- Jan 15, 2013
- United Kingdom
Then by both our standards, Yanukovych's 2010 election and Zelensky's in 2019 have equal right to claim a mandate to govern, OK (though Zelensky, of course, never actually tried to outright rig an election as Yanukovych did, but that's by-the-by if we're considering 2004 to be all bygones).That's pretty simple. I never claimed Yanukovych's government was democratic; I've claimed he was elected. Neither have I said that Zelensky was not elected. They were both elected in nominally fair processes... if you consider the various ways in which an oligarchy maintains power in a society that has elections "fair", and if you disregard the processes which disallow certain candidates from receiving a hearing, manipulate public opinion, and so on. Yanukovych being an arm of Ukrainian oligarchy like Poroshenko and Zelensky after him is not a justification for the United States to help neo-Nazis overthrow him. By your very loose standards, Yanukovych's government was democratic. And by mine, neither his government nor Zelensky's were or are.
Zelensky, notably, was elected after a bunch of political parties were banned and opposition television stations shut down. And he rode to power on the strength of a career in media. That career in media, to put it another way, benefited from the elimination of his competition by government decision. What a bold outsider! lol
Amusingly, everything you say about Zelensky to try to make it seem like I should like him you can also say about Donald fucking Trump. That's when you know you have a strong argument!
So that begs the question, then: why do you constantly bring up Euromaidan in an effort to delegitimise Zelensky, but don't apply the same standard for Yanukovych?
And I don't really give a shit about whether you like Zelensky; that clearly wasn't the intention of the argument. You would like us to believe that a few hundred thousand dollars of US currency undermines any post-Euromaidan government. It's worth pointing out that that modest amount is dwarfed by the expenditure of the opponent who lost, which indicates it wasn't a decisive factor.
You've literally cut out the parts that provide the argument, then moaned that there's no argument!You draw this conclusion without making any real argument for it. It is as if being associated with Russia at all is enough for you. So by the same token, Rojava was an invention of the US State Department. There is your consistency, maybe you'll find it somewhere in the far future.
Russia provided massive levels of funding (dwarfing anything the US invested in Euromaidan), as well as enormous amounts of weaponry, and disguised Russian troops fought to establish it.
The "leap in logic" here being... listening to their own explicit statements about what they intend to do?The leaps in logic that you make might be fascinating were it not for how baldly they seek to downplay western involvement and exaggerate Russian statements about their aims. Given the obviousness of that pattern, they instead are just tedious. "Annexation is the goal" is not "Russia won't be satisfied with neutrality".
It's like you expect people to be impressed by your ability to collapse a situation in your head to a simplistic good guys and bad guys narrative, bulldozing whatever facts might stand in the way. To be fair, there are some that apparently are impressed by the rigidity with which you can hold to a state department line.
And the fact that they literally sent an army to Kyiv with instruction to take the capital and depose the government?
Right, ok, let's have an exercise. So what you've got here is survivor testimony of some really despicable things done by some Ukrainian soldiers. None of which I've disregarded. The Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi shitstain, and other Ukrainian soldiers have obviously been involved in awful shit. In this case: threats and intimidation, and shelling residential areas. Unsure why you're saying I've "disregarded" this, as I've openly stated it several times now.And you got this sense of perspective from listening to western media. Just like you got your idea that the Euromaidan coup would have happened without western involvement even though it wasn't supported by a majority of the people of Ukraine even with western involvement. Maybe I should interpret that as an admission that the will of the people of Ukraine had little to do with the success or failure of Euromaidan. Is that not correct?
This sense of perspective is alloyed by disregarding video evidence of Ukrainian troops using medical infrastructure in a military capacity (ambulances as troop transports live on an Al-Jazeera broadcast), ignorance or dismissal of allegations that the Ukrainian military tried to prevent civilian evacuation from places like Mariupol in order to manufacture the narrative you've decided is your "sense of perspective".
Greek Refugee From Mariupol: "Ukrainian Soldiers Stopped And Threatened Us, Russian Soldiers Calmed Us Down" (VIDEO)The shocking moments that were experienced when escaping the horror of the war were described by ethnic Greeks originally from Sartana on the outskirts ofgreekcitytimes.com
And then we also have: mass executions in the street, hands tied, shots to the back of the head; far larger shelling of residential areas, including hospitals and schools; mass rape. All of which is attested to by a huge trove of survivor testimony. On a much larger scale.
But in those instances, you're unable to acknowledge it at all. It's only ever met with dismissal, downplaying, etc etc.
Whataboutery, moving on.And how does your "sense of perspective" compare what has occurred in Ukraine to what was perpetrated by NATO in Libya or Iraq or Yugoslavia?
None of this is actually a rebuttal. It's instant dismissal because the outlet got some money from somewhere. None of this addresses the substance of the charge, which is backed up by fucking metadata and isn't under dispute.They are a source for the wider western mainstream media landscape to launder US propaganda through a nominally independent mouthpiece. That's not the same thing. Also, just as a matter of method, a list of high profile hits isn't a measure of reliability. What you're really showing here is that they have an anti-Russian orientation. Wow, great. So reliable.
I mean, Christ! When you yourself chose to post that drivel from Nixon's far-right rag, which is drenched in US corporate finance, I pointed out how unreliable that made it and.... gasp! You whined that I shouldn't just dismiss the substance because of the outlet reporting it! And yet here you are, uhrm... doing the exact same thing. Except your article had no good track record on the subject, and didn't have verified data to back it up. Rank hypocrisy again.