It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A frank look at how the US helped fund the Ukraine troubles

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:52 PM
reply to post by Bassago

I agree with Yusomad, let's not derail this thread with unneeded facts.


posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:54 PM

Curiosity makes me ask why you didn't give the same research to "Russian" contributions. Of course, the same openness likely isn't available on those "spendings". More circuitous, into individual pockets than the more formal U.S. bribe system...

Because, its never about how they do business, we can't control that.

WE can control how we allow OUR representative governments to act, WE violate treaties and agreements as much as the next guy.

If we are to have a moral leg to stand on in these matters we must hold our side to a much higher standard of conduct, and the sad fact is we are not.

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 04:07 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Hmm. Good point, yet, in this case, I side with the general media "take" on it.

From what I can see, the U.S. is guilty of insufficient support of the Ukraine re: ABM system, for one. This move by Putin, trial ballooned in Georgia, is flat out a dangerous precedent and expansionist.

The only other point I'd make is compared to monies given to the U.N. or Israel, among others, these are comparable to loose change sitting on the coffee table. It creates a bit of a false picture.

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 04:12 PM
reply to post by nwtrucker

A small bribe, is still a bribe none the less.

Just because someone can be bought cheaply does not negate the moral obligation of the one offering the bribe.

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 04:13 PM

Question 2: ...did the US outright fund some or all of what happened and led to the removal of the sitting President of Ukraine?

Yes, the "US" spent $5 BILLION to destabilize Ukraine...

"Victoria Nuland, the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs says the US has "invested" $5 billion in Ukraine in the past two decades..."

"The US govt. has been hijacked and is acting on behalf of ... the globalists in order to weaken Russia & China, the only other two players in this game of geopolitical chess."

The US wants to weaken Russia ahead of removing Putin altogether. Zbigniew Brzezinski writes: "Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine...would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state...

Ukraine - Satanists Take Us to the Brink (Again)

Wouldn't you like to know just *WHO*, specifically, got that money and by that, determine what likely happened as a result of it?

The protests in the western Ukraine are organized by the CIA, the US State Department, and by Washington- and EU-financed Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that work in conjunction with the CIA and State Department. The purpose of the protests is to overturn the decision by the independent government of Ukraine not to join the EU.

The US and EU were initially cooperating in the effort to destroy the independence of Ukraine and make it a subservient entity to the EU government in Brussels. For the EU government, the goal is to expand the EU. For Washington the purposes are to make Ukraine available for looting by US banks and corporations and to bring Ukraine into NATO so that Washington can gain more military bases on Russia’s frontier.

US spent $5 billion to destabilize Ukraine

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by benrl

I agree! But, this act by Putin goes beyond a violation of an agreement.

Why the rhetoric about the sliminess of gov'ts when an eerily similar to Hitler's rhetoric and acts prior to WWII? The "German" regions lost in WWI?

The damn Russian have no business staying in the Ukraine after the split up of the Soviet Union in the first place!

Oh, by the way, by descent, I'm half "White" Russian and half Ukrainian. I don't have any particular use for either of them...other than the food, that is..LOL

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by nwtrucker

Clearly there are two sides to a propaganda war.

All that is needed is understanding that.

There is no EVIL Putin.

Just as there is no Evil Obama.

All just people looking out for self interest, their self interest happened to run up against the US governments self interest.

No need for more than that, yet the media certainly trys to sell it as more.
edit on 22-3-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 04:26 PM
reply to post by nwtrucker

Hmm. Good point, yet, in this case, I side with the general media "take" on it.

Fair enough on that. There are certainly well documented events in the past and right into the recent 'information age' of supposedly 'knowing all' that are the topic of very sincere difference of opinion. It's what gives the world texture.

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I think Sevastopol was one of a long line of miscalculations. In the end, the NATO states got what they wanted, just not at the price they were expecting to pay. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia annexed (or attempted to annex) the other ethnically Russian Oblasts of Luhansk and Donetsk, or even Kharkiv or Zaporhizia. Not saying it's likely, just wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

And a lot of people are hung up on the USA spending money to destabilize the Ukraine. I would say that the US didn't set out to intentionally destabilize that country, instead we were attempting to buy a pro-Western stance. The SHTF there was just consequential.
edit on 22-3-2014 by FatherStacks because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by benrl

Sorry, but I disagree. Self-interest can cross the line into evil and does. A land grab in this day and age, with the weapon systems available, moves up the chance of world war and this one is flirting with that area code.

Your objective analysis omits consequence of action and it's potential.
edit on 22-3-2014 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 05:15 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Hey Wrabbit... Nice thread... If you really want to get sick about US foreign aid, just look at their yearly totals over the years. In both 2012 and 2013 they gave away approximately $37 billion each year for foreign aid.... I'm sure that $75 billion (just from 2012 & 2013) could take care of A LOT of issues back home, helping veterans, feeding families, helping folks save their homes, creating jobs, etc....

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 05:16 PM
Good post op ..The money involved may have only been chump change but if the 5 Billion is true then that only increases the volume of the offence .In a somewhat similar vein but in a more direct way the political interference is a bigger violation imo. This is a link to a short news vid that discusses some of the reasons and why Russia may have decided to actually push back . Former U.S. Ambassador: Behind Crimea Crisis, Russia Responding to Years of "Hostile" U.S. Policy
Video and Transcript

The American president and vice president directly challenging the Russian president and threatening them with isolation is going to bring the opposite effect.

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 05:21 PM

This isn't about the American government

The term "US" no longer means us...

It means THEM.

According to many past presidents, an "Invisible" Government is in control, NOT the United States of America.

I wish I could give you a hundred starts, but I can't. Gave you one though, for hitting the nail on the head.
And I thank you!

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 06:34 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

I agree with Yusomad, let's not derail this thread with unneeded facts.


Quite right.

My apologies to the OP. Guess what I was trying to say was with all the money coming in from the US and we can assume (yeah I know what that does) a similar or larger amount coming in from Russia, god knows what the EU and black budget campaigns were adding we end up with a huge mess like we have now.

So much for the memorandum.

reply to post by Yusomad

Not to pick on your post, we agree a lot, but have you seen the estates and properties of the western oligarchs and politicians?

Oh yeah agreed, I've just never seen a giant multi-masted schooner parked in the back yard pond before.

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 06:41 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I don't know if anyone told you but you are brilliant and Objective

You are like an antidote for shills.

In fact, shills should HACK your account and take your good name.

Can you imagine one day wrabbit suddenly towing party line

S and F man

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 10:21 PM
Let's just agree on one thing folks

The west isn't stupid and countered Russia's moves in Ukraine

Fortunely the Ukrainian majority especially youth, favour western values making Russia's job harder...

All the west needed to do was send out the message to say "revolt now" before your leader sell your country out to Russia

Hence Ukraine is now part of the EU

Crimea is simply a consolation which in the process will destroyed Russias economy and world opinion

No biggy

But to say hey look... the US was the sole cause of all this is so so desperately clutching at straws

edit on 22-3-2014 by TritonTaranis because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 12:05 AM
reply to post by nwtrucker

Yet we make a deal with the Ukraine to protect them with out Anti-ballistic missile system if they give up their nukes. They agree and comply. We renege on our side of the bargain, cave in to appease Putin and break that agreement.

Anti ballistic is one aspect of this with Wrabbit summing up the agreement at the time fairly well

Either side. Any side. Just Stop.

Ideas of anti ballistic is not to protect Ukraine but the EU. As the anti ballistic program against Russia continues it erodes the trust between Russia and the EU / US.

posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 05:25 AM

Im pretty sure a couple of members are scribbling right now trying to find holes in it, or excuses.
Great job.

The most obvious one being that the aid does not distribute in a country with "made in the USA" stamped on it unless it happens to be physical resources. If its financial then it goes via banks to the Ukraine government who distribute it accordingly. In that case the recipients will merely see help coming from the government led by (during the period of the above spreadsheet) the pro Russian president !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUH !!!!!!!!!!!

Now in order for the aid to be entirely one sided you are asking us to believe that during Yanokovych's reign as president he only ever accepted aid from the US and never accepted any aid from his friends the Russians......yeah right !!!!!

You know, sometimes sh.t happens they way it seems. In this case the Ukrainian people, vast majority pro western, just got very fed up with their president. Don't ever forget that the whole crisis escalated way way way out of control the day Yanokovych introduced a law making all protesting illegal it was rescinded days later after people started dying. He brought the end on himself which is highly inconvenient for the people who have "I hate the west" tattooed on their forehead (but like to live there).

As for Putin, Jesus H don't any of you read history books! That's a hint.

posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 05:50 AM
reply to post by yorkshirelad

Now in order for the aid to be entirely one sided you are asking us to believe that during Yanokovych's reign as president he only ever accepted aid from the US and never accepted any aid from his friends the Russians......yeah right !!!!!

I fully appreciate how passionate you are on this topic. Believe me, having lived the tail years of the Cold War and then watching the same world events that formed some of the core to who Putin is, it galls me every time I have to say something that is somehow pro-Russian at the expense of my own nation. It really burns my biscuits.

The bummer is..I won't lie or sugar coat, or watch this whole thing develop while feeling I've seen data indicating more than is being said, without sharing that as much as possible. I don't pretend that the aid has been one sided, and to his credit (grrrr) Putin doesn't claim that either. He just doesn't much give a damn either way what anyone thinks of their aid, interference or outright corruption of other people's systems. OUR side seems to be "Holier than thou" and playing like the Moral High Ground is cruising at about 30,000 feet above the mere mortals inhabiting the rest of the world.

My nation never used to be this way. The way it's precisely what I watched my nation fight at great cost at one time.

I respect Putin in one way. The man either says what he means...or he simply says little or nothing. He doesn't babble something, just to be on the boob tube at least once a day, 7 days a week out of some need to feed vanity. Our side can't share that respect, at the moment anyway.

A wise US President once suggested we 'Walk Softly, while carrying a big stick'. We now walk like a drunken elephant through the pots and pans department of an industrial supply house, while carrying a little pack of toothpicks in our back pocket.

posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 12:01 PM
reply to post by kwakakev

Sure, the ABM system is more to protect the Eu. Still, a "protected" Eu engenders much stronger support for the Ukraine by the Eu than they're enjoying now.

If my understanding of U.S. cash to other countries was now to garner U.N. support/votes. The sheer volume of nations that receive these stipends is huge. That makes it too easy to select one country, look under a microscope and conclude some nefarious motive. I'm not saying it's impossible, rather it's so easy to make the claim.

This subject would never have come up if Putin hadn't made this move. In that scenario, this "money" sinking to the same level as the rest of the countries receiving U.S. funds that haven't been invaded/destabilized....a yawner...

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in