Comments by "Eigelstein" (@Eigelstein) on "Times Of India" channel.

Which is why we need to continue to support Ukraine, so that RuZZia stays out of EU affairs and we can dictate the future of our own continent.
6
@ Except for the fact that it is ruled by a dictator who has unjustly invaded a European country.
6
@telmik Here are two examples, maybe you can clarify. Example 1. At 12:50, he speaks about a conversation that Gorbachev and Baker had on the 7th of February, 1991. Thereafter, (Genture???) gave a press conference stating that NATO would not expand eastward. Sachs did not name any specific agreement, so I am going to assume that there is none. Just a verbal promise not backed by law to a dying empire, which means nothing in geopolitics. Example 2. He called Maidan a coup while providing no proof. He had to spend at least 5 minutes talking about US-led insurgencies to prime the audience because he could not provide any proof. The Nuland audio fragment was not proof, and neither are buses.
5
So when is Sachs going to put any blame on RuZZia? Why is it that all the emphasis is placed on the West and the US, but somehow, the country that started the conflict gets none of the blame? Does RuZZia have no agency? Also, did you notice that he called Maidan a coup while providing no proof? He had to spend at least 5 minutes talking about US-led insurgencies to prime the audience because he could not provide any proof. This constant lack of nuance and one-sidedness is why I cannot take this man seriously.
3
@gandydancer9710 Did you notice that Sachs called Maidan a coup while providing no proof? He had to spend at least 5 minutes talking about US-led insurgencies to prime the audience because he could not provide any proof. The Nuland audio fragment was not proof, and neither are buses.
1
@gandydancer9710 Did you notice that Sachs called Maidan a coup while providing no proof? He had to spend at least 5 minutes talking about US-led insurgencies to prime the audience because he could not provide any proof. The Nuland audio fragment was not proof, and neither are buses.
1
Did you notice that he called it a coup while providing no proof? He had to spend at least 5 minutes talking about US-led Colour Revolutions to prime the audience because he could not provide any proof. The Nuland audio fragment was not proof, and neither are buses.
1
@telmik "you will understand that the presence of paper does not do anything." If that is the case, then why bother writing agreements down at all? Where is the precedent for this? "Putin has said many times ... in Canada." That desire is completely irrelevant as long as those missiles were placed after 2014. They violated the Budapest Memorandum, so why should we care? Why should we appease them? What's the compromise? "Read about the Cuban missile crisis ... on paper there either, so what?" That is a horrible analogy and an exception that proves the rule. There was a reason why nothing was written down, and that was because the promises were made in secret due to political constraints on the US side. If it was known that the US made a trade instead of achieving absolute victory in the conflict, then no promises could have been made at all. Therefore, both countries had an incentive to not sign an official treaty, and they didn't need to either because they could hold each other accountable for not following the promises. This was a wholly unique situation under very specific circumstances that do not apply to 1991. I just read the 14 articles of the Belovezhsky agreement, and I skimmed the rest. I have not found anything that prohibits a country from accepting foreign aid in any form. A country receiving foreign aid to keep their media functioning does not equal them losing their sovereignty. As Ukraine was a newly formed democracy with enormous debt and struggling financially, they needed a functioning civil society to prevent that democracy from collapsing. A civil society needs a media apparatus. Now, that apparatus might be biased due to the origin of those funds, but it is better than nothing. And in the case of 2014, you would have to prove that they were massively misinforming the public regarding the current political climate and purposfully creating unrest. Sachs did not prove that. Again, he simply primed the audience so he did not have to provide proof.
1
@ Elaborate?
1
@brendanhall5298 Except for the fact that it is ruled by a war mongering dictator that has unjustly invaded an European country and is constantly engaging in acts of sabotage in the EU. Totally ally material.
1
@ Except for the fact that it is ruled by a war-mongering dictator who has unjustly invaded a European country and is constantly engaging in acts of sabotage in the EU. Totally ally material.
1
 @brendanhall5298 Except for the fact that it is ruled by a dictator who has unjustly invaded a European country and is constantly engaging in acts of sabotage in the EU. Totally ally material.
1
@ And it's constantly engaging in acts of sabotage in the EU. Totally ally material.
1
@ And it's constantly engaging in acts of sabotage. Totally ally material.
1
@ Uh, yes. Victory achieved.
1
So when is Sachs going to put any blame on RuZZia? Why is it that all the emphasis is placed on the West and the US, but somehow, the country that started the conflict gets none of the blame? Does RuZZia have no agency? Also, did you notice that he called Maidan a coup while providing no proof? He had to spend at least 5 minutes talking about US-led insurgencies to prime the audience because he could not provide any proof. This constant lack of nuance and one-sidedness is why I cannot take this man seriously.
1
So when is Sachs going to put any blame on RuZZia? Why is it that all the emphasis is placed on the West and the US, but somehow, the country that started the conflict gets none of the blame? Does RuZZia have no agency? Also, did you notice that he called Maidan a coup while providing no proof? He had to spend at least 5 minutes talking about US-led insurgencies to prime the audience because he could not provide any proof. This constant lack of nuance and one-sidedness is why I cannot take this man seriously.
1
So when is Sachs going to put any blame on RuZZia? Why is it that all the emphasis is placed on the West and the US, but somehow, the country that started the conflict gets none of the blame? Does RuZZia have no agency?
1
So when is Sachs going to put any blame on RuZZia? Why is it that all the emphasis is placed on the West and the US, but somehow, the country that started the conflict gets none of the blame? Does RuZZia have no agency? Also, did you notice that he called Maidan a coup while providing no proof? He had to spend at least 5 minutes talking about US-led insurgencies to prime the audience because he could not provide any proof. This constant lack of nuance and one-sidedness is why I cannot take this man seriously.
1