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 establshment, 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 (Taylor, Kent, Yovanovitch, and soon Vindman) 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.