So you still don't know what "economic coercion" means but claim that banning some chocolates and meat products for adulteration - which are very small part of Ukrainian/Russian trade - is "economic coercion"?
You know Russia bans a lot of things for adulteration. GMO crops, radioactive cars, etc.
Indeed every country bans some imports, I have never heard it labeled "economic coercion" before :).
We do have Nuland confessing to spend $5 billion on "democracy" in Ukraine. There is plenty of evidence of various government-funded NGOs being involved in the process. Maybe you will itemize how all that money was spent? Writing a syllabus for a course on civic virtues?
Quoting: Sun_dancer That 5 billion $ was spent in 24 years or so to promote rule of law principles, human rights, freedom of the press, minority rights and other stuff NGOs deal with.
So you say. Frankly if they did that there money was horribly spent :). BTW "human rights" and "freedome of the press" and "minority rights" are not "democracy", they are constitutional rights and anti-democratic. Just sayin'.
But some of us (like me) have been following US meddling in other countries' affairs for 30 years. So forgive me if I don't buy that "it's all for the good of the people" line for a second.
Some of the support and interference was, however, incontrovertible. When the radicals among the protesters were throwing molotov cocktails and bricks at police, the EU and US were warning Yanukovych and Ukraine of sanctions and other punishment if the government tried to restore order. Then you had US/EU politicians going on stage and encouraging the protesters to instigate regime change. These acts are enough to violate the Budapest Memorandum.
Quoting: Sun_dancer EU imposed sanctions after that bloody crackdown in Kiev.
US/EU politicians instigated protesters to do regime change? Really?
EU was threatening sanctions long before Feb. 18. Even in December already. I was living in Kiev at the time, so I am quite aware of what was happening.
You have to bear in mind that the entire presence of the Maidan movement was violent. They took over and blocked the main street in downtown Kiev and occupied government buildings and refused to leave, using violence against police when they tried to restore law and order. When Yanukovych simply tried to clear the street - not break up the protests, mind you, but just remove the barricades and allow traffic through - EU threatened him personally and Ukraine generally with sanctions. It was essentially a siege and military occupation of a part of Kiev - the "opposition leaders" were always instructing not to permit police in, created their own "self-defense units", etc. - they kicked the government out of a critical part of downtown Kiev and even set up a parallel "government" from which they attempted to rule.
This is how I saw it already then (when I was actually quite pro the protests and went to Maidan numerous times), and even more so with benefit of hindsight.
And when Nuland and McCain went to Independence Square and encouraged the protesters - they were in this area, controlled by protesters where police were not allowed. They were encouraging the protesters to keep their "land" they had seized, and to topple the government (which was the primary demand of the leaders - to have the elected President resign to be replaced by somebody not even the protesters voted for). These are just facts.
The basing agreement allowed Russia forces to leave the base, though I don't know the exact circumstances. But the constitutional president of Ukraine asked for Russian military help to maintain order - that's enough to allow them off the base under the agreements, I would think, I can't say for sure as I don't have the agreements in front of me :).
Quoting: Sun_dancer Yeah right so the Russian military "maintained order" by taking control of airports and surrounding Ukrainian soldiers in their bases....
Sure, they (whether it was Russian military or Crimean military or self-defense forces) didn't hurt anybody, but they did stop the military from interfering with the referendum, no?
Once the President leaves the country and his location, condition and freedom is not verifiable whatever he says has little value and he is no longer "constitutional".
Quoting: Polemarchos Sorry, that is not how either the Ukrainian constitution or international law works. And this would be the case even if he weren't fleeing for his life from the violent coup government that was trying to arrest and/or kill him.
He could be held against his will and made to say something another state/force wants for example. Anyhow, the Russians in Ukraine don't even care about him, they want to unite with Russia. So whatever he says is only used as a pretext. They are not struggling to get him back in power or anything.
Quoting: Polemarchos Speculation and irrelevant. As to nobody wanting him back, I did hear some calls for that from Donetsk people. But given that he was accused of murdering the Heavenly Hundred, he is not so popular in Ukraine (and also accused of stealing $70 billion - I'd say a lot of false and unprovable accusations, but they have been repeated to often by the usurpers of power and the oligarch media that people believe them).
