3 ms·

> Associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin secretly shuffled as much as $2 billion through banks and shadow companies So where's the other $198 billion?

by Mikeb85 11y ago

> Associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin secretly shuffled as much as $2 billion through banks and shadow companies So where's the other $198 billion? > Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who has positioned himself as a reformer in a country shaken by corruption scandals Not surprising. An oligarch doing oligarch things. Surprised anyone thought he'd be anything but corrupt. > Movie star Jackie Chan, who had at least six companies managed through the law firm Guy who makes movies owns companies, imagine that? Some of this is rather pedestrian, some interesting...

varjag 11y ago
> So where's the other $198 billion? The company the data has leaked from is not even in the top 3 of its kind. Either way going from the (claimed) zero fortune to billions discovered on the spot is telling.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  Except there's no proof it's his billions (Putin's name isn't in the leaks). Just that someone he knows may have been involved. Everyone knows Putin will use the oligarchs when expedient, and crush them when he needs to. And he has cracked down on them over the years. Still no actual proof he's done anything to enrich himself. Meanwhile, as the media turns that molehill into a mountain, there's an actual smoking gun in Poroshenko, and many western leaders. But in the media it's all about Putin.
  - varjag 11y ago
    Well, Poroshenko offshore turned out to be what, 3,400 usd? And it's a mountain compared to Putin's two billions? Sorry but no; also nobody generally gives a damn about Poroshenko given his temporary and marginal role in the world politics. Exposing the western leaders is all good, it does happen regularly thanks to the free press of the Western world. Taking Putin's corruption virginity, however, is once in a lifetime event and is definitely more newsworthy than misdeeds of the Western temps in the office.
    - Mikeb85 11y ago
      > Sorry but no; also nobody generally gives a damn about Poroshenko given his temporary and marginal role in the world politics. They should. A leader was overthrown and a nation plunged into civil war so he could be installed. And somehow in 2 years he's managed to be even less-liked than Yanukovych was at his lowest point... http://www.gallup.com/poll/187931/ukrainians-disillusioned-leadership.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/187931/ukrainians-disillusioned-l...
      - varjag 11y ago
        The nation was invaded, by that Russian dude you try to whitewash so hard. On the other hand, I now understand your issue with the revelations.
        Mikeb85 11y ago
        Natalie Jaresko is the finance minister (used to work for US State Dept), Poroshenko was a CIA informant and oligarch, Saakashvili (US stooge in Georgia who went to war with Russia, and now is wanted in Georgia for various crimes) is the governor of Odessa, the Canadian government admitted their embassy in Kyiv was used for logistics during the 'Maidan', and Yatseniuk was mentioned in a leaked phone call as a candidate to lead Ukraine before he became Prime Minister. Yet there's no proof of an actual Russian invasion. Tell me, were Su-34s bombing Ukraine? Do a new round of CIA leaks need to come out to see the obvious? Is all the coup d'états the US orchestrated over the years a conspiracy? Why are 4 American stooges leading Ukraine?
        varjag 11y ago
        T-72B3s, Grads, BTR-82s were rolling into Donbas. Crimea was annexed by Russian troops, as admitted by Putin, and it takes quite an interesting mindset to deny it. Also interesting how the USA came to all those troubles with installing Poroshenko, but couldn't fake a poll or two. But as I said, I understand perfectly your beef with the leaks. There is a huge swath of political left who seems to deny people their agency if they align with the Western interests in any way.

Mikeb85 11y ago
> Crimea was annexed by Russian troops, as admitted by Putin, and it takes quite an interesting mindset to deny it. If you'd ever followed Ukrainian politics before the Orange Revolution, or since independence, you'd know Crimea has always been very pro-Russian, and always voted for the pro-Russian candidate going back decades. They also tried to separate from and then gain autonomy within Ukraine. In the case of Crimea, it was undoubtedly the will of the people. > T-72B3s, Grads, BTR-82s were rolling into Donbas. Proof beyond shitty pictures on the side of a road, followed by a shitty picture of a road sign? Or pictures from inside a video game? Or shitty YouTube videos? Or videos from Georgia, or inside Russia itself? If there was evidence that wasn't potato-quality YouTube videos and images of dubious quality and value, I'd be a little more impressed. For such a large invasion, the proof is amazingly poor. Especially since it's in the west's interest to provide proof - you'd think there'd be detailed satellite images or something. Here's a good example of the fakery: http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4528166/senator-inhofe-shows-fake-photos-ukraine-war http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4528166/senator-inhofe-shows-f... A US senator presenting images of the wrong war to his fellow senators. Do you not understand how this looks like a bad joke? A full-scale invasion, and the US government can't provide any real images of it. > But as I said, I understand perfectly your beef with the leaks. As everyone should. Most people are completely ignoring the western leaders who are named, instead focusing on Putin who isn't named. I'm sure the Russian government is plenty corrupt. But excuse me for not believing 100% of what our news/propaganda tells us. What's amazing as well is their lack of consistency. They praise the Orange Revolution, then when it falls apart, nothing. Maybe the odd piece throwing Tymoshenko under the bus. Then she's a martyr when she's prosecuted for crimes she likely did commit. Then Maidan arrives and when the western media realizes she's unpopular, she's once again forgotten. She's in these leaks too BTW. Seriously though, it's hard to look at history, at the news, to follow the news consistently for an extended time, and to believe that what we're told is 100% 'factual'.