Saturday, 10 May 2014

The USA invested over $5bn in the Ukrainian 'coup'

On 13 December 2013, Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, said this at the US-Ukraine Foundation Conference in Washington, DC.
"We stand with the people of Ukraine in their search for... the European future they have chosen and that they deserve...

I returned to Ukraine for my third visit in five weeks last Tuesday... this time conducting parallel, coordinated, high-level diplomacy with EU High Representative Cathy Ashton, with all of the key Ukrainian stakeholders." 

"The United States believes there is a way out for Ukraine, that it is still possible to save Ukraine’s European future... That was going to require require... immediate political steps to end the crisis and get Ukraine back into a conversation with Europe and the International Monetary Fund...
The reforms that the IMF insists on are necessary for the long-term economic health of the country. A new deal with the IMF would also send a positive signal to private markets and would increase foreign direct investment that is so urgently needed in Ukraine.

Signing the Association Agreement with the EU would also put Ukraine on the path to strengthening the sort of stable and predictable business environment that investors require. There is no other path that would bring Ukraine back to long-term political stability and economic growth. We also commend the EU for leaving the door open on the Association Agreement and for continuing to work with the Ukrainian government on a way forward...

This is a time for great optimism... People are engaging because they know they have a stake in the future of their country… People of all ages, of all classes, of all walks of life are taking ownership of their future and coming out into the streets to demand a European future...

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.

WE’VE INVESTED OVER $5 BILLION TO ASSIST UKRAINE in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.

Today there are senior officials in the Ukrainian government, in the business community, as well as in the opposition, civil society and religious community who believe in this democratic and European future for their country and they’ve been working hard to move their country and their president in the right direction...

We look forward to continuing to stand shoulder to shoulder with you as we take Ukraine into the future that it deserves."
If you ever wondered what it might take to overthrow a sovereign country that isn’t Muslim, ‘over five billion’ Yankee dollars, the US/EU ‘working hard to move their country… in the right direction’ and ‘a new deal with the IMF’ would just about cover it.

Despite Nuland’s seeming enthusiasm for the Ukraine’s EU future, an audiotape surfaced where, after being told that Ban Ki-moon was about to appoint former Dutch ambassador to Kiev, Robert Serry, as his Ukraine representative, she was heard to say this, in conversation with US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt:
“That would be great I think to help glue this thing and have the UN glue it and you know, FUCK THE EU. 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 the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it.“
America’s attitude to just about everything and everyone at this present time would seem to be, ‘f*ck them all,’ wouldn’t it? I hope the Ukrainians are aware of this.

Victoria Nuland is married to the leading Neoconserative ‘chickenhawk,’ Robert Kagan. 

The chickenhawks, who had never been to war themselves, were strident in their demands for second war in the Gulf long before 9/11. For example, Kagan and William Kristol, another who had never experienced war at the sharp end, authored the following New York Times essay, ‘Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough’ on 30 January 1998, over five years before the USA invaded Iraq for the second time.
“Saddam Hussein must go… If the United States is committed, as the President said in his State of the Union Message, to insuring that the Iraqi leader never again uses weapons of mass destruction, the only way to achieve that goal is to remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power…

Mr. Hussein wants his weapons of mass destruction more than he wants oil revenue or relief for hungry Iraqi children. (US/UN-imposed sanctions between the wars are thought to have killed at least 500,000 ‘Iraqi children’) Now the Administration is reportedly planning military action, a three or four-day bombing campaign against Iraqi weapons sites and other strategic targets… Can the air attacks insure that he will never be able to use weapons of mass destruction again?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. Even our smart bombs cannot reliably hit and destroy every weapons and storage site in Iraq, for the simple reason that we do not know where all the sites are. After the bombing stops, Mr. Hussein will still be able to manufacture weapons of mass destruction…

Mr. Hussein… provoked the present crisis, fully aware that it could lead to American bombing strikes… They will not succeed in forcing him to abandon his efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. The only way to remove the threat of those weapons is to remove him, and that means using air power and ground forces…

We can do this job… An effective military campaign combined with a political strategy to support the broad opposition forces in Iraq could well bring his regime down faster than many imagine. And Iraq's Arab neighbors are more likely to support a military effort to remove him than an ineffectual bombing raid that leaves a dangerous man in power.

Does the United States really have to bear this burden? Yes. Unless we act, Saddam Hussein will prevail, the Middle East will be destabilized, other aggressors around the world will follow his example, and American soldiers will have to pay a far heavier price when the international peace sustained by American leadership begins to collapse.

If Mr. Clinton is serious about protecting us and our allies from Iraqi biological and chemical weapons, he will order ground forces to the gulf… The President should act, and Congress should support him in the only policy that can succeed.”
You will note how many times Kagan and Kristol use the notorious phrase ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ Bush, Blair, the Neocons and the Murdoch press used it thousands of times in the run up to the invasion. Trouble is, there weren’t any. Saddam had already destroyed them all.

However, Bush and the Neocons were desperate to have another world power take part in the invasion and WMD was the pretext decided upon, as Tony Blair might not have been able to sell ‘regime change’ to enough parliamentarians.

Victoria Nuland and her husband, Robert Kagan, are Jewish. As is William Kristol and the vast majority of the ‘Neconservative chickenhawks’ who forced Gulf War II upon the world.

No comments:

Post a Comment