"the Ukrainian parliament adopted a “non-bloc” resolution in 2010. In 2014 Ukraine was officially a neutral state, and Kyiv did not have any intention to join NATO. But this clearly didn’t diminish Putin’s ambitions to divide and rule Ukraine. Russia went ahead with its military aggression and annexed Crimea."
"the Ukrainian parliament adopted a “non-bloc” resolution in 2010. In 2014 Ukraine was officially a neutral state, and Kyiv did not have any intention to join NATO. But this clearly didn’t diminish Putin’s ambitions to divide and rule Ukraine. Russia went ahead with its military aggression and annexed Crimea."
This is beyond dishonest. You left out what happened in 2014, when the US helped overthrow that democratically elected neutral government to install a pro Western one. That's when Putin annexed the Crimea.
The rest of the article is glib neocon warlust and juvenile good and evil fantasies.
Remind us again your basis for believing the US overthrew the gov in 2014? I believe when I last asked you cited "Lots of chatter in 2014, just enough of it above the waterline to make fairly confident guesses at the iceberg below."
I agree that the political revolt in the meantime was an important event. But I see it as an example of Putin not accepting Ukraine setting its own course. Ukraine wanted to be in the EU, and he won't accept it; he invaded Crimea in response to Ukraine not complying with his wishes.
The rules-based international order IS a moral order. But it is also a practical one. It doesn't depend on divine intervention ('good and evil fantasies') just a coalition with sufficient common interests.
I said helped, not did it entirely. You had Victoria Nuland, the US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, literally handing out cookies to the insurrectionists. Can you imagine if a similarly high official in Putin's government had been handing out cookies on 1/6? And that wasn't even a real coup. You have her on tape considering candidates and picking out the next Ukrainian prime minster with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt, while Yanukovych is still the lawful leader of the country.
My, what minor details the author decided to leave out! Ukraine had a US supported (and almost certainly facilitated) coup that toppled its democratically elected government for being not hostile enough to Russia, and that fact is not even in dispute! What were you saying again about the deeply moral rules-based international order?
"the Ukrainian parliament adopted a “non-bloc” resolution in 2010. In 2014 Ukraine was officially a neutral state, and Kyiv did not have any intention to join NATO. But this clearly didn’t diminish Putin’s ambitions to divide and rule Ukraine. Russia went ahead with its military aggression and annexed Crimea."
This is beyond dishonest. You left out what happened in 2014, when the US helped overthrow that democratically elected neutral government to install a pro Western one. That's when Putin annexed the Crimea.
The rest of the article is glib neocon warlust and juvenile good and evil fantasies.
Remind us again your basis for believing the US overthrew the gov in 2014? I believe when I last asked you cited "Lots of chatter in 2014, just enough of it above the waterline to make fairly confident guesses at the iceberg below."
I agree that the political revolt in the meantime was an important event. But I see it as an example of Putin not accepting Ukraine setting its own course. Ukraine wanted to be in the EU, and he won't accept it; he invaded Crimea in response to Ukraine not complying with his wishes.
The rules-based international order IS a moral order. But it is also a practical one. It doesn't depend on divine intervention ('good and evil fantasies') just a coalition with sufficient common interests.
I said helped, not did it entirely. You had Victoria Nuland, the US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, literally handing out cookies to the insurrectionists. Can you imagine if a similarly high official in Putin's government had been handing out cookies on 1/6? And that wasn't even a real coup. You have her on tape considering candidates and picking out the next Ukrainian prime minster with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt, while Yanukovych is still the lawful leader of the country.
My, what minor details the author decided to leave out! Ukraine had a US supported (and almost certainly facilitated) coup that toppled its democratically elected government for being not hostile enough to Russia, and that fact is not even in dispute! What were you saying again about the deeply moral rules-based international order?