I’ve heard a lot of conspiracy theories about how the CIA orchestrated Ukraine’s breakaway from Russia in the 2014 Euromaidan. Let’s debunk that nonsense with facts…
I'll defer to you, but I read somewhere, from a reputable source (I hope I don't devour disinformation crap) that NGO's were funded with $5 billion to pull off the Maidan Revolution and toss Yanukovich. Their biggest mistake was signing the Budapest memorandum, which had "security guarantees." Yeah Crimea was a red line. It remind me of this slip, one of my faves, from Animal House: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYQCb3qrBpo
Great comment, and you’re definitely not alone in coming across that infamous $5 billion figure floating around the internet. Here’s the reality: The $5 billion in U.S. spending often cited refers to total American aid to Ukraine from its independence in 1991 up until 2014. That includes everything: humanitarian programs, democracy-building, civil society, journalism training, and a lot of pizza-fueled conference rooms, not a covert suitcase, drop for revolution. I should note, this is from my CIA source I served with in the Air Force (and he has been wrong in the past).
Was some of that funding intended to help Ukraine build independent institutions and strengthen civil society? Absolutely. Did it pay for tire fires and barricades on the Maidan? No.
The CIA’s role, and that of the U.S. intelligence community, was a lot more about countering Russian active measures, think: surveillance, helping Ukraine root out moles, and advising new Ukrainian security structures on how to function without the Kremlin breathing down their necks. The Maidan itself was a homegrown movement, sparked by Yanukovych’s spectacular about-face on the EU agreement and fanned by decades of pent-up frustration with corruption and Russian interference. Sure, Western NGOs, journalists, and activists helped create fertile ground, but the revolution was millions of Ukrainians deciding, en masse, that enough was enough.
And yeah, the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine gave up its nukes in exchange for “security guarantees” that turned out to be more “strongly-worded memo” than ironclad defense pact. That’s a regret you hear in Kyiv to this day. As for Crimea being a red line? Spot on. Russia’s annexation in 2014 proved how far Moscow was willing to go and just how toothless those guarantees really were.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. You an excellent Substacker(?). The "guarantees" given to Ukraine are as meaningful as "thoughts and prayers" to victims of (fill in the blank) usually mass shootings, but that's out of your commentary, except as it relates to the battlefield where that would be good if it involved AFU troops against well Fuck Them!
I’ve written about the “thoughts and prayers” Budapest Memorandum in the past. It was a bad deal and the US government was the biggest offender. I don’t blame the Ukrainians because at the time, the financial incentives from the US were sizable and Ukraine’s economy was in very bad shape. They couldn’t arm the nuclear weapons in any case, so it seemed like a good deal at the time.
I'll defer to you, but I read somewhere, from a reputable source (I hope I don't devour disinformation crap) that NGO's were funded with $5 billion to pull off the Maidan Revolution and toss Yanukovich. Their biggest mistake was signing the Budapest memorandum, which had "security guarantees." Yeah Crimea was a red line. It remind me of this slip, one of my faves, from Animal House: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYQCb3qrBpo
Great comment, and you’re definitely not alone in coming across that infamous $5 billion figure floating around the internet. Here’s the reality: The $5 billion in U.S. spending often cited refers to total American aid to Ukraine from its independence in 1991 up until 2014. That includes everything: humanitarian programs, democracy-building, civil society, journalism training, and a lot of pizza-fueled conference rooms, not a covert suitcase, drop for revolution. I should note, this is from my CIA source I served with in the Air Force (and he has been wrong in the past).
Was some of that funding intended to help Ukraine build independent institutions and strengthen civil society? Absolutely. Did it pay for tire fires and barricades on the Maidan? No.
The CIA’s role, and that of the U.S. intelligence community, was a lot more about countering Russian active measures, think: surveillance, helping Ukraine root out moles, and advising new Ukrainian security structures on how to function without the Kremlin breathing down their necks. The Maidan itself was a homegrown movement, sparked by Yanukovych’s spectacular about-face on the EU agreement and fanned by decades of pent-up frustration with corruption and Russian interference. Sure, Western NGOs, journalists, and activists helped create fertile ground, but the revolution was millions of Ukrainians deciding, en masse, that enough was enough.
And yeah, the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine gave up its nukes in exchange for “security guarantees” that turned out to be more “strongly-worded memo” than ironclad defense pact. That’s a regret you hear in Kyiv to this day. As for Crimea being a red line? Spot on. Russia’s annexation in 2014 proved how far Moscow was willing to go and just how toothless those guarantees really were.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. You an excellent Substacker(?). The "guarantees" given to Ukraine are as meaningful as "thoughts and prayers" to victims of (fill in the blank) usually mass shootings, but that's out of your commentary, except as it relates to the battlefield where that would be good if it involved AFU troops against well Fuck Them!
I’ve written about the “thoughts and prayers” Budapest Memorandum in the past. It was a bad deal and the US government was the biggest offender. I don’t blame the Ukrainians because at the time, the financial incentives from the US were sizable and Ukraine’s economy was in very bad shape. They couldn’t arm the nuclear weapons in any case, so it seemed like a good deal at the time.
Thank you, Wes, and of course: Слава Україні!