Why Ukraine Matters to Americans

[unhappycamper]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Ukraine-Matters-to-Ame-by-Michael-Collins-Cold-War-II_Congress_Nuclear-War_Obama-Administration-150206-666.html



Why Ukraine Matters to Americans
By Michael Collins
OpEdNews Op Eds 2/6/2015 at 00:09:13

On one level, Ukraine shouldn't matter at all. The Obama administration and Congress have absolutely no business at all interfering in the internal politics and government of Ukraine. They have no business providing aid to civil society groups to promote democracy. They have no reason to take actions that directly provoke Russia by creating a virulently anti Russian, extremist state right on Russia's border.

Our rulers should be laser focused on critical issues like a dead economy, zombie banks, and climate changes that threaten the continuation of anything approaching normal life on earth. They're not even close. Instead, this administration and many in the past waste our precious time and resources playing Monopoly with nation states and the entirety of their populations. Ask the Libyans and Syrians if you doubt this.

Ukraine is a sovereign nation, once a part of Russia. When our rulers interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, it represents pure hypocrisy. The United States wouldn't tolerate foreign interference in its internal affairs intended to destabilize a sitting government and replace it with one more controlled by the interfering foreign power. In addition, the U.S. constantly preaches against this sort of interference by other nations.

Despite the extreme aversion to being subject to this type of destabilizing interference, the U.S. foreign policy apparatus provided $5.0 billion to pro-Western, Ukraine factions over a number of years. The purpose was and remains regime change from a neutral or slightly pro Russian government to a state lead by extremists and oligarchs. When the violent demonstrations of February created the opportunity, the U.S. selected the new leaders who were promptly installed as part of the violent coup.

[uhnope]

1. BS Conspiracy Theory & Lies

This is BS conspiracy theory, already debunked long ago, that the US had "new leaders...installed as part of the violent coup."
This BS is being pushed by the Russian government.

Debunked: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/19/facebook-posts/united-states-spent-5-billion-ukraine-anti-governm/

The real story: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-leader-was-defeated-even-before-he-was-ousted.html?_r=0

[autorank]

2. $5.0 billion spent by U.S. to "bring democracy" to Ukraine

"Bring democracy" means compressional funded non government organizations working to serve the interests of the U.S. State Department/White House/Congress (Tampa Bay Times) This $5.0 billion figure started in the 1990's and included the Orange Revolution (when our vote fixers bested the Russian vote fixers) and other efforts. It's just part of the money spent. But it gives you a flavor. Why are we "bringing democracy" to anyone when we don't even have it here. In the 2014 federal elections, only 36% of eligible voters voted. That means almost every elected candidate got elected with a minority vote. It's not the "democracy" the funding seeks, it's controi and advantage in a reanimation of the Cold War, a huge payday for the defense sector.

George Friedman, head of the private intel think tank Stratfor said that the Maiden-etc. coup was the "most blatant coup in history."

"In a December 19th interview in the Russian magazine Kommersant, George Friedman, who is the Founder and CEO of Stratfor, the 'Shadow CIA' firm, says of the overthrow of Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych that occurred on February 22nd of 2014: "It really was the most blatant coup in history." Perhaps he is saying this because of the videos that were uploaded to the Web which showed it to be so, but this statement by him contradicts the description that is asserted by the U.S. White House and the European Union, and the Western press, which description is that Yanukovych's overthrow was instead just the result of the U.S. Government's $5+ billion expense since 1991 to establish 'democracy' in Ukraine." 12/20/2014

As for the New York Times being a reliable source:

How do you explain the NYT pushing the legitimacy of the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? That helped get us into Iraq for over a decade.

How do you explain the NYT sitting on the story of Bush domestic spysing on phone and internet traffic FOR MONTHS until after the 2004 election? This story caused grave concern and a real negative reaction across the board. Had the Times published this in the summer of 2004, perhaps Bush would have been a one term president.

The NYT is a political proponent of the military intelligence complex and it tailors its stories to serve that end.

Robert Parry wrote an excellent article on the NYT and Ukraine. You should read it.

So, how does the mainstream U.S. news media explain the Ukraine crisis after essentially falsifying the historical record for the past year? Well, if you’re the New York Times, you keep on spinning the old storyline, albeit with a few adjustments.

For instance, on Sunday, the Times published a lengthy article that sought to sustain the West’s insistence that the coup overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych wasn’t really a coup – just the crumbling of his government in the face of paramilitary violence from the street with rumors of worse violence to come – though that may sound to you pretty much like a coup. Still, the Times does make some modifications to Yanukovych’s image. Roberet Parry, ConsortiumNews.com, Jan 6