No, it actually doesn’t.
it’s facing a campaign tryinc go incite Russian-language separatism. But just like in Ukraine in 2014, they’ll need to bring actualy Russians from the Russia to do the actual “separatism”.
And it’s incredibly saddening that still in year 2026 DW calls the Russian troops “separatists”. Were the German soldiers in 1939 Belgian separatists in DW’s opinion?
That’s also probably why I haven’t bought products such as Coca Cola and Pepsi since the Iraq war began? :)
And me advocating for further integration of EU and wanting the EU parliament to have much more power over EU decisions than it currently has?
I find the concept of “malpracticing a law” very interesting.
What, specifically, was malpractice here? Except that it was against the will of Putin, and you are on Putin’s side? Your anti-EU sentiment seems to be strong.
Yanukovich was e legitimate President who was took down in a coup
That coup was the parliament of Ukraine voting to remove him from the post of the president of Ukraine. It was done according to the laws of Ukraine. It was breaking the laws of the Russia, and Putin is annoyed about that. Just like he is annoyed that there not being elections in Ukraine right not is breaking the laws of the Russia.
I would not call an impeachment done according to the laws of the country a “coup”. And I feel that you are either uninformed or intentionally lying when you’re calling it a coup.
I am eager to hear your opinion about it.
So have many other people before. To be honest, it is extremely tiresome having this same conversation again and again, month after month.
But good, let’s go for it again then? Yes, USA definitely had an interest in who would be in the leadership of Ukraine after Janukovych is gone. So did for example Finland. When there were elections in USA in the end of 2024, there were people in the embassy of my own home country, Finland, in Washington DC having conversations about who they would prefer to see as the next president of USA. And various people working in the embassy of Finland in DC did call Helsinki and did have conversations very similar to what you linked there. That’s one of the main reasons what embassies exist for, in the first place. They observe what is going on in the country they are based in, report about it back to their own countries’ capitals, and also try to influence the outcomes of various events that can affect their own countries’ interests. Also the embassy of Finland in USA does this. I am sure they said something along the lines of “Harris is our woman, it is important that she wins the election!” If there was anything the embassy of Finland could do about it, I am sure they did try nudge the US towards having Harris as its president.
This becomes even clearer if you listen to this phone call in the audio format. If you listen to the original conversation while keeping in mind that it’s the embassy of USA doing its job reporting to its capital about what is going on and how it affects US interests, you see it’s a call that is basically business as usual for an embassy. Yes, trying to influence what is going on.
From my previous experience of having had this same conversation with various people during the past 12 years of this war, next you are likely to say that this phone call proves that during this phone call USA created the conflict that began in 2008 when the Russia for example changed the Russian grammar, demanding that the conjugation of the word “Ukraina” in Russian language should use the forms used for regions of the Russia and not the forms used when talking about independent countries. In 2008 the Russia started preparing for invading Ukraine, and somehow this phone call in 2014 proves to you that USA created the Maidan demonstrations that began with Ukrainian berkut troops beating up unarmed teenagers in the demonstration and their relatives, many of whom were veterans of Soviet-Afghan war, came in their defence, armed. This would mean you implying that USA had a time machine they could use in 2014 to influence what the Russia does in 2008.
The US wanted the war between Ukraine and Russia
US wanted the Russia to take over Crimea and Donbas? What for?
the US used ukraine as a lever to demand more money from other members
The money spent to NATO defence does not go to NATO. It goes to Czechia. It means Czechia buying tanks, howitzers, drones and ammunition for Czech stockpiles. I don’t think Trump really understood this when demanding we ramp up our defence spending here in EU, but that’s not money for NATO. It’s a demand that we use more money for our OWN defence. Furthermore, the demand is that 3% should be for direct military use, further 2% should be for any use that is usable also by the military: For example any railway connections that would be useful in the time of a war count as defence spending for those extra 2%.
Czechia or Finland building new railway routes brings zero money for Trump.
In other words: Trump “used Ukraine” as a lever to demand other members spend more money for their own militaries.
How would that feed the US troll?
I recently moved from Voyager to Blorp, because Blorp also supports PieFed’s distinctive features, while Voyager can do only what Lemmy can do.