January 5, 2020 --

The New York Times ended 2019 with a long article, December 30, ostensibly setting forth the events leading to  administration action in providing military assistance to Ukraine. 

The Washington Post, same day, reported that the Times article weakened the administration's defenses on the aid issue. Wishful thinking. 

Perhaps Democrats believe the aid matter makes for a better impeachment  predicate than the claim that the president applied pressure on Ukraine President Zelensky. The cordial ending of the July 25 phone conversation between the two leaders certainly gave no indication the Mr. Zelensky felt he was pressured.  The anti-Trump cabal tends to play loose with facts when it comes to Mr. Trump.  During the impeachment inquiry, such as it was, we heard allegations of "Russian aggression."  But later there was reference not to "Russian aggression," but to "Russian-backed aggression." Is the Donbas conflict a matter of "Russian aggression?"   

Professor Stephen F. Cohen has made a strong case, chatting Tuesday evenings with John Batchelor on WABC, the past six years, that Russia has felt threatened by the encroachment of  NATO to its borders.

Add to this, the fact of anti-Russia moves emanating from Kyiv, at the time of the 2013-14 Maidan revolution, which, among other things, included a feint at Russia's Black Sea fleet, based at Sebastopol.  Moscow's response was the annexation of Crimea, whose population, it is not often stated, is some 65%  Russian. 

In sum, where is the long investigative article on our involvement in the move to separate, by any means necessary,  Ukraine from its historic relationship with Russia? Why were U.S., senators in Kyiv exhorting the Maidan protesters against their government?  Why are those exhortations not deemed "foreign meddling?"  Indeed, where are the investigations into the Obama administration's meddling in Ukraine during its second term in office?