Here's a video of Victoria Nuland of the Department of State claiming U.S. has spent $5 billion since 1991 to 'build democratic institutions' in Ukraine. Take note of the sponsorship flags by Chevron and ExxonMobil in the background. Note how she uses the word 'invested'.
IMO that is evidence of U.S. interference in Ukraine's political affairs.
It is crazy to suggest U.S. is not involved in encouraging Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO.
On one hand the U.S. supports a government installed via a coup, toppling the previous elected government, and on the other give no comments on the Kiev government sending army units to crack down on Anti-Kiev protesters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariupol_standoff
The U.S. media calls armed men storming Pro-Russia government buildings "protesters", while armed men storming Pro-US government buildings are "separatists", "militants". I'm not for U.S. or Russia, I see the Ukraine situation for what it is, a small country whose people are being manipulated by larger ones.
Russia's move into Crimea isn't even illegal, it was specified clearly in the terms of the treaty leasing the Russia naval base. It was also a defensive one. If Ukraine would join NATO, the lease for the base would terminate, and Russia will lose a naval port. Crimea was also historically Russian, the fact that Ukraine had it after Soviet Union's collapse was pure accident; the Soviet Union 'awarded' the Ukraine state with Crimea in 1954 as a meaningless proclamation, probably for domestic propaganda purposes. It was the people in Crimea who decided to join Russia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UkraineNativeLanguagesCens...) U.S. (and probably all governments if given the chance) favors self-determination when it favors them (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_re...), calls them illegitimate when it doesn't.
$5 billion is less than $10 per Ukrainian per year. That doesn't necessarily say much about how much influence the money would buy, but it can be interesting to try to stick a denominator under big aggregate numbers.
($5 billion / 45 million -> $111, I left lots of wiggle room for changes in population)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=448
IMO that is evidence of U.S. interference in Ukraine's political affairs.
It is crazy to suggest U.S. is not involved in encouraging Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO.
On one hand the U.S. supports a government installed via a coup, toppling the previous elected government, and on the other give no comments on the Kiev government sending army units to crack down on Anti-Kiev protesters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariupol_standoff
The U.S. media calls armed men storming Pro-Russia government buildings "protesters", while armed men storming Pro-US government buildings are "separatists", "militants". I'm not for U.S. or Russia, I see the Ukraine situation for what it is, a small country whose people are being manipulated by larger ones.
Russia's move into Crimea isn't even illegal, it was specified clearly in the terms of the treaty leasing the Russia naval base. It was also a defensive one. If Ukraine would join NATO, the lease for the base would terminate, and Russia will lose a naval port. Crimea was also historically Russian, the fact that Ukraine had it after Soviet Union's collapse was pure accident; the Soviet Union 'awarded' the Ukraine state with Crimea in 1954 as a meaningless proclamation, probably for domestic propaganda purposes. It was the people in Crimea who decided to join Russia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UkraineNativeLanguagesCens...) U.S. (and probably all governments if given the chance) favors self-determination when it favors them (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_re...), calls them illegitimate when it doesn't.