Forcing a coup.

You people think that Ukrainians are just brainless and the US government can just overthrow governments without lifting a finger.

It's embarrassing to see how many Americans are spouting Russian propaganda.

You've lost sight of what side you're on.

 

[QUOTE=Extenda;3390151]You seem to be echoing very specific opinions with a lot of confidence though. How do you know what you know? Strange.[/QUOTE

The only thing I know for sure is I’ve caused people a lot of heartache a time or two in my life by acting on information that I believed, or wanted to believe was correct and righteous.

 

Historically, No. But they've been doing better recently.

And it's *their* government... that counts for a lot.

 

The US is not attempting or facilitating any coup's. We tend to publicly support politicians and governments who align with our values and interests (nature of diplomacy), and then the other side will immediately and inevitably try to spin that as a CIA plot to de-legitimize progressive trends. We make a very convenient bogey-man. Yawn.

As far as NATO... Vlad himself just guaranteed that NATO is a growth industry for the next 50 years.

 

The US regularly supports and stages clandestine coups all over the world, and has been doing so since at least the 1950s. I can think of at least five off the top of my head, but the actual number is more like 80 (some successful, some not. Most pretty bloody though).

This isn’t even debatable. So you’re “arguing” the US totally didn’t do this in Ukraine, or that it was for their own good, or that it wasn’t for their own good but was good for US interests and if a bunch of Ukrainian citizens had to die when the US overplayed their hand, who cares?

Greater good? Can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs?

Are you even capable of engaging in “diplomatic empathy” for even a single post? Or is “Putin lover” the best you have? Going to lump George Keenan, Henry Kissinger, James Baker and numerous other US luminaries who warned against what’s happening right now in with the “closet Putin lover” crowd?

 

We have not done that in a very long time, short of actual regime changes subsequent to a war.

There is a very, very big difference between "staging" a coup, and aligning with or even aiding an opposition party. Helping a good cause is not a bad thing (unless you're the bad guy).

Did we do it in the 50's and 60's? Sure, and Frank Church put an end to it when I was a little kid.

 

Pretty good indicator that you lose an argument when you play the man instead of the ball. You should try removing emotion from your analysis, you will achieve a clearer insight.

I don’t consider myself on anyone’s side, which allows me to evaluate the facts without emotion. You should try it. 👍

 

Russia's invasion of Ukraine was moral because it prevented future harm. Do any of you carry? Consider: If you shoot and kill a man for what he did, that's murder. But if you shoot and kill a man for what you think he is about to do, that's probably justified. That's all Russia is doing here. Justified.

 

This is not only a false equivalency, it's just plain dumb. If you walk up to a man on the sidewalk in front of your and shoot him in the head because you think he might rob your house, that is absolutely still murder.

And that still a bad analogy. If your neighbor and you have a feud and your burn their house down with everyone in it because you were worried they were going to like their other neighbor more, that's still murder

 

T1000,
Your question gets to the heart of the weakening of Democracies around the world and the ability of citizens to understand the world based on reality.
Timothy Snyder in his book " The Road to Unfreedom" wrote " 'Information' in the digital sense is infinite, knowledge ever scarcer, and wisdom fleeting".
(I highly recommend this book, though it might be a struggle for those not used to Polish, Russian and Ukrainian names. Familiarity with some history of those countries would help also, but not a must for an attentive reader).

The rise of Fascism and authoritarian sympathizers has lead to an explosion of fake news, revisionist history, and a significant weakening of trust in the ethical standards of those who actually engage in the truth and reality of the world. The harm done has hobbled our ability to make any political sense of the world.

From a journalistic standpoint, go with long known sources and well staffed editorial oversight. That means places like the BBC. The 3 major networks in the USA. The AP. Reuters. Long established, well funded newspapers.
Long established academic institutions and communities have earned respect and trust for similar reasons....peer review and rigor imposed by those other than the author. There are reasons that certain subjects achieve a professional consensus.
To sum up....long established entities have become so due to a long period of professional and ethical conduct. Ironically, they meet the very definition of conservatism, which is often under attack from reactionary nihilists who self identify as conservative.

Whom not to trust? Any website that just collects stories from anywhere and then disseminates an edited, abbreviated version. There likely is essentially no oversight or attempt at vetting. They don't have the resources for vetting and often are actively involved with a particular party or movement.
Also distrust podcasts and blogs. For the same reason as the websites. It has an editor of one, and like the many websites, has a particular conclusion that the facts must be made to fit into.

The best defense is knowledge derived from foundational reading. If you have some background on a given subject you will often spot BS. My personal background is from an era and culture that treasured books and the insights to life that they can bring. At the risk of sounding like some old grump, being well read does not seem to be a feature of our modern society or its leadership. This makes us vulnerable to the cleverly written sophist argument.
Instead of books we use the internet. As someone on this thread with Delta in his name said: 'the internet is a mile wide and an inch deep'. I very much agree. It is an excellent source for checking on specific facts.
It is a terrible resource for developing any depth of understanding on just about any subject. The worst part is that we read an article or two on a subject we know little of and we come away with an inflated view of our knowledge. The Dunning-Kruger Effect writ large.
Forgive my bit of pompous soapbox, but the tone of your question struck me as an honest inquiry. As I stated at the beginning, we must learn how to separate Truths from a Fictionalized world, or Fascism (which thrives on Fiction and Falsehoods) will gain more and more power over us all.