While it should go as without saying I think it’s pretty hard to take it that way when the following statements get made a) The legitimate Ukraine government was overthrown in a NATO croup, b) Ukraine government is a neo-nazi government, c) DPR and LPR are legitimate countries and d) NATO started the war in Ukraine. Every single one of those is a Russian state propagated talking point, all of them made around nuggets of facts (like the leaked chat where some US officials were discussing who should or shouldn’t be in the new government) but ultimately warped into something that can’t definitely be proven true or false. Thus whoever spreads those talking points wants to believe those statements as true, which begs the question of why to believe they’re true.
I don’t think I could ever make you believe that we came to these conclusions based on an analysis of world history, economics, and the current geopolitical reality and didn’t need any help from Yuri at the FSB.
You literally don’t understand how we analyze geopolitics.
“The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.”
Of course you can’t, because there’s nothing you can provide except your belief that it is the way you want to believe.
a) The legitimate Ukraine government was overthrown in a NATO croup, b) Ukraine government is a neo-nazi government, c) DPR and LPR are legitimate countries and d) NATO started the war in Ukraine. Every single one of those is a Russian state propagated talking point, all of them made around nuggets of facts
So, theyre all Russian talking points but theyre also all supported by evidence?
This is a thing that annoys me about liberal conceptions of bias. Everything is biased, the question is how factual things are.
(like the leaked chat where some US officials were discussing who should or shouldn’t be in the new government)
Yes, this is what we call discussing who should be in the puppet government. You’ll note that they kept the moderate “we should be nuetral between the US and Russia” organizers out and brought the nazis in.
So, theyre all Russian talking points but theyre also all supported by evidence?
As if to prove my point… I said they’re statements made around certain known fact, facts that don’t really prove the statement. Like the “coup”. Fact is that there was a discussion between Nuland and Pyatt, which proves US was in talks with the opposition. But the fact doesn’t shine a light on the extent of their talks, including if they were plotting a coup or how much Ukrainians listened to them. To claim it was a coup you have to believe it was one topic of the discussions and the Ukrainians listened.
This is a thing that annoys me about liberal conceptions of bias. Everything is biased, the question is how factual things are.
I don’t have problem understanding that things are biased. It’s just odd how western narrative get criticism but Russian narrative is seemingly taken without question.
Yes, this is what we call discussing who should be in the puppet government. You’ll note that they kept the moderate “we should be nuetral between the US and Russia” organizers out and brought the nazis in.
You just said the question is how factual things are, so factual proof that nazis were brought in? Because from the leak they were actually talking to keep ultranationalists like Tyahnybok out.
Fact is that there was a discussion between Nuland and Pyatt, which proves US was in talks with the opposition.
Talking about who should be in government and those people “coincidentally” being installed is plotting to install a puppet government.
But the fact doesn’t shine a light on the extent of their talks, including if they were plotting a coup or how much Ukrainians listened to them. To claim it was a coup you have to believe it was one topic of the discussions and the Ukrainians listened.
Or were forced to. The point is we know they were successful at installing their people and keeping others out, and “it was just a coincidence” seems improbable given how popular Klitsch was.
It’s just odd how western narrative get criticism but Russian narrative is seemingly taken without question.
The western narrative deserves criticism. And hexbear is very critical of the Russian narrative, just not the things that they say that are supported by evidence.
You just said the question is how factual things are, so factual proof that nazis were brought in? Because from the leak they were actually talking to keep ultranationalists like Tyahnybok out.
The thing is Tyahnybok was a nobody politically, they went with the more well known Yats as prime Minister. You’ll note that Yats is the leader of the “Fatherland” party
They also say about the defacto leader of the movement Klitsch and the other moderate democrats:
I guess… in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together.
I want to ask the reader something, what is being said here? Does this come off as innocent?
No, exactly. And I think we’ve got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I’m still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there’s a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I’m sure there’s a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep… we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
Because to me this reads as plotting to install certain leaders within Ukraines new government.
