• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Admits US Role in 2014 Ukraine Coup

Do you think Obama realized what he said?

  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .
jamesrage said:
It might be true that the US stage a coup in Ukraine.But a link from a Russian news site without a video will get dismissed as pro-Russian propaganda making baseless allegations. Most posters are not going to answer a poll based on what someone claims someone else allegedly said.
Click to expand...

Or Fox news....


There is NO DOUBT in my mind the president, who at that time was low in the polls and needing a boost especially in foreign affairs, dipped his wick in the affairs of a duly elected regime....."regime change" had been this guy's pie all along, Egypt, Libya etc....


He is a rookie and it shows and he went up against the grand master politician and strong man with balls of iron, and Putin had him for breakfast. End of story.

The fact he and the rest of the progressive morons deny it is part of life......these pricks still say you can keep your plan too.
 
Simpleχity;1064266275 said:
Russia's initial imperative was to ensure Ukraine's participation in Putin's proposed Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). The majority of Ukrainians however, wished to align with the European Union. NATO membership was nowhere on the horizon at this point. Yanukovych had promised to align with the EU and had strung everyone along (Ukrainians and the EU) on this since his election in 2010. Things came to a head when at the last moment Yanukovych refused to sign the European Union Association Agreement in Vilnius in September of 2013 and instead accepted a loan from Russia. When he reneged on his EU promise, the Maidan protests began.
Click to expand...

Who says?

You have polls to support that? Or is it more blather of "you can keep you plan..."?

Or, was there a pro-west mob in Kiev, a minority in the nation who only had to be financed and emboldened by an outside power?

You guys keep insisting the majority of the people wanted the US in, but there was never a vote, you know the democratic thingy. Instead, the US says all these people were living in oppression and wanted out so the US "liberated" them.

Yeah, just like if Russia started a riot in Ottawa and began working to move Canada into their sphere.

You're going to have to come up with more than just Obama's mythical ideas of how the world works and demonstrate that the US was backing democracy at all as opposed to defeating it because Obama needed a feather to go with the peace prize.

Numbers talk, Obama bull**** walks
 
Simpleχity;1064266275 said:
Russia's initial imperative was to ensure Ukraine's participation in Putin's proposed Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). The majority of Ukrainians however, wished to align with the European Union. NATO membership was nowhere on the horizon at this point. Yanukovych had promised to align with the EU and had strung everyone along (Ukrainians and the EU) on this since his election in 2010. Things came to a head when at the last moment Yanukovych refused to sign the European Union Association Agreement in Vilnius in September of 2013 and instead accepted a loan from Russia. When he reneged on his EU promise, the Maidan protests began.
Click to expand...



Your feeble attempts at perception management are sorely lacking. Parubiy is the name
of the Ukrainian made Defense Minister and who was in charge of the snipers at Maidan.
"Yats," Yatsniuk was the name of the flunkee annoited by Nuland (US State Dept) before
Maidan. Obama admitted brokering before the coup, and coup it was. The sham elections
put Poroshenko in with 18% of eligible voters and about the same as the toadie Yats. Both
Yats and Poroshenko are CIA assets. Yanukovych did not align with the EU and it was his
right to represent the best interests of Ukrainians. He was correct. Ukrainians are screwed.
Taxes are up. Energy costs are up. Pensions have been reduced. The people's patrimony
will be used as collaterol for IMF loans. Ukraine will predictably default on the loans and the
collaterol will be absorbed by IMF CORPORATE benefactors. The name of the game is "Screw
a bunch of Ukrainians."
 
Simpleχity;1064266275 said:
Russia's initial imperative was to ensure Ukraine's participation in Putin's proposed Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). The majority of Ukrainians however, wished to align with the European Union. NATO membership was nowhere on the horizon at this point. Yanukovych had promised to align with the EU and had strung everyone along (Ukrainians and the EU) on this since his election in 2010. Things came to a head when at the last moment Yanukovych refused to sign the European Union Association Agreement in Vilnius in September of 2013 and instead accepted a loan from Russia. When he reneged on his EU promise, the Maidan protests began.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. Nothing to do with NATO at all, economics agreement reneg. Thanks for the info. If nothing else, I'm glad that it wasn't US ham fisted-ness that caused this.

polgara said:
Good morning, Erik. :2wave:

Ironically, it was the Crimean people themselves that started things off in that area of the world by voting to return to living under the Russian umbrella. So we didn't agree with them? Big deal! They don't care what we think. . .it's their choice after all. I believe that we did start meddling in the Ukraine as a result - whether it was the CIA or someone else is not important at this point. We did meddle. The Ukranians did vote to oust an unpopular leader, who fled back to Russia to lick his wounds, so does that mean they don't want to live under Russian rule - or does it mean they just didn't want that particular man? I don't know. We aren't being told the whole story - what else is new - so if they vote to remain independent does that mean we should come to their aid? What does the rest of the world think about what's going on?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's their choice, and sounds like 1/2 the country was going one way, and the other going the other way. The resulting mess must be how Ukrainians settle their differences or something.
 
eohrnberger said:
Very interesting. Nothing to do with NATO at all, economics agreement reneg. Thanks for the info. If nothing else, I'm glad that it wasn't US ham fisted-ness that caused this.
Click to expand...
The only reason Yanukovych won the 2010 presidential election is because Ukrainians felt the alternative, Yulia Tymoshenko, was worse. Yanukovych was himself a petty criminal who served time in prison. He made a number of huge blunders while in office. His first blunder in March of 2010 was appointing Party of Regions hardliners to all power/cabinet positions in government. No reconciliation appointments for the opposition. He also sacked all regional governors and replaced them with his PoR loyalists. His next major blunder came in April of 2010 when he signed a very long lease agreement with Russia concerning the Black Sea Fleet base at Sevastopol in return for ephemeral gas price concessions. This crappy deal essentially gave Russia de-facto control over Crimea. His next major blunder came a bit later when he had his PoR loyalists in parliament change the constitution to give the president enormous powers. A "super-president" if you will. All during this time Yanukovych, his son, and a dozen of his closest cronies formed what Ukrainians called "The Family". They embezzled billions.

The final straw for Ukrainians was the EU Association Agreement. For about a year and a half Yanukovych and his ministers were stating that this was a done deal, that they were committed to European integration. He even went to the signing ceremony in Vilnius, Lithuania. But when the moment came to sign the document, he refused and flew back to Ukraine. This was shattering to Ukrainians who saw in EU membership a means to become as economically prosperous as their neighbors in Poland, and an avenue to transition Ukraine to the European rule of law and end the endemic corruption that constantly plagued their nation. This was the proverbial breaking point... Ukrainians had had enough of Yanukovych and his thieving/deceitful cabal. Massive protests soon began in Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in Kyiv. They vowed not to leave until Yanukovych was gone.
 
Simpleχity;1064270947 said:
The only reason Yanukovych won the 2010 presidential election is because Ukrainians felt the alternative, Yulia Tymoshenko, was worse. Yanukovych was himself a petty criminal who served time in prison. He made a number of huge blunders while in office. His first blunder in March of 2010 was appointing Party of Regions hardliners to all power/cabinet positions in government. No reconciliation appointments for the opposition. He also sacked all regional governors and replaced them with his PoR loyalists. His next major blunder came in April of 2010 when he signed a very long lease agreement with Russia concerning the Black Sea Fleet base at Sevastopol in return for ephemeral gas price concessions. This crappy deal essentially gave Russia de-facto control over Crimea. His next major blunder came a bit later when he had his PoR loyalists in parliament change the constitution to give the president enormous powers. A "super-president" if you will. All during this time Yanukovych, his son, and a dozen of his closest cronies formed what Ukrainians called "The Family". They embezzled billions.

The final straw for Ukrainians was the EU Association Agreement. For about a year and a half Yanukovych and his ministers were stating that this was a done deal, that they were committed to European integration. He even went to the signing ceremony in Vilnius, Lithuania. But when the moment came to sign the document, he refused and flew back to Ukraine. This was shattering to Ukrainians who saw in EU membership a means to become as economically prosperous as their neighbors in Poland, and an avenue to transition Ukraine to the European rule of law and end the endemic corruption that constantly plagued their nation. This was the proverbial breaking point... Ukrainians had had enough of Yanukovych and his thieving/deceitful cabal. Massive protests soon began in Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in Kyiv. They vowed not to leave until Yanukovych was gone.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'm still seeing this as more of a problem for the EU to deal with than the US. Seems like they are floundering around with it, and not being effective in their response, although, seemingly related, the Russian economy is on the down slide. Not sure if it's due to EU economic sanctions or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom