https://news.yahoo.com/nyt-cia-network-bases-ukraine-123116608.html
Since 2014... and you guys claim Maidan was a "peoples revolution"
Since 2014... and you guys claim Maidan was a "peoples revolution"
Network of CIA bases in Ukraine.... NYT revelation
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
Yes, it was a people's revolution. There were also FSB working in Ukraine.
Every spy agency has people working in and on every place they consider significant. That's what spies are for.
Every spy agency has people working in and on every place they consider significant. That's what spies are for.
The CIA was there to forment the colour revolution. That is what they do.They admitted they participated in preventing the legtimately elected leader from returning to Urkaine.
As was the FSB. That's what they do. Hell, the FSB was working directly in Yanukovych's office.
So what, Urkaine was next door to Russia, its clear that the CIA was involved in the coup, and as such the coup represented a threat to Russia, as it was to install a gov that wanted to join NATO and was put there to threaten Russia.
How about Russia's collusion with Cuba? Is the USA not Next Door to Cuba? The Russians are trying to drum up anti-American sentiment among Latin American countries:
Top Putin ally pledges Russian help in countering U.S. in Latin America - TASS
Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, a top ally of President Vladimir Putin, pledged on Monday to help Latin American countries counter what he described as U.S. attempts to interfere in their internal affairs.
He made his comments in Nicaragua, led by former Marxist guerrilla Daniel Ortega, after meeting Cuba's former leader Raul Castro in Havana.
Russia's TASS state news agency quoted Patrushev as saying that Latin American countries were well aware of attempts by the United States to resort to economic and political pressure against those whose policies did not suit Washington.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
"Latin America remains an important zone of peace, a sort of island of stability. It is important for us that more countries in the region strive towards independent policies," TASS quoted Patrushev as saying in Managua.
"And Moscow will continue within the framework of existing means to prevent interference in the internal affairs of your countries, campaigns to discredit their legitimate authorities, intimidate their populations and destabilize their economies."
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The war in Ukraine has triggered the worst crisis in Russia's relations with the West since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, according to Russian and U.S. diplomats.
After the West slapped what U.S. and European leaders cast as the toughest sanctions ever imposed on a major economy, Russia has turned away from Europe and the United States and boosted ties with countries in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America.
On his Latin American tour, Patrushev is also due to visit Bolivia and Venezuela, which like Cuba and Nicaragua are ran by leftist governments that have had frosty relationships with Washington.
Patrushev said developing good ties with Latin American and Caribbean states remained "one of Moscow's key priorities".
In Cuba, Patrushev and Castro discussed security cooperation, according to a statement issued by Russia's Security Council and quoted by Interfax news agency earlier on Tuesday.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
"Nikolai Patrushev assured Raul Castro that Moscow remains committed to the spirit of strategic partnership between the two countries," it said.
Putin has an invitation to visit Cuba.
Top Putin ally pledges Russian help in countering U.S. in Latin America - TASS
Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, a top ally of President Vladimir Putin, pledged on Monday to help Latin American countries counter what he described as U.S. attempts to interfere in their internal affairs.
He made his comments in Nicaragua, led by former Marxist guerrilla Daniel Ortega, after meeting Cuba's former leader Raul Castro in Havana.
Russia's TASS state news agency quoted Patrushev as saying that Latin American countries were well aware of attempts by the United States to resort to economic and political pressure against those whose policies did not suit Washington.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
"Latin America remains an important zone of peace, a sort of island of stability. It is important for us that more countries in the region strive towards independent policies," TASS quoted Patrushev as saying in Managua.
"And Moscow will continue within the framework of existing means to prevent interference in the internal affairs of your countries, campaigns to discredit their legitimate authorities, intimidate their populations and destabilize their economies."
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The war in Ukraine has triggered the worst crisis in Russia's relations with the West since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, according to Russian and U.S. diplomats.
After the West slapped what U.S. and European leaders cast as the toughest sanctions ever imposed on a major economy, Russia has turned away from Europe and the United States and boosted ties with countries in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America.
On his Latin American tour, Patrushev is also due to visit Bolivia and Venezuela, which like Cuba and Nicaragua are ran by leftist governments that have had frosty relationships with Washington.
Patrushev said developing good ties with Latin American and Caribbean states remained "one of Moscow's key priorities".
In Cuba, Patrushev and Castro discussed security cooperation, according to a statement issued by Russia's Security Council and quoted by Interfax news agency earlier on Tuesday.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
"Nikolai Patrushev assured Raul Castro that Moscow remains committed to the spirit of strategic partnership between the two countries," it said.
Putin has an invitation to visit Cuba.
CIA in Ukraine: Why is this not seen as provocation?
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.
responsiblestatecraft.org
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.
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
responsiblestatecraft.org
You can go on the CIA website and find their worldwide locations worldwide.https://news.yahoo.com/nyt-cia-network-bases-ukraine-123116608.html
Since 2014... and you guys claim Maidan was a "peoples revolution"
It seems they admit their presence in 109 foreign countries.
https://www.cia.gov/resources/cia-maps/explore-all-locations/
Except......... this isn't the reason anyone in Russia actually gives for invading Ukraine. It's garbage made up by shits like Mearsheimer, Hinkley and Blumenthal to sell to the west.
The talk in Russia is that Russia is threatened by no one, especially not the "puny, degenerate west" and that Russia could blow the west up in a couple of hours of nuking and then go get drunk on cheap vodka.
The actual reason for invading Ukraine that Russians tell each other is St Pissoslav shat in Kiyev in 600 AD and therefore Kiyev is always morally part of Russia. Just like Vavo told Fucker a couple of weeks ago. That's genuinely how those vodka-head dumdums perceive how the world works.
Joining NATO was a key reason Russia always gives for the invasion, what are you talking about. These bases are just an example of the security threat NATO in Ukraine represents to Russia. Mershiemer view has always been that its not important if you think the threats are real or not. If Russia believes they are real they will act on them. Kinda like if a cop thinks a guy with a knife is gonna stab him. BANG. No point saying after that the knife was a toy or the gun was not loaded, or a bb gun
Why do you think Russia is allowed to manipulate foreign countries but no one else is? I can accept Russia being involved in Syria as the butcher Assad asked them to be there but the Ukrainians clearly don't want the Russians there.
p.s. The joining NATO part is pure conspiracy. Zelensky showed no interest in doing so, at least until Russia invaded.
Which wasn't a thing, just an excuse that was slightly less idiotic than his Nazi claims.
Tsar Vlad invaded for two reasons, oil and a desire to be the new Stalin. Everything else is just for the sake of the gullible.
More fermented vatnik horseshit from you
NATO is a DEFENSIVE coalition of allies.
Like the rest of NATO, nobody is trying to take anything away from Russia, they just want to be be able to defend themselves against irrational aggression. Irrational in the sense of some short ass, rat faced psychopath, offended that nobody else respects his delusions of grandeur, he’s going to try to rewind his country few hundred years backwards by invading a neighbor.
Why do all the countries surrounding Russia have chosen to join NATO and have actively made e the efforts to do so.
Which is why notoriously neutral Sweden has made this clear and definite choice.to ensure secure in their own country through the deterrent effect of NATO.
Nyet, komrad.
It is featured in bullshit propaganda in English language sources aimed at the west. It is never featured in internal Russian media discussions. That is why Putin never mentioned NATO when Fucker interviewed him, but talked a lot about Saint Shitoslav in Kiyev and Bogdan Khlemnitski, etc etc.
In internal Russian discourse, Russia is all powerful and has a moral claim to Ukraine. Since that discourse is not accessible and understandable in the west - see again fall out from the Poo-Fucker Interview - a separate narrative was created that played on Western leftie pacifism and guilt bullshit and assholes like Hinkley and Mate were trained to start jerking it out.
What goes on in that semian mind of yours. I guess you could be considering "high functioning" for your species. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/15/putin-ukraine-nato-membership-question-must-be-resolved-now but clearly the memory is fading . You said you did not watch the interview so why are you still talking about it https://apnews.com/article/russia-p...-ukraine-war-5dbcda4543ca82261d34f4372bc36949 Putin said Moscow was forced to act preemptively to stop Ukraine from joining NATO and prevent a large-scale offensive by Kyiv aimed at reclaiming those eastern regions. Russia has provided no evidence that any such operation was in the making.
You know that NATO will not allow a country to join while there is a current military conflict.
So the "prevent a large-scale offensive by Kyiv aimed at reclaiming those eastern regions." is fucking ludicrous on its face. Even now, NATO is bending over backwards not to bring boots onto Ukrainian soil. No way NATO was pushing Ukraine to join since the Orcs invaded TEN YEARS AGO!!!!
So, nottsky, what goes on in that billy goat mind of yours? I guess you could be considering "high functioning" for the catsap species.
Man, why do you guys spew shit with your head up your ass. In 2021 at the Munich Secuirty conference Kamala Harris said the door to Ukraine membership in NATO was open. All the more justification to start one. Russia does not want to be in a military conflict indefinitely on this point. It wants a clear agreement with Ukraine to stay neutral IN WRITING with the understanding that breaking this will be a decleration of war. How many times had Ukraine attacked the donbas since 2014? I know you enjoy having your head up your ass but it does reduce situational awareness.You know that NATO will not allow a country to join while there is a current military conflict.
So the "prevent a large-scale offensive by Kyiv aimed at reclaiming those eastern regions." is fucking ludicrous on its face. Even now, NATO is bending over backwards not to bring boots onto Ukrainian soil. No way NATO was pushing Ukraine to join since the Orcs invaded TEN YEARS AGO!!!!
So, nottsky, what goes on in that billy goat mind of yours? I guess you could be considering "high functioning" for the catsap species.
Do you claim to know more then the NATO Secretary General? https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm?selectedLocale=en - So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.You know that NATO will not allow a country to join while there is a current military conflict.
So the "prevent a large-scale offensive by Kyiv aimed at reclaiming those eastern regions." is fucking ludicrous on its face. Even now, NATO is bending over backwards not to bring boots onto Ukrainian soil. No way NATO was pushing Ukraine to join since the Orcs invaded TEN YEARS AGO!!!!
So, nottsky, what goes on in that billy goat mind of yours? I guess you could be considering "high functioning" for the catsap species.
