Clarice Feldman at American Thinker explains the revolt of the Ukraine Desk bureaucrats:
To date the Schiff hearings — unfairly run as they are — show nothing less than a revolt by the Ukraine Desk Bureaucrats in which they concede they are poorly armed with any facts sufficient to overthrow the president, whose only crime was to change the direction of our Ukraine policy in which they’d played a significant role.
History of Democratic Party’s Treatment of Ukraine
While the hearings might have led some to believe that U.S. policy respecting Ukraine has been consistently supportive, the facts are otherwise, and the President’s effort to change that has the bureaucrats’ dander up.
Mickey Kaus details how then-ambassador Victoria Nuland supported the revolt against elected president Viktor Yanukovych “who was replaced in a parliamentary vote that was nevertheless short of what was required under the Ukraine constitution to impeach him.”
He finds parallels in the Ukraine desk bureaucrats’ actions there and here:
The problem is that the “interagency” establishment’s attitude toward Ukraine has apparently now been transferred to domestic politics, where — led by the same foreign policy establishment, in a controversy not coincidentally involving Ukraine — Democrats are too cavalierly attempting to throw out a constitutionally elected president. It’s not a stretch to say this attitude provides the background music for the parade of Ukraine-desk bureaucrats [snip] currently appearing before cameras in Rep. Schiff’s impeachment hearings. They seem, almost reflexively, to be willing to do to their own country what they supported doing to Ukraine.
The parallels are almost eerie. In both cases the elected president (Yanukovych in Ukraine, Trump here) is regarded by the foreign policy establishment as corrupt. In both cases the president’s original election was regarded as tainted — in Yanukovych’s case by suspicions of vote rigging, in Trump’s case by charges of foreign meddling. In both cases the villain is Russia. In both cases there is a big underlying policy dispute that calls forth intense passions: In Ukraine, it was whether the country would look West or East. In the US it’s how vigorously to resist aggressive Russian attempts to restore the former Soviet empire in Ukraine and elsewhere.
And in both cases, victory means tossing aside the results of a national vote. Ukraine’s “Revolution of Dignity” might not have been legal under Ukraine’s constitution — but hey, that’s why they call it a revolution.
Read more: American Thinker
