General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Russia: Constitutional Court Upholds ‘Foreign Agents’ Law [View all]The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)And the kind of craw-fishing back from the full implications of the line you press when challenged on it fools no one.
When riot police use murderous force against demonstrators, the latter are, and always will be, in my view, entitled to fight back with whatever means are to hand, and whether a U.S. law considers a bottle of gasoline and a wick 'terrorism' carries less weight than a gnat's wing with me.
Regarding both 'support' and 'expectation' you are engaged in a low bit of semantic subterfuge. Governments are fully entitled to express support, through their diplomatic personnel, for one side or another of a political dispute in a foreign country, and this does not change if that dispute reaches a pitch of violence verging on, or constituting, a revolution in progress. Further, people looking at a current set of circumstances, whether diplomats or otherwise, are not only entitled but often expected to state what they think the outcome will be, what they expect will happen, just as they may state what they would like to see happen ( people being what they are, there is often some overlap between expectation and hope ). None of things indicate agency, and certainly do not indicate essential agency --- they do not nearly suffice to establish a claim that without U.S. influence, the people of Ukraine would not have risen against Yanukovyk, and made his further rule of the place untenable. Short of this, claims of U.S. influence are meaningless, mere froth on a wave.
"Where are the people? I must hurry there and lead them!"