Once again, I find myself facing the absurdity of having my posts deleted on multiple occasions without a single shred of explanation. Is anyone in this administration actually going to deign to take action regarding this matter? It seems that every other day, my contributions are being wiped away for no discernible reason whatsoever.
Quote: Gritty Anthony Hill5 said:I would like to request one thing of you. I am uncertain how much this pertains to the established etiquette of this forum, but I firmly believe it ought to be done.
So, you chose to quote my previous entry only to pivot toward questioning me, yet somehow managed to completely bypass the actual questions I posed? While it is true that I did not direct those inquiries specifically at you, they were intended as broad points for discussion—general inquiries meant to stimulate a meaningful dialogue. If you are going to take the liberty of quoting me just to steer the conversation toward your own agenda and demand my perspective on various other events, shouldn't you have the decency to address the substance of what I actually wrote? It would be far more constructive for this debate if you offered your own thoughts on my questions instead of merely redirecting the flow of the argument to suit your whims.
I fail to see any logical necessity for you to address those counter-questions you directed at another forum member. The individual to whom they were posed will provide their own responses in due course. My intention was simply to pose a question to you directly, requesting that you provide a reasoned, substantive argument explaining how the West initiated this coup—an explanation which, I might add, you have failed to offer even within the confines of this specific post.
It is an undeniable, notorious fact that the West orchestrated a coup in Ukraine.
Is this truly meant to serve as an articulated response, claiming that the West was the one who instigated the coup?
The initial coup took place back in 2004, an event that Russia ultimately accepted for two distinct reasons. At that time, the Russian administration was significantly less powerful and still possessed a genuine willingness to pursue some semblance of a partnership with the West; furthermore, one must consider the second factor, which was that the coup itself was, for all intents and purposes, legitimate.
Is there not a glaringly obvious distinction between a mere coup d'état and a true popular revolution? A revolution is an act driven by the collective will of the people, whereas a coup is nothing more than the calculated maneuvering of a small group of conspirators. As far as my own understanding goes, both the events of 2004 and 2013 were clearly instances of genuine national revolutions.
And just how exactly did Russia accept this "coup" you speak of? Was it through their attempt on Viktor Yushchenko's life? Or perhaps by sending gas prices skyrocketing from fifty dollars all the way up to two hundred and fifty?
Regardless of how much people talk about Western interference, let’s be honest: this was executed using the classic playbook of funding NGOs to orchestrate opposition—a tactic that has been tried and tested time and again. There wasn't some massive, systemic electoral theft, and more importantly, there was no widespread violence. In a sense, everything followed the established "rules" of a game where major global powers exert their influence over developing nations. Russia accepted its loss in Ukraine back in 2004, yet they were just as capable of swinging the pendulum back in 2009 with the victory of Viktor Yanukovych.
Did Russia even attempt to interfere at all? If that were true, then one would have to assume that Vladimir Putin simply dispatched Gleb Pavlovsky to Kyiv and sent Vyacheslav Nikonov to Donetsk to manage Viktor Yanukovych’s election campaign.
Just a week before the election, even Vladimir Putin saw fit to make an appearance in Ukraine. He parades around alongside figures like Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Yanukovych, and Alexander Lukashenko. Isn't it telling that he repeated this exact same performance before the second round of elections just to throw his weight behind Viktor Yanukovych?
Everyone knows exactly how that theft went down. Viktor Yanukovych declared himself the winner even though every single exit poll pointed toward Viktor Yushchenko being the victor, which served as an unmistakable sign of fraud. Naturally, this blatant manipulation triggered massive protests, eventually forcing a deal to hold a runoff election. In the end, the very man who was caught stealing in the first round cruised to a smooth victory.
What transpired during 2013 and the early months of 2014—less than half a year before that nation was set to hold elections—was nothing short of a revolution, one where the West actively financed and fueled the violent overthrow of a democratically elected administration simply because they couldn't stomach the possibility of Viktor Yanukovych being re-elected. For Russia, this was an undeniable violation of the established "rules of the game."
Once again, you find yourself repeating the tired refrain that the West instigated and funded everything, yet you fail to provide a single shred of actual evidence to support such a claim. Is it not obvious? Viktor Yanukovych was nothing more than a common thief who seized control of the government through blatant bribery and systemic corruption.
By essentially purchasing representatives—treating them like mere tokens in a game—Viktor Yanukovych manufactured a legislative majority solely to force his own agenda through. Given that under American law, any legislator who defects from their party should technically forfeit the seat they were elected to hold, nearly every single piece of legislation he pushed forward was effectively illegitimate, as those representatives were in direct violation of the law. One such maneuver was the implementation of a new election law specifically designed to favor his own party. When the Supreme Court received a deluge of complaints regarding these constant floor-crossings and defections into Yanukovych’s camp, their ruling that such actions were perfectly legal made one thing abundantly clear: the judiciary was just as much on Yanukovych’s payroll as the politicians were. This corruption paved the way for him to appoint Azarov as Prime Minister, granting his party total dominance over the presidency, the premiership, and the legislature simultaneously—a level of unchecked power that no single political entity in our history has ever wielded. It was a blatant march toward autocracy, a trajectory he ultimately solidified by tearing up the Constitution itself.
Let us set aside all external influences for a moment and look at the cold, hard reality of the situation. When several hundred armed bandits storm a parliament building—any parliament, in any sovereign nation—and subsequently seize control of the government, or when those pulling the strings behind such a group take power, does it not become blindingly obvious? Is there any doubt remaining that a coup d'état has occurred and that the very foundation of the state has collapsed?
Viktor Yanukovych was removed through a parliamentary vote, which means we are absolutely not looking at a coup d'état. Why must you insist on manipulating the facts and twisting the reality of the situation?
Purely from a theoretical standpoint, one might consider the possibility of a moment of total anarchy followed by a period of re-consolidation. A complete reset. Now, if we apply that logic to this specific situation, certain regions of Ukraine refused to acknowledge the newly established government. It is certainly true that those territories receive support from Russia, but let us be honest: the new administration is also being propped up by external forces from the West, so in what way does that actually create a meaningful distinction?
Is there really any meaningful distinction to be drawn between a genuine grassroots uprising of the Ukrainian people and the staged insurrection in Donetsk, orchestrated by those imported Russian GRU operatives like Borodaya, Strelkov, and the rest of that Moscow-based crew?
When you truly step back and analyze the geopolitical landscape, isn't it clear that Russian support for ethnic Russians and pro-Russian factions within Ukraine serves the exact same function as American support for Americans living in Canada?
It is reminiscent of how foreign aid was funneled to insurgents during previous regional conflicts in the States.
Western support for pro-Western forces in Ukraine is much like Saudi Arabian influence in Canada. It acts as a significantly larger external factor that serves primarily to destabilize the situation.
🤣
On one hand, you have a neighboring nation and a shared people; on the other hand, you have a superpower from the other side of the globe inserting itself as a major player and a supposed protector.
On one side, we see Russian occupiers, and on the other, we see the Americans and the EU calling out to those under occupation, urging them to preserve their territorial integrity.
Exactly which rule has been broken here?