Unz: The Plundering of Ukraine by Corrupt American Democrats

http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-plundering-of-ukraine/

The writer of this piece, Israel Shamir, has a colorful history, if his Wikipedia bio is to be believed. Still, mainstream outlets in the U.S. haven’t shown much interest in the nature and details of Ukrainian corruption, so even skeptically the story here is perhaps useful.

The key allegation is that Ukraine was using its national accounts to launder U.S. foreign aid money, with some of the cash going to Ukranians and some going to U.S. politicians for setting up the transfers and looking the other way as they were diverted. The allegation sounds outlandish, but it has significant explanatory power.

It would explain, for example, why Ukraine favored Hillary Clinton in 2016 and took active steps to help her campaign, as Politico reported in its now famous January 2017 article (previously posted here on the Forum). It would explain what Rudy Gulianni was investigating and what some of his cryptic remarks on the subject might mean. It would explain, too, why Joe Biden’s famous quid pro quo was worth bragging about in public (as a way of reminding potential donors to his campaign that he knows their secrets).

But of course, all is conspiracy theory until the full factual record is made public.

23 thoughts on “Unz: The Plundering of Ukraine by Corrupt American Democrats

  1. Allegations with no evidence are easy!

    For example, John Roberts is not an American but a Estonian teenager working in a Russian bot farm. “Sounds outlandish but has significant explanatory power. .. But, of course, all is conspiracy theory until the full factual record is made public.”

    And speaking of the factual record, it is Trump’s campaign manager who is now in jail based on his deep entanglement in Ukrainian corruption. It is Rudi Giuliani’s two Ukrainian pals who are facing prosecution for funneling Russian money to Republican campaigns. It is the Trump appointed diplomat who said it was crazy to block military assistance for Ukraine in order to help a political campaign.

    But, continue to ignore the actual factual record if you cannot face the fact you support a criminal con artist. So much comfort to be found digging through the dung heap of conspiracy theory bull shit!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “Allegations with no evidence are easy!”

      In this case the evidence is the Unz article itself, which consists of an interview with a former Ukrainian official who presumably witnessed the events he describes. You, however, are free to conduct a thorough analysis of the piece and prepare a fact check, if you wish. Barring that, your comments are a waste of time.

      Like

      1. RE: “Comments by a pro-Russian Ukrainian hold little water in the grand scheme of things.”

        How do you know? If you reject the information out of hand, without analysis, then you are only blinding yourself.

        Like

        1. I did not reject the information out of hand. I read the piece and saw nothing to convince me he was being forthright. His views are skewed completely by the fact that a pro-Ukrainian loyalist and not a Putin puppet, like himself, won the election..

          Like

        2. RE: “I read the piece and saw nothing to convince me he was being forthright.”

          In other words, you reject the information out of hand.

          Like

          1. You assume too much. The source of the information is just as important as the information itself. In this instance, the source is compromised by his background and his personal desires.

            Conspiracy theories abound from you.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. “It would explain, for example, why Ukraine favored Hillary Clinton in 2016…”

    Amazingly, Trump’s relationship with Putin also provides the explanation.
    Let the Russians annex Chesapeake and I’ll put a dollar to your dime that VB would go for AOC over Trump.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. RE: “Amazingly, Trump’s relationship with Putin also provides the explanation.”

      Except that no relationship between Trump and Putin has been shown to exist.

      Like

      1. “All roads lead to Putin.” You may not buy that, but a lot of folks do.

        A private meetings and then a blanket “nyet” about election interference because Vlad denied it even after multiple intel agencies provided evidence, enough to indict, that it was true. Sanctions against Putin supporters in Russia, but none directly against Putin himself. Handing the middle east over to Putin as he has been trying to do since jumping in on the side of Assad. Telling the Russians about the raid, but not the Democratic Leaders in the House or Senate (Yes, I know he is under no legal obligation to do so, but it has been the normal course of business by past Presidents to do just that, regardless of Party affiliation.) under the false pretense the information would leak out if the Dems had been informed.

        Of course, you will deny all of these facts because they don’t fit in with your allegiance to Trump.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “Of course, you will deny all of these facts because they don’t fit in with your allegiance to Trump.”

        Your statements are not factual, but interpretive. So, there’s nothing to deny.

        Like

          1. Your objectivity is compromised by your own words. You consistently deny facts not even in question because they don’t fit your world view. Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. Your ability to deny, obfuscate, and deflect is only outweighed by your ability to find every conspiracy theory out there that supports your own narrative. IMO

            Liked by 1 person

  3. A piece that even YOU take to be conspiracy theory without supporting evidence is not worth anybody’s time. YOU are the time waster by constantly seeking out and spreading such garbage – all in service of a doomed attempt to justify an unreasoning loyalty to the criminal Trump and his lies.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “A piece that even YOU take to be conspiracy theory without supporting evidence is not worth anybody’s time.”

      Then don’t waste your time commenting on it, or, worse, trying to hobbyhorse it into some kind of incompetent criticism of me personally.

      Unz Review considered the piece worth publishing. I consider it worth sharing for the reasons given, and as stated.

      Like

      1. You reveal your own level by the materials you choose to share. Don’t blame me for pointing out what garbage it is that you seek out. Further, you frequently embarrass yourself by constantly challenging obvious facts based on nothing but your wish that they were not true. In this case, for example, you flatly deny the fact that the source of this silly story is a Putin-supporting wannabe Quisling even though he retreated from public life as such to “live peacefully”in that part of Ukraine that Putin took by force.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “you flatly deny the fact that the source of this silly story is a Putin-supporting wannabe Quisling even though he retreated from public life as such to “live peacefully”in that part of Ukraine that Putin took by force.”

        Not at all. I made a point to note that the story deserves skepticism when I introduced it. The problem here is that you are calling the story “garbage” without substantiating your claim.

        Like

  4. The disgraced source makes it garbage, obviously. And the supposed factual story is wrapped in over-the-top hyper partisan slanders. With all due respect, you and everyone else that still supports Trump all need to work on your critical thinking skills.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s