Is President Obama admitting we caused overthrow of Ukraine's government? [View all]

[another_liberal]

I'm all for openness and truth on the part of American leaders, but the comments our President recently made in regard to the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected government one year ago set a new standard for frankness. It is difficult to imagine how one can interpret his statement except to conclude he is admitting our government interfered most intrusively in the internal affairs of Ukraine, something we were treaty-bound not to do.

US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland (R) and US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt (Reuters)


Obama openly admits 'brokering power transition' in Ukraine


In an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Barack Obama acknowledged that the United States had "brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine," thus admitting to a high level of democratic impropriety. Before we consider Obama’s revealing remarks, and how the Ukrainian people sold their country for a song, let’s rewind to November 2013, when then-President Viktor Yanukovich had shocked western capitals - and, more importantly, western markets - by suspending plans for an association agreement with the European Union. As if on command, thousands of Ukrainians suddenly poured into the streets of Kiev to protest the decision. Such a rapid reaction should not have come as a surprise. After all, a multitude of US government agencies – most notably, USAID - had been operating in Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union, investing billions on its latest "democratic" pet project.

This is no conspiracy theory. On December 13, 2013, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, following her third trip to Ukraine in five weeks, told the National Press Club: "Since Ukraine's independence in 1991 the United States has…invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in needs and other goals." Exactly what those "other goals" may have been, and who helped underwrite them, seem rather obvious today.

Although many are tempted to believe otherwise, governments don't normally spend such prodigious sums of money in a foreign land unless it expects to get something hefty - in this case, Kiev’s loyalty - in return. Governments are by nature political opportunists, not philanthropists, which is precisely why Russia gave USAID the boot in 2012. Ukraine did not, and was forced to pay the piper, so to speak. We should note here that it was not just US taxpayer dollars that unwittingly provided the funds to support the coup d’ etat in Ukraine. In another softball interview with CNN’s Zakaria, billionaire George Soros last May coolly admitted: “I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now.”

Certainly those billions of dollars weren’t spent just on humanitarian work, like distributing pastries to the Ukrainian rabble gathered on Independence Square. After all, the crucial question as to who would lend Ukraine a multi-billion dollar rescue package was the elephant parked on Maidan that few talked about. Once upon a time, western financial institutions had the market cornered on the lucrative task of bailing out cash-strapped countries. Today, however, other economic agencies - BRICS for example - are able to compete with the IMF. But after Kiev exploded in chaos and violence, the regular lender of last resort bagged itself another national trophy for above its fireplace.

(snip)


Read more, and view video of the President's remarks, at: http://rt.com/op-edge/228379-obama-power-transition-ukraine/