How responsible is the West for Ukraine conflict?

[Praxius]

Finance is what provoked Russia. They are flat broke.

What country isn't?

RT isn't a reliable outlet. It's a state run propaganda machine.

I never understood why people always reply with things like this.

This new source isn't known to be reliable..... Wiki isn't reliable, this or that isn't reliable for information.... etc.

What does it matter? Saying so doesn't automatically refute claims.

The information is presented, it doesn't matter if one things the source is reliable or not.... focus on the information itself, refute it, provide more factual and more reliable information. Simply dismissing something doesn't win arguments.

 

[MHz]

So you are saying (as do others) that it was Bush who orchestrated the Orange Revolution starting in 2004 ?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgS7-b3FLn8#t=22
Had I written that Eagle would have accused me of playing the BROKEN RECORD card.

Bush couldn't even get off-stage 100% of the time without messing it up. Anything he said or did in that 8 years was written before the 8 years started and handed to him on a need to know basis. Even Cheney was 'under orders', except the shotgun thing, that was just to show his 'lawyer friend' just how far 'above the law' the Government was' in that as CEO of a Company would not have gotten him an apology from the victim while his whole family supported that apology. How do you think Cheney's bosses got it across to him that he was a servant?

Back to what did the $5B buy? Apparently not enough of the Nation wouldn't have been looking for a huge loan, or perhaps that is what the money did, get the Gov in a position where they would have to take an IMF loan that would seal their fate for the next 100 years, or so. Russia messed that up by offering a loan (that included gas sales) but without the bribes and the international corporations getting the best cut when all the resources went private industry with no Government oversight.

Everybody does that to you and gets away with it. As far as I can tell it is from references that they would prefer to be called ancient and not important to the current topic. Rather than defend that just bring up something new that is happening because the past was not handled correctly. Don't expect him to acknowledge that point. For as much hot water as I get into I'm not sure me commenting on your 'known' trials and tribulations is going to be of any help. Not everything is sunshine and lollypops after I say some thing like. 'Here, let me help you with that.'.

 

[gopher]

Had a real hard time trying to understand what was being said in that video.

There remain some delusional right wingers who are blaming Obama for the mess but the facts show otherwise:



The United States spent $5 billion on Ukraine anti-government riots | PunditFact



The United States spent $5 billion on Ukraine anti-government riots

Share this story:

A meme on Facebook says President Barack Obama spent “$5 billion paying Ukrainians to riot and dismantle their democratically elected government.”

It’s a conspiracy with mainstream crossover: The United States bankrolled the bloody political uprising in Ukraine.
We saw the claim pop up recently in a story on RT (the Russian-funded English language cable network), and found lots of talk about it on reddit, Facebook and other websites.
The claims have the same basic structure. While President Barack Obama publicly said Ukrainians have the right to determine their own future, the U.S. government pumped $5 billion into the country to promote regime change.
In a Facebook meme, someone put it this way:
Obama "spends $5 billion paying Ukrainians to riot and dismantle their democratically elected government."
So is there any truth to this claim? PunditFact dove in.
The roots
The claim is rooted in a December 2013 speech by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, a non-governmental agency that promotes democracy in the former Soviet republic.
Nuland had returned days earlier from her third trip to Ukraine in five weeks to assess the protests over President Viktor Yanukovych’s policies to move away from the European Union, she said.
She made clear the United States supported the protesters’ fight and spoke of how she met with Yanukovych, pressing him to end the pushback from Ukrainian security forces because it is "absolutely impermissible in a European state, in a democratic state."
She described how American taxpayer money has supported Ukraine’s democratic development despite the country’s challenges.
"Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations," she said. "We have invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine."
Her eight-minute speech (video) attracted little to no media attention.
The truth
We had a feeling that folks repeating the claim missed important context from Nuland’s speech. Wasn’t Nuland talking about money given since Ukraine broke away from the Soviet Union?
The State Department said yes.
"The insinuation that the United States incited the people of Ukraine to riot or rebel is patently false," said Nicole Thompson, a State Department spokeswoman.
Since 1992, the government has spent about $5.1 billion to support democracy-building programs in Ukraine, Thompson said, with money flowing mostly from the Department of State via U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as the departments of Defense, Energy, Agriculture and others. The United States does this with hundreds of other countries.
About $2.4 billion went to programs promoting peace and security, which could include military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement interdiction,Thompson said. More money went to categories with the objectives of "governing justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people" ($400 million), economic growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300 million).
The descriptions are a bit vague, which could lead people to think the money was used for some clandestine purpose.
But even if it that were so, the money in question was spent over more than 20 years. Yanukovych was elected in 2010. So any connection between the protests and the $5 billion is inaccurate.
And Obama was elected in 2008, so any connection between $5 billion and Obama also is inaccurate.
The challenge
We attempted to drill down and verify the expenditures independently but found that a difficult task.
That’s a byproduct of the United States’ foreign aid investments, which rival no other country (though supporters note the spending equals only 1 percent of all federal spending). The massive check-writing across dozens of agencies to non-governmental organizations to scores of countries and regions around the world is almost impossible to untangle.
"As it stands, it is nearly impossible to find a figure," said Nicole Valentinuzzi, communications manager of Publish What You Fund, a group that pushes for aid transparency across the world. "These kinds of things would be easily verifiable if people were given timely information."
The State Department created ForeignAssistance.gov to help taxpayers, journalists and others find out where the money is going, but the data is limited in the number of years available and not reported by all agencies.
"The Foreign Assistance dashboard is not capturing this information in an up-to-date, current way," Valentinuzzi said, "so responding to a humanitarian crisis is a bit untraceable while it happens, which we argue makes it less effective, basically."
That said, the United States is working on being more transparent.
The site started under the Obama administration and is a "work in progress," Thompson said. Eight agencies, such as U.S. AID, Millennium Challenge Corporation and the Treasury Department, have begun posting planning and spending data to the site. Still, 14 agencies, including the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Transportation, and Health and Human Services, have not.
From that website, we calculated the United States spent $456.4 million in Ukraine since 2009. Again, that’s an incomplete picture based on incomplete data reporting.
Some examples? The United States spent about $20 million on Peace Corps programs in Ukraine over the past four years. It spent about $40 million through U.S. AID on health programs in the countries since 2010 -- fighting HIV/AIDs, malaria and providing for maternal and child health. The United States spent an additional $80 million or so working on projects related to weapons of mass destruction, according to ForeignAssistance.gov.
Our ruling
Contrary to claims, the United States did not spend $5 billion to incite the rebellion in Ukraine.
That’s a distorted understanding of remarks given by a State Department official. She was referring to money spent on democracy-building programs in Ukraine since it broke off from the Soviet Union in 1991.




We rate the claim Pants on Fire.

 

[MHz]

Had a real hard time trying to understand what was being said in that video.

There remain some delusional right wingers who are blaming Obama for the mess but the facts show otherwise:

At that stage of the game you can choose to study the 'subject more' or wait until something else comes along. Summation, Kiev missile launchers are at the centers of the circles when the 'incident' happened. That shows you which system would have launched if that was the cause of the crash. There was also a NATO controlled fighter aircraft in the area at the time of the 'incident'. Video of the damaged aircraft before it impacted the ground shows the right engine on fire. Fighters carry heat seeking missiles, the BUK M1 is proximity activated so taking out just an engine it not what it was designed to do.
The Russians suggested more questions concerning that Mig, the West will try and avoid that like the plague.

 

[gopher]

I'll wait for the UN to make that determination. One thing's for sure, there is no evidence that Obama had anything to do with this. The tragedy is one to be settled by Ukraine along with Holland and Malaysia.

 

[Zipperfish]

At that stage of the game you can choose to study the 'subject more' or wait until something else comes along. Summation, Kiev missile launchers are at the centers of the circles when the 'incident' happened. That shows you which system would have launched if that was the cause of the crash. There was also a NATO controlled fighter aircraft in the area at the time of the 'incident'. Video of the damaged aircraft before it impacted the ground shows the right engine on fire. Fighters carry heat seeking missiles, the BUK M1 is proximity activated so taking out just an engine it not what it was designed to do.
The Russians suggested more questions concerning that Mig, the West will try and avoid that like the plague.

The Russians have "suggested" a lot of quetions, but provided little evidence. Conversely, we know that pro-Russian rebels boasted about hitting taking out a plane (which they initially thought was a Ukrainian troop carrier). We know that the plane was brought down in a rebel-controlled area. We know the rebels have anti-aircraft ability, and we know they lied about that ability directly after the incident. We know that they prevented international authorities from attending the site, while interfering with the scene of the crime. None of the RT propaganda to date has addressed this damning evidence.

I imagine the evidence against the rebels and Russia will become stronger once we get some independent verification of US and Ukrainian intelligence reports. If those reports pan out, then we'll see the signal of the missile coming from rebel-held territory and we'll have those intercepted audio recordings between senior rebels and their Russian puppetmasters.

This is just a clownish KGB-era propaganda campaign.

 

[MHz]

This is just a clownish KGB-era propaganda campaign.

The KGB lunchroom is pretty impressive still. Color cameras and everything. Much more impressive than Obama and the usual suspects huddled around a laptop being the proof that OBL was dead.

The Russians have "suggested" a lot of quetions, but provided little evidence.
Conversely, we know that pro-Russian rebels boasted about hitting taking out a plane (which they initially thought was a Ukrainian troop carrier).

News: 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash - Wake Up From Your Slumber
'We know' that do we, what proof was offered?

We know that the plane was brought down in a rebel-controlled area.

'We know' that do we, what proof was offered?

We know the rebels have anti-aircraft ability, and we know they lied about that ability directly after the incident.

'We know' that do we, what proof was offered?

We know that they prevented international authorities from attending the site, while interfering with the scene of the crime.

'We know' that do we, what proof was offered?

None of the RT propaganda to date has addressed this damning evidence.

That isn't the only source. Is Kiev getting their news from FOXABCMSN?
Kiev Unaware of Ukrainian Air Force Striking City in Ceasefire Zone | World | RIA Novosti
(in part)
MOSCOW, July 22 (RIA Novosti) - The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council neither confirms, nor denies the reports of a Ukrainian Air Force jet striking a city located in eastern Ukraine’s ceasefire zone.

I imagine the evidence against the rebels and Russia will become stronger once we get some independent verification of US and Ukrainian intelligence reports.

So much for you imagination predicting reality.
http://rt.com/usa/174796-intelligence-malaysia-plane-mh17-us/
(in part)
Officials believe that the passenger aircraft was intercepted by an SA-11 surface-to-air missile, which was fired by Ukrainian militia members. One official said the likeliest explanation was the aircraft was shot down in error, an assertion that seem to be bolstered by the previous downing of 12 Ukrainian military aircraft by militants in the region.
Intelligence suggests that, although the US maintains that Russia "created the conditions" that led to the incident, officials were not aware of the presence of any Russians during the missile launch, and would not confirm that the missile crew was trained in Russia.

If those reports pan out, then we'll see the signal of the missile coming from rebel-held territory and we'll have those intercepted audio recordings between senior rebels and their Russian puppetmasters.

Better start working on you 'when they don't pan out, . . .' speech

I'll wait for the UN to make that determination. One thing's for sure, there is no evidence that Obama had anything to do with this. The tragedy is one to be settled by Ukraine along with Holland and Malaysia.

Like they made determinations concerning Japan and nuclear radiation? The story will be ' TEPCO lied so how were we to know?' rather than we are experts so we know TEPCO is lying, small change in sentence structure, big difference in what the question asks.

Obama was a bit player just like both Bushes. History will call them the 'two burning Bushes' that . . . . '

 

[Machjo]

I'll wait for the UN to make that determination. One thing's for sure, there is no evidence that Obama had anything to do with this. The tragedy is one to be settled by Ukraine along with Holland and Malaysia.

Sorry Gopher, in my OP I did not intend to imply any kind of conspiracy, but more individual Western politicians going into the streets of Kiev cheering on the revolutionaries (sorry, but once you've taken over major national ministry buildings, it's no longer protest or riot, but revolution). No I don't believe there was any kind of conspiracy per se, but just the act of cheering on revolutionaries in teh streets is pretty provocative.

The Russians have "suggested" a lot of quetions, but provided little evidence. Conversely, we know that pro-Russian rebels boasted about hitting taking out a plane (which they initially thought was a Ukrainian troop carrier). We know that the plane was brought down in a rebel-controlled area. We know the rebels have anti-aircraft ability, and we know they lied about that ability directly after the incident. We know that they prevented international authorities from attending the site, while interfering with the scene of the crime. None of the RT propaganda to date has addressed this damning evidence.

I imagine the evidence against the rebels and Russia will become stronger once we get some independent verification of US and Ukrainian intelligence reports. If those reports pan out, then we'll see the signal of the missile coming from rebel-held territory and we'll have those intercepted audio recordings between senior rebels and their Russian puppetmasters.

This is just a clownish KGB-era propaganda campaign.

I have reason to believe the pro-Russian rebels likely blew it up thinking it was an anemy plane, but what does that have to to with Russia beyond the rebels sharing the same language and culture?

Also, what does that have to do with events prior to the Russian invasion of Crimea?

This is the kind of thing I was thinking of when I started the OP:

Baird attends protest in Ukraine

Foreign Minister John Baird visits the central Independence square in Kiev, Ukraine, on Thursday, Dec. 5, 2013. Western diplomats urged Ukrainian authorities on Thursday to respect the massive protests gripping the country against the government's decision to freeze ties with the EU and turn to Moscow instead.

 

[MHz]

I have reason to believe the pro-Russian rebels likely blew it up thinking it was an anemy plane, but what does that have to to with Russia beyond the rebels sharing the same language and culture?

By the time you get the true version you will have to accept a lot of other truths that you now see as being fables.

This is going to be funny when the coup leaders lose in an election they are forced to hold.

Ukraine's PM resigns, complicating MH17 probe
The collapse of the ruling coalition paves the way for early elections to be called by President Petro Poroshenko within 30 days.

 

[Zipperfish]

'We know' that do we, what proof was offered?

'We know' that do we, what proof was offered?

'We know' that do we, what proof was offered?

'We know' that do we, what proof was offered?

It depends on your definition of proof. There was social media accounts by rebel forces indicating that a plane had been brought sson after the commercial jetliner was downed. These were quickly pulled. I suppose that the Ukraine or the US could have invented these twitter / VK posts, but I think if they did that would have been discovered by now.Is it your contention that these posts never happened?

And I suppose the evidence that the plane was brought down in a rebel controlled area, since the rebels are the ones we are dealing with to get to the site. I suppose that this could all be some ruse run out of a huge government indoor studio somewhere and there is actually no downed plane. Is it your contention that the plane was brought down somewhere else?

We know that rebels interfered with the site because of multiple lines of evidence including accounts by international officials who arrived shortly after the incident, Ukrainian reports of intercepted phone calls, photographs of armed people posing on the fuselage. Is it your contention that rebels did not interfere wiht the site following the crash?

The evidence that the rebels lied about their capability comes again from a Reuters interview where a named rebel commander said that the rebels had a Buk missile system. Later the same commander denied this in an interview. There are also social media comments boasting about anti-aircraft capability. Also there's the fact that some 12 Ukrainian military aircraft had previously been downed.

Conversely, the Russian view is that the airliner was brought down by a Ukrianian aircraft or by Ukrainian anti-aircraft artillery do not have even close to the same level of evidence. Particualrly, it strikes me that if the rebels/Russians were convinced that the Ukraine government brought down the airliner, it would have been in their interest to allow an immediate and unfettered investigation, insetad of the decpetion, obfuscationa nd harassment they opted for instead.

However, we'll have to see what the results of the independent investigation are.

 

[MHz]

It depends on your definition of proof. There was social media accounts by rebel forces indicating that a plane had been brought sson after the commercial jetliner was downed. These were quickly pulled. I suppose that the Ukraine or the US could have invented these twitter / VK posts, but I think if they did that would have been discovered by now.Is it your contention that these posts never happened?

Social media isn't proof.

And I suppose the evidence that the plane was brought down in a rebel controlled area, since the rebels are the ones we are dealing with to get to the site. I suppose that this could all be some ruse run out of a huge government indoor studio somewhere and there is actually no downed plane. Is it your contention that the plane was brought down somewhere else?

How far did it go horizontally after it was shot? The proof Russia gave shows where the Ukrainian missiles were and the range circles would point to Ukraine being in the area but refusing to help the civilians clean up the crash.

We know that rebels interfered with the site because of multiple lines of evidence including accounts by international officials who arrived shortly after the incident, Ukrainian reports of intercepted phone calls, photographs of armed people posing on the fuselage. Is it your contention that rebels did not interfere wiht the site following the crash?

Being there gathering pieces is not interference.

The evidence that the rebels lied about their capability comes again from a Reuters interview where a named rebel commander said that the rebels had a Buk missile system. Later the same commander denied this in an interview. There are also social media comments boasting about anti-aircraft capability. Also there's the fact that some 12 Ukrainian military aircraft had previously been downed.

So the Commander knows everything that Putin does. Putin isn't one to deny what he is going to do before he does it.

Conversely, the Russian view is that the airliner was brought down by a Ukrianian aircraft or by Ukrainian anti-aircraft artillery do not have even close to the same level of evidence. Particualrly, it strikes me that if the rebels/Russians were convinced that the Ukraine government brought down the airliner, it would have been in their interest to allow an immediate and unfettered investigation, insetad of the decpetion, obfuscationa nd harassment they opted for instead.

Bull, they even presented it in a vid that says the plane was being shadowed by a Ukrainian fighter. Nor do the rebels have the ways and means to put that aircraft in position in order to be destroyed.

However, we'll have to see what the results of the independent investigation are.

There won't be one, the West will see that the issue dies as it failed to do what it was supposed to do.

Russia Proving Ukraine shot down Mh17 through satellite images and radar - YouTube

 

[Zipperfish]

Social media isn't proof.

It's not about proof, it's about evidence. There's never going to be absolute proof one way of the other, so you gather evidence from basic theories and determine the more probable outcome. So although social media isn't proof, I'm left wondering why the Donekst "Minsiter of Defence" would post on VK that "we downed an An-26 near the Town of Torez" along with accompanying video just before the time it was determined that the commerical airliner had been brought down (near the town of Torez). That post was later pullled.

So, not proof, but to a reasonable person--which I frankly don't think you are, to be honest--pretty strong evidence.

How far did it go horizontally after it was shot? The proof Russia gave shows
where the Ukrainian missiles were and the range circles would point to Ukraine
being in the area but refusing to help the civilians clean up the crash.

The evidence Russia provided shows that Ukrainian missiles were within range to bring down the plane. So were rebel missiles. The difference is that there was no announcement by Ukraine of bringing down an aircraft, whereas there was such an announcement by the rebels.

Being there gathering pieces is not interference.

Yes it is. As is hampering international officials trying to get to the site. That's documented.

So the Commander knows everything that Putin does. Putin isn't one to deny what
he is going to do before he does it

.

I think you've dropped the ball here. I don't remember bringing Putin into it. I said that a rebel commander told a Reuter reporter taht they had a Buk missiele system. Later on that same person denied having such a system. I never mentioned Putin. Try to keep up.

Bull, they even presented it in a vid that says the plane was being shadowed by a Ukrainian fighter. Nor do the rebels have the ways and means to put that aircraft in position in order to be destroyed.

There won't be one, the West will see that the issue dies as it failed to do what it was supposed to do.

Yes, I've seen that video. But again you've ignored my point: why did rebels hamper access to the scene? If they believed a Ukrainian fighter knocked a commercial airliner out of the sky, they would have been welcoming of any investigation, it seems to me. INstead they spent days picking through the site and harassed international investigators. Again, that's not proof, but, to a reasonable person, evidence.

We should be able to determine whether the plane was brought down by a and air-to-air or a surface-to-air missile, so we'll see if the plane spotted by Russia was instrumental.

Right now, the balance of evidence looks to me like that plane was shot down by rebels.

 

[petros]

Bolshevik terrorists did it.

 

[gopher]

Bolshevik terrorists did it.

If so, then the West bears no responsibility. All the more reason to allow these people to settle the problem themselves without Western interference.

 

[petros]

Tell that to the Dutch.

 

[gopher]

Tell that to the Dutch.

"For too long," Heijne wrote, "the Dutch government has coddled the dictator in Moscow."


Netherlands mourns as bodies of MH17 plane crash victims are flown home | World news | The Guardian


Evidently, some response is in the works.

 

[petros]

It'll be a bad day to be a Soviet that's for sure.

 

[MHz]

It'll be a bad day to be a Soviet that's for sure.

And a bad 1/2 hour in the place that attacks Moscow. Their bravado will crumble once the 'facts' point to Porky's forces are at fault. Is that why the resignation took place, refusal to cover up a war crime of this magnitude.

http://en.ria.ru/world/20140725/191...ense-Exercises-Might-be-Behind-Malaysian.html
“On July 17 the commanding officer of 156th Anti-Aircraft Regiment was instructed to conduct a training exercise of ground troops stationed near Donetsk, which involved deploying the troops, and carrying out a routine tracking and destroying of targets with the Buk-M1 missile,” the source said.
The source added that the actual launch of the rockets was not intended.
Two Sukhoi Su-25 combat aircraft on a reconnaissance mission participated in the exercise. It is likely at some point, the routes of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 and a Su-25 jet overlapped. Despite flying at different levels, they became a single dot on the radar of the missile system. Of the two, the system automatically chose a larger target.
The reasons for the actual missile launch taking place remain unknown and are still under investigation, as practical exercises with the Buk missiles has been prohibited since 2001, when a Russian Tu-154 passenger airplane en route from Novosibirsk to Tel Aviv was shot down by the Ukrainian military.

 

[BaalsTears]

Is it just me or have we all forgotten that prior to the surprise Russian invasion of Crimea, Western politicians were going to Ukraine to show support for protesters trying violently to overthrow the legitimate government of the country?

Did the ukraine government use excessive force against the protesters? Maybe, it's debatable. But then again, one of the jobs of a governemtn is to maintain law and order and especially to defend itself against overthrow. If main government buildings were taken over by protesters in Ottawa, I can pretty well guarantee that rubber bullets and tear gas would quickly be replaced by martial law, military presence, and authority to use whatever force is necessary to re-establish national stability.

Just to clarify, russia was wrong in invading Crimea: I'm not defending its actions there. However, is it not fair to say that our politicians too share some of the blame for this for having provoked Russia to such an extreme measure. No, Russia was still rwrong, but would likely not have done so had Western politicians not gone to Ukraine to chear on what was essentially heading towards civil war.

Your thoughts on this? To what degree is the West responsible for the Ukraine crisis?

And now that I think of it for our fellow US forumites here, I'm sure that if main governemnt buildings were taken over by protesters in the US, it too would not hesitate to declare martial law as Ukraine had done.

It's Obama's fault. His failures prove that leftist foreign policy is foolhardy.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

It's Bush's fault.