Hillary Clinton’s Ukraine Problem
Hillary Clinton claims her experience in foreign policy makes her a better candidate for the U.S. Presidency. Media outlets and voters who understand ‘foreign policy’ is one of the most important issues in this election, are checking up on her claim, and it does not look good.
Mrs. Clinton has been receiving some criticism for her Honduras policy. She openly admits to supporting the current Honduras Government that came to power after the 2009 military coup that ousted the country’s democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. Unfortunately, supporting fascistic coup governments was a pattern during her tenure as a Secretary of State.
What happened in Ukraine?
Hillary and Bill Clinton run the Clinton Foundation, established by the couple. The foundation accepts monetary donations from foreign donors, amassing to billions of dollars. Some of the top donors of the foundation were Ukrainian oligarchs. One of them, Victor Pinchuk, was a former member of the Ukrainian Parliament and a strong advocate of Neoliberalism in Ukraine. Pinchuk became wealthy during chaotic privatization of large state enterprises after the country’s separation from the Soviet Union.
In return, the Clinton Global Initiative which is a wing of the Clinton Foundation that coordinates charitable projects but does not handle money, made a pledge to Mr. Pinchuk, to train future Ukrainian leaders. Several alumni from this training program are now in the current Ukraine Parliament. The same government that came to power after the bloody coup d’etat.
Stephen F. Cohen, an internationally prominent scholar of Russia, explains the reasons behind Clinton’s actions regarding Ukraine, during an interview organized by the American Committee for East West Accord Ltd. “This problem began in the 1990s, when the Clinton Administration adopted a winner-take-all policy toward post-Soviet Russia … Russia gives, we take. … This policy was adopted by the Clinton Administration but is pursued by every [meaning both] political party, every President, every American Congress, since President Clinton, to President Obama. This meant that the United States was entitled to a sphere or zone of influence as large as it wished, right up to Russia’s borders, and Russia was entitled to no sphere of influence, at all, not even in Georgia… or in Ukraine (with which Russia had been intermarried for centuries).”
Victoria Nuland, assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, who has been the lead U.S. point person for the Ukraine crisis was a deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs under the Bill Clinton administration. Nuland also served as Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney.
A recording of a phone call between Nuland and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt on January 28, 2014, was published on YouTube, proving that the U.S. was already planning who should be in the government after Viktor Yanukovych’s forced resignation. The name Nuland gave in the phone call, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, indeed became the Prime Minister of Ukraine on February 27, 2014, a month after that phone conversation.
Reader Supported News journalist Steve Weisman’s report on how the Clinton led State Department laid the foundation for the regime change in Ukraine is an eye opener. It is truly one of the best investigative reporting pieces of our time, beginning with the evidence on the so called “rebel” who started the “revolution” against the Viktor Yanukovych administration. A polyglot Afghan immigrant who happened to work as a journalist in the news channel established by, none other than, the US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. “Arriving in the Ukrainian capital on August 3 , Pyatt almost immediately authorized a grant for an online television outlet called Hromadske.TV, which would prove essential to building the Euromaidan street demonstrations against Yanukovych.”
The United States and the European Union have embraced the regime change in Ukraine as a flowering of democracy. Conversely, what replaced the ousted government was another authoritarian dictum which included Neo-Nazi Parties such as Svaboda and the Right Sector. Although, Yatsenuyk’s Fatherland Party controls the majority of the posts in the Ukraine’s parliament, and Svoboda Neo-Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok was not granted a major cabinet post, members of Svoboda and the Right Sector occupy key positions in the areas of Defense, Law Enforcement, Education and Economic Affairs.
So far the conflict has already killed over 6,500 and displaced at least 1.4m Ukrainians, and it still goes on.
Hillary Clinton seems to pivot to the left on domestic issues, after massive pressure from the Democratic Party’s liberal base, yet, she stands out on foreign policy as more hawkish than some of her GOP rivals, even stoking fears that she’s ready to put the U.S. on a warpath with Russia.