5 ms·

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

by yucky 4y ago

ceejayoz 4y ago
The US had a preferred candidate and used their influence? Absolutely shocking, ground-shattering news. I sure hope no one else does that sort of thing in Ukraine.
- user3939382 4y ago
  It goes beyond "preference" we have State Dept officials on tape having a conversation where they're hand picking the Ukrainian cabinet. Again, imagine what the US would do if we had a tape of Chinese officials picking out the top officials of Mexico. There is no way to paint the US as innocent here.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    They're expressing a preference for who winds up in the Cabinet, yes. There's no indication in that transcript they have anything other than diplomatic pressure and persuasion to make that preference a reality. Note phrashing like "I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make". The Russians will have had their corresponding preferences and influence campaigns, just as they did in US elections. (They may have even expressed them via dioxin, in Yushchenko's case.)
  - simonh 4y ago
    There was no coercion, no bribery, no extortion, they were giving advice to friendly politicians and offering support. What do you think diplomats do?
    - yucky 4y ago
      > What do you think diplomats do? Well, large parts of our diplomatic corps tend to foment and finance coup's around the world. We're pretty smart about it though, first we bring in the NGO's like The National Endowment for Democracy (and many others) which act as an outsourced part of our CIA, then we apply pressure from within. Our playbook is pretty well known by now. Or wait, how many coups do you think the US has actually been involved in since WWII? Then again, the fact that you claim the US uses no coercion means you're probably trolling and I fell for it, so well played.
      - simonh 4y ago
        Of course the US uses coercion. There have been numerous appalling cases that are utterly deplorable, mostly during the Cold War, but we’re talking about Ukraine. They didn’t use any in Ukraine, they didn’t need to. As the overwhelming vote in the Ukrainian parliament in favour of the EU accords, and numerous elections and polls in Ukraine since demonstrated clearly.
        yucky 4y ago
        So which one is this an example of - not coercion or not bribery? Or not both: https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-t...
        simonh 4y ago
        Do you think a government donating a billion dollars in aid money to a country has a legitimate interest in fighting corruption in that country, and a responsibility to their tax payers to ensure that money is well managed?
        yucky 4y ago
        You didn't answer the question. We promised to give a billion dollars, then threatened to withhold it if they didn't do what we wanted. That is not a gift or a donation, that makes it a bribe. That was also a clear example of coercion - and it was done by our current President who was VP at the time. I'm sure you were well aware of this and many other examples and yet you are on here pretending we don't use those tactics in Ukraine. Why?
        simonh 4y ago
        It was a donation with conditions. International aid always comes with conditions as to how the money is used and managed, and donations to third world countries often include conditions relating to tackling corruption. There was nothing nefarious in that case. That prosecutor was obstructing corruption investigations, it would have been irresponsible to allow the money to go into Ukraine without ensuring the Ukrainian government was serious in tackling corruption. Here's a UN report on aid agencies using their influence on recipient countries to demand better governance and fight corruption. So the answer to your question is, it was responsible aid management in line with international norms. https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/publications/aid_agencies.pdf https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/publications/aid_ag...
SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-in-2014-and-since-then/ https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-i...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

by yucky 4y ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

The US had a preferred candidate and used their influence? Absolutely shocking, ground-shattering news. I sure hope no one else does that sort of thing in Ukraine.

user3939382 4y ago
It goes beyond "preference" we have State Dept officials on tape having a conversation where they're hand picking the Ukrainian cabinet. Again, imagine what the US would do if we had a tape of Chinese officials picking out the top officials of Mexico. There is no way to paint the US as innocent here.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  They're expressing a preference for who winds up in the Cabinet, yes. There's no indication in that transcript they have anything other than diplomatic pressure and persuasion to make that preference a reality. Note phrashing like "I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make". The Russians will have had their corresponding preferences and influence campaigns, just as they did in US elections. (They may have even expressed them via dioxin, in Yushchenko's case.)
- simonh 4y ago
  There was no coercion, no bribery, no extortion, they were giving advice to friendly politicians and offering support. What do you think diplomats do?
  - yucky 4y ago
    > What do you think diplomats do? Well, large parts of our diplomatic corps tend to foment and finance coup's around the world. We're pretty smart about it though, first we bring in the NGO's like The National Endowment for Democracy (and many others) which act as an outsourced part of our CIA, then we apply pressure from within. Our playbook is pretty well known by now. Or wait, how many coups do you think the US has actually been involved in since WWII? Then again, the fact that you claim the US uses no coercion means you're probably trolling and I fell for it, so well played.
    - simonh 4y ago
      Of course the US uses coercion. There have been numerous appalling cases that are utterly deplorable, mostly during the Cold War, but we’re talking about Ukraine. They didn’t use any in Ukraine, they didn’t need to. As the overwhelming vote in the Ukrainian parliament in favour of the EU accords, and numerous elections and polls in Ukraine since demonstrated clearly.
      - yucky 4y ago
        So which one is this an example of - not coercion or not bribery? Or not both: https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-t...
        simonh 4y ago
        Do you think a government donating a billion dollars in aid money to a country has a legitimate interest in fighting corruption in that country, and a responsibility to their tax payers to ensure that money is well managed?
        yucky 4y ago
        You didn't answer the question. We promised to give a billion dollars, then threatened to withhold it if they didn't do what we wanted. That is not a gift or a donation, that makes it a bribe. That was also a clear example of coercion - and it was done by our current President who was VP at the time. I'm sure you were well aware of this and many other examples and yet you are on here pretending we don't use those tactics in Ukraine. Why?
        simonh 4y ago
        It was a donation with conditions. International aid always comes with conditions as to how the money is used and managed, and donations to third world countries often include conditions relating to tackling corruption. There was nothing nefarious in that case. That prosecutor was obstructing corruption investigations, it would have been irresponsible to allow the money to go into Ukraine without ensuring the Ukrainian government was serious in tackling corruption. Here's a UN report on aid agencies using their influence on recipient countries to demand better governance and fight corruption. So the answer to your question is, it was responsible aid management in line with international norms. https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/publications/aid_agencies.pdf https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/publications/aid_ag...

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago

https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-in-2014-and-since-then/ https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-i...