Zirkon schrieb am 30.12.2022 13:43:
MeldervomDienst schrieb am 30.12.2022 10:25:
auch keinen vom Westen finanzierten und unterstützten Putsch gegen die frei und demokratisch gewählte Regierung der Ukraine vor.
Es gab keinen Putsch, und Janukowitsch war ein Krimineller, von den Russen auf den Thron gehievt, und nicht frei und demokratisch gewählt.
Das ist hinlänglich bekannt.
Das hört sich hier aber anders an:
Despite his leadership defects and character flaws, Yanukovych had been duly elected in balloting that international observers considered reasonably free and fair—about the best standard one can hope for outside the mature Western democracies. A decent respect for democratic institutions and procedures meant that he ought to be able to serve out his lawful term as president, which would end in 2016.
(...)
The extent of the Obama administration’s meddling in Ukraine’s politics was breathtaking. Russian intelligence intercepted and leaked to the international media a Nuland telephone call in which she and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt discussed in detail their preferences for specific personnel in a post‐ Yanukovych government. The U.S-favored candidates included Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the man who became prime minister once Yanukovych was ousted from power. During the telephone call, Nuland stated enthusiastically that “Yats is the guy” who would do the best job.Nuland and Pyatt were engaged in such planning at a time when Yanukovych was still Ukraine’s lawful president. It was startling to have diplomatic representatives of a foreign country—and a country that routinely touts the need to respect democratic processes and the sovereignty of other nations—to be scheming about removing an elected government and replacing it with officials meriting U.S. approval.
Washington’s conduct not only constituted meddling, it bordered on micromanagement. At one point, Pyatt mentioned the complex dynamic among the three principal opposition leaders, Yatsenyuk, Oleh Tyahnybok, and Vitali Klitschko. Both Pyatt and Nuland wanted to keep Tyahnybok and Klitschko out of an interim government. In the former case, they worried about his extremist ties; in the latter, they seemed to want him to wait and make a bid for office on a longer‐ term basis. Nuland stated that “I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary.” She added that what Yatseniuk needed “is Klitsch and Tyanhybok on the outside.”
The two diplomats also were prepared to escalate the already extensive U.S. involvement in Ukraine’s political turbulence. Pyatt stated bluntly that “we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing [the political transition].” Nuland clearly had Vice President Joe Biden in mind for that role. Noting that the vice president’s national security adviser was in direct contact with her, Nuland related that she told him “probably tomorrow for an atta‐ boy and to get the details to stick. So Biden’s willing.”
Both the Obama administration and most of the American news media portrayed the Euromaidan Revolution as a spontaneous, popular uprising against a corrupt and brutal government.
A February 24, 2014, Washington Post editorial celebrated the Maidan demonstrators and their successful campaign to overthrow Yanukovych. The “moves were democratic,” the Washington Post concluded, and “Kiev is now controlled by pro‐ Western parties.”
It was a grotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as a purely indigenous, popular uprising. The Nuland‐ Pyatt telephone conversation and other actions confirm that the United States was considerably more than a passive observer to the turbulence. Instead, U.S. officials were blatantly meddling in Ukraine. Such conduct was utterly improper. The United States had no right to try to orchestrate political outcomes in another country—especially one on the border of another great power. It is no wonder that Russia reacted badly to the unconstitutional ouster of an elected, pro‐ Russian government—an ouster that occurred not only with Washington’s blessing, but apparently with its assistance.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy
Und zur Wahl Janukowtisch schreibt die DW:
Die Organisation für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa -OSZE- war da ganz anderer Meinung: Die Ukraine habe mit der Präsidentenwahl eine "eindruckvolle Darstellung demokratischer Wahlen" geliefert, hieß es. Bereits den ersten Durchgang im Januar hatten die Wahlbeobachter als fair und transparent bezeichnet. Jetzt müssten die politischen Führer des Landes die Entscheidung des Volkes annehmen und dafür sorgen, dass der Machtwechsel friedlich und konstruktiv verlaufe.
https://www.dw.com/de/janukowitsch-ist-zur%C3%BCck-an-der-macht/a-5226996