_There is an abundance of outrage in the United States about Russias alleged meddlingin the 2016 presidential election.

_

Multiple investigations are taking place, and Moscows conduct was amajor justification for the sanctions legislation that Congress just passed. Some furiouspoliticalfiguresand members of the media insist that the Putin governments interference constitutes an act of war. One especially agitated House member even compared it explicitly to thePearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks.

Such umbrage might be more credible if the United States refrained from engaging in similar conduct. But the historical record shows that Washington has meddled in the political affairs ofdozens of countriesincluding many democracies. An egregious example occurred inUkraineduring the Euromaidan Revolution of 2014.

Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was not an admirable character. After his election in 2010, he used patronage and other instruments of state power in aflagrant fashion to the advantage of his political party. That highhanded behavior and legendary corruption alienated large portions of Ukraines population. As the Ukrainian economy languished and fell farther and farther behind those of Poland and other East European neighbors that had implemented significant marketoriented reforms, public anger at Yanukovych mounted. When he rejected the European Unions terms for an association agreement in late 2013, in favor of aRussian offer, angry demonstrators filled Kievs Independence Square, known as the Maidan, as well as sites in other cities.

Despite his leadership defects and character flaws, Yanukovych had been duly elected in balloting that international observers consideredreasonably free and fairabout the best standard one can hope for outside the mature Western democracies. Adecent respect for democratic institutions and procedures meant that he ought to be able to serve out his lawful term as president, which would end in 2016.

The extent of the Obama administrations meddling in Ukraines politics was breathtaking.

Neither the domestic opposition nor Washington and its European Union allies behaved in that fashion. Instead, Western leaders made it clear that they supported the efforts of demonstrators to force Yanukovych to reverse course and approve the EU agreement or, if he would not do so, to remove the president before his term expired.

Sen. John McCain (RAZ), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to Kiev toshow solidaritywith the Euromaidan activists. McCain dined with opposition leaders, including members of the ultra rightwingSvoboda Party, and later appeared on stage in Maidan Square during amass rally. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Svoboda leader Oleg Tyagnibok.

But McCains actions were a model of diplomatic restraint compared to the conduct of Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs.( Nuland is now Biden’s Under Secretary for Political Affairs. John Menadue)

As Ukraines political crisis deepened, Nuland and her subordinates became more brazen in favoring the antiYanukovych demonstrators. Nuland noted in a speech to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation on December 13, 2013, that she had traveled to Ukraine three times in the weeks following the start of the demonstrations. Visiting the Maidan on December 5, she handed out cookiesto demonstrators and expressed support for their cause.

The extent of the Obama administrations meddling in Ukraines politics was breathtaking. Russian intelligence intercepted and leaked to the international media aNulandtelephone callin which she and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt discussed in detail their preferences for specific personnel in apostYanukovych government. The U.Sfavored candidates included Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the man who became prime minister once Yanukovych was ousted from power. During the telephone call, Nuland stated enthusiastically that Yats is the guy who would do the best job.

Nuland and Pyatt were engaged in such planning at atime when Yanukovych was still Ukraines lawful president. It was startling to have diplomatic representatives of aforeign countryand acountry that routinely touts the need to respect democratic processes and the sovereignty of other nationsto be scheming about removing an elected government and replacing it with officials meriting U.S. approval.

Washingtons conduct not only constituted meddling, it bordered on micromanagement. At one point, Pyatt mentioned the complex dynamic among the three principal opposition leaders, Yatsenyuk, Oleh Tyahnybok, and Vitali Klitschko. Both Pyatt and Nuland wanted to keep Tyahnybok and Klitschko out of an interim government. In the former case, they worried about his extremist ties; in the latter, they seemed to want him to wait and make abid for office on alongerterm basis. Nuland stated that I dont think Klitsch should go into the government. Idont think its necessary. She added that what Yatseniuk needed is Klitsch and Tyanhybok on the outside.

The two diplomats also were prepared to escalate the already extensive U.S. involvement in Ukrainespolitical turbulence. Pyatt stated bluntly that we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing [the political transition]. Nuland clearly had Vice President Joe Biden in mind for that role. Noting that the vice presidents national security adviser was in direct contact with her, Nuland related that she told him probably tomorrow for an attaboy and to get the details to stick. So Bidens willing.

Both the Obama administration and most of the American news media portrayed the Euromaidan Revolution as aspontaneous, popular uprising against acorrupt and brutal government.

A February 24, 2014,Washington Posteditorialcelebrated the Maidan demonstrators and their successful campaign to overthrow Yanukovych. The moves were democratic, the_Washington Post_concluded, and Kiev is now controlled by proWestern parties.

It was agrotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as apurely indigenous, popular uprising. The NulandPyatt telephone conversation and other actions confirm that the United States was considerably more than apassive observer to the turbulence. Instead, U.S. officials were blatantly meddling in Ukraine. Such conduct was utterly improper. The United States had no right to try to orchestrate political outcomes in another countryespecially one on the border of another great power. It is no wonder that Russia reacted badly to the unconstitutional ouster of an elected, proRussian governmentan ouster that occurred not only with Washingtons blessing, but apparently with its assistance.

That episode, as well as earlier ones involving Italy, France and other democratic countries, should be kept in mind the next time U.S. political leaders or the media publicly fume about Russias apparent interference in Americas 2016 elections. One can legitimately condemn some aspects of Moscows behavior, but the force of Americas moral outrage is vitiated by the stench of U.S. hypocrisy.

Carpenter is acontributing editor to theNational Interest, theAmerican Conservative, and19FortyFive,and is aweekly columnist atAntiwar.com. He serves on the editorial board of theJournal of Strategic Studiesand was amember ofMediterranean Quarterlys editorial board from 1998 to 2018. Carpenter is the author of more than 950 articles and policy studies. His articles have appeared in theNew York Times, theWashington Post, theWall Street Journal, theLos Angeles Times, theFinancial Times,Foreign Affairs,Foreign Policy, theNational Interest,World Policy Journal, and many other publications. He is afrequent guest on radio and television programs in the United States, Latin America, Europe, East Asia, and other regions.

This article appeared in National Interest Online on August 6 2017.