What is really happening in the Ukraine Conflict?

[Scott777]

The US and EU have a complex relationship being both allies and adversaries at the same time.
This is the reality of the complicated world we live in rather than a simplified cartoon world of "one world governments".

Except it isn't yet a one world government, so you are right, there are conflicts for now, and that's why they want a one world government.  These things don't happen overnight.  But I suppose you think the EU (which is effectively a federation) is a cartoon, right?  And that PESCO is just a cartoon military alliance?

Whilst the US would probably rather see Ukraine move towards a European orbit where it becomes a functioning state with decent government and rule of law, it isn't going to forment a coup to do it.

Oh, ok, so you're just saying the US isn't going to foment a coup, and so that's a fact now, because you said it, gosh I'm so silly.  Have you considered running for supreme leader of the world in future, with this great wisdom of yours?  Let's just sweep it under the carpet that there was a revolution because of some picnickers which the state didn't like.  🤣

[Scott777]

In early November 2013:

Ukraine was on course to sign the EUAA. There were some hurdles to overcome but a date of late November had been set to sign and VY was urging his parliament to pass the laws to overcome the various hurdles.

And then the important bit you neglected, that VY decided not to sign it, so that was the situation just before the revolution.

Ukraine's military position was to be non-aligned ie not going to join NATO.

March 2014 - new government after revolution. Ukraine was on course to sign the EUAA later on the year (June as it happened as per your post)

Ukraine reaffirmed it's military position as nom-aligned (as per my link to the spoekseman for the Foreign Minister)

So the revolution changed nothing from early Nov 2013.

Correct, but the revolution did change the situation with the EUAA which was not going to be signed, so your "early Nov 2013" is just a strawman.

So no Ukraine simply stayed on course after the revolution.

No, the course was changed from not signing the EUAA by VY, to signing it by Yats and Poroshenko.

[BeElBeeBub]

The US state (or deep state if you like) wants a one world government.  It's why they promote the WHO, the WEF, and expansion of NATO.  The EU has been promoted Obama and Biden.  NATO and the EU agenda are military alliances, and given that the US and the EU are allies, then they are ultimately a single military alliance.  The object is to destroy Russia and ultimately any resistance, to establish the one world government, in order to centralise control of the world population.

Grow up.

The US and EU have a complex relationship being both allies and adversaries at the same time.
This is the reality of the complicated world we live in rather than a simplified cartoon world of "one world governments". 

Whilst the US would probably rather see Ukraine move towards a European orbit where it becomes a functioning state with decent government and rule of law, it isn't going to forment a coup to do it.

[BeElBeeBub]

When did I switch the reason from NATO to EU AA?  I've always said closer to NATO and the EU.  They go together as having the agenda of military alliance. 
"Petro Poroshenko signed the economic part of the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement on 27 June 2014, and described this as Ukraine's "first but most decisive step" towards EU membership."
So you still have not made any factual counter argument to show that Ukraine did not become closer to NATO / EU ties than immediately before the revolution.  Do you want to try again?

In early November 2013:

Ukraine was on course to sign the EUAA. There were some hurdles to overcome but a date of late November had been set to sign and VY was urging his parliament to pass the laws to overcome the various hurdles. 

Ukraine's military position was to be non-aligned ie not going to join NATO.

March 2014 - new government after revolution. Ukraine was on course to sign the EUAA later on the year (June as it happened as per your post) 

Ukraine reaffirmed it's military position as nom-aligned (as per my link to the spoekseman for the Foreign Minister) 

So the revolution changed nothing from early Nov 2013. 

The only time Ukraine changed position to not signing the EUAA was after what VY called "Russian pressure and blackmail".

So no Ukraine simply stayed on course after the revolution. It was going to sign the EUAAa and didn't want to join NATao, and then after, it was going to sign thr EUAA and didn't want to join NATO. 

[Scott777]

Depends on what sense the word revolution is used.  It certainly wasn't a coup or a revolt imposed by force.

No, of course not, it was just protesters having a picnic, and police decided to shoot them and then the president fled, and the government was replaced, because none of the picnickers offered them a sandwich.

[Scott777]

We already established your supposed CIA backed revolution wasn't to make Ukraine join NATO (or if it was it was spectacularly unsuccessful).
So now you have switched the reason to the US being super keen for the EU association agreement to be signed.

When did I switch the reason from NATO to EU AA?  I've always said closer to NATO and the EU.  They go together as having the agenda of military alliance. 
"Petro Poroshenko signed the economic part of the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement on 27 June 2014, and described this as Ukraine's "first but most decisive step" towards EU membership."
So you still have not made any factual counter argument to show that Ukraine did not become closer to NATO / EU ties than immediately before the revolution.  Do you want to try again?

Can you explain why the US was so keen for Ukraine to sign an economic agreement with the EU. So much so that it was willing to go to the considerable expense and risk of staging a revolution to do so.
What did the US get out of this agreement?

The US state (or deep state if you like) wants a one world government.  It's why they promote the WHO, the WEF, and expansion of NATO.  The EU has been promoted Obama and Biden.  NATO and the EU agenda are military alliances, and given that the US and the EU are allies, then they are ultimately a single military alliance.  The object is to destroy Russia and ultimately any resistance, to establish the one world government, in order to centralise control of the world population.

[Borg Refinery]

Well no worries. It's important to cover up Nazis abroad because .. propaganda

Russian propaganda in the war against Ukraine could get a boost from the release of a secret report naming hundreds of alleged Nazi war criminals who later came to Canada, the federal government has been warned.
Ottawa has been considering releasing the remainder of an inquiry report that has been kept secret for decades and contains the names of around 900 alleged war criminals who came to Canada after the Second World War, including members of a Ukrainian SS division.
The Globe and Mail is one of three organizations to have filed access to information requests asking for Part 2 of the Deschênes Commission report to be released.

Link

[Unlucky4Sum]

Whatever you say.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity

Depends on what sense the word revolution is used.  It certainly wasn't a coup or a revolt imposed by force.

[BeElBeeBub]

I'll make it simple for you.  VY didn't want to sign the Association Agreement.  The US wanted Arseniy Yatsenyuk to govern.  He was then put in as president after the revolution, and signed the Association Agreement.  So everything you have said is irrelevant, because the US got what they wanted.  So, who's got the red face now?

VY did want to sign.... right up until about a week before the signing. He even urged his parliament to pass laws to make it happen.

Yatsenyuk was PM (confirmed by VYs parliment) not president. 

We already established your supposed CIA backed revolution wasn't to make Ukraine join NATO (or if it was it was spectacularly unsuccessful).

So now you have switched the reason to the US being super keen for the EU association agreement to be signed.

Can you explain why the US was so keen for Ukraine to sign an economic agreement with the EU. So much so that it was willing to go to the considerable expense and risk of staging a revolution to do so.

What did the US get out of this agreement?

[Scott777]

There was no revolution.  

Whatever you say.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity

[Scott777]

Right, this goes to the absolute heart of your argument.....

The new government was only as pro EU as the last one - in the sense it wanted to sign the agreement the previous government had negotiated and had been about to sign before Russia pressured it not to. It didn't negotiate an even more ambitious deal or anything.  In that sense the EU was in the exact situation it was on the 19th of November 2023.

The new government took over Ukraine in late Feb/early march 2024.

In late march the Foreign Affairs minster said, via a spokesman

"But the issue whether to change this legislation depends on the Ukrainian parliament. The program of the new Ukrainian government does not contain the intention of becoming a member of NATO,"
(https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html)

So the CIA was apprently clever enough to orchestrate a revolution to put a new government in charge but no clever enough to ensure the new government was actually going to do the thing that the CIA started the revolution for?  Red faces all around at the CIA.

But by late August the boys in Langley were looking more likely to get their Christmas bonuses when the Ukrainian PM asked parliament to put Ukraine on a course to apply to NATO.

The reason for this shift?

Russia invaded Ukraine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28978699

So there we have it, for your argument, that the revolution was a CIA backed plot to move Ukraine into NATO, Vladimir Putin needs to be a CIA asset because the only reason Ukraine moved from nonaligned status to NATO leaning was Russia.

I'll make it simple for you.  VY didn't want to sign the Association Agreement.  The US wanted Arseniy Yatsenyuk to govern.  He was then put in as president after the revolution, and signed the Association Agreement.  So everything you have said is irrelevant, because the US got what they wanted.  So, who's got the red face now?

Victoria Nuland saying who should govern:

https://x.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1765114791218098680/video/2

[Scott777]

It was a terrible decision. The smart thing to do would have been to accept the protesters demands (that you do what you were going to do - sign the agreement).  But then corrupt governments are not known for making smart choices.

I completely disagree.  Corrupt governments are the smartest ones.  That's how they manage to carry on.  Your conclusion that VY was a bit stupid, and that's why there was a revolution, is really naive.  

[Unlucky4Sum]

Ok, so we don't know who the snipers were.  And you don't know why VY would need snipers, if the protesters did not start any violence.  I'm still trying to understand what you or UnluckyFoursome think caused the revolution, after VY was voted in on a neutral position with better relations with Russia and the EU.

There was no revolution.  Your man was voted out.  And to address your other posts, the parliament that so voted certainly believed it was his snipers shooting unarmed demonstrators.  No evidence your imagined CIA snipers were even there and the notion that anti Yanukovich snipers would shoot anti Yanukovich protesters is just stupid.

[BeElBeeBub]

If the population of Ukraine overthrew the government and then installed one which was clearly much more pro NATO and EU than before, I suspect Putin would still consider it a threat.  

Right, this goes to the absolute heart of your argument.....

The new government was only as pro EU as the last one - in the sense it wanted to sign the agreement the previous government had negotiated and had been about to sign before Russia pressured it not to. It didn't negotiate an even more ambitious deal or anything.  In that sense the EU was in the exact situation it was on the 19th of November 2023.

The new government took over Ukraine in late Feb/early march 2024.

In late march the Foreign Affairs minster said, via a spokesman 

"But the issue whether to change this legislation depends on the Ukrainian parliament. The program of the new Ukrainian government does not contain the intention of becoming a member of NATO,"
(https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html)

So the CIA was apprently clever enough to orchestrate a revolution to put a new government in charge but no clever enough to ensure the new government was actually going to do the thing that the CIA started the revolution for?  Red faces all around at the CIA.

But by late August the boys in Langley were looking more likely to get their Christmas bonuses when the Ukrainian PM asked parliament to put Ukraine on a course to apply to NATO.

The reason for this shift?

Russia invaded Ukraine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28978699

So there we have it, for your argument, that the revolution was a CIA backed plot to move Ukraine into NATO, Vladimir Putin needs to be a CIA asset because the only reason Ukraine moved from nonaligned status to NATO leaning was Russia.

[BeElBeeBub]

First of all, let's say all of this is correct: would the government willingly start attacking / killing protesters, leading to a revolution in which the police ran away, leading to overthrow of that government that started the violence?  Was that a very clever decision?  Or, would it be a bit easier to ignore the 'peaceful' protesters and carry on regardless with closer ties with Russia?

It was a terrible decision. The smart thing to do would have been to accept the protesters demands (that you do what you were going to do - sign the agreement).  But then corrupt governments are not known for making smart choices.