Right - because this was a completely different era, and information moved infinitely more slowly back then (and up until Vietnam unravelled, people are way more reluctant to call out of the government on its shenanigans compared today).
Even so - actually it's a myth that most of these coups were even "secret" at time. By and large, the people actually living in these countries knew what as up. The Arbenz coup in 1954, for example (not on your list, but a canonical example of this "pattern") was exposed right away, and the US got a lot of flack for it internationally.
Anyway, it's not like I'm asking hard "proof" and the full operational details. Just, you know, some objective indication that there's something going on along the lines of what you're alluding to.
Which these days would be nearly impossible to hide for any length of time.
Launching a major attack against Assad (a Russian ally) and an upcoming revolution against an (allegedly) pro-Russian government in Georgia all seem to fit into a pattern.
The only "pattern" between these two at least -- is that you haven't cited any direct, observable reason to believe that US agencies have been behind these events. You know, "evidence" and all that.
BTW I only chimed in like that because people routinely cite, for example, casualty figures ("Ukraine has 1M+ dead") intended to make the situation look much worse for Ukraine than it actually is (and to apparently suggest that there's a giant conspiracy to keep keep the truth hidden from us).
Turns out they're invariably skimming, looking at a random figure they saw (for example an article claiming 1M total casualties included wounded, and on both sides, meaning mostly Russian), and duly misremembering in a specific way that happens to align with the narratives they like.
So this case it turns out I was wrong (but at least in an interpretive way; I didn't think about how the definition of "refugee" is overly specific and doesn't really count the number of people forced to leave the country).
On that note, if you have your own estimate of the current numbers for military / civilian fatalities, that would be of interest also.
This was a coup funded by the US and the oligarchs.
I guess that's what you thought you saw. But since you've made a point of fabricating other plainly untenable information (e.g. "Over a million dead") and attempting to present it as fact -- it's a foregone conclusion that your narrative of the events of 2014 will be equally Swiss-cheesed with falsehoods and fabrications as well.
And who accept the physical risk of doing so, in order for people like Palmer can profit handsomely from it, without having to take on any of that risk themselves.
Even the Ukraine war started with violence back in 2014.
Right - violent invasions of Ukrainian territory by Russia.
Russia was pushed into war by Obama and Biden
This just is a repeat of what you said earlier. But in short -- in no way was Russia's regime "pushed" into doing what it did in 2014. The move was entirely optional for Putin. He did what he did because he thought he could obtain a certain advantage on the playing field, and because he thought he could get away with it.
Such fortuitous stumblings happen all the time without LLMs (and in regular libraries, for those brave enough to use them). It's just the natural byproduct of doing any kind of research.
So if the WP article for the Soviet Afghan war quotes a broad range of estimates, ranging from 562k to 3M, with most in the range of 800k-1.2M -- how is it that you came to believe 2M is the "right" number?
Without going back to check the article -- I just want to know what's in your head right now -- can you actually tell me which estimate it was that gave you the 2M figure, and why you decided to go with that estimate and not the others? Did you ever get to the section in the article where it lays out all the conflicting estimates, in that big huge sprawling pile of footnotes?
Or was it more like -- you scanned the little Infobox at the top, saw 3 estimates in the range 1M-3M (including 2 conflicting estimates from the same author) and thought to yourself "Hmm, I know, I'll just average them!"
Something like that?
No judgements here. I just want to understand your thought process.
The point is that every single time something like this happens, it gets silenced.
Except it doesn't. Stuff like this gets reported all the time (for exactly what it is), also when Ukrainians do it. Like the EW-intercepted drone that hit that apartment outside Moscow, killing (according to local reports) someone inside. Even RFE/RL reported it.
Not every single incident of course -- but they do get reported, very frequently.
People tend not to dwell on it, of course -- because they know these things are bound to happen to some degree (and anyone with more than a completely casual understanding of WW II knows that inadvertent civilian casualties, even in allied countries, were extremely high). And that there are far too many perfectly deliberate atrocities happening, and at far greater scale (and except for a few isolated cases, all coming not so coincidentally from one side). And because they understand the far bigger point, which is that at the end of the day, the war (and all the suffering that will be required to end it) is Putin's fault anyway.
But that's very different from the simple matter of these events being "silenced". Because plainly they're not. The reason they don't get more column inches or newsroom chatter is because, by any level-headed analysis -- they just don't deserve any.
And attempting to describe the state of affairs that way, when clearly it isn't, is well -- manipulative.
That's just a weird, semantic distortion.