Thanks for the link, I do want to understand this perspective.
The article makes some claims I'm skeptical of
> Obama administration-backed coup that toppled a Russia-friendly government in Kyiv.
I haven't seen any material evidence of how the coup was backed by America. Obviously it wouldn't be the first time, but I see this stated as fact when it's little more than he-said she-said.
> Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in 1994 in exchange for U.S. security guarantees in the event its neighbors, Russia in particular, turned hostile.
It was never Ukraine's arsenal, it was USSR leftovers, the launch codes were in Moscow. Further, this "in exchange" is without citation. The Budapest agreement is short and sweet, we (UK/USA/Rus) promise not to attack Ukraine, we promise to come to her aide in the event of nuclear war. It is not a defence pact, and the only nation in violation is Russia.
And look, I was born in 1990, I am not a political scientist nor historian. I just don't take Putin's word on any of this. I don't know how federal law applies to international relations, but saying USA somehow holds itself back from diplomacy with post-coup-power is laughable to me given how many coups we instigated and then normalized relations (I am not beyond recognizing USA as the bad guy, but coup is a somewhat intersubjective notion outside of military juntas). What law is this?
