this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
66 points (81.7% liked)
Asklemmy
43856 readers
1883 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I get called a tankie for pointing out the US role in destabilizing Ukraine and supporting the coup there than led directly to the civil war in Donbass. Don't support Putin at all. Totally anti wal but painted as a 'putin apologist ' for bringing up facts. There is a historical context totally missing in western media because the US wanted this proxy war. And are working overtime to control the narrative and prevent people from understanding the history that made the war inevitable.
"I'm not a Putin apologist, I just coincidentally reach the same talking points as Russian propaganda through my totally unbiased research!"
Putin was forced to start a proxy war, shoot down a passenger plane, annex Crimea, invade the whole of Ukraine and commit multiple war crimes, because the people didnβt elect his friends, you see. /s
I'm not a Saddam, I just coincidentally reached the same talking points as Iraqi propaganda through my totally unbiased research.
russian propaganda is actually far beyond this, claiming that they are saving the people of the donbas from genocidal ukrainian nazis, which that guy didn't say. Saying "hey maybe this isn't as one-sided as western media makes it out to be" is actually closer to a centrist position
The people of Ukraine didn't want to be Russian, they wanted to be more like the West. Their leader at the time wanted Ukraine to get in bed with Russia and the rest of the East. They ousted him. Putin seized on their moment of weakness and instability by invading.
Could the US have played a role? Yeah but every country with the ability to project any power almost certainly did as well. That's just geopolitics at work for better or worse.
Every single country on Earth exerts influence on the others to benefit themselves. Look at Ukraine cozying up with the West right now to get weapons and notice how the US, UK, and other Western nations are happily obliging. Ukraine wants to be Western and the West would love another long-term ally, especially one next to Russia. Anyone really think Eastern nations don't do the same thing? China is exerting a ton of influence in Africa right now, and it's not out of the goodness of their hearts - it's quite predatory actually so they're no different than the US in that regard.
This is an excellent lecture (though admittedly quite long) which provides some much needed context on these issues.
The University of Chicago: Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer
The eastern part of Ukraine did want to be Russian.
China doesn't require austerity for their loans like the IMF does.
Your talking points just show the depth of your understanding is limited and that's not surprising. The information war is in full effect, it's heavily funded, and truth is the first victim
"China doesn't require austerity"
Please expand on exactly what you think this means.
Ok even though your query seems condescending I will assume it is in good faith. so when the IMF makes a loan they require 'structural adjustment' of the country borrowing money. In other words push down wages and privatize any state owned social services. This is common knowledge and there is a wealth of information available on this topic.
China is approaching the 'belt and road' lending program differently, focusing on a 'win win' for lender and borrower. That's why they are so popular in the global south. Again tons of data including world bank analysis saying they need to change the lending model to compete.
I hope you can get access to a wider swath of data because there is so much propaganda in western media it's almond impossible to parse.
The west isn't the good guy but you're nuts if you think China isn't sucking Africa dry.
I just watched a documentary recently (I will genuinely try to find it again and link here if I can) where Native African workers were being put out of business by China in their own country. China is mining for rare Earth metals using Chinese workers and trapping a lot of these countries in debts they won't be able to pay back. Once I saw it coming from the mouths of Native Africans, I knew it wasn't propaganda from either side. Straight to the source - people who live there and see it every day. They start out very grateful for China's assistance and then later on realize the trap they are in.
Here is some other info: https://apnews.com/article/china-debt-banking-loans-financial-developing-countries-collapse-8df6f9fac3e1e758d0e6d8d5dfbd3ed6
There's plenty of info of African leaders thanking China approach in Africa. African leaders are not dumb , if China offers a better credit card and infrastructure plans than some western countries they will choose that. Yes, it's that simple.
"I'm not a tankie, I just parrot all of their talking points and their weird, myopic rhetorical style."
The Maidan revolution happened because the Ukrainian parliament had been working on a trade agreement with the EU. Then Russian puppet Yanukovych gets elected and through Russian pressure discards this agreement completely. The Ukrainian people tired of living under Putins boot, much like Belarusian people still do, had a revolution which lead to the police killing many people. Once the revolution was over Russia immediately invaded Crimea. Painting Ukrainian independence not as an act of self determination but as American meddling is Russian propaganda. Painting Russian military invasion not as a military invasion but requirement from western aggression is also Russian propaganda. Stop supporting authoritarian regimes, theyβre not your friend. Something the Ukrainian people have had to learn with their blood.
I did not know that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was a Russian propaganda outlet.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-embassy-used-as-safe-haven-during-ukraine-uprising-investigation-finds-1.3148719
Living under Putin's boot? What? So now you get to live under Goldman Sachs and Blackrocks boot while all leftist parties are banned in the Ukraine and everything is sold off to foreign investors. And while we're talking about authoritarian regimes there are a bunch of people in Gitmo that have never been tried, still in jail. Julian Assange in jail. More people in jail than any other country in history is the current US record. Please. Tell me all about authoritarian regimes lol
We might have figured out why you get called a tankie, friend.
He's right though
Right about what? Using whataboutism to spread russian propaganda?
Could you elaborate on the βcoupβ? Are you talking about the democratic elections that took place?
They probably mean Ukrainian citizens ditching a 'democratically elected' president who they didn't like, because he tried to make Ukraine more Russian than European.
But that is still a democracy in work, when this is what most of citizens want. Especially when later democratic elections prove that (as it happened in Ukraine). Russia should not intervene, but they did and this destabilized the situation.
Democracy isn't a violent street putsch forcing the elected president to flee the country.
Google Victoria Newland saying 'yatz is our guy'
There was no US destabilising Ukraine, there was no coup, those are taken right from the Kremlin book of propaganda.
There were civil society protests in Ukraine in 2014 to oppose government's withdrawal from EU talks. Ukrainian government, then backed by Russia, used brutal force against civilians while Russia "secretly" and illegally annexed Crimea (as always with them, firstly not acknowledging anything, using so called little green men, russian soldiers without proper markings, who later got medals for it).
At he same time, Russia invaded Donbas, again "secretly", talking about "civil war", but it was no civil war. The so called separatists were controlled by Moscow, supplied heavy weapons and even commanders by Moscow.
Eight years later, they invaded massively and openly, bz make no mistake, Russia's attempt to destroy and landgrab Ukraine lasts way longer than that.
OP is referring to the fact that the Ukrainian parliament was cozying up to the West, as the West was trying to get it as a close trade partner, which would have circumvented Ukraine's reliance on Russia, effectively pulling it from Russia's shrinking sphere of influence over to the West. Also, the revolution that started the open conflict has allegedly had a lot of clandestine support from the US.
This video does a pretty good job summarizing things!
I'll try to summarize, then. WARNING: Long post incoming, scroll to bottom for tl:dr!
In 2004, this pro-Russian politician called Viktor Yanukovych was accused of rigging that year's presidential elections. There were massive street demonstrations calling for new elections, which got named the "Orange Revolution" because the protestors wore orange, the color of the opposition. Eventually, Yanukovych relented and elections were re-run with international observers to make sure they were fair, and sure enough, the opposition won.
Jump forward five years. The opposition's had five years to blow through all their goodwill and make plenty of mistakes on their own. Yanukovych comes back onto the scene. But instead of rigging the election, this time he gets help from an American Republican operative called Paul Manafort, who helps him pull all the same culture-war ratfucking bullshit we're used to in the States on Ukraine. It depressingly works, Yanukovych wins the election fair and square.
Jump forward four more years (it's November 2013 now). During that time, Yanukovych has robbed Ukraine blind, systematically hacked away at what few democratic protections it had, and stoked culture war resentment to keep people at each other's throats and away from his. People are getting increasingly sick of his BS.
The final straw comes when Yanukovych is supposed to sign a major trade agreement with the EU, one which would let Ukrainians live and work freely there. Ukraine is desperately poor, the EU is rich and has good paying jobs, this is a deal which could dramatically change people's lives for the better. And then at the last second, Yanukovych refuses to sign the deal, and instead signs one with Russia.
Pro-Western Ukrainians took to the streets to protest. Initially, these protests were pretty small, and seemed likely to fizzle out by the end of the weekend. And then, Yanukovych makes the incredibly smart decision to sic his personal riot police on the protestors in Kyiv's Maidan square.
This is the last straw for a ton of people, who are sick of the corruption, the chaos, the government that runs roughshod over their rights and lives while leaving them to rot in poverty. The protests swell in size. The riot police step up the violence against them, but that only makes people madder, and more determined to take to the streets.
(This is also at least partly because opposition also sees this as their big political chance and publicizes the hell out of the protests, encouraging more people to join in. The US Embassy also makes no secret about being on the protestor's side, too, with the then-US Ambassador even going out to the Maidan to give cookies to the protestors one day. This is where a lot of the conspiracy theories about "US backed coup!!!!11!111!11111!!!!!!" come from, but like, my brother in Christ, you cannot psy-op hundreds of thousands of people into massive street demonstrations for months on end unless they're willing and fucking eager to play along.)
Then, on February 20th, 2014, after two months of escalating protests, the riot police open fire with live ammunition. 100 people are killed. And the protestors still refuse to give in! In fact, they begin threatening civil war if Yanukovych doesn't resign, immediately.
February 23, 2014. Yanukovych vanishes, without a trace. (A few days later, he'll pop up in Russia, where he's been living ever since.) The protestors won! Sure, Ukraine is left leaderless-- there's no Constitutional provision handling what to do if the president just up and vanishes without resigning-- but it's not like anything's likely to go wrong in the next few days while they sort things out. Right?
https://odysee.com/@AdamFitzgerald:2/Victoria-Nuland-Phone-Call-To-Ukraine-Geofrrey-Pyatt-(2014):2
I'm quite prepared to believe the US is involved here. There are lots of weapon sales and talk of investing in the rebuild.
Follow the money