Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NATO vs Russia

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by The Laughing Stranger View Post

    Is this one of those 'alternative facts' I have have been hearing so much about?
    It did happen.

    The President of the Ukraine was pushing for closer relations with Russia. Some people (mainly in western Ukraine and various oligarchs) were unhappy so they held a revolution. The US and most of western Europe sided with the revolutionaries (no surprise) since we wanted a pro-US government in Ukraine rather than a pro-Russian one. Unfortunately once all was said and done, the people of eastern Ukraine (who live in the Donbass region and who have always wanted closer ties to Russia) were understandably upset at the overthrow of the president they had elected. So they seceded from the rest of Ukraine to join Russia, and Russia decided to assist them.

    Of course, there's more at play than simple politics - Donbass has some pretty massive oil deposits which (thanks to advances in fracking) can now be accessed far easier and cheaper than a few decades ago. Western oil companies had been "cut out of the loop" by Ukraine's government (who was offering better contracts to Russian oil companies). So those western oil companies had been lobbying US and other European governments to reject Ukraine's president and accept the new revolutionary government. Unfortunately for them, by the time all was said an done, the Donbass region and it's oil deposits are now under de facto Russian control.

    There are lots of ways that this came together. As an example, then-Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter was working closely with Burisma Holdings (Ukraine's big oil company) which was unhappy with the Russian ties (since they felt that they could get better deals by working with western companies than the Russian government). Burisma Holdings initially came out on the side of the revolutionaries, though once it became clear that Donbass was going to be controlled by the Russians they started changing their tune. Still, Hunter Biden's dad, Joe, was one of the biggest pro-revolution voices in Washington D.C., gave lots of speeches about and applied a lot of pressure about how the US had to side with the Ukrainian revolutionary government, and it seems rather unlikely that his son didn't have some kind of influence on him.

    There were, of course, tons of other factors in play, but in general I would say that Omega is correct in that the US (and other European nations and various oligarchs) pushed for the overthrow of Ukraine's elected government, because the government was seeking closer ties with Russia and the situation certainly has spiraled out of control since then.

    Comment


    • #62
      Installing governments friendly to your case while overthrowing unfriendly ones is nothing new and was pretty much turned into art by both sides due to how Cold War worked/is working.
      EDIT
      http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...stop-cia-coup/ not supporting it, not denying it, just throwing it as a food for thoughts.
      Last edited by WHW; 01-25-2017, 10:57 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Vysha View Post
        Simple answer: No.


        Again, no. I'm saying that when discussing the actions of a nation where leaders are elected, not every person elected that leader. Saying for instance "Russia is evil because Putin" is a falsehood. Putin is evil. The Russian people are not Putin, nor is Putin all the people. When discussing the actions of a nation, sure you can say "the Russian government" or "Russia" or what have you. But when discussing the citizens and what they have the right to complain about, generalizing an entire country by the actions of a single leader is misguided.


        I'm gonna focus on this part here to make my point. Do you feel that the Japanese people have a right to be upset about Hiroshima and Nagisake? If you say no, they have no right to complain because of the attack on Pearl Harbor made by their government at the time, then you are correct in saying my statements were misdirection. If you say yes, the actions of their government does not prevent the citizens from having a right to disagree with their government and can still feel wronged, then you agree with me because those people are not the same entity who decided to attack Pearl Harbor and still have the right to disagree with their government.
        Good, then let us stop equating nation-states to people.

        As to your question, I'll take the Japanese approach, which have no words for 'yes' and 'no', hence I disagree with the question. I suspect ( though I cannot be sure) that most Japanese people, who are the best qualified to address that question, would disagree with the question itself, or perhaps they might say a word that equates to the meaning of 'yes' and 'no' at once.( there are a few ways to do this).

        My point being that the question is self-defeating and is recognized as such in the context of the Japanese language.


        How can I know if what I claim I know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I might not know? How can I know if what I claim I don't know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I do know?
        -Zhuangzi

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Ostarion View Post
          Good, then let us stop equating nation-states to people.
          Dude... That was my entire damn point. That was what my entire damn post was driving home. The post you disagreed with.


          Writing up Clanbook: Aabbt

          Comment

          Working...
          X