I believe they threw their president out because he stopped the EU progress they had made and had nothing to do with NATO. NATO came formally in to the picture in 2019 once the threat from Russia had mounted.
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.
I believe they threw their president out because he stopped the EU progress they had made and had nothing to do with NATO. NATO came formally in to the picture in 2019 once the threat from Russia had mounted.
I highly recommend educating yourself on the subject before opining. Lots has been written over the years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan on the first chapter.
Oh you mean this Euromaidan? https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
US officials, unhappy with the scuttled EU deal, saw a similar chance in the Maidan protests.
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?