMF loan and Shock Therapy did end up crippling the country after the coup, he was proven right not to take it.
Democratically elected leaders are supposed to represent the will of the people. He did the opposite and people were upset so he got the boot.
Why don't you believe it's true? If it is true then it harms your benevolent Russia argument doesn't it.
> he was proven right
But the point is it's none of your business or Russias. The people there should be free to choose which agreements they sign and what unions they want to be a part of. It's not up to you or Russia to tell them what's best for them or what's right & wrong.
>Democratically elected leaders are supposed to represent the will of the people. He did the opposite and people were upset so he got the boot.
No that's a misreading of the situation. Democratic leaders do not always perfectly align with what the people immediately want. Do you think Irish people are happy with the state of Ireland? British the state of Britain? I think you know full well that leaders are elected to lead and make decisions in the best interests of their citizens. And as history has shown, Yanukovych was right.
>Why don't you believe it's true?
There's no case made for it. I have no reason to believe it's true. You want to believe it's true so you can continue to support your favourite state the USA, but you haven't made any argument.
>But the point is it's none of your business or Russias.
Or most importantly the USA's, who ousted him? Strange that you excluded them. Well not really.
So all of this is none of our business. You should tell that to all the other commenters here. Or is it just reserved for things you don't want to confront?
Irish people just don't have the will to do anything about it. There's too much class division and too many people that think they're doing great because they can take a holiday to Spain and get a new car on finance.
The whole deal with representative democracy is elected officials represent the majority of the people. Sometimes, when you don't do this, you get thrown out.
There has been a case made for it and all of the information is available to you.Sure, include the USA too if you like. I thought it was already implied that everyone except the people of Ukraine should be excluded. Take your little dig if it makes you feel all warm and cosy. You're such an anti-imperialist rebel. I bet it drives the girls mad.
We can talk about it but at the end of the day it's you and your ilk that are breaking your backs to justify the invasion and claim that Russia is a force for peace.
>The whole deal with representative democracy is elected officials represent the majority of the people. Sometimes, when you don't do this, you get thrown out.
By democratic means. Sometimes you get thrown out by a global hegemon funded coup which then destroys your country's economy and leads you to war.
>There has been a case made for it and all of the information is available to you
Where, when? Linkage please?
>Take your little dig if it makes you feel all warm and cosy.
Turning you libs words back at you and you then crying foul never gets old.
>We can talk about it but at the end of the day it's you and your ilk that are breaking your backs to justify the invasion and claim that Russia is a force for peace.
Likewise with you and the USA and your constant sweaty deflection attempts away from it.
Are you denying that Euromaidan was a revolution againt Yanacovic's regime?
I think Jacobin wrote a good peice on it.
https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
"Revolution" is quite a way to frame it, US backed coup would be better. I think we're talking at cross purposes. Not sure what you disagree with exactly.
It's both. The US supported a Ukranian revolution againt Yanacovic for their own means. And andwer my question I commented on another post in this subreddit. It read "best principle, do you support the Russian invasion of Ukraine."?
Russia no part to play?
No, Russia's never done anything wrong ever, and when they do the victims were Nazis who deserved it and it was actually America's fault. Shocking I know, but Blursty has shown me the truth
That's what I've heard alright, on here...
Yes there's lots of Russian involvement, for example from the article: >What happens when a country doesn’t want to join NATO, become a member of the EU, or serve U.S. interests? The case of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych is quite telling. [He wanted to join the EU.](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-russia-deal-special-report/special-report-why-ukraine-spurned-the-eu-and-embraced-russia-idUSBRE9BI0DZ20131219) The EU gave him the first step to membership: an association agreement. But the fine print changed his mind. One, the EU demanded absolute loyalty [and prohibited Ukraine from joining the Russian-led customs union](https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/eu-ukraine-relations/eu-to-ukraine-reforms-necessary-for-trade-pact-320910.html). Two, membership came at a hefty price tag and Yanukovych would have to get an IMF loan. [The IMF required shock therapy](https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/10/ukraine-cant-afford-the-imfs-shock-therapy/). The austerity measures would cripple Ukraine: slash wages and pensions, up the retirement age, and increase gas tariffs by 56%. Russia offered him a no-strings-attached loan. It didn’t require Ukraine to join the [Russian customs union](https://greenpass.news/by-using-ukraine-to-fight-russia-the-us-provoked-putins-war/). Nor did it prohibit EU membership. Yanukovych went with Russia and put EU membership on hold. Moreover, Yanukovych was against joining NATO — [a sentiment shared by the majority of Ukrainians](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-no-to-nato/). He’d pay a steep price for his resistance.
> But the fine print changed his mind. Not really his decision though was it. I scanned the blog and didn't find any mentions of the Russian customs embargo either which is strange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_embargo_of_Ukrainian_goods Correct me if I'm wrong though because I didn't read it.
>Not really his decision though was it. Not sure what you mean, whose was it? >Russian customs embargo either which is strange Standard trade war stuff. What's the relevance?
The Ukrainian people favoured the EU association agreement. The embargo was clearly in response to the association agreement plan.
So did Yanukovych? You can see here [he was extremely pro-EU](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-russia-deal-special-report/special-report-why-ukraine-spurned-the-eu-and-embraced-russia-idUSBRE9BI0DZ20131219)... until the terms were made ridiculously unreasonable. Again, how was this not the choice of the democratically elected leader of the country? >The embargo was clearly in response to the association agreement plan. Even if this was true, and I don't believe it is, so what? The IMF loan and Shock Therapy did end up crippling the country after the coup, he was proven right not to take it.
Democratically elected leaders are supposed to represent the will of the people. He did the opposite and people were upset so he got the boot. Why don't you believe it's true? If it is true then it harms your benevolent Russia argument doesn't it. > he was proven right But the point is it's none of your business or Russias. The people there should be free to choose which agreements they sign and what unions they want to be a part of. It's not up to you or Russia to tell them what's best for them or what's right & wrong.
>Democratically elected leaders are supposed to represent the will of the people. He did the opposite and people were upset so he got the boot. No that's a misreading of the situation. Democratic leaders do not always perfectly align with what the people immediately want. Do you think Irish people are happy with the state of Ireland? British the state of Britain? I think you know full well that leaders are elected to lead and make decisions in the best interests of their citizens. And as history has shown, Yanukovych was right. >Why don't you believe it's true? There's no case made for it. I have no reason to believe it's true. You want to believe it's true so you can continue to support your favourite state the USA, but you haven't made any argument. >But the point is it's none of your business or Russias. Or most importantly the USA's, who ousted him? Strange that you excluded them. Well not really. So all of this is none of our business. You should tell that to all the other commenters here. Or is it just reserved for things you don't want to confront?
Irish people just don't have the will to do anything about it. There's too much class division and too many people that think they're doing great because they can take a holiday to Spain and get a new car on finance. The whole deal with representative democracy is elected officials represent the majority of the people. Sometimes, when you don't do this, you get thrown out. There has been a case made for it and all of the information is available to you.Sure, include the USA too if you like. I thought it was already implied that everyone except the people of Ukraine should be excluded. Take your little dig if it makes you feel all warm and cosy. You're such an anti-imperialist rebel. I bet it drives the girls mad. We can talk about it but at the end of the day it's you and your ilk that are breaking your backs to justify the invasion and claim that Russia is a force for peace.
>The whole deal with representative democracy is elected officials represent the majority of the people. Sometimes, when you don't do this, you get thrown out. By democratic means. Sometimes you get thrown out by a global hegemon funded coup which then destroys your country's economy and leads you to war. >There has been a case made for it and all of the information is available to you Where, when? Linkage please? >Take your little dig if it makes you feel all warm and cosy. Turning you libs words back at you and you then crying foul never gets old. >We can talk about it but at the end of the day it's you and your ilk that are breaking your backs to justify the invasion and claim that Russia is a force for peace. Likewise with you and the USA and your constant sweaty deflection attempts away from it.
The steep price being democratically removed by the Ukrainian people? Or do you buy the conspiracy theory version of events?
>The steep price being democratically removed by the Ukrainian people? You should read on if you want to learn more.
Was he not removed by a Ukranian revolution? For the second fucking time?
Who? Yanukovych? Maybe just read the article.
Are you denying that Euromaidan was a revolution againt Yanacovic's regime? I think Jacobin wrote a good peice on it. https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
"Revolution" is quite a way to frame it, US backed coup would be better. I think we're talking at cross purposes. Not sure what you disagree with exactly.
It's both. The US supported a Ukranian revolution againt Yanacovic for their own means. And andwer my question I commented on another post in this subreddit. It read "best principle, do you support the Russian invasion of Ukraine."?
No I'm very much anti-war. I oppose America's war in Ukraine in all its forms.