this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
435 points (98.9% liked)

World News

39096 readers
4083 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kava@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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)

  1. NED is a tool to advance US interests through funds injection

  2. NED (along with some other US organizations seeking similar goals) openly pumped quite a lot of money into Ukraine.

  3. CIA has a history of covertly funding US interests, and also in parallel with NED funding

  4. 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

  1. 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?

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.