Separatists recapture their leader on the eve of peace talks in Ukraine

Comments (9)
DavidLogan wrote:

If, say, the Iranians had were holding our president in detention..I would hope that we would use whatever force necessary to rescue him…due to the belief that his captors can’t be trusted

May 17, 2014 8:06am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JPHR wrote:

Nuland is on record to have invested 5 billion since the 90 to be able to select Yats. CIA Brennan visits Kiev an subsequently the army starts an action against its own people. And now State Department accuses Russia of medling?

2009 analysis predicting this mess:
http://www.imi-online.de/2009/01/01/imperial-geopolitics/

May 17, 2014 8:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
pyradius wrote:

Pro-Kremlin political analysts and the state-­controlled media claimed that the U.S. State Department funneled billions of dollars directly to the anti-Yanukovych opposition movement as part of a larger U.S. agenda to orchestrate regime changes all over the world. Pro-­Kremlin journalist Dmitry Kiselyov recently said on Rossia 1 television that this money was transferred via diplomatic mail from Washington to the U.S. Embassy in Kiev and then on to the protesters. But these claims are completely groundless.

Yes, the U.S. State Department spent about $5 billion in Ukraine, but this money — which was spread out over 20 years, long before Maidan — was spent on programs promoting civil society and on charitable programs. U.S. law prohibits the funding of opposition leaders and movements, and there have been no violations of this law in Ukraine.

The objective of these U.S. government programs is as simple as it is self-serving: to spread U.S. “soft power” to other countries so that millions of grant recipients will think positively about the U.S.

The reason for the civil society development programs is also simple: The more democracies there are in the world with strong civil societies and institutional checks and balances, the more stable the world becomes. After all, as the old argument goes, democracies rarely fight each other.

The only problem with these State Department programs is that they are rarely successful in autocracies, where civil society, by definition, poses an existential threat to their “vertical power structures.” Notably, in the 1990s, when the Kremlin was committed to building a civil society, the government welcomed these State Department programs with open arms. Yet under Putin, in 2012, USAID was expelled from the country.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/top-5-myths-about-us-meddling-in-ukraine/500208.html

May 17, 2014 10:04am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BraveNewWrld wrote:

Finally, a clear money trail appears in the US government’s support for the government change in Ukraine. Google 9 Questions to ask about burisma. Apparently, a takeover of the Ukraine’s natural gas industry was planned in the late summer of 2013. That’s when an obscure Ukrainian gas offshore registered in Cyprus suddenly got English-language website and a board of directors with polish ex-pm Kwasniewski on it. And now Hunter Biden junior and Heinz’s own Archer. Money make world turn around. And poor Ukrainians are to suffer and pay for the ambitions of our rich and wealthy. How sad.

May 17, 2014 11:01am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BraveNewWrld wrote:

@pyradius
Be real. In a detective story – “Cherchez la femme”. In politics – follow the money trail.

May 17, 2014 11:04am EDT  --  Report as abuse
pyradius wrote:

Occam’s razor works for me, I don’t need to add wild conspiracies to the mix.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/2014/may/14/hunter-biden-job-board-ukraine-biggest-gas-producer-burisma

May 17, 2014 11:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BanglaFirst wrote:

Ukrainian defense forces must be armed properly so that evil Russian agents within Ukraine are unable escape to Russia in the future as they should definitely be tried for their treasons.

May 17, 2014 12:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xcanada2 wrote:

@pyradius says:
“U.S. law prohibits the funding of opposition leaders and movements, and there have been no violations of this law in Ukraine.”

There are a lot of claims going around about what has been going on in Ukraine. How do you know that this particular claim of yours is true? I think we can agree that there are many instances of US administrations NOT following evident laws.

I would like a clear accounting of exactly what was done with the 5,000 million dollars of US taxpayer provided funds over the last twenty years. Maybe it was even significantly longer, say before the fall of the SU. What was the time profile of that funding?

May 17, 2014 1:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
carlmartel wrote:

The Kiev regime wants to drag the US, NATO, and EU into their war. They elected Yanukovich to be their president twice and overthrew him twice. He was likely a crook although the Kiev regime has not yet gone through the legal processes to prove it, but he was THEIR crook! Ukraine has racked up $250 billion in debts to EU private banks and $55 billion to EU government banks. Why do the US and EU need to pay for them? Our economy only grew 0.1% in the 1st quarter of 2014, and the EU fell 0.2% or -0.2% growth. In 2013 and the 1st quarter of 2014, Russia and China each had better GDP growth rates than either the US or the EU, so Ukraine should have stayed with the Russian plan that China would have backed with purchases of Ukraine’s grain to pay Ukraine’s debts.

Instead, Kiev’s mobs drove out their elected president who went to Russia and made a legal, written request for Russian military aid to restore order that Putin granted in Crimea althought not in the way that Yanukovich or the Kiev regime wanted. Why is this a US, NATO, or EU problem? Ukraine is not a member of these entities. The 1994 Treaty does not have a provision to exclude a legal, written request for Russian military intervention, so the Kiev regime and President Yanukovich inflicted this on themselves. NATO has a border of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey. That is the border that the US has agreed to defend. If anyone wants to defend more than that, they should go to Ukraine and fight for the side of their choice.

May 17, 2014 4:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.