[smsm42]

Yes, US sent financial aid to Ukraine. And dozens of other countries too. But you talked about setting up the riots.

>>> with Color revolution technique, where large groups of people occupy squares and then capture government buildings.

You must be kidding. That's how revolutions are done since inventing of squares and government buildings. That's what revolutions are - a lot of people gather together and oust the existing powers. Presenting this as if it is some sinister technique freshly invented by US State Department is idiotic - this is how it was done before US State Department even existed.

Of course US supports governments that are not aligned with the dictatorship of Putin and of course US encourages people not to align with the dictator - what else would you suggest? For US officials to tell "we don't care if there's a dictatorship or not - it's not like we in America have any position in regard of human rights, freedom, self-rule and all such matters - those are things we don't care about here at all"? That is, however, a very far cry from "setting up the riots" which you have claimed.

[cdi]

You are placing me in an uncomfortable position of spewing pro-Kremin propaganda. Ok.

>Presenting this as if it is some sinister technique freshly invented

Well, I didn't go into details, and I'm not an expert, but Color revolutions in ex soviet countries have certain common qualities to them. The main is "nonviolent action" of Gene Sharp. Holding a square for weeks, and waiting for violence to discredit government wasn't a normal normal way to make a revolution before this method was used. Other than that there is financing of pro-Democracy NGOs, that work under assumption that there is a lack of democracy(no matter what), and leaders with western eduction or ex-Reagan administration staffer wives.

>dictatorship of Putin

While I hate Putin and don't like Russia generally it's too subjective and CNN-like to call Putin a dictator. He definitely has support of pupation, and is adequate to Russian people. And I think the level of democracy in Russia is not important to US policy. Russia is US's major geopolitical opponent, one of the few of still independent ones. The US will support revolutions on Russian border no matter how democratic Russia is. Even more, it's easy to argue that Russia is not democratic as say western europe or the US, precisely because The US is very capable at overthrowing governments.

>a very far cry from "setting up the riots" which you have claimed.

While of course US didn't set up riots, it certainly assisted the forces which performed an illegal government coup. There is even a recording of ambasaddor Nuland on youtube. Maybe Yanukovich wasn't popular in the Ukraine(Bush too at the end of his second term), but he was a legally elected president, and Eastern parts of the country supported him initially. Forces that took over the government lost in the last elections, and (most likely)didn't have a chance at winning them next time.

As for me personally, being a Russian with pro-Liberty ideology, taking into account the fact that US is meddling with Russia's neighbors, still I'm for these revolutions. I even can't wait for one that will take out Putin. Russia must be weak and fragmented, because cultural code is very authoritarian, and if Russia is strong it will create problems not only for Russians but for people all over the world. But it's not a position of a patriot. Nor it's position of neutral observer.

[lotsofmangos]

The main is "nonviolent action" of Gene Sharp. Holding a square for weeks, and waiting for violence to discredit government wasn't a normal normal way to make a revolution before this method was used.

What about Ghandi in India? Or Mohism in China in 400BC? The idea that the color revolutions are the first to popularise using nonviolent resistance to gain a moral upper hand against an opponent, is plainly ridiculous.

[cdi]

>are the first to popularise

Where did I say they are the first?

Ghandi's struggle against colonialism, and I suppose Mohism are not about government coups, especially in modern context, and modern understanding of what the state is. And Color revolutions are not exactly nonviolent - they are non violent at the initial stage.

[smsm42]

>>> Holding a square for weeks, and waiting for violence to discredit government wasn't a normal normal way to make a revolution before this method was used.

Protest which turns out violent is a normal way of revolution to happen. The protest can either end up in nothing - in which case it is called protest and forgotten soon - or can turn out violent and spread, in which case it is called civil war, or revolution, or such.

>>> Other than that there is financing of pro-Democracy NGOs,

That is very sinister, to finance NGOs that promote human rights and democracy.

>>> that work under assumption that there is a lack of democracy(no matter what),

It's not an assumption, it's a fact. "No matter what" is your addition, which is false.

>>> leaders with western eduction or ex-Reagan administration staffer wives.

I'm not sure how western education or having wife working for US administration is sinister, but I'm sure you'll explain it to me soon. For now I conclude obviously nobody having western education can be trusted. Those college things, they are obviously set up by CIA.

>>> it's too subjective and CNN-like to call Putin a dictator.

It's the fact - he's a an authoritarian unchangeable ruler, and has been for some time. The fact that a lot of people like him doesn't matter - a lot of people liked Stalin or Lenin or Hitler or Mao too. That doesn't make their regimes non-dictatorial.

>>> The US will support revolutions on Russian border no matter how democratic Russia is.

That is a baseless conjecture, but even if it were true, that doesn't make Putin less of a dictator.

>>> Even more, it's easy to argue that Russia is not democratic as say western europe or the US, precisely because The US is very capable at overthrowing governments.

It's very easy to argue, but it is false. Russia is not democratic because it is convenient for the ruling clique, not because of the US. If the US didn't exist at all, Putin were the same dictator, maybe even worse at the loss of deterrent - though to be frank Obama administration couldn't deter a kid from eating a booger.

>>> it certainly assisted the forces which performed an illegal government coup.

There's no such thing as legal coup, so your insistence on it being illegal is useless - every revolution is illegal by definition, it happens when citizens lose their faith in legal. As for assisting the forces, the assistance has been mainly in words, which are never in short supply, but don't matter too much usually.

>>> There is even a recording of ambasaddor Nuland on youtube.

That seems to be the ultimate argument in support of the "meddling" hypothesis. Except that Nuland did nothing but express her wishes about the future Ukraninian government. That doesn't even relate to "assisting" charge, let alone "setting up" charge. Of course they were talking to opposition leaders and of course they said what US would like to see from them - that's what diplomats do.

>>> As for me personally, being a Russian with pro-Liberty ideology,

Voe is for Russia if pro-Liberty Russians spend their time on proving how Putin is a nice democratic leader and US is to blame for "meddling" with everything and making it worse, while denying agency to anybody else completely. If this is a position of pro-Liberty Russians - that everybody in the world hates Russia and wants it to be harmed and weak and only Putin is the alternative for that - Liberty obviously means something different there. I certainly hope not.

[cdi]

>That is very sinister, to finance NGOs that promote human rights and democracy.

It's indeed sinister, when the government spends money of taxpayers, billions of dollars over years, on democracy in foreign states, especially considering the US has supported brutal dictators when that was advantageous to their their interests or overall foreign policy. More reasonable explanation is that democracy is not their primary goal.

>but I'm sure you'll explain it to me soon.

Western education (payed for by fellowship from the United States State Department) or Reagan staffer wife for 40-50 year olds in ex Soviet Block countries is very very very uncommon thing. Please tell me how it's a historical coincidence and there's no involvement of the US, that exactly these people lead successful revolutions and installed anti-Russian policies.

>a lot of people liked Stalin or Lenin or Hitler too.

They didn't vote for Stalin or Lenin or Mao. A crucial difference.

>but it is false. Russia is not democratic because it is convenient for the ruling clique

It's convenient for ruling clique indeed. But the situation when there's potential foreign involvement in democratic process, meaning that (historically adversarial) foreign interest takes side in internal politics, is not conducive for really open democracy in eyes of sovereignty minded citizens.

>If the US didn't exist at all, Putin were the same dictator,

Similarly baseless statement you accuse me of. Putin's persona was certainly affected/formed by 2004 Orange revolution in Ukraine.

>As for assisting the forces, the assistance has been mainly in words

I'm sure that in 50+ years FOIA request will reveal what the assistance was in detail.

The fact is that US is supporting undemocratic coup, ignores interests of eastern regions that voted for Party of Regions and Yanukovich. That is not exactly pro-Democracy, it's more about supporting "our" guy.

>US is to blame for "meddling"

Even if Putin is not a democratic leader, US is certainly "meddling". One would be dumb not to see that.

>pro-Liberty Russians spend their time

I mentioned before that much of this position is not exactly mine. It's more like knee-jerk sophistry reaction to people who believe that US can do no bad with covert foreign actions, is not involved anywhere where pro-US governments suddenly pop up, and such actions have no negative destabilizing effects. I don't like rabid patriots who condone foreign interventions. While I'm really for these actions, because these actions indirectly are in my interests, I can't deny that these actions undermine sovereignty of independent states, provoke authoritarian states to became even more authoritarian, and it's an example of the US acting as World Police, which many view in a negative light(not me in this particular case).

[smsm42]

>>> when the government spends money of taxpayers, billions of dollars over years, on democracy in foreign states,

It's not the worst thing to spend money on. Taxpayers money are spent in billions - not over years, but in single year - on much worse projects with much less positive impact on human life. So if you're worried about taxpayer dollars, start with hundreds of examples of waste, abuse and corruption that are abundant in government funding. Once we're done with that, we can talk about cutting funds on promoting liberty and human rights. Otherwise sudden worry about taxpayers doesn't sound exactly genuine.

>>> the US has supported brutal dictators when that was advantageous to their their interests

Yes, they did. Yes, it was wrong. That doesn't make not supporting this particular one wrong.

>>> But the situation when there's potential foreign involvement in democratic process,

This is bullshit. There's no meaningful foreign involvement in democratic process in Russia, beyond promoting common humanistic notions like human rights and free elections and such. For heaven's sake, Obama can't even squeeze out a meaningful statement when Russian military invades Ukraine, calling it "uncontested arrival" instead, and you're talking about controlling Russian democratic process? They don't even think about it in their wildest dreams, their dreams are about golf anyway.

>>> They didn't vote for Stalin or Lenin or Mao. A crucial difference.

Not sure about Mao, but "elections" were regularly held in the USSR. Of course, everybody knew who would win it, but so everybody does in Russia. Nobody expected anybody but Putin to win elections, and anybody but ER to hold the majority in Duma. Not exactly the democratic situation here.

>>> Putin's persona was certainly affected/formed by 2004 Orange revolution in Ukraine.

No it wasn't. Putin is ex-KGB officer, he never was a a freedom-loving libertarian and always was keen on concentrating power.

>>> I'm sure that in 50+ years FOIA request will reveal what the assistance was in detail.

But you know about it right now. But can't tell me where from because it's super-secret, your eyes only. I get it.

>>> The fact is that US is supporting undemocratic coup

The coup is plenty democratic. It is made by the very same demos whose kratos you're so worried for. Of course not everybody is happy with it, especially in pro-Russian regions, but you can't expect to hold referendum before a revolution. After - maybe, but invasion from Russia is not exactly conductive to that.

>>> That is not exactly pro-Democracy, it's more about supporting "our" guy.

Errr, what "our" guy? There's no any specific guy there, and US had no idea until recently about most of the leaders there.

>>> It's more like knee-jerk sophistry reaction to people who believe that US can do no bad with covert foreign actions

That would be a lot more appropriate if there were such people around. But we're discussing the case where pro-Russia thug president Yanukovitch, after messing up very badly with very open and explicit Russian support, runs away to Russia, and immediately Russia sends their military into Ukrainian territory - and it's US that is "meddling" and is to blame for the situation? You may not like "rabid patriots who condone foreign interventions" but you certainly sound a lot like one.

>>> provoke authoritarian states to became even more authoritarian

That sounds like classic psycho killer line - "look what you made me do!". No, dictators are to blame for their dictatorship, not some vague clandestine meddling.

[cdi]

>Otherwise sudden worry about taxpayers doesn't sound exactly genuine.

I don't worry about taxpayers money. I'm saying that taxpayers money are never simply gifted to people, there is always certain rationale in how that money is spent, and it must be spent in interest of taxpayers. If it's in interests of taxpayers to support unconstitutional coups through "democratic" NGOs, than fine. But financing brutal dictators also could be in interests of the US in minds of the elite. (Like Bahrain) The crucial part is that it should be in interest of the US not in interests of democracy or other country's peoples.

>There's no meaningful foreign involvement in democratic process in Russia

How do you know? You have all the information? You are certain that there were no attempts to initiate recruitment of people who would eventually perform an unconstitutional coup? You can't be serious.

There is circumstantial evidence that it's not just about common humanistic notions, or why would they need to hide it in a rock? http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-23-russia-... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_range_agent_communication... (UK is well known cooperator of US in all things anti-Russian state)

> when Russian military invades Ukraine, calling it "uncontested arrival" instead, and you're talking about controlling Russian democratic process? They don't even think about it in their wildest dreams

American security and defense agencies are a huge machine that works constantly. There is no need for Obama to show particular willingness for such actions. What is required from him is to just approve, or not cancel policies and programs that were in the place for years. He's pretty willing to kill people with drones. Don't see problem why he would say no to "promote coups in Russia"

>but "elections" were regularly held in the USSR.

these "elections" were with one candidate. And there is infinitely more freedom in Russia today. People generally don't go to prison for saying something against Putin. Similar thing could be said about the US, everybody knows who would win in the presidential elections - it would be either a democrat or a republican. No expectations of significant changes to foreign policy either. It was pretty continuous throughout last few presidents. It would be pretty stupid to compare level of freedoms in the US and Russia, but comparison of USSR with Russia doesn't pass the smell test either.

>ex-KGB officer, he never was a a freedom-loving libertarian

Stereotyping proves nothing. After he was a KGB agent, he was an assistant to pro-democracy mayor of St Petersburg. Who the fuck knows what was really going on in his mind.

But, of course personally I believe you are correct in this particular case. But it's just an opinion, proves nothing.

It doesn't mean that generally foreign involvement in politics and coups does not teach lessons to other (semi)authoritarian states, where elites might entertain a thought of going more democratic.

>But you know about it right now.

The facts that Saakashvili had US State department funded education and Yushchenko hand Reagan staffer wife are pretty glaring. I am a mere non-spy mortal and can't know all the details(like you), nor I'm payed to research details about said revolutions. In fact I didn't discuss this issue in years.

There a lot of circumstantial and direct evidence of foreign involvement in past revolutions. In english wikipedia and newspapers. I believe that there is at least some US involvement in this second Ukrainian revolution, considering directness and one sidedness of their support, and considering history. Probably through recruiting and financing media, thinktank people who frequent pro western tv channels.

>The coup is plenty democratic.

Elections are democratic. Coups by the political minority are not. If they are truly democratic they should have waited 1 year for elections. Media is pretty free, diverse and independent in Ukraine compared to Russia, so no worries about government propaganda. If elections are rigged THEN you can legitimize the revolution as democratic.

>especially in pro-Russian regions,

"Pro-Russian" (if there is such a thing beside city near Russian military base in Crimea) regions have majority of Ukraine's population btw. That's how Yanukovitch won. That "Not everybody" is pretty significant one.

>It is made by the very same demos whose kratos you're so worried for.

Liberty is not the same thing as democracy. I consider democracy as one of the tools needed for maintaining liberty.

>There's no any specific guy there, and US had no idea until recently about most of the leaders there.

How could you make such a statement? Do you work for State Department or CIA? US Media is not US State.

>but you certainly sound a lot like one.

Where did I condone Russian aggression? I said I am against it. I'm generally against strong states and military or covert actions of states against each other. Russian or American.

Speaking of insults, you sound like a FoxNews viewer. (Talking about how Obama is weak leader and so on)

>and it's US that is "meddling" and is to blame for the situation

I didn't say that US is responsible for Russian aggression. I said that US has history of meddling.

>president Yanukovitch, after messing up very badly

If there are people with molotovs(and some with guns, I saw the pictures) who are trying oust you, and are very persistent, willing to die, have at least some support among population, it's pretty hard to not mess up very badly if you want to keep power for the rest of your term. It will end badly for you one way or another.

>dictators are to blame for their dictatorship

You don't understand sovereignty. There are peoples who value independence more than democracy. I'm not saying it should be like that, but it just is.