Famous American financier George Soros has already visited Ukraine

[KarlXX]

Here▓s a nice go! Famous American financier George Soros has already visited Ukraine. In my opinion, he acts outrageously in ex-Soviet republics. Soros doesn▓t even keep from anybody that his programmes respond political and economic changes and contribute long-term development of open democratic society there. Georgia was his first successful experience. Now it▓s turn for Ukraine and Belarus. And what▓s that got to do with Europeans? Many of us consider that it▓s no of our business at all. But it▓s dangerous thoughtlessness. Soros shouldn▓t happen to change current regimes in ex-Soviet republics. And I think it brings real threat to our security too, because we receive Russian oil and gas not by air but over pipelines, passed through Belarus and Ukraine. It▓s common knowledge that the one, who controls oil, is a real master of the situation. So it would better for Europe to support Kuchma▓s and Lukashenko▓s regimes in order to restrict growing American influence near our borders.

[GermanT]

Right you are. I hate all these talks about democracy and ⌠forming of open democratic society■. We are not such fools as Yankees think. America usually tells about democracy, when it plans to seize power and change existing borders. Now it▓s clear for everyone in the world that oil was the significant motive for American ⌠war on terrorism■ in Iraq. The USA does everything as possible to control large sources of oil in the Caspian Sea region. I▓m not surprised at all that now Americans display great activity in struggle for Ukraine and Belarus. Soros won▓t do anything that is not for the benefit of America. As soon as his proteges capture power there, Washington tries to force us accepting them as full EU member-states. At one time it has been done with Poland and Baltic countries. So such changing of regimes in Ukraine and Belarus doesn▓t serve our purposes.

[Ulysses]

Karl,

I'm not sure why you believe a change in regimes in Ukraine or Belarus will affect the gas/oil supplies to Europe. The big dog in that neighborhood is Russia. Ukraine and Belarus don't control the supplies, Russia does. The best way for Europe to play their cards is to diversify their suppliers. Why would they want to depend on Russia as their sole supplier?

GermanT,

I don't know what to make of the situation in Europe. 1/3 of Germans believe the twin towers were bombed by the CIA. I think now it's clear to the world, the inaction over Iraq was to maintain sweetheart deals negotiated.

[Mikhail_Saratov]

Yes Georghe Soros was also involved in the regime change in Georgia. He strongly supported Sakashvili backed by the US governement. I don't believe it created a better situation in the country. The Georgian army is involved in three conflicts in Ossetia, Abkhazia and Adcharia. I don't think this 'democratic' president is such a man who can stabilize this region. For me his strong ties with the US at the expense of the relationship with Russia is also strange since half of Georgian population nowadays lives in Russia. But probably he contributes to US interests in this region.

[Zoreiana]

Karl and German, are your posts a joke of some sort ? If not, then I am very amazed but not amuzed.

[Mikhail_Saratov]

Information from Soros website

George Soros in Ukraine: Media on Soros
09.04.04
Visit of Misanthropist Soros as Reflected in the Mirror of Ukrainian Mass Media
Why Soros ⌠saves■ Pinchuk?

Visit of Misanthropist Soros as Reflected in the Mirror of Ukrainian Mass Media
// Serhiy Lozunko // 2000 // 09.04.2004 //

The article begins with mentioning of how Soros was poured over with mayonnaise during his visit to Ukraine. The author claims it to be the usual way of expressing by citizens of their disagreement with certain public officials, and, besides, it is one of the methods to upset one▓s balance so that to make such person reveal its essence. The author does not blame the mentioned incident at all, on the contrary, according to his words, the organizers of the attack succeeded in revealing the inner-self of Soros.

Based on Soros' response to the question raised by one correspondent that the students who had made the attack at him ⌠would deserve the removal from the university■, the author concludes that Soros is not a philanthropist at all. The author says: ⌠such features of character as vindictiveness, revengefulness, indifference towards the fate of young students┘ could hardly show Soros as philanthropist. The said features of character would likely be inherent in misanthropist.■

The author also alleges that Soros▓ intention to phone to Lauder, one of the owners of ⌠1+1■ TV-channel, in no way coordinates with the freedom of speech Soros so strongly fights for. The author writes: ⌠This gentleman [Soros] understands the freedom of speech rather specifically: to criticize power - this is the freedom of speech, but to criticize Soros √ this is the fulfilment of ⌠order■■.

The author also asks, if Soros calls his assaulters as ⌠hooligans■, so how should we call much more dangerous members of the Serbian ⌠Otpor■ and the Georgian ⌠Kmara■ who do not throw mayonnaise bombs but conquer governmental institutions. The author also assumes that ⌠it is quite possible that such actions are also planned to undertake in Ukraine■. The author also notes that after Soros▓s departure, members of the ⌠Otpor■ have extremely livened up in Ukraine and currently hold seminars aimed for sharing experience with their Ukrainian colleagues. The author reminds that both the ⌠Otpor■ and ⌠Kmara■, and the exchange of experience between them, were funded by Soros.

Further, the author turns to the analysis of the covering of Soros▓s visit by Ukrainian mass media, however stressing on opposition publications only. The author tells that opposition publications all together ⌠groveled■ at Soros▓s feet and praised him. The author is under the impression that all those publications covered the events pursuant to the same ⌠temnyk■. On the other hand, the author tells, non-opposition publications both criticized Soros and covered his visit in a neutral manner. In the author▓s opinion, this testifies that ⌠there is no censorship in Ukraine■.

The author further focuses his attention on the analysis of Soros statements and mass media comments, proceeding from the interview given by Soros to ⌠Dzerkalo Tyzhnya■ (Mirror of the Week).

The author is citing Soros, ▒I think this way [when engaging in charity] he [Viktor Pinchuk] wants to display himself in order to uphold his current status, no matter what government takes office'. Based on this phrase, and on the question of S. Rakhmanin, the author concludes that Soros has arrived not just as a private person; he rather represents an authority which can guarantee the future to Ukrainian oligarchs if the present-day oppositionists take office. Thus the author makes a conclusion that Soros governs Ukrainian opposition.

Further, the author analyses anti-Medvedchuk propaganda popularized by the mass-media of the opposition. The author claims that they have taken the advantage of the arrival of Soros herein. However, the author points out that they have not achieved great success in it as the statements of Soros were not noted for their consistency. The author is citing Soros, ▒I don▓t know. I don▓t know Mr. Medvedchuk. I don▓t know his connections, his possibilities, his interests, his business. But I know that he would lose if the Ukrainian market became an open market. Because his business (as I understand it) consists in extorting money from other businessmen, offering them assistance from authorities in exchange.▓

The author wonders about how he can admit that he does not know the person and his affairs while claiming at the same time that he is aware of the conditions under which the business of this man will become ineffective. The author says that such logic of Soros is an ⌠absolute nonsense■.

And, finally, the author advises all the politicians cringing before the West (meaning the opposition) to pay attention to the criticism of pro-Western liberals, which was featured in the article of the disgraced Russian oligarch M. Khodorkovsky.


Why Soros ⌠saves■ Pinchuk?
// Serhey Kichigin // 2000 // 09.04.04 //

The author of article focuses his attention on the fact that the opposition media actively started to praise Pinchuk last week. In order to find out the reason of it the author has referred to some publications in the Ukrainska Pravda web-site. Its entire content seems quite strange to the author as one week before Ukrainska Pravda vigorously attacked Pinchuk▓s family, in particular Olena Franchuk. The author is of the opinion that such unexpected turn may be explained by the visit of Mr. Soros to Ukraine and his interviews.

The journalist cites the statement Mr. Soros made about Mr. Pinchuk in his interview to Dzerkalo Tyzhnia weekly ▒I think this way he [Viktor Pinchuk] wants to display himself in order to uphold his current status, no matter what government takes office.▓ The author states that quite a generous desire of Mr. Pinchuk to indulge into charitable activities is explained by Mr. Soros as a political and self-interested move. The opposition media give their explanation of Pinchuk▓s acts as a ⌠manifestation of betrayal and escape■ from the bunch of Ukrainian oligarchs, which has an implication for the Ukrainian elite of the existence of crisis within the political establishment as even the members of the President▓s family are searching guarantees for their future. Moreover, the author says, this implication is substantiated with the hints made by Mr. Yushchenko that after gaining the president▓s post, he won▓t prosecute the oligarchs in exchange for their loyalty. The same idea may be followed in the publications of the opposition media stating that Medvedchuk is ⌠steadily moving towards self-destruction■.

The author alleges that such propaganda was part of Mr. Soros▓ agenda as ▒he was satisfied with the results of his visit to Ukraine▓.

The author is convinced that, in fact, things look quite different √ the opposition is split and is losing its influence. Though, propagandists and experts in political technology attribute the demerits of opposition to its opponents. Whenever opposition experiences lack of unity, its propaganda should demonstrate that the pro-presidential majority has been entirely disintegrated. So, the journalist alleges that ▒The variety and freedom of opinions about Mr. Soros visit to Ukraine, which are natural for a democratic society, are presented as a proof of disagreements existing at the political Olympus.▓

The other side of the opposition propaganda, according to the author, is a problem of Americanism. The opposition is often attacked for advocating Western policy. This is the reason why the representatives of opposition mention the same pro-western attitudes within the pro-presidential majority. ▒They say, if Victor Pinchuk finds it possible to maintain close contacts with George Soros, whose image has been smeared by numerous reports in media and allegations of politicians, then what claims can be made against Yushchenko whose orientation towards the legitimate official Washington is well known.▓

The journalist finishes his article with appeal to pro-presidential majority not to succumb to tricky moves of the opposition media and to acknowledge the irrevocable fact that the merit of Mr. Kuchma is explained by his ability to unite different forces.

[Ulysses]

Karl and German are the same person. We have a visitor here who posts new topics and then responds to himself with a different username to make it appear as many people support a particular point of view.

Originally posted by Zoreiana
Karl and German, are your posts a joke of some sort ? If not, then I am very amazed but not amuzed.