The US had a preferred candidate and used their influence? Absolutely shocking, ground-shattering news. I sure hope no one else does that sort of thing in Ukraine.

It goes beyond "preference" we have State Dept officials on tape having a conversation where they're hand picking the Ukrainian cabinet. Again, imagine what the US would do if we had a tape of Chinese officials picking out the top officials of Mexico. There is no way to paint the US as innocent here.

They're expressing a preference for who winds up in the Cabinet, yes. There's no indication in that transcript they have anything other than diplomatic pressure and persuasion to make that preference a reality. Note phrashing like "I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make".

The Russians will have had their corresponding preferences and influence campaigns, just as they did in US elections. (They may have even expressed them via dioxin, in Yushchenko's case.)

There was no coercion, no bribery, no extortion, they were giving advice to friendly politicians and offering support. What do you think diplomats do?

  > What do you think diplomats do?

Well, large parts of our diplomatic corps tend to foment and finance coup's around the world. We're pretty smart about it though, first we bring in the NGO's like The National Endowment for Democracy (and many others) which act as an outsourced part of our CIA, then we apply pressure from within. Our playbook is pretty well known by now.

Or wait, how many coups do you think the US has actually been involved in since WWII?

Then again, the fact that you claim the US uses no coercion means you're probably trolling and I fell for it, so well played.

Of course the US uses coercion. There have been numerous appalling cases that are utterly deplorable, mostly during the Cold War, but we’re talking about Ukraine. They didn’t use any in Ukraine, they didn’t need to. As the overwhelming vote in the Ukrainian parliament in favour of the EU accords, and numerous elections and polls in Ukraine since demonstrated clearly.

So which one is this an example of - not coercion or not bribery? Or not both:

https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-t...

Do you think a government donating a billion dollars in aid money to a country has a legitimate interest in fighting corruption in that country, and a responsibility to their tax payers to ensure that money is well managed?

You didn't answer the question. We promised to give a billion dollars, then threatened to withhold it if they didn't do what we wanted. That is not a gift or a donation, that makes it a bribe. That was also a clear example of coercion - and it was done by our current President who was VP at the time.

I'm sure you were well aware of this and many other examples and yet you are on here pretending we don't use those tactics in Ukraine. Why?

It was a donation with conditions. International aid always comes with conditions as to how the money is used and managed, and donations to third world countries often include conditions relating to tackling corruption. There was nothing nefarious in that case. That prosecutor was obstructing corruption investigations, it would have been irresponsible to allow the money to go into Ukraine without ensuring the Ukrainian government was serious in tackling corruption.

Here's a UN report on aid agencies using their influence on recipient countries to demand better governance and fight corruption. So the answer to your question is, it was responsible aid management in line with international norms.

https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/publications/aid_ag...

No, it was Biden using his coercive power to stop the prosecutor in Ukraine that was looking into the shady dealings of Biden's son on the Board of Burisma.

On the Hunter Biden thing, since someone inevitably brought that up. According to the Ukrainians there never was any plan to investigate him, there was no evidence or reason they were aware of to bring a case, under that prosecutor or any other. Zelensky even refused to open such an investigation as spurious when directly threatened with withholding US aid as explicit coercion to do so.

Since you're so deeply concerned about US coercion of Ukraine for the personal political advantage of US politicians, I'm sure Trump's blatant attempts to do so as confirmed by several members of his own administration are particularly outrageous to you. Strange that you didn't mention it.

  > I'm sure Trump's blatant attempts to do so as confirmed by several members of his own administration are particularly outrageous to you. Strange that you didn't mention it.

Yes, a bunch of Trump's dealings are outrageous to me. One of the many reasons I didn't vote for him, he's a con artist. That doesn't change anything with the shady dealings, coercion and outright bribery that Biden has been involved in as VP and now as President.

> You have been misinformed > popular protests in favour of the association agreement, on 22 February 2010 the parliament voted overwhelmingly to remove Yanukovych

These "popular protests" were violent. The vote was at gunpoint, that's what makes it a coup.

> the military industrial complex in the USA have been pushing for Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine. I'm not sure I understand how that works. Could you explain?

Sure. They lobby the legislative and executive branch to aggressively expand NATO, to send NATO trainers into a military on Russia's border, they lobby to have the US sabotage the Minsk accords, so that anti-Russian forces in Ukraine spend 8 years killing thousands of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.

It's like everyone taking the State Dept/arms industry bait on this conflict hasn't heard of the Monroe Doctrine. If another country did in Mexico 1/5th of what we've been doing in Ukraine for the past 15 years we would have turned Mexico into ashes.

As I’ve already pointed out all the countries that joined NATO did so with overwhelming popular support. The vote in the Ukrainian parliament was entirely free. Bear in mind until then Yanukovych was party to the negotiations with the EU. His decision to refuse to ratify it came as a total shock, hence the protests in support of the parliament.

The idea the parliament voted for the EU accord at gun point is absurd to the point of fantastical. Whose guns? The president was in charge of the army and police and he was pro Moscow. If there were any guns pointed, and there were, it was to try to prevent the pro western tide.