Occam’s razor doesn’t mean “the view that contradicts my prejudices the least”. What you consider more or less likely has jack shit to do with it, learn what terms mean.

All sources have a built in bias jfc. If you think you’ve seen an unbiased source that just means you’re not self aware enough to recognize that it’s just your bias

They’re quoting people who were at the negotiations and when Johnson vetoed the deal, evidence doesn’t become more true or less true because it’s posted by a billionaire’s paper.

But if you like, you can pretend NBC quoted an anonymous source who said it. Or just look for Arakhamia+“do not sign anything with them” and do your own cross referencing instead of sealioning.

Funny way of going about it, given that they’ve offered terns of peace every few months and negotiated a ceasefire that the US and its vassal the UK vetoed (hmmm 🤔) a few months in.

Quote:

When we returned from Istanbul, [then-British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson came to Kiev and said: ‘Do not sign anything with them at all; just go to war,’” Arakhamia said.

Rather than report [the real demands] to the public, however, the media in Europe and the U.S. focused on sensational statements that were not actually part of those negotiations.

other people in the world absolutely were using the term American to refer to citizens of the US before the 1900s.

I mean, a few, I imagine. There’s always been people saying shit wrong. Would help your case if you actually had a source and not just a vibe to refute an evidence based position.

By population, however, most of the world isn’t the anglosphere. Spanish speakers, which is most of America, by and large call you “Estadunidenses” whenever it’s not “gringo”. A good chunk of us also speak English and object to gringos colonizing “america” much like Indonesians or Indians or Malaysians probably would have if Japan decided it was “Asia”.

You might not have decided that we speak English, but the same government that made it a necessity for us in the global south to learn the language is the one that decided to steal that term. Language matters.

This image is almost 3 years old already lmao.

If any libs want to learn how tankies see the future you might want to read about the past for once. Pop history doesn’t count.

America spent fuck all on Ukraine in the entire history of its independence up until Euromaidan

Oh fr? Let’s ask as-US-backed-as-US-backed-gets Kyiv Independent then: https://kyivindependent.com/how-us-foreign-aid-transformed-ukraine-through-the-years/

With the signing of a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and USAID in 1992, the agency started working alongside the Ukrainian government to build a competitive market economy, implement crucial social reforms […] In over 30 years of working in Ukraine, USAID has played a key role in transforming numerous sectors […] Dmytro Boyarchuk, the executive director of the Centre for Social and Economic Research (CASE Ukraine), said that Ukraine would not have been able to implement vital reforms without the support of international donors like USAID.

Obfuscate it as much as you want, pro-western Ukrainians themselves are telling everyone how maintaining a pro-western system depends on US funds.

The US didn’t need to do a damn thing

Nice deflection but the fact is that it did, often and extensively. If the US didn’t need to spend that money, then you shouldn’t worry, pretty soon they might not be. Let’s see how friendly that world is to the US and their chickenshit vassals in the UK et al, I yearn to see it. Most of all I yearn that y’all see it.

It actually started on February 2014 and then abruptly stopped around May for 8 years

It’s one of many examples of US funding, many of which I’ve already cited in this very thread which you refuse to acknowledge (even to refute) unless you can find a fucking Phoenix Wright gotcha lmao.

It doesn’t matter a single fucking bit why they would die without US funding, what matters is that they would, and thus they’re entirely at the behest of their benefactors. It’s also awfully convenient that you choose 2014 as a cutoff point for US involvement in Ukraine but you fail by that metric also. Regardless, Ukraine is thoroughly a puppet state of the US and its many crimes in the Donbas region are not a matter of debate. The ICJ has by and large rejected the atrocity propaganda lawfare of Ukraine and NATO and the probe has found evidence of genocidal intent in Donbas.

You handwaved it away and deflected back to your State department bullet points and atrocity propaganda.

Fact: there was a US financed coup.

Fact: states have a right to secede under Ukrainian law by referendum, and they exercised that right when their sovereignty was violated

Fact: sovereign nations have a right to request aid from their allies. Donetsk and Lugansk exercised that right when Ukrainian Nazis refused to abide by the many ceasefires Russia helped to negotiate.

American spending on Ukraine in 2013

Good thing we’re talking about the money it spent on the coup and the aftermath, then.

So the fact that America funded through USAID 9 out of every 10 media outlets means they didn’t spend “anything” in Ukraine because… It spends way more fucking money than that everywhere else too?

Also, implying the US only spends the money in a country via direct government cash injection lmao. Most of the money the US spends is channelled through NGOs for propaganda and covert action. Why the fuck would they ever just give money away to a government before it’s thoroughly vassalized. What’s more: there’s ample evidence that US and UK propaganda specialists were employed by Subversive elements within Ukraine as well as extensive funding of NGOs and collaboration with psyop specialists.

In future resumes, they cited the Ukraine coup as well as the selling of the civil war as a “war against russian separatists” as an example of a successful psychological operation.

Lmao so the US did finance them, did appoint their best liked interim, did have congresspeople on the ground supporting the coup, did send in the money to arm the Nazis but just… quietly let democracy take its course once they spent all that time and money? America doesn’t give a fuck if Sbovoda remains as long as the shock therapy has happened already, by then they’ll take anyone who’ll toe the line.

I want to give y’all the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you think we’re stupid but sometimes I think there’s a more obvious answer.

The Sbovoda interim was also financed by the USA, with Victoria Nuland discussing on a leaked call who to name after they deposed Yanukovich.

Russia had troops in Crimea as requested by the Crimean government, which also seceded via referendum after said coup, as is its right under Ukrainian law. That proved to be the right move given that they didn’t have the astronomical number of casualties that Donbas had, with over 14 thousand dead before 2022, most of them civilians, and a huge number of injured civilians and destroyed infrastructure as per the Donbas documentary.

I think you’ll find they were fighting other Ukrainians (if you can call the carpet bombing of civilians “fighting”) to maintain the US financed Poroshenko in power long before Russia went in, about eight years in fact.

This was written by Papa Bear himself