That's my question also.Originally Posted by JMA
Kerry was "assured" by Lavrov that the military exercises were unrelated to Ukraine, only to have paramilitaries arrive en masse across Crimea the next day. The activated forces were airborne, aerospace defense, and airlift forces, which now in hindsight is obvious why. It was five days from Yanukovych's overthrow (22 Feb) to the occupation of Crimea (27 Feb). The drills started the day before, 26 Feb.
My theory is that (1) Washington was not expecting military action, blinded by its own assessment of Moscow's intentions, and (2) once the drills were ordered, events moved too quickly for Washington to do anything about it.
From the New York Times on IMF conditions:
The pending economic changes coming to Ukraine will not help an administration perceived by ethnic Russians to be "fascists"; from Euronews:A team from the International Monetary Fund is in Kiev to study the books and consider a stabilization loan. The fund is expected to demand difficult changes, including the reduction of lavish subsidies on gas prices, so the American and European money is intended in part to help cushion the blow to Ukrainian voters before new elections in May.
...
The loan announcement on Wednesday came from Jos Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, the unions executive arm. He said that the offer of 11 billion euros over the next couple of years included 1.6 billion euros, or about $2.2 billion, in loans and 1.4 billion euros in grants, as well as 3 billion euros in new credit from the European Investment Bank through 2016.
Dozens of people have been hurt in clashes in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv. Violence reportedly broke out when pro-Russia activists stormed the regional governments headquarters.
Thousands of people had gathered outside the building during a protest against Ukraines new leaders who ousted President Viktor Yanukovych a week ago.
Bookmarks