I can see how it can be called a coup because of the protesters' violence and arguing that difference is pretty pedantic so I have no problem with that.
The main point I was making was in response to the person confidently claiming Nuland orchestrated the coup. I don't think the call shows evidence of that. They only talk about coordinating their support for a candidate.
> And if you want to see the sparking of the coup, this [2] is a video of John McCain (who was working alongside Nuland) instigating and emboldening the protesters, "America is with you. Europe is with you. The destiny you seek lies in Europe!" At the same time this was happening, Nuland was on the ground with protesters, memed as 'handing out cookies.'
I've seen this mentioned before. While I think it's clear who the US supported in this coup and the US was certainly trying to influence the situation, calling John McCain's speech three months before Yanukovych left, the sparking of the coup, is very disingenuous. That speech didn't cause the coup.
I could definitely see the US actually being behind the coup though. They've shamelessly done it countless times throughout history. It's just nothing out there so far is evidence of it.
The US would not have been in the ground riling up protesters if they thought the protests could organically overthrow their government, which was the US goal. It 'taints' the protesting by making it seem like it's just another US puppet protest. And it also makes a complete mockery of any efforts for us to make claims like 'foreign countries shouldn't interfere in the democratic process of other nations.' There is 0 doubt that Yanukovych was the legitimate democratically elected leader of Ukraine, but because he made interests that were not aligned with those of the US, of course it didn't matter.
Beyond this, I think you're also aware that if the US is sending people like McCain and Nuland to visibly rile up protesters, "we" were also doing far more behind the scenes, to make sure the coup could succeed. The number of protesters involved in the final attack on the Ukrainian Parliament was extremely small, relative to the earlier mass gatherings - numbering about 20,000 people. There was no real reason to think they would win, yet you had cities, police departments, and others openly and overtly defecting to the protesters, the military refusing to carry out orders and so on. That seems extremely unlikely to be organic, because if the protesters had failed overthrow Yanukovych, which one had every reason to think would be the case, then the defectors would have faced extremely severe consequences, up to and including charges of treason.
Oh there's also another funny little point. When the final charge on the parliament began, riot police managed to successfully scatter the first wave. Many protesters being pursued by riot police managed to evade them by taking shelter in... the Canadian Embassy. It's all about as organic as nuclear waste.
> The US would not have been in the ground riling up protesters if they thought the protests could organically overthrow their government, which was the US goal
The US can show their support for the protesters (if only to get them to think favorably of the US), regardless of whether or not they think the coup will work. It's not evidence they caused the coup.
I agree with the rest of that paragraph up until the last sentence:
> There is 0 doubt that Yanukovych was the legitimate democratically elected leader of Ukraine, but because he made interests that were not aligned with those of the US, of course it didn't matter.
I think the people of Kyiv are the cause of the coup, not the US.
The rest of your comment does not provide good evidence of the US causing the coup. Like I said before, it's clear who the US supported, but none of what you presented is good evidence toward the US causing the coup.
Unless you have evidence of a bribe, staging of protests, blackmail of officials, puppeteering of officials, attempted assassination of officials, government spy, some record of this plot, or some other good evidence along those lines directed toward causing the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, I don't think you can say the Ukrainian coup was orchestrated by the US.
The main point I was making was in response to the person confidently claiming Nuland orchestrated the coup. I don't think the call shows evidence of that. They only talk about coordinating their support for a candidate.
> And if you want to see the sparking of the coup, this [2] is a video of John McCain (who was working alongside Nuland) instigating and emboldening the protesters, "America is with you. Europe is with you. The destiny you seek lies in Europe!" At the same time this was happening, Nuland was on the ground with protesters, memed as 'handing out cookies.'
I've seen this mentioned before. While I think it's clear who the US supported in this coup and the US was certainly trying to influence the situation, calling John McCain's speech three months before Yanukovych left, the sparking of the coup, is very disingenuous. That speech didn't cause the coup.
I could definitely see the US actually being behind the coup though. They've shamelessly done it countless times throughout history. It's just nothing out there so far is evidence of it.