Replies

It’s selective amnesia on their part... To put it charitably.

Boris did indeed tell Ukraine that we wouldn’t support the deal on the table... So they are fixated on him saying it.

What they studiously avoid mentioning is, Boris didn’t say anything against the negotiated deal until after Putin intervened to insist the Russian negotiators include the unattainable NATO charter rewrite as a non negotiable part of it.

It’s like the cobblers over Nuland picking the INTERIM leadership of Ukraine. Which was not a coup.

Ukraine wouldn’t have needed an interim prime minister AND an interim president AND an interim government all at the same time, if Russia hadn’t provoked Maidan.

It’s basic cause and effect; because of Putin’s blackmail over summer and fall 2013 the Azarov government folded; because of Yanukovych’s “biggest act of betrayal of his own country since Benedict Arnold” deal with Moscow in December 2013 even Yanukovych’s own party voted to impeach him; because Yanukovych couldn’t face impeachment he went AWOL.

So, Putin didn’t want the USA to meddle in Ukrainian affairs. But he could’ve spent all of 2013 sitting with his thumb up his ass instead of propelling Ukraine into civil unrest and a collapse of a regime that wasn’t remotely hostile to Russia.

Putin is a retard. It’s his own retarded fault Nuland had an open goal to kick at.

MalPearce: "It’s like the cobblers over Nuland picking the INTERIM leadership of Ukraine. Which was not a coup."

Pro-Putin conspiracy theories notwithstanding, nothing I've seen suggests that Nuland did anything during the crisis of 2013-14 other than engage in random conversations with other American diplomats.

That Nuland may have mentioned some Ukrainians favorably in some of those conversations does not in any way constitute a "coup" or anything remotely resembling.
It was simply diplomats doing what diplomats naturally do.

Even if, somehow, Nuland's opinions became known to Ukrainians who then used her words like a campaign political endorsement, that still in no way constitutes a "coup".

At most it would be the equivalent of... take your pick... somebody in Canada's foreign ministry expressing their preference for, say, Biden over Trump.
That might sway a few votes, but it's still not a "coup".

Which is not for a moment to defend Nuland or anything she may, or may not, have actually done, I'm simply saying that Ukrainians themselves are in charge of their fate, not some US State Department underling.

Euromaidan Revolution in Ukraine, 2013 to 2014: