Your input was vital in this interview Matt. Sach’s contribution was frankly a hysterical and narcissistic recitation of Putin’s ideology. It was a ad to witness. You on the other hand gave a much needed sober and accurate account of the crisis from a progressive point of view.
4/ So, what overwhelming majority? Because there was a lot of crowd on Maidan, surely they represented the whole population, ou quelque chose dans ce genre? As Joe Biden might have commented: Come on, man!
2/ This is simply not true. Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) made a poll on this issue late 2013 when the Maidan demonstrations had already started. Here's how the Kyiv Post newspaper describes the results of this poll:
1/ "He [Yanukovych] wanted to bring Ukraine closer to Russia in a way that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians rejected", says Mr. Duss beginning at 23:00.
"it denies ukraine's self determination" rank liberal pablum. The reason why Ukraine made the decision it has made over the last decade is because of support from the EU and US. It's decisions were made based off promises and shows of support, support they knew they needed to stand up to Russia.
And your problem is attempting to shift the responsibility for Russia's crimes elsewhere.
Russian crimes are just that -- Russian crimes. It is a centuries old nation-state, not some wayward child from a bad home.
It does not need you to infantilize it with excuses.
"attempting to shift the responsibility" only a zealot could say such a thing after I literally said I wouldn't call it a provocation but it was a reason for the war. Because you're such an ideologue you view everything as "us gud them bad". Okay.
A reason for another country to start a war IS a provocation.
Russia is responsible for its own acts, such as invading a country which neither threatened it (ICJ-2022) nor was attacking ethnic Russians in the Donbas (ICJ-2024).
A country exercizing its sovereign rights is not a reason for war.
Oh Sachs was wrong to say Russia was provoked. The possibility of NATO expansion into Ukraine played a role, but I wouldn't call that a provocation. And before anyone goes "it was neber aboot NATO" The US nat sec apparatus has said for decades it was a Russian red line. It's not a "tanky" argument.
John Mearshiemer, Angela Merkel, James Baker and all the people knowing the FACTS regarding Russia's provocation - throw in justification of US "Foreign policy" re Russia & Minsk treaties - since the accusation its Sachs suddenly white washing Putin- ignore US actions
Excellent work. If Russia really felt threatened by NATO, why was it willing to overextend itself into Ukraine, leaving its border with NATO countries largely exposed? Because the Russians have nukes and aren’t really afraid of NATO.
Huh? Well first, the problem isn’t just NATO but NATO in Ukraine. People in the U.S. foreign policy establishment have been saying this was a red line for literally decades. See nyet means nyet by Biden’s CIA director for example.
And if Putin was so afraid of NATO, he wouldn’t have committed himself so fully into Ukraine, because he’s exposed all along the NATO border. He’s not really afraid of NATO and you’ve drank the Kool-Aid too
I love when the armchair polisci experts lamely try to refute the people ACTUALLY involved - people who WERE THERE - because Angela Merkel "drank the koolaid" along with all the other experts on the topic
your long sidebar about 2014's EuroMaidan makes no mention of how the "EuroMaidan" fraction of Ukraine's political class was *massively repudiated* in the 2019 elections which saw a pro-Minsk Accords, pro-peace Zelenskyy elected president & his party win parliamentary plurality.
nor did you elaborate on what the US/UK did, if anything, to support the new president, a russophone from Krivoy Rog - in his efforts to follow through on the Minsk Accords which THEY had validated @ the Security Council. Did they help HIM or help his electorally repudiated EuroMaidan adversaries?
This is one of the most intelligent conversations about US foreign policy and Ukraine that I have ever listened to. I loved the mutual respect they showed one another. Imagine if this was on MSM instead of BS and blather.
Ukraine wasn’t going to get membership. 1 since 14 they are ineligible 2 they didn’t apply until Sept 22 3 Hungary would never vote them in. Not to mention that Russia has already given the green light for all former USSR to join nato if the like. 1997 Russia NATO founding act. Look it up
Comments
Ukraine was one of those 57 nations in 1995.
Russia is a big, grown-up country. It should have honored its word, and is responsible for its crimes.
Russian crimes are just that -- Russian crimes. It is a centuries old nation-state, not some wayward child from a bad home.
It does not need you to infantilize it with excuses.
Russia is responsible for its own acts, such as invading a country which neither threatened it (ICJ-2022) nor was attacking ethnic Russians in the Donbas (ICJ-2024).
A country exercizing its sovereign rights is not a reason for war.
pure bullshit by war MONGERS
Don't spew bullshit that Russia wasnt provoked for YEARS!
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
don't pretend this is some story about the cause - IT IS THE CAUSE for Russias invasion ...
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early