[yucky]

The comment was in response to the statement that "the choice was clear" on who should be supported. Except it's not. There is a lot of blame to go around, it's been abundantly clear for 25 years that NATO expansion to Ukraine & Georgia would result in war[1]. So when we have continually pushed for that, we have been pushing for war.

Also, we can't ignore the US-backed Ukrainian coup/revolution in 2014[2] which then resulted in the invasion of Crimea. Nor can we ignore that after the democratically elected government in Ukraine was removed via that coup/revolution, that the US handpicked the post-coup leadership in Ukraine and helped rewrite the Constitution to put NATO membership back on the table, knowing this would antagonize Russia.[3]

Should we not consider all of these things? Russia is clearly being the aggressor now that they have decided to invade Ukraine, but that didn't happen in a vacuum. Our actions in the West are what has led to this, either intentionally or though incompetence. Ignoring everything that happened before February 24th is ignorant.

[1] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/o...

[2] https://apnews.com/article/970e8e54b3df46eab593e9e11beb056d

[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-tape/leaked-a...

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> be can't ignore the US-backed Ukrainian coup/revolution in 2014which then resulted in the invasion of Crimea

You have been called out on your "CIA Coup" propaganda before, regarding this event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity

Saying that it "resulted in the invasion of Crimea" is like saying "she made me hit her". it's repulsive.

[yucky]

I have been called out? I provided links to Reuters and AP, it doesn't get more legit than that.

Maybe you don't realize the CIA has a long and illustrious career of fomenting revolutions, but their fingerprints are all over it.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> I have been called out?

Yes, recently here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30658026

and here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30627544

However I do not expect this to stop you from continuing to peddle the same misleading talking point to each new passer-by who didn't think to check just how one-note your comment history is.

[yucky]

You linked to people who disagree, or have a different take on the situation. I'm not sure what you think that means.

I have simply pointed out that the revolution/coup of 2014 that installed the current Ukrainian government was A)Unconstitutional and B)Supported by the US, which is obviously the main adversary to Russia. I also pointed out that the idea of pushing Ukraine and/or Georgia towards NATO has been known for the last 25 years to be a guaranteed precursor to war with Russia.

These facts aren't in dispute, so there is nothing to call me out on. Now, you can have the opinion that the coup was a good thing for the Ukrainian people and that it's ok to install a pro-US government in Ukraine or that they should be in NATO regardless of how that concerns Russia. Those are opinions and can be debated. But you can't dismiss facts. And the above are facts.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> These facts aren't in dispute, so there is nothing to call me out on

Yes, very nice.

however as stated before https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30665507 Your argument is at best semantic; and entirely misleading, in a propagandistic way. I call you out on that, and I am not the first

> Supported by the US

Citation needed. You called it "CIA-backed" earlier, which is a worse smear. You can deny the Ukrainian people agency over their own fate then, as a precursor to denying it to them now.

The facts on the ground say otherwise. Ukraine is not behaving as if they have an "illegitimate regime". Implying otherwise - and doing so repeatedly - is behaviour that shows that you have an agenda.

> I also pointed out that the idea of pushing Ukraine and/or Georgia towards NATO has been known for the last 25 years to be a guaranteed precursor to war with Russia.

"look what you made me do" is again, the logic of an abuser.

[yucky]

>Citation needed. You called it "CIA-backed" earlier, which is a worse smear.

This tells me you didn't read the citations I provided.