Killing Russians

@vivify said
Again, I said this omits key details. I was referring to the EU trade deal that first brokered in 2013. Yanukovich backed out of that deal, sparking massive protests which he violently suppressed. That's important context leading up to his ouster.

How so?

His ouster remains illegal no matter what the justification.

@no1marauder said
How so?

His ouster remains illegal no matter what the justification.

Leaving out Yanukovych's violence and Russia's threat of economic retaliation creates an anti-Ukrainian slant that smacks of pro-Russian propaganda.

His ouster was illegal, yes; but context is still important. Your article makes it seem like Yanukovych was just some poor shmuck who lost his job just for making an unpopular choice that made the big bad Ukrainian government angry.

@vivify said
It's a lie by omission ignoring that Putin threatened harsh sanctions if the EU trade deal was passed. The resulting deal was one that favored Russia.

Your article leaves out the strongarm tactics of Putin and Yanukavich to make his ouster seem like villainy.

There is no lie by omission or otherwise. Regardless of what happened before, the article accurately describes the events of February 21, 2014. The legitimate opposition parties were perfectly aware of prior events, but chose to enter the agreement anyway. It is merely parroting propaganda to not admit this.

@vivify said
Leaving out Yanukovych's violence and Russia's threat of economic retaliation creates an anti-Ukrainian slant that smacks of pro-Russian propaganda.

His ouster was illegal, yes; but context is still important. Your article makes it seem like Yanukovych was just some poor shmuck who lost his job just for making an unpopular choice that made the big bad Ukrainian government angry.

Yanuovich was a Ukrainian duly elected by the People of that nation. It is not "anti-Ukranian" to tell the truth regarding his illegal ouster.

@no1marauder said
Regardless of what happened before, the article accurately describes the events of February 21, 2014.

You can't just skip over mass violence and human rights abuses made by a president shortly before his ouster. That's not honest.

@no1marauder said
Yanuovich was a Ukrainian duly elected by the People of that nation. It is not "anti-Ukranian" to tell the truth regarding his illegal ouster.

It's not the "truth" if only part of a story is told. This is Fox News-style reporting of lying without lying.

@vivify said
It's not the "truth" if only part of a story is told. This is Fox News-style reporting of lying without lying.

I'm afraid I'll have to call this BS. The terms of the agreement call for an investigation of the violence to be monitored by the Council of Europe.

Your not particularly subtle attempts to justify the illegal ouster by stressing well known matters prior to it that were predicates to the February 21, 2014 agreement is unconvincing in the extreme. The Ukrainian Constitution has provisions for impeachment of the President if he is accused of treason or other crimes - it does not leave his removal in the hands of an armed mob no matter how satisfying that was to Western governments.

@no1marauder said
I'm afraid I'll have to call this BS. The terms of the agreement call for an investigation of the violence to be monitored by the Council of Europe.

Your article uses the generic and sanitized term of "an investigation of recent violence," It utterly fails to mention who was behind that violence: the same president who was ousted.

If your excuse is that it was "well known" that's BS. The violence being well known to the politicians involved doesn't mean it's well known the average reader. Publishing this half-truth of an article is irresponsible and deliberate.

@vivify said
Your article uses the generic and sanitized term of "an investigation of recent violence," It utterly fails to mention who was behind that violence: the same president who was ousted.

If your excuse is that it was "well known" that's BS. The violence being well known to the politicians involved doesn't mean it's well known the average reader. Publishing this half-truth of an article is irresponsible and deliberate.

Whether the President was behind the violence (over a dozen Ukrainian police were killed in it) is an opinion, not a fact. The article uses the exact terms spelled out in the agreement - sorry it does not simply parrot Western propaganda made to justify the illegal ouster as you seem to prefer.

Publishing the actual facts concerning the agreement, its violation and the aftermath is hardly "irresponsible" though it is surely annoying to those who have been spoon fed a version that condones mob action over Constitutional means.

You must have loved January 6th, 2021.

@no1marauder said
The article uses the exact terms spelled out in the agreement - sorry it does not simply parrot Western propaganda made to justify the illegal ouster as you seem to prefer.

You sound like Metal Brain or Duchess on China with that "western propaganda" tripe. They're also both notorious for using red herrings like you are. You say I "justify" the ouster despite agreeing with you (more than once) that it was illegal and that such matters should be handled democratically.

Your article lacks important context. You've been accused by other posters of pro-Russian propaganda, a claim that seems supported by your frequent insistence on using sources that leave out Russia's strongarming Ukraine or the violent crackdowns shortly before the president's ouster.

You said you're trying to avoid this form as much as possible. Why don't you start with threads about Russia since your deliberately narrow narrative detracts from honest debate.

@no1marauder said
I'm avoiding the Forum as much as possible but this misinformation has to be challenged and Ukraine's Constitution is a "legal subject" about which apologists for the 2014 coup seem to know and/or care little about.

Batista was a dictator who seized power in an illegal coup months before an election:

"On March 10, 1952, three months before the elections, Batista, wi ...[text shortened]... made an EU backed deal with the three main opposition parties for early elections and other reforms.

Still a Moscow troll with delusions of grandeur then despite the holiday
Ukraine gets to decide who runs their country, not the Kremlin and certainly not an east coast pro Russian American soz
Your post is irrelevant because Ukraine was, is and will always be a sovereign state.

@metal-brain said
So Washington and Moscow are both regimes that exploited people. That is basically what you said. Like I have been saying all along, there are no white hats. All of the most powerful regimes are black hats. Evil vs. evil.

Why are you taking sides again?

It’s you that’s taking sides you halfwit I’m backing the victim you’re backing the aggressor. The Ukrainian people have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt which future they are willing to die for and it’s not the one where they get to be part of the Muscovite empire headed by Csar Putin, it’s the one where they get to remain a sovereign state as part of the liberal democratic European Union.
Anyone who sides with their oppressors in Moscow is a scumbag fascist pig

@kevcvs57 said
It’s you that’s taking sides you halfwit I’m backing the victim you’re backing the aggressor. The Ukrainian people have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt which future they are willing to die for and it’s not the one where they get to be part of the Muscovite empire headed by Csar Putin, it’s the one where they get to remain a sovereign state as part of the liberal democratic European Union.
Anyone who sides with their oppressors in Moscow is a scumbag fascist pig

The USA government invaded Syria and is still occupying it. Syria is the victim and you’re backing the aggressor.

https://dissidentvoice.org/2020/07/us-builds-new-air-base-in-syria/

You support hypocrisy.