it’s a coincidence the guy they decided on just happened to be the guy who ended up being Prime Minister for two terms, right?
One of those being the interim guy and the other not being complete, getting fired because lacking a majority. All in all he served two years of a usual five-year term. You’re embellishing some things, and discounting others, to reinforce your conclusion.
And, no, of course it’s not a coincidence: Nuland is a politician. The parliamentarians in the Rada are politicians. The Rada ended up electing Yatsenyuk as a suitable interim prime minister because they judged him to be. And so did Nuland.
And I agree with that assessment: While Klitschko is absolutely popular and without doubt honourable, he’s not as politically savvy. Yatsenyuk was the better pick. Klitschko is also a Hamburger, as such if I were partisan here he’d have been my first pick.
You shouldn’t be terribly surprised if politicians from different places come to similar or identical conclusions. That’s not coincidence or conspiracy, but confluence. Like minds think alike.
Do you believe money holds influence in US elections and do you think people with money actively try and influence elections?
Of fucking course they do. Different question: Do you really think that a couple of millions from the National Endowment for Democracy have influence that can overpower Ukraine’s own oligarchs or people? If you think so, please have a look at the net worth of Poroshenko, the guy who became president next. Traditionally, in Ukraine the filthy rich become politicians because that comes with immunity from prosecution. It was a proper oligarchy, not the smoke-and-mirror highly financialised US one or Russia, which isn’t an oligarchy: There, a central figures allows loyal viceroys to amass wealth, all the power emanates from the Tsar, not the money.
Yet another angle: The Russians weren’t able to successfully influence Ukrainian politics to their liking. Why, then, should the US have been able to? The US invested way less and also cares less.
Then, last thing: Why, with all those holes, is this thrown around as smoking gun evidence? Who benefits?
We’re talking in the range of billions. Roughly $200M a year. That’s a lot of money for a country as poor as Ukraine.
Second, there’s likely a lot of money that was sent covertly. The reason NED was founded was just to simplify the process of funding US interests in foreign countries. Before, you would have to have the CIA create a series of intermediary steps to try and obfuscate the source of funds. For example, to bring it back to Guatemala - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d’%C3%A9tat#Operation_PBSuccess
With NED, you don’t need to spend the manpower and money to set up these complex systems of obfuscation. All of the sources are deemed “legitimate” and therefore you can send openly without incriminating yourself. This is cheaper and simpler.
This goes back to the quote by the founder of NED- Allen Weinstein “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”
But that’s the thing- CIA still exists and still covertly funds individuals and organizations. However, these days (post-NED) they only fund those that would be unacceptable for the US government to be attached to. For example, “Operation Cyclone” in Afghanistan or “Timber Sycamore Program” in Syria. In both these cases, as CIA was working their magic, NED was also funding US interests in those countries in parallel.
Open “legitimate” funding - NED
Covert items US doesn’t wanna be openly associated with - CIA
They work as a team, both with the mutual goal of advancing US interests
I’ll make some claims and please tell me if we agree on them (I believe we will, because you agree $$$ influences democracy)
NED is a tool to advance US interests through funds injection
NED (along with some other US organizations seeking similar goals) openly pumped quite a lot of money into Ukraine.
CIA has a history of covertly funding US interests, and also in parallel with NED funding
CIA has a history of involvement in Ukraine
So, those 4 statements, I believe are facts. I made no conclusions, simply stated facts. From those facts, I believe it’s enough smoke to assume there is fire. You can say there are many holes, and that is fine. Two people can look at the same series of facts and come to different conclusions.
But I think when looking at the following fact in connection with the previous
US officials speaking on the phone in a highly classified call in such a casual and matter-of-fact way about which politician they want in Ukraine - and that politician served two terms as Prime Minister
Starts to fill in a pattern. Remember Occam’s Razor. What’s simplest is probably what is true.
To conclude my comment- can we at least agree mutually that US attempted to influence Ukrainian democracy? Maybe they were impotent and the radical coup in 2014 was a totally independent movement totally separate from any US influence. It was just a coincidence that the coup led to a pro-US government.
But can we at least agree on the above- US uses $$$ as a tool to advance their interests and they tried this in Ukraine?
We’re talking in the range of billions. Roughly $200M a year. That’s a lot of money for a country as poor as Ukraine.
That’s less than Germany gives Palestine each year and Palestine is vastly smaller. 200M are about five bucks per Ukrainian, per year. That’s five litres of milk. A not entirely shabby bottle of wine. Five bucks a year are about 40ct a month, or about 1/1250th of the average Ukrainian wage. You can get a metro ticket for that. And how much of that was even spent in Ukraine itself, as opposed to paying people in America to decide what to do with the money.
Ukraine is Europe-poor, not Africa-poor. It’s a fully developed and industrialised country. 200M is ballpark Poroshenko’s yearly increase in wealth while in power. Not, mind you, all of it ill-begotten (by capitalist standards) he does produce some fine chocolate.
I’ll make some claims and please tell me if we agree on them (I believe we will, because you agree $$$ influences democracy)
Not what I said. I said that politics can be bought, not that all money buys politics, or that all politics is bought. On top of that it’s not always a bad thing, say funnelling some money to an NGO or newspaper keen on exposing corruption.
Starts to fill in a pattern. Remember Occam’s Razor. What’s simplest is probably what is true.
She’s a witch, she did it!
Occam’s razor cannot account for leaving out context, for data not considered, for tunnel vision. If you’re only reductionist enough you can use it to justify absolutely any conclusion.
It was just a coincidence that the coup led to a pro-US government.
WTH is “pro-US” supposed to mean. I’m not aware of Poroshenko selling state-owned enterprises to US corporate interest or such for way below value, that would the the usual thing to look out for.
One of those being the interim guy and the other not being complete, getting fired because lacking a majority. All in all he served two years of a usual five-year term. You’re embellishing some things, and discounting others, to reinforce your conclusion.
And, no, of course it’s not a coincidence: Nuland is a politician. The parliamentarians in the Rada are politicians. The Rada ended up electing Yatsenyuk as a suitable interim prime minister because they judged him to be. And so did Nuland.
And I agree with that assessment: While Klitschko is absolutely popular and without doubt honourable, he’s not as politically savvy. Yatsenyuk was the better pick. Klitschko is also a Hamburger, as such if I were partisan here he’d have been my first pick.
You shouldn’t be terribly surprised if politicians from different places come to similar or identical conclusions. That’s not coincidence or conspiracy, but confluence. Like minds think alike.
Of fucking course they do. Different question: Do you really think that a couple of millions from the National Endowment for Democracy have influence that can overpower Ukraine’s own oligarchs or people? If you think so, please have a look at the net worth of Poroshenko, the guy who became president next. Traditionally, in Ukraine the filthy rich become politicians because that comes with immunity from prosecution. It was a proper oligarchy, not the smoke-and-mirror highly financialised US one or Russia, which isn’t an oligarchy: There, a central figures allows loyal viceroys to amass wealth, all the power emanates from the Tsar, not the money.
Yet another angle: The Russians weren’t able to successfully influence Ukrainian politics to their liking. Why, then, should the US have been able to? The US invested way less and also cares less.
Then, last thing: Why, with all those holes, is this thrown around as smoking gun evidence? Who benefits?
Ok, I think now we’re getting somewhere - you’re engaging in good faith and I appreciate that. Let’s go over the money pumped into Ukraine
From independence in 1991 to 2014, the total value was not a couple million. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/19/facebook-posts/united-states-spent-5-billion-ukraine-anti-governm/
We’re talking in the range of billions. Roughly $200M a year. That’s a lot of money for a country as poor as Ukraine.
Second, there’s likely a lot of money that was sent covertly. The reason NED was founded was just to simplify the process of funding US interests in foreign countries. Before, you would have to have the CIA create a series of intermediary steps to try and obfuscate the source of funds. For example, to bring it back to Guatemala - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d’%C3%A9tat#Operation_PBSuccess
With NED, you don’t need to spend the manpower and money to set up these complex systems of obfuscation. All of the sources are deemed “legitimate” and therefore you can send openly without incriminating yourself. This is cheaper and simpler.
This goes back to the quote by the founder of NED- Allen Weinstein “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”
But that’s the thing- CIA still exists and still covertly funds individuals and organizations. However, these days (post-NED) they only fund those that would be unacceptable for the US government to be attached to. For example, “Operation Cyclone” in Afghanistan or “Timber Sycamore Program” in Syria. In both these cases, as CIA was working their magic, NED was also funding US interests in those countries in parallel.
Open “legitimate” funding - NED
Covert items US doesn’t wanna be openly associated with - CIA
They work as a team, both with the mutual goal of advancing US interests
Once again, US has a history of trying to destabilize Ukraine that goes back all the way to the start of Cold War. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/11/covert-operation-ukrainian-independence-haunts-cia-00029968
So to conclude:
I’ll make some claims and please tell me if we agree on them (I believe we will, because you agree $$$ influences democracy)
NED is a tool to advance US interests through funds injection
NED (along with some other US organizations seeking similar goals) openly pumped quite a lot of money into Ukraine.
CIA has a history of covertly funding US interests, and also in parallel with NED funding
CIA has a history of involvement in Ukraine
So, those 4 statements, I believe are facts. I made no conclusions, simply stated facts. From those facts, I believe it’s enough smoke to assume there is fire. You can say there are many holes, and that is fine. Two people can look at the same series of facts and come to different conclusions.
But I think when looking at the following fact in connection with the previous
Starts to fill in a pattern. Remember Occam’s Razor. What’s simplest is probably what is true.
To conclude my comment- can we at least agree mutually that US attempted to influence Ukrainian democracy? Maybe they were impotent and the radical coup in 2014 was a totally independent movement totally separate from any US influence. It was just a coincidence that the coup led to a pro-US government.
But can we at least agree on the above- US uses $$$ as a tool to advance their interests and they tried this in Ukraine?
That’s less than Germany gives Palestine each year and Palestine is vastly smaller. 200M are about five bucks per Ukrainian, per year. That’s five litres of milk. A not entirely shabby bottle of wine. Five bucks a year are about 40ct a month, or about 1/1250th of the average Ukrainian wage. You can get a metro ticket for that. And how much of that was even spent in Ukraine itself, as opposed to paying people in America to decide what to do with the money.
Ukraine is Europe-poor, not Africa-poor. It’s a fully developed and industrialised country. 200M is ballpark Poroshenko’s yearly increase in wealth while in power. Not, mind you, all of it ill-begotten (by capitalist standards) he does produce some fine chocolate.
Not what I said. I said that politics can be bought, not that all money buys politics, or that all politics is bought. On top of that it’s not always a bad thing, say funnelling some money to an NGO or newspaper keen on exposing corruption.
She’s a witch, she did it!
Occam’s razor cannot account for leaving out context, for data not considered, for tunnel vision. If you’re only reductionist enough you can use it to justify absolutely any conclusion.
WTH is “pro-US” supposed to mean. I’m not aware of Poroshenko selling state-owned enterprises to US corporate interest or such for way below value, that would the the usual thing to look out for.