US officials, unhappy with the scuttled EU deal, saw a similar chance in the Maidan protests.
,
It’s an overstatement to say, as some critics have charged, that Washington orchestrated the Maidan uprising. But there’s no doubt US officials backed and exploited it for their own ends.
Your source states very clearly that the US did not orchestrate the Maidan protests, and that its involvement was due to the aborted EU-deal.
Nothing in there about the Maidan government wanting to join NATO, aside from one reference to Putin’s paranoia about it :
After Putin moved to secure the Crimean naval base from NATO control
Indeed, the article referenced in this sentence says:
“Our decision on Crimea was partly due to … considerations that if we do nothing, then at some point, guided by the same principles, NATO will drag Ukraine in and they will say: ‘It doesn’t have anything to do with you.’”
So, according to your source, Crimea was not annexed in reaction to Ukraine giving up its neutrality, but in prevision of it.
US orchestrated this coup, and I’ve linked you tons of documents supporting this in our previous discussion. I recall you whining that it was too much reading.
You did link a ton of documents, and I have not found yet the ones supporting that claim (does not help that you did not single them out). In fact, the article that we are discussing here, who as I highlighted explicitly states the opposite, was part of that ton of documents.
It is the second time that you use this document to support what it denies.
Please, help me understanding what I poorly comprehend in
US officials, unhappy with the scuttled EU deal, saw a similar chance in the Maidan protests.
It’s an overstatement to say, as some critics have charged, that Washington orchestrated the Maidan uprising. But there’s no doubt US officials backed and exploited it for their own ends.
,
Your source states very clearly that the US did not orchestrate the Maidan protests, and that its involvement was due to the aborted EU-deal.
Nothing in there about the Maidan government wanting to join NATO, aside from one reference to Putin’s paranoia about it :
Indeed, the article referenced in this sentence says:
So, according to your source, Crimea was not annexed in reaction to Ukraine giving up its neutrality, but in prevision of it.
Nuland is literally on tape selecting the government after the coup, but you do you bud.
Not my point, I never said the US did not participate.
Participate is such a great euphemism for saying US actively worked to overthrow the government.
“participating” means “actively working”, how is this wordplay contradicting my comment?
US orchestrated this coup, and I’ve linked you tons of documents supporting this in our previous discussion. I recall you whining that it was too much reading.
You did link a ton of documents, and I have not found yet the ones supporting that claim (does not help that you did not single them out). In fact, the article that we are discussing here, who as I highlighted explicitly states the opposite, was part of that ton of documents.
It is the second time that you use this document to support what it denies.
I’m sorry you have poor reading comprehension.
Please, help me understanding what I poorly comprehend in