Because it is.

I didn’t change my story. Anyone who looks at this argument will see that and that you have taken the Blue Pill until you ODed on it.

I don’t consider “not actively opposing” to be the same thing as “involvement.”

Your sole cite was by an economist directly profiting from the Putin regime.

For all your demands of sources you have not provided a single bit of evidence of anything you have alleged. Even that article sucking off Putin couldn’t offer any evidence of US involvement other than Sullivan encouraging Ukraine not to bow to Putin. Do you have any actual evidence of US involvement in Euromaidan? Of Ukrainians being blocked from participating in elections?

It’s not moving the goalposts. Also, you haven’t alleged any “actions” the US did other than not disaproving of the Kremlin’s puppet getting booted out of office.

Blaming NATO expansionism is effectively denying the agency of Ukraine. So yeah, saying the US is responsible for Putin’s hard on for Ukraine is an attack on Ukrainians.

What’s pathetic is your apparent worship of Sachs.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230806172854/https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/03/20/open-letter-to-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-russia-ukraine-war/

Putting blame for the war anywhere but the Russians is effectively blaming Ukraine.

Putin has also spoken in front of the EU. It does not make Sachs’s opinion anything other than stupid.

I’m basing my beliefs of off the expertise of the hundreds if not thousands of experts who agree that Sachs is a moron.

I’m not getting paid by Russia to shill for them on RT propaganda shows. That’s what.

It don’t see how blaming Ukraine for starting the war helps the Ukrainians.

You’re begging the question. NATO isn’t escalating. It wasn’t a coup.

I’m not shifting the goalposts. The mere fact the US supported Euromaidan is not the same as the whole thing being a CIA coup.

Except you’re not listening to geopolitical experts. You’re listening to an economist’s opinion on geopolitics, platformed only by Russian assets that is contradicted by most actual geopolitical experts on Earth.

I ask again: how do I source proof of something not happening.

I am not. You’re just parroting the nonsense the whores of the Kremlin have been putting out for a decade.

There was never any promise by the US not let Ukraine into NATO. Even if there was, Russia has done enough to justify saying that promise doesn’t matter anymore.

Sure, the US supported Euromaidan. That doesn’t make it a CIA plot. Why shouldn’t we support protests against a corrupt, authoritarian regime backed by our biggest opponent on the international stage? You and the overestimated Mr. Sachs reach the conclusion that because Ukraine leaving the Russian sphere was in America’s interest, America must have acted to cause it, despite the total lack of actual evidence.

Here’s an idea: maybe Russia wouldn’t have to worry about encirclement if it didn’t constantly threaten it’s neighbors.

I’m saying that Euromaidan was a popular revolt against the corrupt, pro-Russian government which the CIA has no meaningful influence on.

I don’t understand where this “blanket denial” stuff is coming from.

That is not at all what I claimed and I don’t understand how you could interpret what I said as meaning that.

How should I prove that the Euromaidan wasn’t some right wing CIA coup? How do you prove a negative?

He is not joking and while it is most relevant in the United States it is not exclusive to us.

Removed by mod