[meric]

It isn't Obama's coup. It's Victoria Nuland and the Big Oil coup. Here's a video of Victoria Nuland of the Department of State claiming U.S. has spent $5 billion since 1991 to 'build democratic institutions' in Ukraine, at around 07:30. Take note of the sponsorship flags by Chevron and ExxonMobil in the background. Note how she uses the word 'invested'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=448

IMO that is evidence of past U.S. interference in Ukraine's political affairs.

Next time you pay for a Uber ride - remember the government has spent at least that much for every person in the U.S. to interfere in Ukraine politics, a country all the way up to the border of Russia.

Last time the reverse happened to the U.S, they tried to assassinate Fidel Castro, blockaded Cuba into poverty and invaded the country with 1500 soldiers and 8 B-26 bombers.

[ArkyBeagle]

Those "flags" just mean they sponsored whatever conference this is at. The video nor the other stuff doesn't say which conference it is.

It's funny how the US is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't in these cases. "Big oil" might or might not be even interested in how Ukraine/Russia works out, beyond the usual "can we do business there?" concerns. Isn't it simply that competitors to Russian control over Ukraine need partners offshore for oil operations?

I know people who have had to travel to Cote Ivorie to do work, and it's an uncomfortable thing to have to do. They have a number that can call if they need to be evacuated. Not that this has been executed, but it has come up in discussions with the customer there.

After all, we could just turn our backs and let Putin have whatever he wants.

When we look back historically at the 1953 Iran coup, that sure as heck was oil oriented, but it was the British government ultimately that requested CIA involvement. Nationalizing other people's oil assets has certain ... risks associated with it. This is at very least much more subtle than that.

[arca_vorago]

Oh yeah, its because theyre "damned if they do damned if they dont" all right. Like pushing a color revolution so you can coopt the powrr base is just a "oopsie well we might as well because wed be viewed as damned anyway!" Sort of thing. Does HN really buy this obvious shill propaganda?

[ArkyBeagle]

I don't buy "shill propaganda" because I watch a couple of metric tons of CSPAN every year. The big companies just sponsor these things blindly. It's all rather bland. They do it sort of blindly - and it's not exactly Riefenstahl. It's very grey-corporate boring.

I just meant "damned if you do; damned of you don't" to bring up the odd position Americans find themselves in four generations against the natural grain of American isolationism. The infamous American provincialism is well-won.

[alexro]

True, but americans are blind to this sort of 'non-democratic' truth.

[doomsells]

The US is vilified regardless of reality because they are so ridiculously dominant. Pretending that everyone is equally bad is only workable theoretically, in the real world bad systems die.

[arca_vorago]

Thats the most bassavkeards logic ive heard in a while. So the us is only bilified because of their dominance, but "in reality" bad systems die? Thats such bullshit, and obviously not true across the spanse of history. Do people actually think before they type?