Ukraine: Lindsey Graham Spills The Beans On Why We Are There

If you mean "we" as in the United States are killing Ukrainians and Russians, you are wrong. Ukrainians and Russians are killing Ukrainians and Russians. And there is no real way to spin the situation, when Russians return to Russia, the war stops right there. In the meantime, as a former cold war soldier, let the Russians bleed 👍

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Did he ban his opposition and nationalize the media? I think thats a whole lot more pertinent to my point that if it was 2019 or 2022. Sure sounds like the same type of behavior you guys always mock Russia over.

Some political parties, with connections to the country invading Ukraine, were banned.

Some media was nationalised.

And it wasn't right after he came to power.

So no actual part of your claim was true.

originally posted by: vance2
when Russians return to Russia, the war stops right there. In the meantime,

Quoting as its the key point many posters seem to struggle with.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

I'm pretty sure Victoria Nuland got it started.
truthout.org...

originally posted by: Mike72
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

I'm pretty sure Victoria Nuland got it started.
truthout.org...

I'm pretty sure she didn't.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

And that sounds like a free democracy to you...not sure what else I could say here...*shrugs*

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

And that sounds like a free democracy to you...not sure what else I could say here...*shrugs*

It sounds like your claim wasn't true. (Because it wasnt).

The UK banned some political parties and suspended elections during the second world war.

It was still by the standards of the time of the most free and democratic countries.

All of this is the consequence of Russias invasion.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Ah , Nothing Personal , but Labeling Ukraine a " Democracy " is a STRETCH . Mr Z is Presently a Dictator who has suspend All Thought of Free Elections that are a Matter of Fact in Any Democratic type of Government .

Jesus Christ...

I sometimes wonder whether some of you, people, are for real. I understand the differences in opinion but this stuff... this is just dumb.

Both the emergency state and the martial law are special legal regimes that are provided for by the constitution of any democratic country in the times of emergency. Sure, they are possible in dictatorships as well and then they aren't much different from the normal legal regime but I digress.

If a country is invaded by a foreign aggressor, the president or the parliament is obliged to declare a martial law. In Ukraine the president's decree has to be approved by the parliament.

During the martial law all elections are suspended. You cannot organize elections if the martial law is imposed. You CANNOT. There's nothing to discuss here. All the elections organized during the martial law are invalid and are not legally binding.

The only thing we can debate here is whether it's fair to allow emergency state and martial law in the constitutions of democratic countries. It's beside the point because I haven't yet heard about a country that doesn't have such emergency provisions. If you have the info to the contrary, then enligten me.

One reason for suspending elections during the martial law is that the military activities carried out on the territory of an invaded country make it impossible to give every citizen an opportunity to vote. Some people live on the occupied territories, some serve in the army, others fled the country as refugees.

Your comparison of Ukraine to Russia makes no sense because Russia isn't a war zone at the moment.

a reply to: charlest2

Small elephant in the room:

Lindsay Graham, McCain, the USA and NATO countries did not attack Ukraine without any provocation, like Russia did.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: charlest2

Small elephant in the room:

Lindsay Graham, McCain, the USA and NATO countries did not attack Ukraine without any provocation, like Russia did.

Large elephant in the room:

I wonder how much of this evolves around trafficking humans. Especially children.

originally posted by: charlest2
a reply to: andy06shake

As often as has been discussed this travesty and the root causes of it, the blind remain blind to it and no further discussion can dissuade them from their blindness.

I'll not even try beyond what has already been done here hundreds of times before.

Believe what you will.

There’s no cure for blindness.

originally posted by: cherokeetroy

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: charlest2

Small elephant in the room:

Lindsay Graham, McCain, the USA and NATO countries did not attack Ukraine without any provocation, like Russia did.

Large elephant in the room:

I wonder how much of this evolves around trafficking humans. Especially children.

True.

Russia is guilty of abducting thousands of Ukranian children.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Is the US government involved in child trafficking?

a reply to: chr0naut

Unless you count planning and funding a violent coup on the sitting government...

originally posted by: cherokeetroy

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: charlest2

Small elephant in the room:

Lindsay Graham, McCain, the USA and NATO countries did not attack Ukraine without any provocation, like Russia did.

Large elephant in the room:

I wonder how much of this evolves around trafficking humans. Especially children.

I'd go as far as to say, "not at all".

It would be just as likely that it was a war fought to keep the lizzid peeple in power.

You see, Russia has been trying to reclaim multiple countries that seceded from the USSR bloc, but none is as big a prize is as the Ukraine, which is a veritable bread-basket of agricultural resources and is a source of petroleum, natural gas, iron-ore, coal, manganese, titanium, bauxite, mercury, salt and paraffin wax.

Ukraine also has significant power generating capacity from nuclear, hydro and coal burning sources.

Russia needs those resources and has previously tried controlling the Ukrainian government to get them, but has now resorted to direct military action to wrest them away after the people of Ukraine protested (Euromaidan protests) against being stripped of resources by Russia in 2013-2014.

Subsequent to the Euromaidan protests, Russia began its invasion by annexing the Crimea. There was a lull for several years as the invasion stalled, but the attack was revived in 2022:

Russian invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: chr0naut

Unless you count planning and funding a violent coup on the sitting government...

No, I don't count that. I don't see any evidence that such a thing actually occurred.

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Is the US government involved in child trafficking?

Probably not.

It is actively involved in stopping and prosecuting child trafficking, both in country and, to a lesser extent, abroad, though.

Graham forgot to say Democrats needed to create a new enemy. 😬

originally posted by: xuenchen
Graham forgot to say Democrats needed to create a new enemy. 😬

It had nothing to do with the US at all.

a reply to: chr0naut

I don't see any evidence

You can't see if you don't open your eyes.
Link

CIA in Ukraine: Why is this not seen as provocation?
CIA in Ukraine: Why is this not seen as provocation?
An explosive new NYT report shows how Washington needlessly fed into Russia’s worst fears and precipitated the invasion, justified or not
ANALYSIS | EUROPE
Regions Europe Ukraine War
MARK EPISKOPOS
FEB 27, 2024
The White House’s messaging on the Ukraine war is built around two simple-yet-powerful adjectives: “We are united in our condemnation,” said President Joe Biden almost two years ago in a joint statement with EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, “of Russia’s unjustified and unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine.”

The “unjustified and unprovoked” line has been used numerous times by a chorus of top U.S. officials and allies, quickly becoming a rhetorical mainstay of Biden’s maximum pressure campaign against the Kremlin.

This messaging conflates two important, yet fundamentally different issues. There is little question that Russia’s invasion has wrought a horrific human toll on Ukraine and upended European security in ways that few anticipated prior to February 2022. But it is also not without its context, which includes a litany of grievances that — however unjustified from the perspective of the West — constitute what the Kremlin saw as sufficient provocation to initiate the most destructive war in Europe since 1945.

An explosive New York Times exposé by Adam Entous and Michael Schwirtz sheds light on major developments preceding the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. According to the report, the Ukrainian government entered into a wide-ranging partnership with the CIA against Russia. This cooperation, which involved the establishment of as many as 12 secret CIA “forward operating bases” along Ukraine’s border with Russia, began not with Russia’s 2022 invasion, but just over 10 years ago.

Within days of the February 2014 Euromaidan Revolution that culminated with the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych and ushered in a firmly pro-Western government, the newly appointed head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, reportedly proposed a “three-way partnership” with the CIA and MI6, the UK’s foreign intelligence service. Ukrainian security officials gradually proved their value to the U.S. by feeding the CIA intelligence on Russia, including “secret documents about the Russian Navy,” leading to the establishment of CIA bases in Ukraine to coordinate activities against Russia and various training programs for Ukrainian commandos and other elite units.

A graduate of one such CIA training program, then-Lt. Col. Kyrylo Budanov, went on to become the chief of Ukrainian military intelligence.

Kyiv routinely pushed this relationship’s boundaries, violating the Obama administration’s red lines around lethal operations by carrying out assassinations of high-profile Russian fighters on territory controlled by Russian-aligned separatists. The Kyiv-CIA partnership deepened under the Trump administration, yet again putting the lie to the baseless idea that former President Trump was somehow amenable to Russia’s interests while in office.

As Budanov reportedly put it, “It only strengthened. It grew systematically. The cooperation expanded to additional spheres and became more large-scale.” This cooperation, as painstakingly outlined by the Times, went far beyond helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia in a narrow, technical sense — rather, Ukraine was drawn into a Western coalition for the purpose of waging a broad-based shadow war against Russia.

The New York Times’ exposé offers no shortage of disturbing implications. Ukraine is, needless to say, a sovereign state in charge of determining its own security arrangements. The underlying issue is not whether Ukraine is within its rights to enter into this kind of relationship with the CIA, as it obviously is, nor is it whether the Maidan Revolution put Ukraine on a certain path toward political cooperation with Western entities.

The problem, rather, is one of basic security perceptions. Moscow repeatedly warned — for many years before 2014 — that it was and remains prepared to take drastic action to prevent Ukraine from being used by the West as a forward operating base against Russia. Yet that, as recounted in lurid detail by The New York Times, is precisely what has happened over the past 10 years.

The fact that Ukraine has not just willingly but enthusiastically submitted to this arrangement is immaterial to Russia’s core concerns. Nor can this issue be entirely reduced to NATO membership: Ukraine can play the role of an anti-Russian outpost on NATO’s eastern flank without ever formally joining the alliance, and this, too, is unacceptable to the Kremlin.

Justification is by nature a subjective exercise, but there can be little question that the activities described in this exposé constitute, from the Kremlin’s perspective, a dire provocation and would be seen as such by the United States if the situation were reversed and a rival superpower established such bases in Mexico. This perception is an inseparable part of the military and political context that shaped this war’s outbreak. It can be dismissed as paranoid, but if so it is a paranoia common to all security establishments.

It is unclear what concrete U.S. interests these joint intelligence activities served. They certainly did not facilitate de-escalation between Moscow and Kyiv or promote regional stability, goals ostensibly shared by the Obama and Trump administrations. On the other hand, it is quite easy to see how Kyiv’s deepening relationship with the CIA needlessly fed into Moscow’s worst security fears and precipitated its conclusion — whether justified or not — that it must act decisively in the face of an implacable conflict with the West over Ukraine.

Victoria Nuland’s Involvement:
Victoria Nuland’s role in the Ukrainian crisis became particularly notable when a leaked phone conversation between her and Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine at that time, surfaced in February 2014. In this conversation, Nuland was heard discussing strategies for shaping the future government of Ukraine. She famously said, “F**k the EU,” which sparked controversy.

CIA Involvement:
While direct proof of CIA involvement in orchestrating the Ukrainian coup is harder to come by due to the clandestine nature of intelligence operations, there have been allegations and circumstantial evidence pointing towards CIA influence in Ukraine during that period. The CIA has a history of involvement in regime change operations around the world.