This contradicts your claim that "People talking about CIA’s coup never provide any actual evidence to back up this claim.". If, however, you believe that the above is bulls*it, then I would love to see how you debunk it in one of your future posts.
First, Katchanovski argues that it was false flag operation by the Ukrainian far right, not the CIA.
Second, scientificness of Katachnovski's paper is very much debatable. Eminent Canadian historian David R. Marples, who is well known for his work on Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, has noted:
"The author’s depiction of such groups seeking to benefit from the mass protests and use them as a means of taking power, even to the point of killing their own fellow demonstrators on the square, is an important issue. But the paper doesn’t debate this question; it simply assumes it as a given fact, in a Conclusion that seems somewhat divorced from the rest of the paper.
(...) it ipso facto becomes a political tract (and moreover one that appears to fall closely into line with the RT version of events disseminated in the Russian Federation), which then leads to suspicions about its methodology."
and funniest thing is: Right Sector achieved nothing, because this alleged "coup" ended with elections in which far right appeared to have less support than their counterparts in Poland, not to mention trumpists-coupists in USA
Sure it is. And the secret services en masse too. Because of the „Bonds” and all those piles of memoirs of former spies. The war in Ukraine is excellent proof. Both Russian and Chinese intelligence just failed to do their job.
It does not contradict my claim. The author offers no evidence, no "smoking gun" - he is speculating. And above that, he is refering only to one particular event - the "snipers massacre". It's like equating de Gaulle's "coup" with only one massacre from the transitional period, for instance, the "Pont St Michel massacre" of 1961.
As far as I know, the identity of the sniper(s) is still unknown. Maybe we will never know it (just as we will never know the exact figure of casualties in the Pont St Michel massacre of 1961). But the downfall of Yanukovich was not caused by the snipers. It was caused by his violation of the will of the overwhelming majority in parliament. He alienated himself from his own political party, he had no supporters in the parliament, so with the snipers or without them, he would lose the impeachment procedure. That was already inevitable.
I don't know who the snipers were. Maybe CIA, maybe alien creatures from outer space. This is actually irrelevant.
Is fecit, cui prodest. What would be "the Right Sector" gain from organizing such a complicated plot to shoot couple of their own citizens? None. At the same time Russia had a lot of gains - they needed chaos cause they were already ready to invade Crimea (yes, this thing required at least a couple of weeks of preparations). Besides this Right Sector is from the beginning to the end creation of FSB propaganda. In general all of this is typical maskirovka - sowing hundred thousand of "possible" explanations to known event which would make information chaos, to cover your own involvement. That's what they just started to do btw with Nord Stream bombing. Same was 10 years ago with polish president airplane crash at Smolensk. that's they normal way of working.
Why would Russia bomb Nord Stream, when they could bomb the Baltic Pipe instead? (That's an argument I heard from Solovyov, by the way, and... well, it makes sense.) Would Russia gain by bombing a pipeline that can be used to transport Russian gas, or by bombing a pipeline that can be used by Russia's competitors? Is fecit, cui prodest.
As for the Smolensk plane crash, only fringe tinfoil hatters believe it's been done by the Russians. I'm sure other commenters can explain it better than I can.
The most likely reason for Russia to bomb Nord Stream, as a false flag operation, is to provide a "force majeure" event as an excuse not to pay compensation damages for gas non-delivery. These are likely to be in the tens of billions of euros.
While Russian propagandists like to brag that they can arbitrarily "cut off their gas suplies", they actually can not. Not according to the treaties they signed. So they are bound to lose the arbitration, if they cut off Poland or Germany simply for political purposes. They need plausible deniability for the arbitration, force majeure is their only option.
So actually it was Russia who benefited from bombing Nord Stream - otherwise they would have to pay billions in compensation (and it would be simply deducted from their frozen assets).
There's a theory that only NS1 was damaged by sabotage (Russian), while the damage to NS2 was a result of poor workmanship: https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/is-the-akademik-cherskiy-to-blame The motivation for Russia to blow up NS1 would be to increase the pressure on Germany to reopen NS2.
it's not just who profits, it is also whether it is worth the risk.
A lot of stuff sooner or later comes out and most of actors know they weren't the ones who did it.
Why russia didn't blow up Baltic Pipe? Because that lacks plausible deniability (who else would blew it up?) and would force Norway (thus NATO) to respond harshly. NATO deterrence works only if it is used.
Now I have no idea who blew Nord Stream and whether one explosion was accident that hastened other ones or all explosions were planned.
But if you factor not only who profits but also how much you can lose if you are discovered, then Norway, USA, Ukraine, Poland and Germany are highly unlikely - way too much risk for every one of them if they involvement becomes known to justify any potential gains.
It leaves russia (because they don't care) and non-state actors.
NB, it doesn't look as if this paper was published in any peer-reviewed journal. It's a write-up of a conference submission (in most sciences, the bar for presenting at conferences is lower than for publishing in a journal - computer science is an exception). Its author tried to publish a new version in a journal, got rejected, and now complains on alt-right (alt-left? hard to tell these days) websites like The Grayzone that he's being suppressed by a widespread conspiracy: https://thegrayzone.com/2023/03/12/academic-journal-maidan-massacre/
The author is also promoting the thesis that post-2014 Ukraine has been overrun by Nazi sympathisers, calling Ukrainian army "neo-Nazis" and claiming that "Slava Ukraini" is a Nazi greeting (browse his Twitter feed).
The conference was in 2014. The author claimed that the Ukrainian far right did the "false flag" operation to achieve power. 9 years later this claim is only getting more absurd for this simple reason: the far right never was in power. No president, no prime minister, no majority in Verkhovna Rada. Nothing. So even IF - and that's a big if - there was a false flag operation, it failed. Democracy prevailed.
I'm American and I have a lot of experience in your corner of the world, which is what has driven me to make points very similar to your own, which I thoroughly recognize because I witnessed the transformation you experienced around the time that Solidarity just won a big victory in Poland's first free elections since WWII, when the only English language media I could find was on Radio Free Europe, to when it was possible to watch direct feeds each Sunday of NFL football games. I observe all of these armchair intellectuals who are clueless concerning what it means to people over there who overcame what they did to have a decent shot at a good living, to eat good food, enjoy western cultural advantages and so forth and just see Ukraine as a political and military playground for foreign powers, irregardless of what the people themselves wish for. I ask the same question: how would any of them react were they located anywhere near Ukraine and not forced to shut their mouths about the war, as do those living inside of Russia or face imprisonment.
I almost feel like you got inspired by my 18 Feb comment where I tried to explain to Juanma how if any country meddled and caused Revolution of Dignity it was Poland by showing Ukrainians how it is to live in EU.
You were certainly right saying so, but... it's kinda obvious to anyone who knows Poland and Ukraine.
This is also an answer to Formosa's doubts about the declining popularity of the early 1990's separatism. In 1994 nobody - not even in Poland! - knew for sure there will be such thing as "prosperous Poland in EU". Back then, I had no hope to live to see this. The 2004 EU enlargement was a coup de grace for many "pro Russian separatisms" (I'm old enough to remember ephmerical ideas such as "People Republic of Gagausia" or "Transnarovan Soviet Republic").
Yeah. I wouldn't say that Pinochet was American installed. The yanks sidelines him big time once he took over and cut most ties. US wouldn't even sell them Sherman's when the war with Argentina loomed. Chile had to buy them 2nd hand from Israel. You might want to reconsider Pinochet being installed by the US. The CIA did appear to have a hand in trying to oust the democratically elected Communist leaning President of the day though, with limited success.
Like I said, I know very little of Latin American. Of course I'm open to reconsider, I'm not gonna go Roger Waters on this. I was simply refering to the line of argument "they did a coup in Ukraine just like they did in Chile / Guatemala / Cuba". When you read your average grey zone / consortium news article pushing this thesis, there will never be any smoking gun for a proof of the coup in Ukraine, but a large part - even majority - of the article will recall various coups CIA indeed facilitated in last century. This is a typical Robert Perry story for example: no evidence for a coup in Ukraine, but a lot of blah-blah-blah on "I remember the coup in Guatemala, and oh yeah, I remember the one in Iran, and oh yeah, I remember this, I remember that".
There exists a scientific study into the Maidan coup, proving it to be a false flag operation:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2658245
This contradicts your claim that "People talking about CIA’s coup never provide any actual evidence to back up this claim.". If, however, you believe that the above is bulls*it, then I would love to see how you debunk it in one of your future posts.
First, Katchanovski argues that it was false flag operation by the Ukrainian far right, not the CIA.
Second, scientificness of Katachnovski's paper is very much debatable. Eminent Canadian historian David R. Marples, who is well known for his work on Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, has noted:
"The author’s depiction of such groups seeking to benefit from the mass protests and use them as a means of taking power, even to the point of killing their own fellow demonstrators on the square, is an important issue. But the paper doesn’t debate this question; it simply assumes it as a given fact, in a Conclusion that seems somewhat divorced from the rest of the paper.
(...) it ipso facto becomes a political tract (and moreover one that appears to fall closely into line with the RT version of events disseminated in the Russian Federation), which then leads to suspicions about its methodology."
https://ukraineanalysis.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/the-snipers-massacre-in-kyiv/
and funniest thing is: Right Sector achieved nothing, because this alleged "coup" ended with elections in which far right appeared to have less support than their counterparts in Poland, not to mention trumpists-coupists in USA
Apparently, CIA is overrated.
Sure it is. And the secret services en masse too. Because of the „Bonds” and all those piles of memoirs of former spies. The war in Ukraine is excellent proof. Both Russian and Chinese intelligence just failed to do their job.
It does not contradict my claim. The author offers no evidence, no "smoking gun" - he is speculating. And above that, he is refering only to one particular event - the "snipers massacre". It's like equating de Gaulle's "coup" with only one massacre from the transitional period, for instance, the "Pont St Michel massacre" of 1961.
As far as I know, the identity of the sniper(s) is still unknown. Maybe we will never know it (just as we will never know the exact figure of casualties in the Pont St Michel massacre of 1961). But the downfall of Yanukovich was not caused by the snipers. It was caused by his violation of the will of the overwhelming majority in parliament. He alienated himself from his own political party, he had no supporters in the parliament, so with the snipers or without them, he would lose the impeachment procedure. That was already inevitable.
I don't know who the snipers were. Maybe CIA, maybe alien creatures from outer space. This is actually irrelevant.
Is fecit, cui prodest. What would be "the Right Sector" gain from organizing such a complicated plot to shoot couple of their own citizens? None. At the same time Russia had a lot of gains - they needed chaos cause they were already ready to invade Crimea (yes, this thing required at least a couple of weeks of preparations). Besides this Right Sector is from the beginning to the end creation of FSB propaganda. In general all of this is typical maskirovka - sowing hundred thousand of "possible" explanations to known event which would make information chaos, to cover your own involvement. That's what they just started to do btw with Nord Stream bombing. Same was 10 years ago with polish president airplane crash at Smolensk. that's they normal way of working.
Why would Russia bomb Nord Stream, when they could bomb the Baltic Pipe instead? (That's an argument I heard from Solovyov, by the way, and... well, it makes sense.) Would Russia gain by bombing a pipeline that can be used to transport Russian gas, or by bombing a pipeline that can be used by Russia's competitors? Is fecit, cui prodest.
As for the Smolensk plane crash, only fringe tinfoil hatters believe it's been done by the Russians. I'm sure other commenters can explain it better than I can.
The most likely reason for Russia to bomb Nord Stream, as a false flag operation, is to provide a "force majeure" event as an excuse not to pay compensation damages for gas non-delivery. These are likely to be in the tens of billions of euros.
https://www.upstreamonline.com/politics/gazprom-faces-new-damages-claim-in-germany/2-1-1367880
While Russian propagandists like to brag that they can arbitrarily "cut off their gas suplies", they actually can not. Not according to the treaties they signed. So they are bound to lose the arbitration, if they cut off Poland or Germany simply for political purposes. They need plausible deniability for the arbitration, force majeure is their only option.
So actually it was Russia who benefited from bombing Nord Stream - otherwise they would have to pay billions in compensation (and it would be simply deducted from their frozen assets).
There's a theory that only NS1 was damaged by sabotage (Russian), while the damage to NS2 was a result of poor workmanship: https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/is-the-akademik-cherskiy-to-blame The motivation for Russia to blow up NS1 would be to increase the pressure on Germany to reopen NS2.
it's not just who profits, it is also whether it is worth the risk.
A lot of stuff sooner or later comes out and most of actors know they weren't the ones who did it.
Why russia didn't blow up Baltic Pipe? Because that lacks plausible deniability (who else would blew it up?) and would force Norway (thus NATO) to respond harshly. NATO deterrence works only if it is used.
Now I have no idea who blew Nord Stream and whether one explosion was accident that hastened other ones or all explosions were planned.
But if you factor not only who profits but also how much you can lose if you are discovered, then Norway, USA, Ukraine, Poland and Germany are highly unlikely - way too much risk for every one of them if they involvement becomes known to justify any potential gains.
It leaves russia (because they don't care) and non-state actors.
I would love the truth to be that it was a collective of Polish fishermen from Świnoujście, upset at the Russian aggression, who did the deed.
NB, it doesn't look as if this paper was published in any peer-reviewed journal. It's a write-up of a conference submission (in most sciences, the bar for presenting at conferences is lower than for publishing in a journal - computer science is an exception). Its author tried to publish a new version in a journal, got rejected, and now complains on alt-right (alt-left? hard to tell these days) websites like The Grayzone that he's being suppressed by a widespread conspiracy: https://thegrayzone.com/2023/03/12/academic-journal-maidan-massacre/
The author is also promoting the thesis that post-2014 Ukraine has been overrun by Nazi sympathisers, calling Ukrainian army "neo-Nazis" and claiming that "Slava Ukraini" is a Nazi greeting (browse his Twitter feed).
Doesn't inspire confidence, to say the least!
The conference was in 2014. The author claimed that the Ukrainian far right did the "false flag" operation to achieve power. 9 years later this claim is only getting more absurd for this simple reason: the far right never was in power. No president, no prime minister, no majority in Verkhovna Rada. Nothing. So even IF - and that's a big if - there was a false flag operation, it failed. Democracy prevailed.
I'm American and I have a lot of experience in your corner of the world, which is what has driven me to make points very similar to your own, which I thoroughly recognize because I witnessed the transformation you experienced around the time that Solidarity just won a big victory in Poland's first free elections since WWII, when the only English language media I could find was on Radio Free Europe, to when it was possible to watch direct feeds each Sunday of NFL football games. I observe all of these armchair intellectuals who are clueless concerning what it means to people over there who overcame what they did to have a decent shot at a good living, to eat good food, enjoy western cultural advantages and so forth and just see Ukraine as a political and military playground for foreign powers, irregardless of what the people themselves wish for. I ask the same question: how would any of them react were they located anywhere near Ukraine and not forced to shut their mouths about the war, as do those living inside of Russia or face imprisonment.
I almost feel like you got inspired by my 18 Feb comment where I tried to explain to Juanma how if any country meddled and caused Revolution of Dignity it was Poland by showing Ukrainians how it is to live in EU.
I feel fulfilled.
You were certainly right saying so, but... it's kinda obvious to anyone who knows Poland and Ukraine.
This is also an answer to Formosa's doubts about the declining popularity of the early 1990's separatism. In 1994 nobody - not even in Poland! - knew for sure there will be such thing as "prosperous Poland in EU". Back then, I had no hope to live to see this. The 2004 EU enlargement was a coup de grace for many "pro Russian separatisms" (I'm old enough to remember ephmerical ideas such as "People Republic of Gagausia" or "Transnarovan Soviet Republic").
Yeah. I wouldn't say that Pinochet was American installed. The yanks sidelines him big time once he took over and cut most ties. US wouldn't even sell them Sherman's when the war with Argentina loomed. Chile had to buy them 2nd hand from Israel. You might want to reconsider Pinochet being installed by the US. The CIA did appear to have a hand in trying to oust the democratically elected Communist leaning President of the day though, with limited success.
Like I said, I know very little of Latin American. Of course I'm open to reconsider, I'm not gonna go Roger Waters on this. I was simply refering to the line of argument "they did a coup in Ukraine just like they did in Chile / Guatemala / Cuba". When you read your average grey zone / consortium news article pushing this thesis, there will never be any smoking gun for a proof of the coup in Ukraine, but a large part - even majority - of the article will recall various coups CIA indeed facilitated in last century. This is a typical Robert Perry story for example: no evidence for a coup in Ukraine, but a lot of blah-blah-blah on "I remember the coup in Guatemala, and oh yeah, I remember the one in Iran, and oh yeah, I remember this, I remember that".
One thing: unlike Zelensky, Reagan HAD ACTUALLY BEEN an active politician for 20+ years before he was elected POTUS.
Of course, but there was a moment of suprise when he ran for governor.