By Aaron Maté, RealClearInvestigationsApril 30, 2024
In successfully lobbying Congress for an additional $61 billion in Ukraine war funding, an effort that ended this month with celebratory Dem
I assume you’re talking about Euromaidan. I’ll point out the protests wouldn’t have happened if that president hadn’t reversed constitutional amendments that weakened his power and were supported by 90% of their legislators, jailed opposition leaders and backed away from a popular treaty.
Also, yes, it is still a sovereign nation. You do not lose sovereignty just because you listen to someone as part of a deal.
You are right on one thing though, the US was ignoring Russia’s security interests. Their need to have an even larger amount of land for their own security is not considered important. Everyone else manages just fine with far less.
Euromaidan had nothing to do with the president’s domestic policy and had everything to do with foreign policy. The US wanted to isolate Ukraine from Russia, including steering Ukrainian big business away from Russia. The Russians provided an economic deal than the EU could give. The declared independent republics wasn’t about whether Yanukovych was strengthening or weakening his own power. Even the news media doesn’t claim your explanation.
Yes, the foreign policy was the spark that ignited everything. Had he not already pissed his people off with domestic mistakes though, like repealing their amendments, I doubt they would have all turned on him for just foreign policy.
But go ahead, keeping blaming it on shadowy US control instead of pissed off Ukrainians.
You should actually read through that article too, btw, the demands, timeline and linked section on the Revolution of Dignity are interesting. I didn’t know the US actually pushed for leaving Yanukovych in power. Disappointing.
You did not read the article. The reason why the Ukrainian government did not sign the Association Agreement with the EU is because the loan terms were harsh, and the Russians simply offered a much better deal with very few strings attached. The EU offered $850 million in loans while the Russians offered $15 billion dollars in loans, and cheap gas. This is why Ukrainian leadership did not side with the EU. The IMF wanted 40% tariffs on natural gas, to cut government sending, and the whole 9 yards, including changing their own laws. Let me point out this awfully bad lie that Ukraine, as a sovereign country, would make a sovereign choice to join NATO and the EU; by joining NATO, you forfeit your own foreign policy for the US providing security. European foreign states in NATO and the EU do not have sovereignty. EU states are controlled by the EU, which has its office in Brussels. None of them have “sovereignty”. Sovereignty and democracy are not the motivating factors in staging a proxy war in Ukraine, it is through NATO, which the US exercises influence over the European states, and that is why principally, the conflict with Russia was spearheaded by the US, not France, or Germany. The UK being a prime exception.
I assume you’re talking about Euromaidan. I’ll point out the protests wouldn’t have happened if that president hadn’t reversed constitutional amendments that weakened his power and were supported by 90% of their legislators, jailed opposition leaders and backed away from a popular treaty.
Also, yes, it is still a sovereign nation. You do not lose sovereignty just because you listen to someone as part of a deal.
You are right on one thing though, the US was ignoring Russia’s security interests. Their need to have an even larger amount of land for their own security is not considered important. Everyone else manages just fine with far less.
Euromaidan had nothing to do with the president’s domestic policy and had everything to do with foreign policy. The US wanted to isolate Ukraine from Russia, including steering Ukrainian big business away from Russia. The Russians provided an economic deal than the EU could give. The declared independent republics wasn’t about whether Yanukovych was strengthening or weakening his own power. Even the news media doesn’t claim your explanation.
Yes, the foreign policy was the spark that ignited everything. Had he not already pissed his people off with domestic mistakes though, like repealing their amendments, I doubt they would have all turned on him for just foreign policy.
But go ahead, keeping blaming it on shadowy US control instead of pissed off Ukrainians.
You should actually read through that article too, btw, the demands, timeline and linked section on the Revolution of Dignity are interesting. I didn’t know the US actually pushed for leaving Yanukovych in power. Disappointing.
You did not read the article. The reason why the Ukrainian government did not sign the Association Agreement with the EU is because the loan terms were harsh, and the Russians simply offered a much better deal with very few strings attached. The EU offered $850 million in loans while the Russians offered $15 billion dollars in loans, and cheap gas. This is why Ukrainian leadership did not side with the EU. The IMF wanted 40% tariffs on natural gas, to cut government sending, and the whole 9 yards, including changing their own laws. Let me point out this awfully bad lie that Ukraine, as a sovereign country, would make a sovereign choice to join NATO and the EU; by joining NATO, you forfeit your own foreign policy for the US providing security. European foreign states in NATO and the EU do not have sovereignty. EU states are controlled by the EU, which has its office in Brussels. None of them have “sovereignty”. Sovereignty and democracy are not the motivating factors in staging a proxy war in Ukraine, it is through NATO, which the US exercises influence over the European states, and that is why principally, the conflict with Russia was spearheaded by the US, not France, or Germany. The UK being a prime exception.