Stratfor spy chief admits it: the US behind the coup in Ukraine!

a reply to: MysterX

Looking at the US's recent history would be a good start

So they are guilty because of what they have done in the past...you need to do better than that.

Not to worry though, if we don't think about it at all, perhaps they'll stop murdering people..eh?

So then the answer is no you can't provide anything that backs your claims...that's what I thought.

You see I didn't ask about what they did in the past as I know, but you made a claim and I asked if you can back that claim, so can you?

a reply to: MysterX

EVERYTHING is open to interpretation.

That still doesn't make it true now does it?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Even the Laws of Motion of Newton may have different interpretations.
You can interpret them in classical way like you learn in secondary school or you can combine them into
this en.wikipedia.org...

But basic facts like in Newton representation stay constant axioms.

a reply to: kitzik

Even the Laws of Motion of Newton may have different interpretations.

This isn't a discussion about Newton though is it and their are many interpretations, but not one of them has proven his laws wrong have they?

Again interpretations do not make something true.

a reply to: kitzik

Some of the people commenting on this forum are very much Rusophobic.

So not agreeing with the Russian government and their actions make one a russophile...gotcha.

Now see that is your interpretation of what you see...that doesn't make it true.

And just to let you in on a little secret...it isn't the Russian people that are disliked by others it is their government and it's actions as of late, because there is a difference you should try and learn that.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

So not agreeing with the Russian government and their actions make one a russophile...gotcha.

I would correct you, it may hint that they are Russophobes. Philo=love. Phobo=hate.

But it is a hint, it may be not true. I'm talking generally, since it is not my first day on this forum and some of the names of alleged russophobes I could remember.

a reply to: Echtelion

Here's the problem with this whole propaganda piece: it is an interview that was conducted in English that was translated into Russian, then back into English again. The headline derives from the following Russian phrase:

Россия называет события начала года организованным США госпереворотом.И это действительно был самый неприкрытый госпереворот в истории.

www.kommersant.ru...

Which Sputnik chose to characterize as:

Russia has repeatedly said that the coup in Kiev was organized by the US, Friedman told Kommersant newspaper. Indeed, it was the most overt coup in history, the political analyst stressed.

sputniknews.com...

Note how Sputnik, which was not actually present at the interview, portrays Friedman as "stressing" that statement, even though it is barely two lines long. The question is: What did Friedman actually say? The statement could be translated:

"Russia calls the events of the beginning of the year 'a US-organized coup.' It was the most visible "coup" in history."

He then goes on to explain the methods used to encourage this "coup," all of which were non-violent and overt:

The US blatantly supported human rights groups, giving them money. By the time Russian "special forces" realized what was happening, it was too late. They could not stabilize the situation and misjudged the situation in Eastern Ukraine.

This is my own amateurish translation, and I would welcome a translation by a bilingual speaker, as the nuance here is critical. Friedman seems to have said in the original interview something along the lines of:

"The Russians have been calling this a US organized coup, but if it was, it was the most overt "coup"in history. The United States openly financed human rights groups. The Russian intelligence services did not understand what was happening. They could not stabilize the situation and misjudged the mood in Eastern Ukraine."

I would like to stress that Friedman implies that the "coup" was the result of propaganda, not bribery and arms, as Russia would like people to believe.

Regards to Overlord....the US was involved in the Afrika campaign...as well as the Italian invasion, as well as the Pacific campaign previous to Overlord.....
The US supplied much of the weaponry and logistics to keep the war going in many ways.....
To say the USA was recalcitrant and hedging its bets is a misstatement.......
This is all a bit too simple and smacks of propaganda.......
Taking things out of context seems a common method of slanting reportage .......

a reply to: MrSpad

Hmm, a direct tying of Syria to the Ukraine is a stretch. However, as an 'eg.' of Russian intentions and taken in a bigger picture, it is obvious that Russia's intentions-Putin's?- is expanding their influence and ultimately their control.

A strong EU that is capable of keeping Russia in check makes sense, from what I can see.

U.S. influencing the events in the Ukraine needs not be some massive effort. A little nudge here and there is more than enough, IMO. After all, I can't think of any instance where a nation that has won it's freedom from an empire willingly rejoined that empire...LOL.

That includes Crimea....

a reply to: Echtelion

"global capitalists"? 100 years ago? Really?

How about the last gasp of an inbred monarchy that controlled Europe and treated each others country as chess pieces, starting wars, suing for peace when losing, irrespective of the damage done to the populaces only to repeat, time and again.

The "global capitalists" in Europe was, in many cases, almost wiped out by WWII. Many, including the British, haven't recovered to this day. Hence wars like Korea, Vietnam...all far from the European 'theater'...pun intended.

So the global capitalists are now setting up Europe for another war? Perhaps nuclear? That would wipe out, again, assets?

Step back and take another look at this from a different perspective. It might give you pause.

originally posted by: FutureWithoutFuture4
a reply to: Echtelion

Pay no attention to :

US shills who showed up in this thread on mass, attacking this time even their own -- Startfor

Stratfor nor its chief ever made the claim the op article claims.

The simple fact that its ignored by anti western / anti US / whatever posters says a lot.

The thread needs to be moved to the hoax bin.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The simple fact that its ignored by anti western / anti US / whatever posters says a lot.

That's because they are too busy trying to be right they fail to see the problems with articles such as the OP has posted.

MOD NOTE:

Please return to the topic and knock of the personal attacks. If it continues posting bans will be next.

Do not reply to this post.

Blaine91555
Forum Mod

To add more weight to the authenticity of this interview, George Friedman DID went to Moscow one and a half week ago to give lectures and interviews on the current geopolitical mess to several organizations and outlets:

His Stratfor blog entry on his visit, which also mirrors with what he said in his interview with Kommersant.

I do love that part especially:

I try not to be drawn into matters of right and wrong, not because I don't believe there is a difference but because history is rarely decided by moral principles. I have understood the Russians' view of Ukraine as a necessary strategic buffer and the idea that without it they would face a significant threat, if not now, then someday. They point to Napoleon and Hitler as examples of enemies defeated by depth.

Which is consistent with the fact of how in not two (Napoleon and Nazi Germany) but three instances (including the Crimean War) the northern Black Sea region has been a theater of devastating attempts at invading Russia, by Western forces. Hence, stabilization in Ukraine as a West-East buffer zone is key to avoid a new (nuclear) onslaught.

Also on Friedman's lecture at MGIMO University

Though I hate what Stratfor has been doing, Friedman provides with some honest, intelligent geopolitical analysis that looks at the two sides of the coin, and keeping an eye on History. Something that most of the US intelligentsia fails to do, aside from Henry Kissinger and perhaps a few others, love or hate them.

a reply to: Echtelion

Friedman never claimed the US was behind the coup in Ukraine.