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: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+15 more 
posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 02:31 PM
Good Afternoon everyone!

It's been awhile since I put hours into a single thread and I happened to have free time this past week (kinda), so I figured I'd get to the bottom of just two questions.

Question 1: Did the US violate agreements, in spirit if not literal letter, with Ukraine and internal interference with their affairs?

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

Enough disinformation has been in the piplelines of media to fill trucks with, and load them for days on end. It's endless. To hear some, the U.S. thought the whole thing up, entirely alone, and just created the crisis from nothing. To hear the other extreme, the big bad Russians woke up one morning with a bad attitude and decided to manipulate their way into owning a brand new province, or however they are terming the Crimea right now.

The truth, as it so often does in these things, lay at neither extreme. As I found in looking where the rubber meets the road and numbers simply say what things are, outside the pressure cookers of media or political war rooms, this isn't that simple for either party.

First, this whole question and why it matters most (beyond principles of staying out of the internal affairs of another nation, of course), is something called the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. It's what it sounds like. A memorandum. Not a ratified binding treaty. However, that distinction can come to lose meaning, and I won't quibble over that for how seriously or binding it's considered by different nations. That DOES vary.

The actual text doesn't seem to be posted as often as I'd think it would, so here are the words of the area the United States openly violated and for at least 3 years in a row at this stage.

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;
Source: The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

Lawyers can play mental chess with each individual word until they drop dead of old age and turn to dust in a light breeze...but it reads quite clearly to me for intent and meaning. Don't meddle in the internal affairs of Kiev.

Either side. Any side. Just...

So what did we do which would warrant a debunking of the popular disinformation floating around, that the US didn't do the dirty deed? We paid for this, at least in part, right from the start. LONG before McCain made his Logan Act busting speeches in the square at Kiev. This goes back years.

First.........It's important to see, Ukraine isn't unique, they were just our most recent focus to buy as a new toy to have.

Our traditions predate this crisis by a year or two and are well established patterns for context to how it all fits. So what is there in specifics? Ahh.. Yes...

That represents the "big picture view" and it includes spending from both Civilian and Military sides of the Government as well as US backed NGO's and/or others working in US interests. The whole ball of wax for bean counters everywhere. That is what is represented above, and this paragraph comes within the files (multiple) that form the data shown above.


Now what I have shown you so far is not nice to see, given what we've been told here recently by our leaders and those we trust. In fact, it suggests a pretty ugly truth, if the truth ever is known here.

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

* Wouldn't it be know how much went to any given group so one could even gauge levels of pecking order and importance in the aid distribution game?

Most of all...This really isn't anything worth calling a debunk of disinformation until or unless I can demonstrate that the money represented above, DID go to strictly political and recognizable groups, by name and without question or ambiguity on that point.

So..let me do just my next post.

+3 more 
posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 02:32 PM
Welcome back... (love those cliffhanger endings eh?) Hey...I spent the time making all this, so I get to be a little cute in how I present it, right?

Anyway, back to a topic which isn't the least bit funny, in itself. What did all that money buy and how did it impact what we've seen happen in the past month or two? These are two blocks taken from a much larger file. In fact, the totals line on the second image comes on line # 264 of the spreadsheet it's screen captured from. I considered posting it all in block segments of roughly equal size...being public domain government material and all. However, it's too much and, as it happens, really unnecessary, anyway. Enough is shown in two places to get a very solid grasp of what has happened here, in my opinion.

(The data started in a spreadsheet much less friendly to the eyes and much less easily read at a glance. I've adjusted format and appearance. I've not calculated or changed anything in data, with the exception of the "Totals" lines at the bottom. Additionally, this is a different agency and a different form of presenting data. Whole numbers are in thousands. So, "3564" is $3,564,000. It's weird to see it that way, but Uncle Sammy isn't consistent with anything)

Now, if it helps, go back to the first post in this thread and re-read the actual text of Article 3 of the Memorandum for Security, while appreciating the fact it was written as much from Russia's perspective of protecting rights as it was from the UK and US perspective.

I've stated my interpretation in the most general terms and here, in a form which I hope is fairly easy to read over (compared to the mind numbing sea of numbers the Gov has out there to fish in for finding things) I've offered the proof I've been pondering over for awhile now.

Beyond that, I'll allow what I've presented to speak on it's own merit, or lack of it, as any one person may take that. The sources are as original as they come and as accurate as they'll ever get on data such as this. What's left is how we each take it and interpret it.


Source #1: US Overseas Loans and Grants (The Greenbook)

Source #2: U.S. ODA Disbursements by Recipient Country and U.S. Agency (The line item look at detail)

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 02:35 PM
Im pretty sure a couple of members are scribbling right now trying to find holes in it, or excuses.
Great job.

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 02:52 PM
Sooooo, what are your contentions here?
That we were generous to Ukraine?
How about other nations gifts and loans??
How about russias support of crimea? any money change hands?
I bet it did......
It takes more than one to tango....

+2 more 
posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 02:52 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Good thread, If i am reading it correctly you are basically saying the American government gave almost $300 million to the Ukraine in aid

Thats pennies though really, just to put that in contest, at one point the war in Iraq was costing up to $700 million per day according to some reports.

Most government Aid is given for political reasons, gain access, get international business and so on and so forth and have vast armies of lawyers whose sole job is to find ways to get around all these pesky agreements they make just to ensure its all nice and legal.

If the American government was funding troubles in the Ukraine then they would have done it the good old fashioned way, off the books, black ops, send some CIA types to go stir up some trouble, influence the locals get them some black market weapons to plant the seed then just as the trouble starts pull out.

They would not make it so obvious that anyone with a laptop and a curious (and i have to say intelligent) mind could just put together a 500 word expose of how they where behind the whole thing.

So while i have to commend you for such a good thread at the same time i have to be honest and say i dont buy any of this for a minute, there is no way that the American government funded the troubles in the Ukraine nor is there any real evidence presented in this thread to prove anything other than America gave the Ukraine some financial aid. You will probably struggle to find a country who America dont give a couple of hundred million to in aid, it is not evidence of them being behind a coup.

S&F though for putting in the work, its just unfortunate that I have to disagree with you on this one.
edit on 22-3-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 02:56 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.

Past presidents of the United States and other high profile political leaders have repeatedly issued warnings over the last 214 years that the U.S. government is under the control of an “invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”

According to six of our former presidents, one vice-president, and a myriad of other high profile political leaders, an invisible government that is “incredibly evil in intent” has been in control of the U.S. government “ever since the days of Andrew Jackson” (since at least 1836). They “virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties… It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”

As a result, “we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”

“A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interests, combined in one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks.” – John C. Calhoun, Vice President (1825-1832)

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”— Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States

Former Presidents Warn About Illuminati

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 02:58 PM
Nice work, Wrabbit, and it does pose an important question of whether we did, in fact, break the agreements within the Budapest Memo before the accusations of involvement with Maidan existed. We weren't supposed to be using financial coercing to influence the politics of Ukraine so what gives with the "democratic values" political monies? Those endowments should've theoretically been a no-no.

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by stirling

Two wrongs don't make a right. It's a pot and kettle situation really. Both countries may have willfully disregarded the same Memorandum.

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:09 PM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Thats pennies though really, just to put that in contest, at one point the war in Iraq was costing up to $700 million per day according to some reports.

I thought hard on that, and really, it's why this thread wouldn't exist and holds no meaning beyond another set of stats to argue endlessly over perceived meaning for.....without the second set I came across. When I found the line item break down, I just about fell outta my chair. I wasn't expecting that level of specifics so easy to come by at a moment when it's essentially being contradicted in open media by members of the same government to produce the data.

It's a little twilight zonish at times in that way.

However, with that line item stuff? It isn't pallets of american currency, as actually did land in Iraq early in the occupation, to kinda vanish off into "it went somewhere important". 30-40-50 thousand dollars to a specific group buys specific things and that's A LOT of things in that corner of the world for those dollars. If spent well, it takes an ineffective group and gives them a shot at making some difference. It'll strengthen a group already established but challenged for resources.

When seen to know it at that level, I think the amounts become quite important for what they could accomplish.

It's also important to note, not *ALL* the aid was to political and economic change within the Ukraine. Some aid is still going for Chernobyl and related issues to that. Others to disarmament and still more aid to things like law enforcement/interpol type training and cooperation. Good things happened with that aid too.

Among the good, sits that ugly sore of a problem though. It looks like a big paw in a cookie jar, to me.

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:16 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...

Rand Paul says "the Ukraine is none of our business."

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.

So somehow this all adds up to the U.S. somehow empowering Ukrainian culpability?

More like it, it show why Putin's/Russia's near hysterical protest of an anti-ballistic placement in the Ukraine-only after the Ukraine gave up the nukes- giving them an open door to re-expand.

Amazing that the U.S. is so largely pointed to as the reason when it's Putin, again, expanding. Obama opened the door, but Putin is the culprit.

Of course, the Muslim world now has the right to annex Russia....the protection of the Muslim minority now living in Moscow....

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

The corruption within Ukraine was obviously pretty bad. One look inside of Yanukovych's compound will answer where some of that money went.

26 things found in Yanukovych's compound that make him look even worse

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:27 PM
They do this # because they can.....its an age old game the bankers play at......
Though the US may be somewhat guilty at first glance....wasn't the Ukraine an emerging democracy that needed support?
How guilty does that make us for giving cash to RUSSIA?
edit on 22-3-2014 by stirling because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:28 PM
reply to post by nwtrucker

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...

Fair enough. A straight question and I'll return a straight answer.

I wrote this as a thread to take a look at the popular contention which borders on assumed fact, that the U.S. was not a part of instigating or funding what has developed, and that we couldn't have violated anything, in good faith or otherwise, to have caused it.

I'm very much aware it's a two sided process that led to this. The disinformation in popular media and reporting right now is the suggestion it IS NOT two sided, but simply one sided, with ours wearing bright white hats to address injustice in the world.

If the Russians start claiming they haven't manipulated the natural gas flow, for instance, in their own pressuring and intimidation of Kiev to their own ends, and over the same years? I'll be equally interested in showing that to be false, for how easily it would be done. That isn't in dispute or being left for people to assume something quite false on, depending on how generously one wants to term the way it's being covered. Not that I've seen, anyway.

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by nwtrucker

Russian or iranian or Ukrainian even.

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:32 PM

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

The corruption within Ukraine was obviously pretty bad. One look inside of Yanukovych's compound will answer where some of that money went.

26 things found in Yanukovych's compound that make him look even worse

Not to pick on your post, we agree a lot, but have you seen the estates and properties of the western oligarchs and politicians?
Not that yanukovich(sp) was clean or anything, but please...

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Your assessment is fair and logical. I too don't believe this money played any direct role in the current conflict. But I do find Wrabbit's idea compelling once you frame it against the backdrop of this whole affair.

Former Ukrainian PM Yanukovych in Nov. 2013 spurned the political and economic packages proposed by the EU, in turn for closer ties with Russia. The Russians were offering far more in aide, $15 billion vs $800 million or so the west was offering, with the European Union wanting concessions that Ukraine alter some of its legislation, while Russia allegedly had no such demands. Within weeks, there are riots in Kiev prompting Russia to slip Ukraine another $2billion, yet Yanukovych is still run out of office? I don't say it impossible, but the opposition had one hell of an uphill battle without any "off the books" aide from outside.

Is it possible the West thought it could fund an overthrow of Yanukovych and have him replaced by a more "friendly" candidate? Sure. This doesn't account for the money Wrabbit detailed, but I think his underlying hypothesis remains valid for discussion. If what I'm speculating about in this post is true, my question is did the EU and US anticipate Russia seizing Crimea? Was Crimea a small price to pay for getting a more pro-Western PM? Again, just my poorly articulated speculation.

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:41 PM
reply to post by FatherStacks

If what I'm speculating about in this post is true, my question is did the EU and US anticipate Russia seizing Crimea? Was Crimea a small price to pay for getting a more pro-Western PM? Again, just my poorly articulated speculation.

Thank you for your thoughts and you add some new directions for thinking on this, as well.

Personally, and out where I'm a lot more shaky for opinion, I think Crimea is the piece no one in the West was expecting for how it went. Like the Russians just marching right in, without so much as a note to let NATO Command know what they were taking for their area, not asking for, in another time and place. Prestina, for those who recall the Serbian/Kosovo War. It's not out of character for them to act in their own interests, and in ways that weren't entirely predictable.

I think what I came across tends to show we'd been slowly and steadily turning Ukraine politically western (and it doesn't need help in many areas of that nation, as I understand the demographics), while likely assuming it would go like plenty of other non-violent shifts of national loyalties go around the world, more often than it's worth even reporting in the news on.

I think the miscalculation came in just how absolute and "no way, not even as a joke" Russia would be about Sevastopol. I really believe our side badly badly misunderstood how far they'd go to hold their warm water port with central access to everything in that whole region.
edit on 22-3-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:49 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Wow. S+F and a big
for your work!

Imagine that some twisted minds actually calculated this "investment" to be geostrategically and macro-economically worth it, right in Russia backyard. Scary what else they might have calculated to be worth it...

One fine day in a distant future we will learn if NATO had direct influence on what has happened in Ukraine over the past few months... like if Svodobda had any connections to GLADIO, as is rumoured now. That's what I want to know.

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:50 PM
I guess it depends what the aid money is being used for.

British aid money intended to help the poorest people in the world has been spent by the European Union on training Ukrainian soldiers in riot control, The Telegraph can reveal. The EU spent more than £1 million of British-funded aid on instructing Interior Troops from Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs on how to control crowds and arrest protesters, documents show.

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:50 PM
edit on 22-3-2014 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in