Ah yes pointing to the completely organic resistance movements that cropped up simultaneously with Russian equipment and Russian soldiers contributing. But of course the US psyop’d 80% of the entire country to be in favor of EU membership. And the strong definitely not russian backed leader said no, I will carry on the true will of the Ukrainian people, which is to be subservient to Russia. And the people unjustly protested and got righteously shot for it. And then the totally not russian tanks rolled in.
Ah yes pointing to the completely organic resistance movements that cropped up simultaneously with Russian equipment and Russian soldiers contributing.
I have no idea how you define “completely organic”, but there were substantial protests in the Donbas and Odessa regions against Euromaidan. Protesters camped out for months and trade unionists organized. At one point, Right Sector locked a bunch of people in a union hall in Odessa and burned them alive. Many people in Donbas were and are pro-Russia, in the sense that there was (and is) a pro-EU vs. pro-Russia rift in th4 country. There was massive violence against and by a large number of organizations that did not all coordinate together in substantial ways. Trade unionists, anarchists, communists, pro-Russia liberals, ethnic Russians fruatrated by Russophobia, people pissed about Euromaidan, people supportive of Euromaidan, far right segments like Right Sector, pro-Kiev nationalist liberals, etc etc.
This was fairly well-reported during and after these events.
But of course the US psyop’d 80% of the entire country to be in favor of EU membership
The US certainly does fund NGOs to push its agenda and amplify domestic voices that it finds favorable. It is a very boring kind of conspiracy fairly openly. This is why the US started crying foul when Georgia wanted to implement a new law that is basically the equivalent of the US requirement that foreign agenta register themselves. It would mean a ton of NGO staff woild need to register. You could call that a psyop if you wanted to I guess, but I would just call it a standard US influence campaign that takes existing organic sentiment and helps it along while positioning favorable candidates for duture office in better stead than their opponents. Something similar has happened recently in Bangladesh, with a conspicuous crop of NGO affiliates heading transitional teams.
Though, of course, what you saw in Euromaidan was not a play by “the rules”, it was a coup and then installation of a pro-EU successor. Nuland is on record talking about who they would be choosing for Ukraine. I thought liberal electoralism was all about the people choosing their candidates through elections, not street fights.
And the strong definitely not russian backed leader said no, I will carry on the true will of the Ukrainian people, which is to be subservient to Russia
This is of course nothing Yanukovych ever said. He certainly responded to Russian pressure and favored economic integration with Russia over thr EU, though, and in typical modern Ukrainian fashion was fairly corrupt. This applies to every Ukrainiam president, though.
And the people unjustly protested and got righteously shot for it.
Euromaidan became a battleground of various opposing forces and was a crucible for far right groups. I recommend reading as many contemporaneous accounts as you can. It was a wild time.
And then the totally not russian tanks rolled in.
? I thought we were talking about Euromaidan and the 2014 coups. Do you mean in Crimea?
I’m curious as to what you think a reputable source is. One that agrees with you? I’m sure there are plenty of YouTube videos that do, are they disreputable and untrustworthy, simply because of the platform?
a reputable source is one that provides the source of their information.
youtube content creators get their information from other Youtube content. It’s like a human centipede of misinformation.
in rare occasions youtube can be reputable if it’s content of the event as it happened, like when George Floyd was murdered and body cam footage was leaked online.
however, with better AI that can create archival footage like that, it’s harder to trust just any video.
point is, sources matter when you want to prove your dissertation.
It did not contain any misinformation, just basic facts about what was happening in Ukraine in 2014 - Euromaidan, separatist movements, far right consolidation, etc. Things reported on constantly by mainstream Western press for 8 years. There is at least one overzealous mod that is removing my comments, comments that contain no misinformation, and with no requests for clarification or any actual challenge to what I said.
Feel free to ask me this question on a less censorious instance.
I was pointing out how it’s funny to make basic grammatical errors while doing so.
Excellent contribution to the discourse.
Wrong instance
Seems right to me
You’re on world, not ml. People don’t fall for that as easily here.
Fall for what? Correction on a meme and pointing to basic political history in Ukraine?
Ah yes pointing to the completely organic resistance movements that cropped up simultaneously with Russian equipment and Russian soldiers contributing. But of course the US psyop’d 80% of the entire country to be in favor of EU membership. And the strong definitely not russian backed leader said no, I will carry on the true will of the Ukrainian people, which is to be subservient to Russia. And the people unjustly protested and got righteously shot for it. And then the totally not russian tanks rolled in.
I have no idea how you define “completely organic”, but there were substantial protests in the Donbas and Odessa regions against Euromaidan. Protesters camped out for months and trade unionists organized. At one point, Right Sector locked a bunch of people in a union hall in Odessa and burned them alive. Many people in Donbas were and are pro-Russia, in the sense that there was (and is) a pro-EU vs. pro-Russia rift in th4 country. There was massive violence against and by a large number of organizations that did not all coordinate together in substantial ways. Trade unionists, anarchists, communists, pro-Russia liberals, ethnic Russians fruatrated by Russophobia, people pissed about Euromaidan, people supportive of Euromaidan, far right segments like Right Sector, pro-Kiev nationalist liberals, etc etc.
This was fairly well-reported during and after these events.
The US certainly does fund NGOs to push its agenda and amplify domestic voices that it finds favorable. It is a very boring kind of conspiracy fairly openly. This is why the US started crying foul when Georgia wanted to implement a new law that is basically the equivalent of the US requirement that foreign agenta register themselves. It would mean a ton of NGO staff woild need to register. You could call that a psyop if you wanted to I guess, but I would just call it a standard US influence campaign that takes existing organic sentiment and helps it along while positioning favorable candidates for duture office in better stead than their opponents. Something similar has happened recently in Bangladesh, with a conspicuous crop of NGO affiliates heading transitional teams.
Though, of course, what you saw in Euromaidan was not a play by “the rules”, it was a coup and then installation of a pro-EU successor. Nuland is on record talking about who they would be choosing for Ukraine. I thought liberal electoralism was all about the people choosing their candidates through elections, not street fights.
This is of course nothing Yanukovych ever said. He certainly responded to Russian pressure and favored economic integration with Russia over thr EU, though, and in typical modern Ukrainian fashion was fairly corrupt. This applies to every Ukrainiam president, though.
Euromaidan became a battleground of various opposing forces and was a crucible for far right groups. I recommend reading as many contemporaneous accounts as you can. It was a wild time.
? I thought we were talking about Euromaidan and the 2014 coups. Do you mean in Crimea?
We caught one!
?
do you?
Why yes, I do. That’s why I asked in a sassy way.
then please educate the masses.
don’t be afraid to share knowledge. if they’re facts they are indisputable.
Ukraine: The Avoidable War
yes because youtube is a reputable source.
I’m curious as to what you think a reputable source is. One that agrees with you? I’m sure there are plenty of YouTube videos that do, are they disreputable and untrustworthy, simply because of the platform?
a reputable source is one that provides the source of their information.
youtube content creators get their information from other Youtube content. It’s like a human centipede of misinformation.
in rare occasions youtube can be reputable if it’s content of the event as it happened, like when George Floyd was murdered and body cam footage was leaked online.
however, with better AI that can create archival footage like that, it’s harder to trust just any video.
point is, sources matter when you want to prove your dissertation.
Removed by mod
took you long enough, and it was a shite of misinformation.
how disappointing. expected, but disappointing.
It did not contain any misinformation, just basic facts about what was happening in Ukraine in 2014 - Euromaidan, separatist movements, far right consolidation, etc. Things reported on constantly by mainstream Western press for 8 years. There is at least one overzealous mod that is removing my comments, comments that contain no misinformation, and with no requests for clarification or any actual challenge to what I said.
Feel free to ask me this question on a less censorious instance.
Well he asked you first
No, he asked op.