While it should go as without saying I think it's pretty hard to take it that way when the following statements get made a) The legitimate Ukraine government was overthrown in a NATO croup, b) Ukraine government is a neo-nazi government, c) DPR and LPR are legitimate countries and d) NATO started the war in Ukraine. Every single one of those is a Russian state propagated talking point, all of them made around nuggets of facts (like the leaked chat where some US officials were discussing who should or shouldn't be in the new government) but ultimately warped into something that can't definitely be proven true or false. Thus whoever spreads those talking points wants to believe those statements as true, which begs the question of why to believe they're true.
a) The legitimate Ukraine government was overthrown in a NATO croup, b) Ukraine government is a neo-nazi government, c) DPR and LPR are legitimate countries and d) NATO started the war in Ukraine. Every single one of those is a Russian state propagated talking point, all of them made around nuggets of facts
So, theyre all Russian talking points but theyre also all supported by evidence?
This is a thing that annoys me about liberal conceptions of bias. Everything is biased, the question is how factual things are.
(like the leaked chat where some US officials were discussing who should or shouldn't be in the new government)
Yes, this is what we call discussing who should be in the puppet government. You'll note that they kept the moderate "we should be nuetral between the US and Russia" organizers out and brought the nazis in.
So, theyre all Russian talking points but theyre also all supported by evidence?
As if to prove my point... I said they're statements made around certain known fact, facts that don't really prove the statement. Like the "coup". Fact is that there was a discussion between Nuland and Pyatt, which proves US was in talks with the opposition. But the fact doesn't shine a light on the extent of their talks, including if they were plotting a coup or how much Ukrainians listened to them. To claim it was a coup you have to believe it was one topic of the discussions and the Ukrainians listened.
This is a thing that annoys me about liberal conceptions of bias. Everything is biased, the question is how factual things are.
I don't have problem understanding that things are biased. It's just odd how western narrative get criticism but Russian narrative is seemingly taken without question.
Yes, this is what we call discussing who should be in the puppet government. You'll note that they kept the moderate "we should be nuetral between the US and Russia" organizers out and brought the nazis in.
You just said the question is how factual things are, so factual proof that nazis were brought in? Because from the leak they were actually talking to keep ultranationalists like Tyahnybok out.
Fact is that there was a discussion between Nuland and Pyatt, which proves US was in talks with the opposition.
Talking about who should be in government and those people "coincidentally" being installed is plotting to install a puppet government.
But the fact doesn't shine a light on the extent of their talks, including if they were plotting a coup or how much Ukrainians listened to them. To claim it was a coup you have to believe it was one topic of the discussions and the Ukrainians listened.
Or were forced to. The point is we know they were successful at installing their people and keeping others out, and "it was just a coincidence" seems improbable given how popular Klitsch was.
It's just odd how western narrative get criticism but Russian narrative is seemingly taken without question.
The western narrative deserves criticism. And hexbear is very critical of the Russian narrative, just not the things that they say that are supported by evidence.
You just said the question is how factual things are, so factual proof that nazis were brought in? Because from the leak they were actually talking to keep ultranationalists like Tyahnybok out.
The thing is Tyahnybok was a nobody politically, they went with the more well known Yats as prime Minister. You'll note that Yats is the leader of the "Fatherland" party
They also say about the defacto leader of the movement Klitsch and the other moderate democrats:
I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together.
I want to ask the reader something, what is being said here? Does this come off as innocent?
No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there's a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
Because to me this reads as plotting to install certain leaders within Ukraines new government.
You're literally proving my point. You've added nothing to factually prove the coup, you're adding assumptions to make the fact fit the narrative. Also Yats is not the leader of the Fatherland party, he used to be there but moved to People's front in 2014.
You're literally proving my point. You've added nothing to factually prove the coup
I dont need to add more stuff. What they said makes it obvious they're talking about a soft or hard coup. You're being shown a red balloon and asking for more proof it's a red balloon.
What would you accept as proof, if not the senior US officials there talking about who should be in government and about moving to make it happen?
Also Yats is not the leader of the Fatherland party, he used to be there but moved to People's front in 2014.
Oh, cool, the people's front! Let's learn more about them:
The Ukrainian People's Party (Ukrainian: Українська Народна Партія; Ukrains'ka Narodna Partiya) is a political party in Ukraine, registered on Old Year's Day 1999 as the Ukrainian National Movement
Oh. Cool. A nationalist pseudo populist organization. Where have I seen those before?
Russian politicians were also talking how Russia should nuke Nevada test site, so I guess Russia has nuked America because the only thing required to make it true is someone talking about it.
The Ukrainian People's Party (Ukrainian: Українська Народна Партія; Ukrains'ka Narodna Partiya) is a political party in Ukraine, registered on Old Year's Day 1999 as the Ukrainian National Movement
For fuck sake, at the very least search for the right thing. not this, but this.
Russian politicians were also talking how Russia should nuke Nevada test site, so I guess Russia has nuked America because the only thing required to make it true is someone talking about it.
Did a nuke go off at the Nevada test site in a way that wasn't connected to US nuclear testing? If so, it would be reasonable to assume the Russians who talked about doing it did it if it furthered their geopolitical objectives.
For fuck sake, at the very least search for the right thing. not this, but this.
Oh, sorry. But still, theyre described as a conservative nationalist party and split from the "Fatherland" party. Also the leader of Azov Battalion was on their military council. Hrmm.
it would be reasonable to assume the Russians who talked about doing it did it if it furthered their geopolitical objectives.
Now you're word for word proving what I originally claimed. If something happened and another factual event happened, that may or may not be related, and you believe they're related then it's okay to make the assumption that asserts your belief.
But still, theyre described as a conservative nationalist party and split from the "Fatherland" party.
Conservative doesn't mean neonazi and maybe they split to be less radical?
Also the leader of Azov Battalion was on their military council. Hrmm.
I'm tired of constantly correcting you so I'm just going say wrong
I don't think I could ever make you believe that we came to these conclusions based on an analysis of world history, economics, and the current geopolitical reality and didn't need any help from Yuri at the FSB.
You literally don't understand how we analyze geopolitics.
“The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.”
While it should go as without saying I think it's pretty hard to take it that way when the following statements get made a) The legitimate Ukraine government was overthrown in a NATO croup, b) Ukraine government is a neo-nazi government, c) DPR and LPR are legitimate countries and d) NATO started the war in Ukraine. Every single one of those is a Russian state propagated talking point, all of them made around nuggets of facts (like the leaked chat where some US officials were discussing who should or shouldn't be in the new government) but ultimately warped into something that can't definitely be proven true or false. Thus whoever spreads those talking points wants to believe those statements as true, which begs the question of why to believe they're true.
So, theyre all Russian talking points but theyre also all supported by evidence?
This is a thing that annoys me about liberal conceptions of bias. Everything is biased, the question is how factual things are.
Yes, this is what we call discussing who should be in the puppet government. You'll note that they kept the moderate "we should be nuetral between the US and Russia" organizers out and brought the nazis in.
As if to prove my point... I said they're statements made around certain known fact, facts that don't really prove the statement. Like the "coup". Fact is that there was a discussion between Nuland and Pyatt, which proves US was in talks with the opposition. But the fact doesn't shine a light on the extent of their talks, including if they were plotting a coup or how much Ukrainians listened to them. To claim it was a coup you have to believe it was one topic of the discussions and the Ukrainians listened.
I don't have problem understanding that things are biased. It's just odd how western narrative get criticism but Russian narrative is seemingly taken without question.
You just said the question is how factual things are, so factual proof that nazis were brought in? Because from the leak they were actually talking to keep ultranationalists like Tyahnybok out.
Talking about who should be in government and those people "coincidentally" being installed is plotting to install a puppet government.
Or were forced to. The point is we know they were successful at installing their people and keeping others out, and "it was just a coincidence" seems improbable given how popular Klitsch was.
The western narrative deserves criticism. And hexbear is very critical of the Russian narrative, just not the things that they say that are supported by evidence.
The thing is Tyahnybok was a nobody politically, they went with the more well known Yats as prime Minister. You'll note that Yats is the leader of the "Fatherland" party
They also say about the defacto leader of the movement Klitsch and the other moderate democrats:
I want to ask the reader something, what is being said here? Does this come off as innocent?
Because to me this reads as plotting to install certain leaders within Ukraines new government.
You're literally proving my point. You've added nothing to factually prove the coup, you're adding assumptions to make the fact fit the narrative. Also Yats is not the leader of the Fatherland party, he used to be there but moved to People's front in 2014.
I dont need to add more stuff. What they said makes it obvious they're talking about a soft or hard coup. You're being shown a red balloon and asking for more proof it's a red balloon.
What would you accept as proof, if not the senior US officials there talking about who should be in government and about moving to make it happen?
Oh, cool, the people's front! Let's learn more about them:
Oh. Cool. A nationalist pseudo populist organization. Where have I seen those before?
Russian politicians were also talking how Russia should nuke Nevada test site, so I guess Russia has nuked America because the only thing required to make it true is someone talking about it.
For fuck sake, at the very least search for the right thing. not this, but this.
Did a nuke go off at the Nevada test site in a way that wasn't connected to US nuclear testing? If so, it would be reasonable to assume the Russians who talked about doing it did it if it furthered their geopolitical objectives.
Oh, sorry. But still, theyre described as a conservative nationalist party and split from the "Fatherland" party. Also the leader of Azov Battalion was on their military council. Hrmm.
Now you're word for word proving what I originally claimed. If something happened and another factual event happened, that may or may not be related, and you believe they're related then it's okay to make the assumption that asserts your belief.
Conservative doesn't mean neonazi and maybe they split to be less radical?
I'm tired of constantly correcting you so I'm just going say wrong
I don't think I could ever make you believe that we came to these conclusions based on an analysis of world history, economics, and the current geopolitical reality and didn't need any help from Yuri at the FSB.
You literally don't understand how we analyze geopolitics.
Of course you can't, because there's nothing you can provide except your belief that it is the way you want to believe.
That's nice.
Feel free to provide proof.