Skip to main content

View Diary: Breaking: disturbing developments in Crimea (292 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  US helped to overthrow Ukrainian government (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnathan Ivan

    Pierre Omidyar co-funded Ukraine revolution groups with US government, documents show

    Pando has confirmed that the American government – in the form of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) – played a major role in funding opposition groups prior to the revolution. Moreover, a large percentage of the rest of the funding to those same groups came from a US billionaire who has previously worked closely with US government agencies to further his own business interests. This was by no means a US-backed “coup,” but clear evidence shows that US investment was a force multiplier for many of the groups involved in overthrowing Yanukovych.
    I remember in December one of kossaks was saying to me that Russia needs to fuck off... Oh what an irony!...
    •  USAID supports democrats abroad (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, Mas Gaviota

      Film at 11?

      Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

      by SaoMagnifico on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:08:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's one of those "for thee but not for me"? (0+ / 0-)

        Because if it was Russia to support pro-Russian interests people here would scream murder.

        •  Uh...nope (5+ / 0-)

          You can't even call it an "open secret" that the Kremlin supports certain Ukrainian political factions. Yanukovich was literally paid off by Russia to walk away from the Association Agreement last year. The fact that the United States provides limited backing for Western-oriented, pro-democracy groups in emerging democratic countries is not really news. Of course we do. We have both a moral and political interest in seeing Western-style democracies flourish, particularly in places like Eastern Europe.

          Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

          by SaoMagnifico on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:16:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So why can't Russia? (0+ / 0-)

            Why can't Russia support pro-Russian interests? Is it because it has r, u, s, i and a in the name?

            •  I believe (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LordMike

              there are a number of Mexico citizens resident in the USA. Where would you like the Mexican Army to station in order to protect them? Houston? Washington?

              "Come to Sochi, visit the gay clubs and play with the bears" - NOT a Russian advertising slogan.

              by Lib Dem FoP on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:35:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

                •  Logic (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LordMike

                  The reason Putin has sent in troops is the same as in Georgia - to "protect" his "fellow Russians" whether they are citizens of Russia or not. He has already started to offer passports to ethnic Russian Ukrainians in Crimea.

                  By the same logic as you condoning this, Mexico should be entitled to station forces in major American cities with large (or majority) "ethnic Mexican" communities in order to protect them. At times of course that might mean taking over airports to prevent oppressing forces using them and closing down TV and radio stations to prevent them being used to stir up hatred of Mexicans.

                  "Come to Sochi, visit the gay clubs and play with the bears" - NOT a Russian advertising slogan.

                  by Lib Dem FoP on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:12:40 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  It has, and shamelessly so (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SaoMagnifico, LordMike

              What's curious is that you started off proposing that it was somehow wrong for the EU and USA to do anything similar.

              During the past few years Putin's buddy the Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow was constantly in the news visiting eastern Ukraine.  Overtly trying to rally ethnic Russians in Ukraine to side with Moscow and push for various Russian agenda items and partnership/merger in Kiev.  The game being played wasn't subtle in the least.

            •  Russia can support whoever it wants (4+ / 0-)

              Where I have a problem (and where it appears Ukrainians also have a problem) is when it bullies, bribes, and blackmails politicians in states it flagrantly disrespects (quoth Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin in 2008: "Ukraine is not even a nation") in order to safeguard its interests.

              Also, this: I fundamentally believe liberal democracy is the best form of governance we have yet managed to invent as human beings, and I believe it is to the advantage of other nations even more than it is to the advantage of the United States that liberal democracy proliferates and thrives everywhere that institutions and the popular will exist to support it. I cannot muster the same enthusiasm for Russian-style oligarchic hegemony.

              The struggle for the future of Ukraine was aptly described by someone (can't remember who; probably a few people) last fall as a tug-of-war between the rule of institutions and the rule of personalities. Russia can promise $15 billion on the fly because of Putin's say-so, which is alluring, but it can also invade and steal parts of your country on a whim because one man is calling the shots. The bureaucratic-minded West, with its checks and balances and laws and processes, is more cumbersome, but it's also more reliable -- and more democratic. (As a great example of this last: little Lithuania, which languished under Soviet occupation for decades, holds the rotating presidency of the European Union right now!)

              Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

              by SaoMagnifico on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:42:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Anschluss for Crimea? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LordMike

              Hitler used this tactic everywhere-Danzig, Sudetenland, Austria, Rhineland, Memel.
              That's not how the countries should ethnic minorities in the 21st century.

          •  Association Agreement (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SaoMagnifico, kalmoth

            Two aspects of the Association Agreement (with the EU) are relevant here.

            The purpose of that agreement is to provide Ukraine and Ukrainians with a "Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement" which included free movement in return for progress towards compliance with the acquis. For those unfamiliar with the term acquis communautaire, it is the whole body of legislation, laws and obligations for the EU as a body.

            In particular, the first of the  two aspects you should note is the assistance given under it to establish a functioning democracy. Of necessity that includes advice and training to both political parties and institutions which may involve grants towards the costs of equipment etc.

            The other part is the prosecution (in both senses) of corruption. The Yanukovich mansion outside Kyiv (which is actually owned by an offshore company in a tax haven that is believed to be owned by a confederate, not Y himself) and Sochi show exactly why fighting corruption is such an anathema to both Y and Putin.

            "Come to Sochi, visit the gay clubs and play with the bears" - NOT a Russian advertising slogan.

            by Lib Dem FoP on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:30:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Comedy Gold: (0+ / 0-)
            The fact that the United States provides limited backing for Western-oriented, pro-democracy groups in emerging democratic countries is not really news. Of course we do. We have both a moral and political interest in seeing Western-style democracies flourish, particularly in places like Eastern Europe.
            Really?  You actually believe this?  Can you give me some examples of the U.S. "helping" a nation to "Democratically Flourish"?

            I assure you, I can give you many upon many examples of just the opposite, including some in which the U.S. destroyed a country's Democratically elected government in the name of furthering Corporate / U.S. interests.

            It is stupendously amazing that anyone with even a minor grasp of Real-Politik and U.S. foreign policy could proffer the thought of the U.S. "helping" Democracy to "Flourish" - anywhere.

            The 1% are Purists: They only support Candidates that Deliver Results They Can Bank On. Don't they know they should compromise? /sarcasm

            by Johnathan Ivan on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 10:48:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I suggest you crack open a history text... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kalmoth

              And familiarize yourself with the Marshall Plan.

              Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

              by SaoMagnifico on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 11:44:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ah! WW II! (0+ / 0-)

                I recommend you broaden your horizons beyond a narrow time band in American History and dig a little deeper beyond "'Murika = Good!".

                Philippines

                Cuba

                Argentina

                Peru

                Columbia

                Chile

                Cambodia

                Vietnam

                Iran (hint: 1952)

                Iraq (twice)

                Syria (trying)

                Afghanistan (twice)

                Saudi Arabia

                Kuwait

                --------------------------

                A few minor examples.

                But do go on about the Marshall plan as the definitive Policy describing America's global strategies and "goodness".

                The 1% are Purists: They only support Candidates that Deliver Results They Can Bank On. Don't they know they should compromise? /sarcasm

                by Johnathan Ivan on Sun Mar 02, 2014 at 06:57:37 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Well, what a shock. (0+ / 0-)

      The 1% are Purists: They only support Candidates that Deliver Results They Can Bank On. Don't they know they should compromise? /sarcasm

      by Johnathan Ivan on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 10:43:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site