Scott75 Posted February 8 Author Report Posted February 8 (edited) 13 hours ago, Nationalist said: 16 hours ago, Hodad said: That's your entire position on the invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine was (rightly) afraid of their aggressive Russian neighbor. They sought purely defensive aid and alliance--which you say constitutes provocation of Russia and justifies the invasion. Horseshit. Pure horseshit. I agree with your sentiment, but I think we may be able to agree that your statement may be a conversation stopper to those who don't share your point of view :-p. I think that had you not been so frustrated with Hodad's reasoning, you might have said something like "NATO didn't purely seek defensive aid and alliance". I think most people know that the U.S. has been supporting anti-Russian elements in Ukraine for a while, with perhaps the most blatant example being the Euromaidan coup. During Trump's first term, the Trump Administration began giving Ukraine weapons. I'm not sure what Trump's reasoning was, but I suspect he might have been pressured into it with all the Russiagate BS. A good article on those times was written by a well known journalist shortly after Russia's war with Ukraine began. It can be seen here: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/18/siding-with-ukraines-far-right-us-sabotaged-zelenskys-peace-mandate/ Edited February 8 by Scott75 1 Quote
NAME REMOVED Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 1 hour ago, Scott75 said: I imagine you never clicked on the link embedded in Nationalist's quote. From said link: ** Documents show Gorbachev was assured US wouldn't expand NATO into Central and Eastern Europe U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu). The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.” President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2] The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3] ... Read entire article at National Security Archive ** Source: https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/documents-show-gorbachev-was-assured-us-wouldnt-ex Myth: NATO promised Russia it would not enlarge after the Cold War FACT The myth that there was a promise by Western leaders not to allow new members to join has been circulating for many years, and is actively used in disinformation campaigns by the Kremlin since the start of the Russian war against Ukraine. While records show that in the initial stages of discussions about German reunification, US Secretary of State James Baker and his West German counterpart, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, floated such an idea with each other and with Soviet leaders in 1990, but diplomatic negotiations quickly moved on and the idea was dropped. NATO’s founding treaty – signed in 1949 by the 12 original members and by every country that has joined since – includes a clear provision that opens NATO’s door to “any other European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.” This has never changed. No treaty signed by NATO Allies and Russia ever included provisions that NATO cannot take on new members. Decisions on NATO membership are taken by consensus among all Allies. Describing NATO’s open door policy as “expansion” is already part of the myth. NATO did not seek out new members or aim to “expand eastward.” NATO respects every nation’s right to choose its own path. NATO membership is a decision first for those countries that wish to join. It is then for NATO Allies to consider the application. source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm Quote
robosmith Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 2 hours ago, Scott75 said: I agree with your sentiment, but I think we may be able to agree that your statement may be a conversation stopper to those who don't share your point of view :-p. I think that had you not been so frustrated with Hodad's reasoning, you might have said something like "NATO didn't purely seek defensive aid and alliance". I think most people know that the U.S. has been supporting anti-Russian elements in Ukraine for a while, with perhaps the most blatant example being the Euromaidan coup. During Trump's first term, the Trump Administration began giving Ukraine weapons. I'm not sure what Trump's reasoning was, but I suspect he might have been pressured into it with all the Russiagate BS. A good article on those times was written by a well known journalist shortly after Russia's war with Ukraine began. It can be seen here: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/18/siding-with-ukraines-far-right-us-sabotaged-zelenskys-peace-mandate/ Ukraine gave up their nukes in return for the Budapest Memorandum security GUARANTEE from Russia AND the US. Putin RENEGED leaving the US to make good on that GUARANTEE IN WRITING. Now you want the US to renege, too. 🤮 Clearly Putin wants to restore the USSR. Who said "dominate the world"? Of course Putin would if he COULD, but that was NEVER likely. Clearly Putin needs to the Ukraine gas reserves and food production to maintain RELEVANCE. Quote
Nationalist Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 7 hours ago, Scott75 said: I agree with your sentiment, but I think we may be able to agree that your statement may be a conversation stopper to those who don't share your point of view :-p. I think that had you not been so frustrated with Hodad's reasoning, you might have said something like "NATO didn't purely seek defensive aid and alliance". I think most people know that the U.S. has been supporting anti-Russian elements in Ukraine for a while, with perhaps the most blatant example being the Euromaidan coup. During Trump's first term, the Trump Administration began giving Ukraine weapons. I'm not sure what Trump's reasoning was, but I suspect he might have been pressured into it with all the Russiagate BS. A good article on those times was written by a well known journalist shortly after Russia's war with Ukraine began. It can be seen here: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/18/siding-with-ukraines-far-right-us-sabotaged-zelenskys-peace-mandate/ I could have. Probably have in the past. Now I just summarize for the most part. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Nationalist Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 5 hours ago, robosmith said: Ukraine gave up their nukes in return for the Budapest Memorandum security GUARANTEE from Russia AND the US. Putin RENEGED leaving the US to make good on that GUARANTEE IN WRITING. Now you want the US to renege, too. 🤮 Clearly Putin wants to restore the USSR. Who said "dominate the world"? Of course Putin would if he COULD, but that was NEVER likely. Clearly Putin needs to the Ukraine gas reserves and food production to maintain RELEVANCE. Lol...Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. But that's not abnormal. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
robosmith Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 Just now, Nationalist said: Lol...Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. But that's not abnormal. Clearly YOU have no idea what I'm talking about due your USUAL IGNORANCE. LMAO Quote
Scott75 Posted February 9 Author Report Posted February 9 6 hours ago, DUI_Offender said: 8 hours ago, Scott75 said: I imagine you never clicked on the link embedded in Nationalist's quote. From said link: ** Documents show Gorbachev was assured US wouldn't expand NATO into Central and Eastern Europe U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu). The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.” President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2] The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3] ... Read entire article at National Security Archive ** Source: https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/documents-show-gorbachev-was-assured-us-wouldnt-ex Myth: NATO promised Russia it would not enlarge after the Cold War FACT The myth that there was a promise by Western leaders not to allow new members to join has been circulating for many years, and is actively used in disinformation campaigns by the Kremlin since the start of the Russian war against Ukraine. While records show that in the initial stages of discussions about German reunification, US Secretary of State James Baker and his West German counterpart, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, floated such an idea with each other and with Soviet leaders in 1990, but diplomatic negotiations quickly moved on and the idea was dropped. [snip] source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm I have to chuckle at your source. Surely you can see how NATO itself might be a little biased here? In any case, NATO can say whatever it likes- the truth is what I already quoted in my previous post. I'm guessing you never read it, so once more: ** Documents show Gorbachev was assured US wouldn't expand NATO into Central and Eastern Europe U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu). The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.” President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2] The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3] ... Read entire article at National Security Archive ** Source: https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/documents-show-gorbachev-was-assured-us-wouldnt-ex Quote
NAME REMOVED Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 Just now, Scott75 said: I have to chuckle at your source. Surely you can see how NATO itself might be a little biased here? In any case, NATO can say whatever it likes- the truth is what I already quoted in my previous post. I'm guessing you never read it, so once more: ** Documents show Gorbachev was assured US wouldn't expand NATO into Central and Eastern Europe U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu). The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.” President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2] The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3] ... Read entire article at National Security Archive ** Source: https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/documents-show-gorbachev-was-assured-us-wouldnt-ex Scott, give it up. You lost the argument. 1 Quote
User Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 48 minutes ago, Scott75 said: I have to chuckle at your source. Surely you can see how NATO itself might be a little biased here? In any case, NATO can say whatever it likes- the truth is what I already quoted in my previous post. I'm guessing you never read it, so once more: Yeah, some others on this forum made this same stupid argument already. Once again, James Baker has ZERO authority to dictate any terms of any finalized agreement. This is a stupid and dishonest argument you are trying to make here. What matters is the actual final agreement. What you are doing here is latching on to comments made in the negotiation that were never formalized as if that makes them iron clad agreements. In a negotiation, both sides go back and forth and make proposals, but until it is formally agreed upon, it is not a formal agreement. Quote
Scott75 Posted February 9 Author Report Posted February 9 5 hours ago, robosmith said: 8 hours ago, Scott75 said: I agree with your sentiment, but I think we may be able to agree that your statement may be a conversation stopper to those who don't share your point of view :-p. I think that had you not been so frustrated with Hodad's reasoning, you might have said something like "NATO didn't purely seek defensive aid and alliance". I think most people know that the U.S. has been supporting anti-Russian elements in Ukraine for a while, with perhaps the most blatant example being the Euromaidan coup. During Trump's first term, the Trump Administration began giving Ukraine weapons. I'm not sure what Trump's reasoning was, but I suspect he might have been pressured into it with all the Russiagate BS. A good article on those times was written by a well known journalist shortly after Russia's war with Ukraine began. It can be seen here: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/18/siding-with-ukraines-far-right-us-sabotaged-zelenskys-peace-mandate/ Ukraine gave up their nukes in return for the Budapest Memorandum security GUARANTEE from Russia AND the US. Putin RENEGED leaving the US to make good on that GUARANTEE IN WRITING. No, it was the US that reneged on it. Article 1 of the Budapest Memorandum: ** Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).[7] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum The U.S. stopped respecting Ukraine's sovereignty when it supported the Euromaidan coup back in 2014: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/ 1 Quote
robosmith Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 2 hours ago, Scott75 said: No, it was the US that reneged on it. Article 1 of the Budapest Memorandum: ** Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).[7] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum The U.S. stopped respecting Ukraine's sovereignty when it supported the Euromaidan coup back in 2014: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/ Sure LMAO. 2 hours ago, Scott75 said: No, it was the US that reneged on it. Article 1 of the Budapest Memorandum: ** Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).[7] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum The U.S. stopped respecting Ukraine's sovereignty when it supported the Euromaidan coup back in 2014: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/ There is NOTHING in your Guardian link about the US opposing the impeachment of Yanukovych nor their independence from Russia after Maidan. Their security was SHATTERED when Putin INVADED. Duh Quote
Scott75 Posted February 9 Author Report Posted February 9 (edited) 6 hours ago, User said: 7 hours ago, Scott75 said: I have to chuckle at your source. Surely you can see how NATO itself might be a little biased here? In any case, NATO can say whatever it likes- the truth is what I already quoted in my previous post. I'm guessing you never read it, so once more: Yeah, some others on this forum made this same stupid argument already. Once again, James Baker has ZERO authority to dictate any terms of any finalized agreement. For starters, it wasn't just U.S. Secretary of State James Baker that assured Gorbachev that the U.S. wouldn't take advantage of the Soviet Union's willingness to let go of east Germany. I gotta hand it to that NATO article of DUI posted though- through misdirection and distortion, they managed to really do a number on the truth. Quoting from it: ** The myth that there was a promise by Western leaders not to allow new members to join has been circulating for many years, and is actively used in disinformation campaigns by the Kremlin since the start of the Russian war against Ukraine. ** Source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm The thing is, Mr. Baker never made a promise that NATO wouldn't allow new members to join NATO. He promised that they wouldn't allow new members if they were -east- of East Germany. The NATO article, building on this half truth, then goes on to say that Mr. Baker "floated" this idea, when he in fact -assured- Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't expand one in eastward. It's all there in the article I quoted and that you keep on snipping in its entirety. So, once more, from the top: ** Documents show Gorbachev was assured US wouldn't expand NATO into Central and Eastern Europe U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu). The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.” President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2] The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3] ... Read entire article at National Security Archive ** Source: https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/documents-show-gorbachev-was-assured-us-wouldnt-ex Edited February 9 by Scott75 Quote
User Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 20 minutes ago, Scott75 said: For starters, it wasn't just U.S. Secretary of State James Baker that assured Gorbachev that the U.S. wouldn't take advantage of the Soviet Union's willingness to let go of east Germany. I gotta hand it to that NATO article of yours though- through misdirection and distortion, they managed to really do a number on the truth. Quoting from it: I did not post anything and as usual, you completely ignored my entire point. There was never any formal agreement that NATO would not expand to the East. Stop spamming the thread. If you have an argument to make, make it. So far, you got crap. Just your usual tactics to obfuscate. Quote
Scott75 Posted February 9 Author Report Posted February 9 2 hours ago, robosmith said: 5 hours ago, Scott75 said: No, it was the US that reneged on it. Article 1 of the Budapest Memorandum: ** Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).[7] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum The U.S. stopped respecting Ukraine's sovereignty when it supported the Euromaidan coup back in 2014: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/ There is NOTHING in your Guardian link about the US opposing the impeachment of Yanukovych nor their independence from Russia after Maidan. Ofcourse the U.S. wouldn't oppose the impeachment of Yanukovych. There's strong evidence that they were integral in making it come to pass. From the Off Guardian I suspect you only skimmed through: ** FEBRUARY 7/2/2014 – A recorded phone call between [US Deputy Secretary of State] Nuland and [US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt] Pyatt is leaked to the press, famously dubbed the “f*ck the EU” call. In the conversation, dated January 28th, Nuland and Pyatt discuss at length the structure of the Ukrainian cabinet once Yanukovych is gone. This is still 25 days before Yanukovych was removed from power ** Clicking on the provided link above, one gets to the following BBC article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26079957 I'll quote that article in my following post. Quote
Scott75 Posted February 9 Author Report Posted February 9 Alright, as promised, here is the quote from the BBC article I referred to in my previous post: ** An apparently bugged phone conversation in which a senior US diplomat disparages the EU over the Ukraine crisis has been posted online. The alleged conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, appeared on Youtube on Thursday. It is not [clear] when the alleged conversation took place. Here is a transcript, with analysis by BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus: Warning: This transcript contains swearing. Voice thought to be Nuland's: What do you think? Jonathan Marcus: At the outset it should be clear that this is a fragment of what may well be a larger phone conversation. But the US has not denied its veracity and has been quick to point a finger at the Russian authorities for being behind its interception and leak. Voice thought to be Pyatt's: I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader]. And I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad that he said what he said in response. Jonathan Marcus: The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs. [snip] Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning? Jonathan Marcus: An intriguing insight into the foreign policy process with work going on at a number of levels: Various officials attempting to marshal the Ukrainian opposition; efforts to get the UN to play an active role in bolstering a deal; and (as you can see below) the big guns waiting in the wings - US Vice-President Joe Biden clearly being lined up to give private words of encouragement at the appropriate moment. Pyatt: Yeah I saw that. Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, F*ck the EU. Jonathan Marcus: Not for the first time in an international crisis, the US expresses frustration at the EU's efforts. Washington and Brussels have not been completely in step during the Ukraine crisis. The EU is divided and to some extent hesitant about picking a fight with Moscow. It certainly cannot win a short-term battle for Ukraine's affections with Moscow - it just does not have the cash inducements available. The EU has sought to play a longer game; banking on its attraction over time. But the US clearly is determined to take a much more activist role. Pyatt: 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. Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president's national security adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden's willing. Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks. ** I haven't even gotten to the -really- dark stuff yet, the Euromaidan massacre. I'll get into that in the following post. Quote
Scott75 Posted February 9 Author Report Posted February 9 Alright, as promised in my previous post, now for the really dark stuff on the Euromaidan massacre. Again quoting from the Off Guardian article: ** 19/2/2014 – President Yanukovych declares a “truce” in a joint statement signed by the three main opposition leaders. The statement committed to negotiation for a lasting peace. 20/2/2014 – Snipers open fire on the crowd in Maidan Square, resulting in at least sixty deaths. Both protesters and police officers are killed in the gunfire. EuroNews reports that the “truce is shattered” mere hours after it was signed. ** So, who was behind the Euromaidan massacre? The mainstream media blamed Yanukovych's government, but The Off Guardian article points out that even early on, there was evidence that this wasn't the case. Quoting: ** MARCH [2014] Evidence emerges that the snipers shooting at the crowds were not employed by the Ukrainian government, but were shooting at both sides in an effort to stoke chaos. This evidence is presented to the EU’s Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton by Estonia Foreign Minister Urmas Paet in a phone call that is later leaked to the press, and confirmed to be genuine by the Estonian government. Neither the EU, nor the new government of Ukraine, makes any effort to investigate this evidence or bring the killers to justice. ** In 2017, Global Research publishes an article regarding an Italian documentary aired on Canale 5, which it claims is "the most watched TV channel in Italy". Quoting from it: ** The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence The TV documentary emanates from the mainstream media, Italy’s Canale 5, a private TV network owned by Gruppo Mediaset SA, a company founded in 1987 by former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. Canale 5 is the most watched TV channel in Italy. Why is this corporate media report which reveals the “unspoken truth” regarding the February 2014 Kiev Euromaidan coup d’Etat not the object of mainstream news coverage? It emanates from the MSM yet it is tagged by the mainstream media as pernicious media disinformation. While the independent media (including Global Research) is ensuring its distribution outside Italy, the Western corporate media remains silent on the underlying political causes, perpetrators and consequences of the 2014 Kiev EuroMaidan coup d’Etat. Michel Chossudovsky, November 24, 2017 *** The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international mainstream media. That is hardly surprising taking into account the bombshell evidence against the real perpetrators and organizers of the 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev, generally known as the “revolution of dignity“. The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers who were recruited to carry out a “special mission” in Kiev by Mamuka Mamulashvili, a close aid of Mikhail Saakashvili’s former defense minister Bacho Akhalaia. They claim that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents and were transferred to Maidan. Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to be paid 5000 USD after the “job is done”, they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. The facts they exposed afterwards, were shocking. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger (his Facebook page is here). The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car and later headed the first post-Maidan interim president administration of Ukraine. The weapons came on stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. “There were three or four weapons in each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges.” – witnesses Nergadze. The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos. “When Mamulashvili arrived, I also asked him. Things are getting complicated, we have to start shooting – he replied that we cannot go to presidential elections. “But who to shoot?“ I asked. He replied that who and where it did not matter, you had to shoot somewhere so much to sow chaos.” ** Now, what I'd like to focus on here is the American military operative Christopher Boyenger. I strongly suspect he wasn't acting alone, but was in fact part of some U.S. intelligence agency like the CIA. We may never know, but the fact that the Estonian intelligence agency had been informed just a month after the event that there was evidence that it wasn't Yanukovych's government strongly suggests that the U.S. knew as well. What I'd like to know is if they not only knew that Yanukovych's government wasn't responsible for this massacre, but played an integral part in the killings via Christopher Boyenger. Quote
Scott75 Posted February 9 Author Report Posted February 9 30 minutes ago, User said: I did not post anything True- DUI Offender is the one who posted the NATO article, I've since changed the attribution. 32 minutes ago, User said: as usual, you completely ignored my entire point. There was never any formal agreement that NATO would not expand to the East. I missed the "final agreement" bit. You may have noticed that I never said that the U.S. ever made any "final agreement" with the Soviet Union on not expanding NATO "one inch eastward". That doesn't change the fact that Gorbachev was assured that NATO wouldn't do it. 35 minutes ago, User said: Stop spamming the thread. What you call "spamming the thread", I call providing relevant information that you and others just don't want to hear. 1 Quote
Nationalist Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 9 hours ago, Scott75 said: No, it was the US that reneged on it. Article 1 of the Budapest Memorandum: ** Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).[7] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum The U.S. stopped respecting Ukraine's sovereignty when it supported the Euromaidan coup back in 2014: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/ This is true. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Nationalist Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 3 hours ago, User said: I did not post anything and as usual, you completely ignored my entire point. There was never any formal agreement that NATO would not expand to the East. Stop spamming the thread. If you have an argument to make, make it. So far, you got crap. Just your usual tactics to obfuscate. This is a terribly thin argument. "We can make deals and do the opposite if the deal was never signed as official." Now why should anyone trust the USA or NATO? 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
robosmith Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 9 hours ago, Scott75 said: Alright, as promised in my previous post, now for the really dark stuff on the Euromaidan massacre. Again quoting from the Off Guardian article: ** 19/2/2014 – President Yanukovych declares a “truce” in a joint statement signed by the three main opposition leaders. The statement committed to negotiation for a lasting peace. 20/2/2014 – Snipers open fire on the crowd in Maidan Square, resulting in at least sixty deaths. Both protesters and police officers are killed in the gunfire. EuroNews reports that the “truce is shattered” mere hours after it was signed. ** So, who was behind the Euromaidan massacre? The mainstream media blamed Yanukovych's government, but The Off Guardian article points out that even early on, there was evidence that this wasn't the case. Quoting: ** MARCH [2014] Evidence emerges that the snipers shooting at the crowds were not employed by the Ukrainian government, but were shooting at both sides in an effort to stoke chaos. This evidence is presented to the EU’s Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton by Estonia Foreign Minister Urmas Paet in a phone call that is later leaked to the press, and confirmed to be genuine by the Estonian government. Neither the EU, nor the new government of Ukraine, makes any effort to investigate this evidence or bring the killers to justice. ** In 2017, Global Research publishes an article regarding an Italian documentary aired on Canale 5, which it claims is "the most watched TV channel in Italy". Quoting from it: ** The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence The TV documentary emanates from the mainstream media, Italy’s Canale 5, a private TV network owned by Gruppo Mediaset SA, a company founded in 1987 by former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. Canale 5 is the most watched TV channel in Italy. Why is this corporate media report which reveals the “unspoken truth” regarding the February 2014 Kiev Euromaidan coup d’Etat not the object of mainstream news coverage? It emanates from the MSM yet it is tagged by the mainstream media as pernicious media disinformation. While the independent media (including Global Research) is ensuring its distribution outside Italy, the Western corporate media remains silent on the underlying political causes, perpetrators and consequences of the 2014 Kiev EuroMaidan coup d’Etat. Michel Chossudovsky, November 24, 2017 *** The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international mainstream media. That is hardly surprising taking into account the bombshell evidence against the real perpetrators and organizers of the 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev, generally known as the “revolution of dignity“. The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers who were recruited to carry out a “special mission” in Kiev by Mamuka Mamulashvili, a close aid of Mikhail Saakashvili’s former defense minister Bacho Akhalaia. They claim that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents and were transferred to Maidan. Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to be paid 5000 USD after the “job is done”, they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. The facts they exposed afterwards, were shocking. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger (his Facebook page is here). The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car and later headed the first post-Maidan interim president administration of Ukraine. The weapons came on stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. “There were three or four weapons in each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges.” – witnesses Nergadze. The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos. “When Mamulashvili arrived, I also asked him. Things are getting complicated, we have to start shooting – he replied that we cannot go to presidential elections. “But who to shoot?“ I asked. He replied that who and where it did not matter, you had to shoot somewhere so much to sow chaos.” ** Now, what I'd like to focus on here is the American military operative Christopher Boyenger. I strongly suspect he wasn't acting alone, but was in fact part of some U.S. intelligence agency like the CIA. We may never know, but the fact that the Estonian intelligence agency had been informed just a month after the event that there was evidence that it wasn't Yanukovych's government strongly suggests that the U.S. knew as well. What I'd like to know is if they not only knew that Yanukovych's government wasn't responsible for this massacre, but played an integral part in the killings via Christopher Boyenger. Oh, YOU "strongly suspect...." Meanwhile Yanukovych's BERKUT secret police were ON THE GROUND KILLING DEMONSTRATORS in Maidan. AKA, it WAS Yanukovych's government which incited the coup against HIM. And it was Yanukovych who reneged on his PROMISED trade partnership with the West to sign a deal with Russia, probably because Putin bribed him. Evidence of that is HE FLED TO MOSCOW. All you got is a bunch of snipers you "strongly suspect" were orchestrated by the US. Quote
User Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 9 hours ago, Scott75 said: I missed the "final agreement" bit. You may have noticed that I never said that the U.S. ever made any "final agreement" with the Soviet Union on not expanding NATO "one inch eastward". That doesn't change the fact that Gorbachev was assured that NATO wouldn't do it. Then you have no point. No one with any binding authority gave any binding assurances nor was that the final agreement formalized. Quote
User Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 (edited) 6 hours ago, Nationalist said: This is a terribly thin argument. "We can make deals and do the opposite if the deal was never signed as official." Now why should anyone trust the USA or NATO? No formal deals were made by anyone with power to make them that said NATO would never move an inch to the East. Edited February 9 by User 1 Quote
WestCanMan Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 On 2/8/2025 at 11:19 AM, robosmith said: Ukraine gave up their nukes in return for the Budapest Memorandum security GUARANTEE from Russia AND the US. Russia left East Germany in return for guarantees that NATO wouldn't move 1 inch past Germany. The US and other major NATO countries' representatives made the same assurances. NATO broke their part of the bargain long before Russia did. And FYI, me telling the truth about this is an example of me just being honest, instead of engaging in partisan lying, which is all that you know how to do. I don't expect you to respect me for telling the truth, I know that you'll make childish insults, but that's ok because I don't give a fack what you think. You're a liar, a weasel, and a loser, and I'd be embarrassed if you ever agreed with me on anything. Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. Bug-juice is the new Kool-aid. Ex-Canadian since April 2025
User Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 2 hours ago, WestCanMan said: NATO broke their part of the bargain long before Russia did. There was no bargain. This has been pointed out to you by me several times. You have no care in the world for the truth or reality here. Quote
Scott75 Posted February 10 Author Report Posted February 10 8 hours ago, robosmith said: 17 hours ago, Scott75 said: Alright, as promised in my previous post, now for the really dark stuff on the Euromaidan massacre. Again quoting from the Off Guardian article: ** 19/2/2014 – President Yanukovych declares a “truce” in a joint statement signed by the three main opposition leaders. The statement committed to negotiation for a lasting peace. 20/2/2014 – Snipers open fire on the crowd in Maidan Square, resulting in at least sixty deaths. Both protesters and police officers are killed in the gunfire. EuroNews reports that the “truce is shattered” mere hours after it was signed. ** So, who was behind the Euromaidan massacre? The mainstream media blamed Yanukovych's government, but The Off Guardian article points out that even early on, there was evidence that this wasn't the case. Quoting: ** MARCH [2014] Evidence emerges that the snipers shooting at the crowds were not employed by the Ukrainian government, but were shooting at both sides in an effort to stoke chaos. This evidence is presented to the EU’s Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton by Estonia Foreign Minister Urmas Paet in a phone call that is later leaked to the press, and confirmed to be genuine by the Estonian government. Neither the EU, nor the new government of Ukraine, makes any effort to investigate this evidence or bring the killers to justice. ** In 2017, Global Research publishes an article regarding an Italian documentary aired on Canale 5, which it claims is "the most watched TV channel in Italy". Quoting from it: ** The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence The TV documentary emanates from the mainstream media, Italy’s Canale 5, a private TV network owned by Gruppo Mediaset SA, a company founded in 1987 by former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. Canale 5 is the most watched TV channel in Italy. Why is this corporate media report which reveals the “unspoken truth” regarding the February 2014 Kiev Euromaidan coup d’Etat not the object of mainstream news coverage? It emanates from the MSM yet it is tagged by the mainstream media as pernicious media disinformation. While the independent media (including Global Research) is ensuring its distribution outside Italy, the Western corporate media remains silent on the underlying political causes, perpetrators and consequences of the 2014 Kiev EuroMaidan coup d’Etat. Michel Chossudovsky, November 24, 2017 *** The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international mainstream media. That is hardly surprising taking into account the bombshell evidence against the real perpetrators and organizers of the 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev, generally known as the “revolution of dignity“. The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers who were recruited to carry out a “special mission” in Kiev by Mamuka Mamulashvili, a close aid of Mikhail Saakashvili’s former defense minister Bacho Akhalaia. They claim that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents and were transferred to Maidan. Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to be paid 5000 USD after the “job is done”, they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. The facts they exposed afterwards, were shocking. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger (his Facebook page is here). The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car and later headed the first post-Maidan interim president administration of Ukraine. The weapons came on stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. “There were three or four weapons in each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges.” – witnesses Nergadze. The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos. “When Mamulashvili arrived, I also asked him. Things are getting complicated, we have to start shooting – he replied that we cannot go to presidential elections. “But who to shoot?“ I asked. He replied that who and where it did not matter, you had to shoot somewhere so much to sow chaos.” ** Now, what I'd like to focus on here is the American military operative Christopher Boyenger. I strongly suspect he wasn't acting alone, but was in fact part of some U.S. intelligence agency like the CIA. We may never know, but the fact that the Estonian intelligence agency had been informed just a month after the event that there was evidence that it wasn't Yanukovych's government strongly suggests that the U.S. knew as well. What I'd like to know is if they not only knew that Yanukovych's government wasn't responsible for this massacre, but played an integral part in the killings via Christopher Boyenger. Oh, YOU "strongly suspect...." I strongly suspect that American military operative Christopher Boyenger was part of U.S. efforts to remove then Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych from power one way or the other, yes. Now, while I don't have any hard evidence that Boyenger was in fact working for a U.S. government agency at the time, there is -plenty- of evidence that the U.S. was not only playing a crucial role in orchestrating the Euromaidan event but even going so far as planning on who would replace Yanukovych almost a month before Yanukovych fled Ukraine, fearing for his life. 8 hours ago, robosmith said: Meanwhile Yanukovych's BERKUT secret police were ON THE GROUND KILLING DEMONSTRATORS in Maidan. That is certainly the mainstream media's version of events. The Off Guardian article points to evidence that this wasn't actually the case. Quoting: ** MARCH [2014] Evidence emerges that the snipers shooting at the crowds were not employed by the Ukrainian government, but were shooting at both sides in an effort to stoke chaos. This evidence is presented to the EU’s Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton by Estonia Foreign Minister Urmas Paet in a phone call that is later leaked to the press, and confirmed to be genuine by the Estonian government. Neither the EU, nor the new government of Ukraine, makes any effort to investigate this evidence or bring the killers to justice. ** Source: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/ Tell me, why do think the EU and the Ukrainian government were so disintereted in investigating this evidence? Now, the good news is that an Italian documentary did some more investigation of the matter anyway. This is where Christopher Boyenger comes in, but Christopher Boyenger definitely wasn't the only operative involved. I suspect you read little of what I quoted on the matter in the post you're responding to, so I'll do it again to see if this time you absorb more than the simple fact that I suspect American operative Christopher Boyenger was working for some American government agency: ** In 2017, Global Research publishes an article regarding an Italian documentary aired on Canale 5, which it claims is "the most watched TV channel in Italy". Quoting from it: ** The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence The TV documentary emanates from the mainstream media, Italy’s Canale 5, a private TV network owned by Gruppo Mediaset SA, a company founded in 1987 by former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. Canale 5 is the most watched TV channel in Italy. Why is this corporate media report which reveals the “unspoken truth” regarding the February 2014 Kiev Euromaidan coup d’Etat not the object of mainstream news coverage? It emanates from the MSM yet it is tagged by the mainstream media as pernicious media disinformation. While the independent media (including Global Research) is ensuring its distribution outside Italy, the Western corporate media remains silent on the underlying political causes, perpetrators and consequences of the 2014 Kiev EuroMaidan coup d’Etat. Michel Chossudovsky, November 24, 2017 *** The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international mainstream media. That is hardly surprising taking into account the bombshell evidence against the real perpetrators and organizers of the 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev, generally known as the “revolution of dignity“. The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers who were recruited to carry out a “special mission” in Kiev by Mamuka Mamulashvili, a close aid of Mikhail Saakashvili’s former defense minister Bacho Akhalaia. They claim that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents and were transferred to Maidan. Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to be paid 5000 USD after the “job is done”, they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. The facts they exposed afterwards, were shocking. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger (his Facebook page is here). The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car and later headed the first post-Maidan interim president administration of Ukraine. The weapons came on stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. “There were three or four weapons in each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges.” – witnesses Nergadze. The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos. “When Mamulashvili arrived, I also asked him. Things are getting complicated, we have to start shooting – he replied that we cannot go to presidential elections. “But who to shoot?“ I asked. He replied that who and where it did not matter, you had to shoot somewhere so much to sow chaos.” ** Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.