Wednesday, April 11, 2007

My head is still not ready for all the "serious" articles on Ukraine (I've very little time, too). So far, I've only been able to read this piece by LaRouche Movement's Executive Intelligence Review (found via Kiev Ukraine New Blog).

I've heard they are known for their love of conspiracy theories - so here goes:

Evidence is mounting that Vice President Dick Cheney may be personally handling a "Ukraine portfolio," involving the destabilization of Prime Minister Victor Yanukovych's government, or even splitting the country in two [...].

They sure don't like "Cheney-friend Tymoshenko":

Back in Kiev, Tymoshenko crowed that "Cheney and Rice" support new elections.

And in the end, it's all about oil and gas, of course:

U.S. connections to the destabilization were the subject of sensational claims, such as the assertion by Socialist Party Rada member Vasili Volga, that Tymoshenko had received $1 billion from the Shell Oil Company during her U.S. trip, "to organize a coup in Ukraine."

I've looked it up, and, according to Kommersant, Shell has been in Ukraine since early June 2006 - after eight years of "negotiations":

The agreement with Shell will enable Ukraine to reduce dependency on the gas and oil of Russia and to break Gazprom’s monopoly on gas transit via its pipelines, spokesmen of press service of Ukrainian government said.

Shell is in Ukraine to conduct "exploration of the fields of Dnepr and Donetsk basin," Kommersant says - and so I wonder: if this is their (and Yulia's) intention to "even [split] the country in two," how are they gonna go about it, geographically? They are in the "hostile East" already, no problem - and why would they want to kick the chair from under their own butts?


All in all, it's always amazing to watch how something comparatively tiny and obscure as Ukraine suddenly turns into a bat that folks across the ocean use to smash the heads of their political opponents with - how suddenly it's no longer about us, but about Cheney and other irrelevant entities God knows where, how "local" - email-less coal miners, napping babushkas and the dancing youth - suddenly becomes "foreign"...


  1. Larouche? serious? Maybe if he stood next to Paris Hilton. So does he have any ideas how much $ was promised to the Kyrgyz?

    Ukraine sings the blues

    Welcome to the buffer state of Ukraine who is okay enough to be transit state and source of cheap labor to Europe but not good enough to dine at the EU table.

    Ukraine - the country to go to avoid the high costs of labor in the Czech Republic ($6 hr.)

    And in order to make sure that it does not get any fancy ideas about trying to wrench itself from post-Soviet quagmire or evolve into a country whose entrance to EU would be hard to deny, label every conflict as pro-US/pro-RU tension.

  2. Keep that in mind whenever you hear a liberal american speak or write. When they are not lying, they are completely insane (and thinking up more BS).

  3. I hate to generalize, but I've a feeling that to most people here, all Americans are the same, and they wouldn't really know the difference between Democrats and Republicans - and their respective bullshit. But I may be wrong, of course.

  4. Jim Zerkel Baxley GA USA5:48 AM, April 12, 2007

    Lyndon LaRouche?? Haven't heard that name in years. He is a left wing conspiracy nut that has floated around the fringes of the US Democratic Party for the last 30 years or so. Wikipedia has a good summary on LaRouche here:
    I sure hope no one in Ukraine is taking this crackpot seriously.

  5. You got to be kidding/crazy to be using LaRouche as a source. He used to profess the Queen of England was behind the international drug trade. Please get real. Very disapointed.

  6. Anonymous said:

    You got to be kidding/crazy to be using LaRouche as a source. He used to profess the Queen of England was behind the international drug trade. Please get real. Very disapointed.

    Oh, but isn't she?


    I'm not being serious now, and I wasn't serious then. Please learn to read (and to spell).

    Seriously, though, and, speaking of my sources, LaRouche folks aren't the only ones repeating the (Ukrainian) Socialists' claim about the origins of Yulia's current funding.