Seems like the EU and the US instigated Ukrainian revolt in the hopes the country would join the EU / NATO and quietly drift away from Russian influence. The Western leaders didn't predict either the influence of the ultra-nationalists of the Right Sector, or the willingness of Russia to protect their interests.
I predict mid-term economic uncertanity for Russia and their investments, due to sanctions, but the blow on the face of Washington and Brussels over their obvious inability to come together and do something effective while Crimea is annexed and Ukraine possibly falls to civil war will damage them the hardest.
Seems awful conspiracy theoristish, espiecally considering just how much of a disaster the Ukraine has been.
There were plenty of reasons for revolution without the need for provocation.
It's been no secret the Ukraine was about to default hard. Meanwhile, the president was skimming off the top pretty heavily.
Except you have things like the Nuland phone conversation that make the theory sound very plausible.
About the economic situation: it was Russia that offered to help with a huge bailout package. What other reasons for revolution were there?
Have you actually listened to the Nuland phone call? Nothing about it suggests that, just simply that the USA would have pull with the Pro-Western polticians.
Which is pretty much just how it's going to be anywhere there's a pro western revolution.
If they tell Vitaly Klitcko to sit out, he'd probably sit out, because US good will is pretty important.
As for the Russian Bailout package. That's more or less the exact reason you would want a revolution.
If I lived in the Ukraine like my ancestors, the last thing i'd want is owing a ton of money to Russia.
Giving Russia even more power over the finances of my country to where it could more or less dump the country into financial crisis to the point of where even the IMF or EU couldn't bail us out.
Not to mention iIt more or less would legitamize moves like Crimea, and others, simply by citing a huge ass unpaid debt.
Yes, I've actually listened. They're talking about who should run things; they're assigning roles to the different players. There are also leaked emails of Vitaly Klitschko to consider. It's pretty clear that there was a very large external involvement in the overthrow.
You talk about US goodwill being important. Tell me how it is important to the Ukrainian public. Unless you mean it's imporant for Klitschko personally, which makes him a much bigger crook than Yanukovich.
You do realize what the alternatives to the Russian bailout were, right? A much smaller than requested loan by the IMF, which came with conditions that would put a considerable financial strain on the majority of Ukrainians. Or a tiny loan offer by EU along with a list of requirements. Neither IMF nor EU were willing to provide any serious help. This fact makes your discussion of a scenario "where even the IMF or EU couldn't bail us out" laughable.
They're assigning roles they'd like to see, as in, who they want to back for said positions. They aren't just installing people lock stock and barrel.
There is a reason why the big story from that call was "Fuck the EU" because the rest was pretty standard noncontroversial talk.
As for how important US goodwill is? I'd say probably about half the Ukrainian people, and vitally important to the Ukranian country.
As for how it's only half, god only knows. It's as if nobody has a memory that lasts longer then 15 years.
Then again if your profile age is accurate, I suppose that'd be afairly reasonable reason your memory is about that long.
As for the EU and IMF, maybe you didn't notice with Greece, but that's what they do. They give out smaller loans, make sure you are actually fixing your economy and give you further loans as needed.
As opposed to Russia who's happy to let the Ukraine gorge itself on free cash until it collapses and then they're free to move in.