Corporate Interests Behind Ukraine Putsch:

[grahamhgreen]

According to his SigmaBleyzer profile, Williams “started his work regarding Ukraine in 1992” and has since advised American agribusinesses “investing in the former Soviet Union.” As an experienced fixer for Big Ag, he must be fairly friendly with the folks on the Executive Committee.

Big Ag Luminaries

And what a committee it is — it’s a veritable who’s who of Big Ag. Among the luminaries working tirelessly and no doubt selflessly for a better, freer Ukraine are:

–Melissa Agustin, Director, International Government Affairs & Trade for Monsanto

–Brigitte Dias Ferreira, Counsel, International Affairs for John Deere

–Steven Nadherny, Director, Institutional Relations for agriculture equipment-maker CNH Industrial

–Jeff Rowe, Regional Director for DuPont Pioneer

–John F. Steele, Director, International Affairs for Eli Lilly & Company

And, of course, Cargill’s Van A. Yeutter. But Cargill isn’t alone in their warm feelings toward Ukraine. As Reuters reported in May 2013, Monsanto — the largest seed company in the world — plans to build a $140 million “non-GM (genetically modified) corn seed plant in Ukraine.”

_________________

Morgan Williams is at the nexus of Big Ag’s alliance with U.S. foreign policy. To wit, SigmaBleyzer touts Mr. Williams’ work with “various agencies of the U.S. government, members of Congress, congressional committees, the Embassy of Ukraine to the U.S., international financial institutions, think tanks and other organizations on U.S.-Ukraine business, trade, investment and economic development issues.”

As President of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council, Williams has access to Council cohort — David Kramer, President of Freedom House. Officially a non-governmental organization, it has been linked with overt and covert “democracy” efforts in places where the door isn’t open to American interests — a.k.a. U.S. corporations.

Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy and National Democratic Institute helped fund and support the Ukrainian “Orange Revolution” in 2004. Freedom House is funded directly by the U.S. Government, the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Department of State.

David Kramer is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and, according to his Freedom House bio page, formerly a “Senior Fellow at the Project for the New American Century.”

Nuland’s Role

That puts Kramer and, by one degree of separation, Big Ag fixer Morgan Williams in the company of PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan who, as coincidence would have it, is married to Victoria “F*ck the EU” Nuland, the current Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.

Interestingly enough, Ms. Nuland spoke to the U.S.-Ukrainian Foundation last Dec. 13, extolling the virtues of the Euromaidan movement as the embodiment of “the principles and values that are the cornerstones for all free democracies.”

Nuland also told the group that the United States had invested more than $5 billion in support of Ukraine’s “European aspirations,” meaning pulling Ukraine away from Russia. She made her remarks on a dais featuring a backdrop emblazoned with a Chevron logo.

Also, her colleague and phone call buddy U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt helped Chevron cook up their 50-year shale gas deal right in Russia’s kitchen.

Although Chevron sponsored that event, it is not listed as a supporter of the Foundation. But the Foundation does list the Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil and Raytheon as major sponsors. And, to close the circle of influence, the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council is also listed as a supporter.

Which brings the story back to Big Ag’s fixer — Morgan Williams.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/16/corporate-interests-behind-ukraine-putsch/

Yeah, I'm done with it. Ukraine seems to be nothing more than a push for helping oligarchic corporations (Gas, Banking, Agribusiness) expand their power at our expense.

[jeff47]

1. It's so odd...

It's so odd that all these posts claiming to have the "real" reason behind the Ukraine situation all just happen to leave out the change-of-heart on the EU. You know, when the previous government that was elected on stronger EU ties suddenly turned away from the EU and towards Russia. After Russia threatened to double the cost of gas.

Leading to a crisis where the government had to give a ton of concessions to the opposition. And when the government did not live up to those concessions, the protests started and the government collapsed.

Just so odd that all these people who have the "real reason" just leave that out. Almost like they're trying to tell a particular story, or their sources are.

[grahamhgreen]

5. You mean the government that rejected austerity and 1.5 billion from the EU in favor of

no austerity and a 15 billion loan from Russia?

Tell me this -

Are you against an austerity program for Ukraine?

Are you against the privatization of the Ukraine gas pipelines and gas fields?

[jeff47]

8. Ah yes, here comes more odd things.

Are you against the privatization of the Ukraine gas pipelines and gas fields?

Gazprom objects to other providers using their pipes to send gas. Such as the companies Ukraine want to use to develop Ukraine's natural gas fields. The EU deal would have separated ownership of the pipe from ownership of the gas in the pipe. That would allow other companies to use the pipe to ship to Europe.

And shipping more gas to Europe is how Ukraine solves its debt problem. Gas that doesn't belong to Gazprom.

Clearly Ukraine is better when a Russian company controls the pipes. And that $15 billion is a much better deal than the hundreds of billions worth of gas they are trying to export.

Are you against an austerity program for Ukraine?

I have this terribly radical idea that this is up to the Ukrainians.

When the previous government was elected, one of the planks in their platform was closer ties to the EU. And all that such ties brought.

Now, the whole "EU ties" thing wouldn't immediately lead to an austerity program - they wouldn't be part of the EU, so the EU couldn't "pull a Greece".

What it could threaten is Russia's ability to export gas to Europe, one of Russia's major sources of income. Because they ran the pipe through Ukraine during the USSR era, and their other possible routes (the Baltics) hate Russia even more.

Which lead to Putin's "Take this deal or we double the price of gas" offer. It's so odd you keep forgetting that the Russian deal had a rather large element of extortion.

[ProSense]

2. Putin's Own Historical Injustice

Putin's Own Historical Injustice
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024697593

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. Definition of "putsch":

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/putsch

putsch noun \ˈpu̇ch\

: a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government

______________________________________________________________________________

People using that term need to be prepared to back up their words with actual fact and not just manipulative innuendo.

[grahamhgreen]

6. Read the article.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

9. I read it with as open a mind as I possibly could.

And still I could get nothing, other than big corporations acting like big corporations, which, water is wet and all.

There's nothing in there that would lead me to believe that what we saw in Kyiv leading up to Yanokovych essentially abdicating and leaving the country (on his own free will, mind you) was anything other than a massive amount of Ukrainians who were legitimately upset about real (not imaginary) corruption in their government and choosing to make their presence known.

The rest is just conspiracy talk by bored Westerners.

[grahamhgreen]

10. Well, the idea is to curtail the power of big corporations because they

are working against the best interests of the people all over the world.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. Specifically as it relates to Ukraine....

...Ukraine's best interests were not being served by the Yanokoych administration, corruption was in your face and out of control, and I believe ordinary Ukrainians realized that and were fed up with that and protested en masse.

This was not an imaginary, made up crisis. This was real.

Now, whether or not certain corporate interests saw benefits to a change in leadership might be legitimate as well, but I believe incidental and secondary to the story being painted by the Ukrainian people themselves.

[reformist2]

4. I hate how these creeps cloak themselves in these groups with "freedom" and "democracy" in the name.

It's getting to the point that when I hear about a group called "The New Freedom & Democracy Project," a red flag goes up!

[2banon]

7. red flag should go up for all of us whenever "The New Freedom & Democracy Project" is involved

with regard to foreign policy ambitions, particularly when all one needs to understand when recognizing the very same players are the same Neo Cons who brought us the bloody shambles that Iraq and Afghanistan are today, and whose sights were on Syria and Iran and still are. Understanding that the NED was created during Reagan's reign of terror, it didn't really get it's footing until the Bush/Cheney's regime.

[malaise]

12. +1,000 n/t

[closeupready]

13. Of course. Consider, when democracy results in outcomes US interests don't like,

those outcomes are discredited and dismissed, for example in Palestine.