you always pick prominent, well-respected, honourable, non-partisan middle of the road people for that kind of thing. People who can be trusted to organise proper elections and not fuck shit up in the meantime.

Is this a joke? The US sidelined the main opposition forces who wanted to stay on good terms with both Russia and the US in favor of literal nazis. The new president was the leader of the "fatherland party" until he splintered it off into an even more conservative group which had a military council of nazi paramilitary leaders and was basically generically called "national socialist party"

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Turchynov? You can say a lot of things about him especially that he's conservative, but not that he wouldn't be a democrat. But who was interim wasn't important in the first place as then there were elections.

Those were won by Poroshenko who was rather heavy-handed in the east, also socially conservative, which made people (for one or both of those reasons) vote for Zelensky -- an ethnic Russian, running on a "let's try to be friends" platform, but not one of those "let's just bend over for Russia and let the Kremlin rule the country" people, either.

Those are all descisions of the Ukrainian electorate. To imply that that was all the US reeks of conspiratorial American exceptionalism. Believe it or not things happen without the CIA having their dirty fingers in it.

[–] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

Sorry. The prime Minister was the nazi, I forget that ukraine has both.

But generally yes the people that nuland and pyatt installed ruined contrary to ukrainian interests. Neutrality was how they avoided war. Things leaned too far to Russia, that caused a coup that led to an anti-russia government which led to the war.