Wikileaks Says Ukraine's Poroshenko 'Was US Informant' World
Source: Sofia News Agency
Wikileaks Says Ukraine's Poroshenko 'Was US Informant' World
| June 12, 2014, Thursday // 10:28
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko handed to the US Embassy in Kiev inside information on the forging of a coalition government in 2006, according to Wikileaks data.
Russia's RIA Novosti agency, citing the purported evidence, tried to inform Ambassador John Herbst in April 2006 on the situation, describing himself as an insider from the party Nasha Ukrayina (Our Ukraine), a bloc associated with former President Viktor Yushchenko.
Cables sent from the Embassy to the US State Department however suggest that the diplomat doubted the authenticity of Poroshenko's information and considered it to be part of backdoor games aimed at arresting Yuliya Tymoshenko (former Prime Minister) and Oleksandr Turchynov (acting President before Poroshenko's election).
The two were once allies to Yushchenko, but discrepancies led to mutual accusations just years on from the 2004 Orange Revolution. Poroshenko, on the other hand, took part in the coalition discussions as lawmaker and close to President Yushchenko.
Read more: http://www.novinite.com/articles/161229/Wikileaks+Says+Ukraine%27s+Poroshenko+%27Was+US+Informant%27
fireflysky46
(224 posts)I wish Wikileaks could publish some Russians whistle-blower information from times to times.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Are you unhappy that Poroshenko was an informant to the U.S. embassy. Should the papers not report about it?
Arrowhead2k1
(2,121 posts)how much of a US puppet he is.
The UA revolution stinks to high heavens and it has our name on it.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Not that you're responsible for the headline Judi Lynn but the sources for this story are State Department cables. No claim is being made here by Wikileaks. Wikileaks did not "say" anything about Poroshenko. Everyone with Internet access is free to locate documents that mention Poroshenko in the SIPRNET cache of 250,000 State Department cables, which Wikileaks released in 2010. I wish media would finally start labeling these sources accurately, as classified U.S. government documents.
Bragi
(7,650 posts)Citing Wikileaks as the source reduces the credibility of the content in the story. I think this journalistic practice is probably inadvertent, but it's an interesting point you make.
karynnj
(59,508 posts)cables.
At the time, people, including the Secretary of State, said that it included raw information including anything people in the country told our embassy staff. Every embassy from every country is there to know what is going on in that country. In addition, various Congressmen and Senators on oversight committees also visit countries and are accompanied by embassy staff and they write raw reports on that contact which are sent to State Department. (Many papers pulled the Wikileaks reports on their local representatives - as the Boston Globe did with Kerry - where, in his case, what he said behind closed doors was consistent with what he said in SFRC hearings.)
What I see is that this is Russia trying to discredit the new President. The question I would ask is what he did as an "informant"? It sounds like he candidly spoke with the diplomat about others in the coalition. It seems to me that, at least on JT, he was correct if he said she was corrupt. Is every member of the opposition or the president's party who is willing to speak to the US embassy an "informant"? Would you argue that the sole purpose of an embassy is to be there for US travelers - in case of trouble?
Note also that the diplomat who spoke to him, wrote that he did not believe him. That had already been reported weeks ago to suggest that he was not trustworthy. The cable was a raw report, written by someone at the embassy. At the time of Wikileaks making this public, what the government said was these were RAW INPUT that the State Department put together with other information to have an understanding of who important people are. One concern was that it would endanger any people who spoke candidly to our representatives in countries where doing that (most of the Middle East for instances) was not without risk.
The fact is that this story shows why Wikileaks was not helpful when they dumped all those cables. If you remember, there were some immediately highlighted because they were obviously not accurate. The spin by Wikileaks supporters was that this was what the State Department believed, which was never the case.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...whether we realize it or not.
- K&R
Billy Budd
(310 posts)The Candy man can ...the candy man can ...gum drops bars anything you want...
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,226 posts)I'm sure we'll be hearing very soon how the May 25th election was supposedly staged. Just...because.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Unsurprising.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,226 posts)So how do I know what I'm avoiding?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Poroshenko acting as an informant to the U.S. State Department. But I assumed you can read that already.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,226 posts)How does it relate to 2014 exactly?