Russia, Ukraine and the West

[Gocka]

Its all finally coming to the surface.

The armed rebels were actually that of the Neo-Nazi political party Svoboda, and this is not a soft core Nazi party, they are full on hard core.

Just 2 weeks ago US senator John Mc'cain met with Svoboda's leader Oleh Tyahnybok, also U.S. diplomat Victoria Nuland met with Tyahnybok and now interim prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk 3 weeks before they were handed power under Ukraine’s new interim government. Again coincidence?

This is utterly disgraceful on Americas part, this party is probably one of the worst and most dangerous in Europe, and they are on their way to ruling Ukraine (with western help).

The Russians are no angels but in the last few years the monsters that the US has gotten into bed with is disgusting.

If you have any doubts just take a look at our homeland and to our little terrorist friends that also got to where they are with western help.

What Medvedev said recently totally sums up the situation

“We do not understand what is going on there. A real threat to our interests (exists) and to the lives and health of our citizens. Strictly speaking, today there is no one there to communicate with … If you think that people in black masks waving Kalashnikovs (represent) a government, then it will be difficult for us to work with such a government.

Natalia Vitrenko, of The Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine

“Across the country… People are being beaten and stoned, while undesirable members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine are subject to mass intimidation and local officials see their families and children targeted by death threats if they do not support the installation of this new political power. The new Ukrainian authorities are massively burning the offices of political parties they do not like, and have publicly announced the threat of criminal prosecution and prohibition of political parties and public organizations that do not share the ideology and goals of the new regime.” (“USA and EU Are Erecting a Nazi Regime on Ukrainian Territory”, Natalia Vitrenko)

An article in Haaretz “the new dilemma for Jews in Ukraine”.

“The greatest worry now is not the uptick in anti-Semitic incidents but the major presence of ultra-nationalist movements, especially the prominence of the Svoboda party and Pravy Sektor (right sector) members among the demonstrators. Many of them are calling their political opponents “Zhids” and flying flags with neo-Nazi symbols. There have also been reports, from reliable sources, of these movements distributing freshly translated editions of Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Independence Square.” (“Anti-Semitism, though a real threat, is being used by the Kremlin as a political football”, Haaretz)


“Washington openly backs fascist Svoboda party leader Oleh Tyahnybok…In 2004, Tyahnybok was expelled from former President Viktor Yushchenko’s parliamentary faction. He was condemned for urging Ukrainians to fight against a “Muscovite-Jewish mafia.”

In 2005, he denounced “criminal activities” of “organized Jewry.” He outrageously claimed they plan “genocide” against Ukrainians.”…

Tyahnybok extremism didn’t deter Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland. On February 6, she met openly with him and other anti-government leaders.

In early January, 15,000 ultranationalists held a torchlight march through Kiev. They did so to honor Nazi-era collaborator/mass murderer Stepan Bandera. Some wore uniforms a Wehrmacht Ukrainian division used in WW II. Others chanted “Ukraine above all” and “Bandera, come and bring order.”


Well that answers a lot of questions, yet leaves me with so many new ones.

What the hell is going on in the world, we are going backwards, hate, racism, violence, all the things we have been trying to combat for the last 50 years are now being used as political tools.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

I was reading an article that mentioned in Obama's conversation with Putin, he warned Putin that the 'people of Ukraine had the right to determine their own future.'

I guess it's only alright when the USA interfere with internal affairs in foreign countries.

[vicsinad]

McCain has wanted a confrontation with Russia for years. I remember in the 2008 elections he was pushing for US to respond to the Russian-Georgian conflict, saying "we are all Georgians today." Too bad for him most Americans were like, "What? Russia invaded the state of Georgia? They really want to control the American peach industry that badly?"

Putin has been wanting to create a Eurasian Union to oppose the European Union. Obviously, Ukraine was supposed to be a part of this union. However, NATO and the EU want Ukraine in their sphere.
It's pretty much that simple.

It's actually simpler. It's all about the money. Crimea is perfect for Russia...more and easier control of the oil and natural gas in the Black Sea., which has great energy prospects and is relatively undeveloped. Exxon Mobile (RE: Texas/America) last year invested over $700 Million in Ukraine for energy development of the Black Sea. Russia going in there to defend the interests of Russians is a selling point to the citizenry. Russia wants as much of that oil for themselves as possible, not the West. Sure, they already have access to the Black Sea. But international maritime laws (and common sense) suggest that the more coastline you have, the more exploring you can do and the less Ukraine's backers (the West) can do.

It's not a conspiracy theory. US and Russia capitalize on internal conflicts to feed the money/power hungry corporations that drive their governments. I just don't know when the people are going to stand up and take back control of the decision making process in both (actually, in most) countries. Governments and nations are getting too big for ordinary citizens to actually have a significant or credible influence. Too many issues, too many unknowns, too much corporate power. Give the powers back to towns and communities where people can actually see and feel the impact of their decisions. My two sen...cents.

I'm sure the financial, energy and defense industries are loving the potential for a showdown between the West and Russia. Come to think of it, the Republicans' big backers come from the defense industry, the Democrats' come from the financial industry, and the energy industry support both pretty much equally.

[Carlin]

Some Links -

Twitter

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Ukraine&src=hash

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Russia&src=hash

TheInterpreter

http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-12-putin-prepares-an-invasion/

Main Ukrainian Navy flagship takes Russia’s side – report

http://rt.com/news/ukraine-navy-flaghsip-protest-389/

http://izvestia.ru/news/566817

PS:

Note from History: Crimean War

Russia and the Ottoman Empire went to war in October 1853 over Russia's rights to protect Orthodox Christians. Russia gained the upper hand after destroying the Ottoman fleet at the Black Sea port of Sinope; to stop Russia's conquest, France and Britain entered in March 1854. Most of the fighting took place for control of the Black Sea, with land battles on the Crimean peninsula in southern Russia. The Russians held their great fortress at Sevastopol for over a year. After it fell, peace was arranged at Paris in March 1856.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War

[vicsinad]

I find this also relevant:

"In 2010, after years of tortuous negotiations, Ukraine agreed to extend Moscow's lease on Sevastopol port until 2042 in exchange for a 30-percent reduction in the price of Russian gas on which Ukraine depends for much of its energy needs.

But Russia remained wary about its reliance on Ukraine, and disliked some of the conditions imposed by the deal - including the need for Ukrainian consent every time it wanted to upgrade or replace ships at Sevastopol. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10671066/What-is-the-Crimea-and-why-does-it-matter.html

[Gocka]

Very well put.

I cant speak for other large European countries but in the United States to make it past some local administrative position you have to be able to put down some serious money to even compete in an election, money that 99% of people do not have. Positions with any influence, House Representative, Governor, Senator, President, they all take millions of dollars in campaign funding to get into an election. Even being part of the measly house where you are one of 435 takes millions in lobbying to get in. People dont give you millions in funding because your such a stand up guy, they usually want or at least expect things from you.

Even if any of you were lobbying to become prime minister in Macedonia, and I were to back you financially to make a run, I would do so only if I knew that when you got elected you would do things that I support. An average person like me wants simple thing, freedom, and prosperity for the average guy like me. Well in the United States who are the biggest backers of candidates for any office? That would be multi billions dollar corporations. Well they also dont give millions unless the guy they are giving it to is doing things that they support and that is a benefit to them. Well since a corporation is not a human being (contrary to what Mitt Romney thinks), its wants and its goals are very different form an a real person. Corporations exist to make money, so then that is their only goal and purpose, to make more money. They give money in campaign contributions in order to sway policy in order to make more money. How does that align even slightly with the interests and desires of the average person? A corporation is not concerned with poverty, human life, health and wellness, income inequality, human rights, etc etc, its not that they are evil, again they are not human beings, a corporation is made up of people, but when they act they act on the corporations behalf not their own, it is the corporations interests that they have in mind.

Many of you in Australia may not know this but a few years back the US passed a law that would allow unlimited campaign contributions from corporations because, and I quote (corporations are people too, and should have equal rights as people in the voting process). This bill was very unpopular with most of the countries citizenry but somehow it passed in quite a hush hush kind of way. Ever since then its been getting worse and worse. Oh I forgot to mention the kicker to that law above, the multi million dollar contributions can remain anonymous, they do not have to be disclosed by either side.

Now tell me with a straight face that the law is not a mechanism for legal bribery?

Democracy doesn't exist in the romanticized way that some purist love to portray it. Today, at least in the USA, democracy goes to the highest bidder and if you dont believe me then try to go to even your local Mayor and have a chat. You will quickly find out that he most likely wont even talk to you, and doesn't give a shit what you think anyway, because you didn't help him get elected, your local Walmart did.

McCain has wanted a confrontation with Russia for years. I remember in the 2008 elections he was pushing for US to respond to the Russian-Georgian conflict, saying "we are all Georgians today." Too bad for him most Americans were like, "What? Russia invaded the state of Georgia? They really want to control the American peach industry that badly?"

Putin has been wanting to create a Eurasian Union to oppose the European Union. Obviously, Ukraine was supposed to be a part of this union. However, NATO and the EU want Ukraine in their sphere.
It's pretty much that simple.

It's actually simpler. It's all about the money. Crimea is perfect for Russia...more and easier control of the oil and natural gas in the Black Sea., which has great energy prospects and is relatively undeveloped. Exxon Mobile (RE: Texas/America) last year invested over $700 Million in Ukraine for energy development of the Black Sea. Russia going in there to defend the interests of Russians is a selling point to the citizenry. Russia wants as much of that oil for themselves as possible, not the West. Sure, they already have access to the Black Sea. But international maritime laws (and common sense) suggest that the more coastline you have, the more exploring you can do and the less Ukraine's backers (the West) can do.

It's not a conspiracy theory. US and Russia capitalize on internal conflicts to feed the money/power hungry corporations that drive their governments. I just don't know when the people are going to stand up and take back control of the decision making process in both (actually, in most) countries. Governments and nations are getting too big for ordinary citizens to actually have a significant or credible influence. Too many issues, too many unknowns, too much corporate power. Give the powers back to towns and communities where people can actually see and feel the impact of their decisions. My two sen...cents.

I'm sure the financial, energy and defense industries are loving the potential for a showdown between the West and Russia. Come to think of it, the Republicans' big backers come from the defense industry, the Democrats' come from the financial industry, and the energy industry support both pretty much equally.

[vicsinad]

Very well put.

I cant speak for other large European countries but in the United States to make it past some local administrative position you have to be able to put down some serious money to even compete in an election, money that 99% of people do not have. Positions with any influence, House Representative, Governor, Senator, President, they all take millions of dollars in campaign funding to get into an election. Even being part of the measly house where you are one of 435 takes millions in lobbying to get in. People dont give you millions in funding because your such a stand up guy, they usually want or at least expect things from you.

Even if any of you were lobbying to become prime minister in Macedonia, and I were to back you financially to make a run, I would do so only if I knew that when you got elected you would do things that I support. An average person like me wants simple thing, freedom, and prosperity for the average guy like me. Well in the United States who are the biggest backers of candidates for any office? That would be multi billions dollar corporations. Well they also dont give millions unless the guy they are giving it to is doing things that they support and that is a benefit to them. Well since a corporation is not a human being (contrary to what Mitt Romney thinks), its wants and its goals are very different form an a real person. Corporations exist to make money, so then that is their only goal and purpose, to make more money. They give money in campaign contributions in order to sway policy in order to make more money. How does that align even slightly with the interests and desires of the average person? A corporation is not concerned with poverty, human life, health and wellness, income inequality, human rights, etc etc, its not that they are evil, again they are not human beings, a corporation is made up of people, but when they act they act on the corporations behalf not their own, it is the corporations interests that they have in mind.

Many of you in Australia may not know this but a few years back the US passed a law that would allow unlimited campaign contributions from corporations because, and I quote (corporations are people too, and should have equal rights as people in the voting process). This bill was very unpopular with most of the countries citizenry but somehow it passed in quite a hush hush kind of way. Ever since then its been getting worse and worse. Oh I forgot to mention the kicker to that law above, the multi million dollar contributions can remain anonymous, they do not have to be disclosed by either side.

Now tell me with a straight face that the law is not a mechanism for legal bribery?

Democracy doesn't exist in the romanticized way that some purist love to portray it. Today, at least in the USA, democracy goes to the highest bidder and if you dont believe me then try to go to even your local Mayor and have a chat. You will quickly find out that he most likely wont even talk to you, and doesn't give a shit what you think anyway, because you didn't help him get elected, your local Walmart did.

That's exactly how it is. And we are to believe that the US government has the American peoples' interests at heart when we get involved in other countries' affairs?

Meanwhile, getting back to Ukraine specifically, I found this simple explanatory article on the Budapest Memorandum, and it reminds me about how fruitless international laws and treaties are, when in reality, we know it's force that determines outcomes, not justice and right versus wrong. It reminds me of the Macedonian case with Greece and about every other case of international disputes. We are at the mercy of those with the bigger guns...they make and break the rules as they please. In the end, it doesn't really matter what the UN Charter says or what the Interim Accord says. Laws are made by men with the biggest sticks, just as history is written by the victors.

What exactly is the "Budapest Memorandum"?

The "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" is a diplomatic memorandum that was signed in December 1994 by Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

It is not a formal treaty, but rather, a diplomatic document under which signatories made promises to each other as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Under the memorandum, Ukraine promised to remove all Soviet-era nuclear weapons from its territory, send them to disarmament facilities in Russia, and sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Ukraine kept these promises.

In return, Russia and the Western signatory countries essentially consecrated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as an independent state. They did so by applying the principles of territorial integrity and nonintervention in 1975 Helsinki Final Act -- a Cold War-era treaty signed by 35 states including the Soviet Union -- to an independent post-Soviet Ukraine.

Which principles in the Helsinki Final Act, reiterated in the "Budapest Memorandum," are relevant to the current situation in the Crimea?

In the "Budapest Memorandum," Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States promised that none of them would ever threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. They also pledged that none of them would ever use economic coercion to subordinate Ukraine to their own interest.

They specifically pledged they would refrain from making each other's territory the object of military occupation or engage in other uses of force in violation of international law.

All sides agreed that no such occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal and that the signatories would "consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments."

Is there anything legally binding about the "Budapest Memorandum" regarding Russia's obligations to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity?

"That's actually a much more complex question than it may sound. It is binding in international law, but that doesn't mean it has any means of enforcement," says Barry Kellman is a professor of law and director of the International Weapons Control Center at DePaul University's College of Law.

"The 'Budapest Memorandum' follows the Helsinki Final Act and essentially reiterates its provisions. There are confidence building measures and then a host of other broader obligations – primarily negative obligations. Don't interfere."

Kellman concludes that there are a host of other sources of international law that oblige Russia to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity -- including the provisions of the CSCE treaty and the UN Charter.

http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-explainer-budapest-memorandum/25280502.html

[George S.]

I don't think the Russia ,ukrain tossover is not going to be as easy as some thought..Putin is not going to give in but the freedom loving people aren't going to give in.I wonder if the army supports whats going on or there are just factions fighting.I think its time for the people to choose what they want a totalirarian state of Russia or a free Ukraine .A free Ukraine is right on the cards I think it depends on the peiopl's resolve of a struggle.THis will be a big blow on Russia.A Russia without the Ukraine for Moscow is no Russia.I think both sides will have to engage & struggle militarily.Also what ever help the Ukraine's get from the west will help them.

[Risto the Great]

it reminds me about how fruitless international laws and treaties are, when in reality, we know it's force that determines outcomes, not justice and right versus wrong.

Pretty much in a nutshell.

Ukraine was one of the few nations to provide anything resembling assistance to Macedonia in recent times. I hope the nation can retain its sovereignty. The vultures are out.

[Gocka]

Have a look at this and then tell me if you can deny that the USA plays an active role in what is unfolding in Ukraine.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call
Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt, Kiev, 10 December
Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt together toured the opposition camp in Kiev in December
Continue reading the main story
Ukraine crisis

An apparently bugged phone conversation in which a senior US diplomat disparages the EU over the Ukraine crisis has been posted online. The alleged conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, appeared on YouTube on Thursday. It is not clearly when the alleged conversation took place.

Here is a transcript, with analysis by BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus:

Warning: This transcript contains swearing.

Voice thought to be Nuland's: What do you think?

Jonathan Marcus: At the outset it should be clear that this is a fragment of what may well be a larger phone conversation. But the US has not denied its veracity and has been quick to point a finger at the Russian authorities for being behind its interception and leak.
Voice thought to be Pyatt's: I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader]. And I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad that he said what he said in response.

Jonathan Marcus: The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs.
Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.


Anti-government protesters have been camped out in Kiev since November
Pyatt: Yeah. I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok, the other opposition leader] and his guys and I'm sure that's part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.

Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.

Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?

Nuland: My understanding from that call - but you tell me - was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a... three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?

Pyatt: No. I think... I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn't like it.

Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.

Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.

Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?

Jonathan Marcus: An intriguing insight into the foreign policy process with work going on at a number of levels: Various officials attempting to marshal the Ukrainian opposition; efforts to get the UN to play an active role in bolstering a deal; and (as you can see below) the big guns waiting in the wings - US Vice-President Joe Biden clearly being lined up to give private words of encouragement at the appropriate moment.
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.

Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.

Jonathan Marcus: Not for the first time in an international crisis, the US expresses frustration at the EU's efforts. Washington and Brussels have not been completely in step during the Ukraine crisis. The EU is divided and to some extent hesitant about picking a fight with Moscow. It certainly cannot win a short-term battle for Ukraine's affections with Moscow - it just does not have the cash inducements available. The EU has sought to play a longer game; banking on its attraction over time. But the US clearly is determined to take a much more activist role.
Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there's a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.

Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president's national security adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden's willing.

Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks.

Jonathan Marcus: Overall this is a damaging episode between Washington and Moscow. Nobody really emerges with any credit. The US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal in Ukraine than it publicly lets on. There is some embarrassment too for the Americans given the ease with which their communications were hacked. But is the interception and leaking of communications really the way Russia wants to conduct its foreign policy ? Goodness - after Wikileaks, Edward Snowden and the like could the Russian government be joining the radical apostles of open government? I doubt it. Though given some of the comments from Vladimir Putin's adviser on Ukraine Sergei Glazyev - for example his interview with the Kommersant-Ukraine newspaper the other day - you don't need your own listening station to be clear about Russia's intentions. Russia he said "must interfere in Ukraine" and the authorities there should use force against the demonstrators.

They are literally hand picking who is part of the interim government.

[Vangelovski]

Gocka, I don't know why the surprise or shock at these sorts of intra and inter-governmental conversations. This is just business as usual - obviously everyone has a preferred option, but that does not mean that they are capable of actually making it happen.

Some of the comments on this thread are so far-fetched that they are laughable. Just on this thread alone (not to mention all the news sites) there are so many competing grand-conspiracies as to who's behind everything and why, that we would have to believe that its possible for the same piece of paper to be both black and white at the same time (along with a billion other colours).

We have evil corporations (who seem to be working awfully collaboratively even they are competing for the same share of profits) that are dangling the politicians, yet at the same time we are to believe that is the American and Russian political establishments that are behind everything (regardless of the fact that inter-party politics are so vicious that most can even stand the sight of each other and the fact that the views and interests of many of these politicians are fundamentally irreconcilable). We have theories out there that Ukraine (or insert whatever the latest hotspot is) must be the centre of the universe and whoever holds sway there will achieve world domination or that the economic possibilities that the Ukraine (or insert whatever the latest hotspot is) are so enormous that the political elite and the industrial-military complex will become so rich that the money will last them for a few weeks until the next hotspot opens up needing a grand chess game explanation. Then, we supposedly have 45 million individuals that are just plain zombies going along with whatever the grand puppet master tells them to do. Finally we have some unnamed Jews in the middle of all this in cahoots with the Illuminati, the Freemasons, my weird looking neighbour, definitely Peter Garret (who must have controlled the Labor party otherwise how else would he get such a cushy position), possibly ancient aliens and of course, the reverse vampires.

In this instance, as in all of these situations, the grand puppet master seems awfully schizophrenic as he appears to be working against himself by organising so many competing interests. Or maybe, that's the genius of it...

[Risto the Great]

Vangelovski, I don't know why you're mocking the motivations of the key participants in the Ukranian saga. The same motivations played out in Macedonia. It was all about spheres of influence and money (in fact, just money). Not much changes over time.

Corporations are not necessarily evil, but their motivations are money first and people second. So, in fact, this could be construed as evil.

I think a powerful corporation, just like a superpower nation, will always treat each project like it is the centre of the world and seek to exploit any and every opportunity from it. It is the nature of the beast and we don't even need anything to be sinister about it. We are merely identifying it.

We have enough proof about millions of zombies to suggest that they often are able to be bullied into lowly acts of self-hate and sheepliness. Macedonia is evidence enough of this. I'm pretty sure history is full of well orchestrated conspiracies.

[Gocka]

Tom,

I am a bit surprised that you think a phone call like that is business as usual, and I think you either didn't read the entire conversation or are purposely taking it lightly to support a wider point you want to make. They were not discussing their favorites they were literally discussing who will be part of the government and at one point Nulland is telling the ambassador that they need to talk to Klitchko to soften him up before they break the news to him that he wont be part of the new government. At the end they are discussing how the need to bring in the UN to "glue" it together (make it seem more legitimate). It's pretty damming because it happened before anything blew up in Ukraine, the former president was still in charge and the US was discussing who was going to take over, then big shocker it played out exactly as they discussed.

Come on man take your head out of the sand. No one is suggesting that this is some grand plan, its a fluid situation that is constantly changing but you cant deny the the US is directly involved and is at least attempting to pull strings.

Your suggestion that 45 million people are like zombies is not as far fetched as it sounds. Take a look at Syria, how many millions of refugees and how many million more under house arrest that are playing no part in anything that is going on in their country?

How could 45 million Ukrainians be involved in the picking of the government when there was no vote, and you just end up with a government over night. What consensus put Arseniy in charge? This is what happens when you read too many books and dont spend enough time in the real world.

The United States for example has 330 million people, and I could give you hundreds of examples of laws that are passed with overwhelming bipartisan votes that are overwhelmingly unpopular with the actual population. If our interests as citizens are represented then how is that even possible? The law about unlimited campaign contributions from corporations passed with no problems yet most Americans thought it was dangerous and wrong, laws about big agricultural producers being able to patent GMO seeds, subsidies for oil companies, there are so many examples of laws that have only special interests for large corporations that most citizens are against yet they pass almost uncontested.

Can you answer me just one question. If I am a corporation and I give a million dollars to candidate X, what is my motivation to do so? As a corporation I am not impacted by 99% of issues that regular people care about so I am not giving money to this candidate so he can fight for poverty, or the environment or what ever, I have only one reason that I would waist a million dollars on this candidate. so that I get a return on my investment. Maybe since your background is not in business you have trouble understanding the motivations of a corporation but its simple, a business never spends money unless its to make money.

They dont all have to act in unison to get what they want at least some of the time.

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski, I don't know why you're mocking the motivations of the key participants in the Ukranian saga. The same motivations played out in Macedonia. It was all about spheres of influence and money (in fact, just money). Not much changes over time.

Corporations are not necessarily evil, but their motivations are money first and people second. So, in fact, this could be construed as evil.

I think a powerful corporation, just like a superpower nation, will always treat each project like it is the centre of the world and seek to exploit any and every opportunity from it. It is the nature of the beast and we don't even need anything to be sinister about it. We are merely identifying it.

We have enough proof about millions of zombies to suggest that they often are able to be bullied into lowly acts of self-hate and sheepliness. Macedonia is evidence enough of this. I'm pretty sure history is full of well orchestrated conspiracies.

I'm not mocking the motivations, I'm mocking the perceived capability of all the mentioned players to orchestrate what they are supposedly orchestrating and the idea that so many competing interests can all be behind these events at the same time - as if it is in everyone's interest to have what is happening play out.

[Risto the Great]

The United States for example has 330 million people, and I could give you hundreds of examples of laws that are passed with overwhelming bipartisan votes that are overwhelmingly unpopular with the actual population. If our interests as citizens are represented then how is that even possible? The law about unlimited campaign contributions from corporations passed with no problems yet most Americans thought it was dangerous and wrong, laws about big agricultural producers being able to patent GMO seeds, subsidies for oil companies, there are so many examples of laws that have only special interests for large corporations that most citizens are against yet they pass almost uncontested.

If the USA is anything like the "House of Cards" TV show, democracy plays a very small part in this.