Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine

It's not in the article but it is still a well-known fact: https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/The-election-of-Vol... Zelensky ran on a platform that included reconcilation with Moscow and which was neither pro-EU nor anti-Russian.

These audio tapes:

* https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

* https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/...

(I like the line, "A "new low?" From a Russian perspective, assuming they did it, it was brilliant. And it didn't require assassinating a former spy in a foreign capital with a radioactive isotope.")

There's nothing there about a "US instigated coup." What you're looking at are boring US State Department discussions of how to, yes, arrange to move the situation closer to something the US would like. Who to talk to, what to talk about. That's what they do. Here's the conclusion of the BBC diplomatic correspondent:

"The US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal in Ukraine than it publicly lets on. There is some embarrassment too for the Americans given the ease with which their communications were hacked."

One should note that Russia was also engaged in shenanigans, including providing advisors in the operations to suppress the protests. (You don't see the phrase "the use of snipers to disperse crowds" very often.)

This phone call was released in early February 2014, during the protests. Unless you somehow believe that the US has mind-control technology that can cause tens of thousands of innocent people to risk their lives protesting their government, there is not a whole lot of US agency here.

I know this is hard to believe, but people outside the US are actually people, and have their own beliefs and values, and are capable of making their own decisions.

There's not much in that article about Zelenskyy and Russian relations, before or after his election. Certainly nothing about "reconciliation" with Russia, just settlements in the Donbas war.

"...he leveraged his massive online following into a serious campaign against official corruption. ... [In his post-election speech,] Zelensky vowed that his first goal as president would be to achieve a lasting peace in war-torn eastern Ukraine. ... This confirmation of Zelensky’s mandate allowed him to promote a peace settlement that would see Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed insurgents withdraw from the so-called “contact line” in eastern Ukraine. Zelensky’s opponents characterized the move as a capitulation that would do nothing but legitimize Russian aggression in the Donets Basin and Crimea, but he retained widespread support from a war-weary public."

Says who?

I’m only caught up to what’s been declassified, so I had to google what you’re talking about. This [0] is a good enough answer for me: CIA involvement in 2014 is a rumor at best and Russian propaganda at worst. I like knowing what my government is up to so if you have a credible source by all means…

> The claims are coming from Putin's advisers who threatened to invade Ukraine. However, there's a problem with this stance - Ukraine protesters did not need significant funds and had very few weapons, mostly self-made Molotov cocktails, and absolutely no heavy weapons or even machine guns. Their actions were fairly chaotic, but when 300,000 people pour on the streets, little can be done in response. In the meantime, no CIA agents were documented in Kiev - Russia would have advertised such evidence if there was any.

Further down:

> There was no “coup.” After about three months of protests and police violence against demonstrators, Ukrainian president Yanukovych fled the country to escape prosecution, was kicked out of his own party, and voted out of office, peacefully, by a majority of the democratically elected parliament, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The largest block of parliamentarians that voted him out were his own party members and former party members.

[0] https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-credible-evidence-that-Uk...