> You pivot from "paramilitary force" to admitting Russia "responded". There was no pivot. I'm not sure if you kept up with the news at the time, but I follow

> You pivot from "paramilitary force" to admitting Russia "responded". There was no pivot. I'm not sure if you kept up with the news at the time, but I followed the event quite closely when things were unfolding. I'm not sure how paramilitary forces storming the capital, the President fleeing the country, and the parliament voting in the "opposition" leaders that had previously met with John McCain and EU officials isn't a coup. There was a lot of US-sponsored (and NATO sponsored) regime change during that era. Libya, Egypt, Syria (attempted), and the Ukraine. > Complaining about US NATO spending when all the money goes to American defense contractors I don't see how in any way this is an argument in defense of spending money on NATO. Decreasing military funding would be a net-positive for the US.