758 Soros calls for "Big Bang" Privatization/Deregulation of Ukraine energy sector; hopes to buy it up

Soros calls for "Big Bang" Privatization/Deregulation of Ukraine energy
sector; hopes to buy it up

Newsletter published on 21 June 2015

(1) Hacked Emails expose George Soros as Ukraine Puppet-Master
(2) Soros calls for "Big Bang" Privatization of Ukraine energy sector, &
Deregulation (price rises)
(3) Soros wants Merkel & Hollande to finance the weapons for a third
invasion of Donbass by Ukraine
(4) Soros wants to buy up the Ukrainian state gas and energy monopoly,
Naftogaz - F. William Engdahl
(5) A Winning Strategy For Ukraine, by George Soros at Project Syndicate
(6) Ukraine now much poorer than before Yanukovych ouster

(1) Hacked Emails expose George Soros as Ukraine Puppet-Master

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:47:04 +0900 Subject: Hacked Emails Expose
George Soros As Ukraine Puppet-Master | Zero Hedge From: chris lancenet
<chrislancenet@gmail.com>

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-01/hacked-emails-expose-george-soros-ukraine-puppet-master

Hacked Emails Expose George Soros As Ukraine Puppet-Master

  Zero Hedge

Just days after George Soros warned that World War 3 was imminent unless
Washington backed down to China on IMF currency basket inclusion, the
hacker collective CyberBerkut has exposed the billionaire as the real
puppet-master behind the scenes in Ukraine. In 3 stunning documents,
allegedly hacked from email correspondence between the hedge fund
manager and Ukraine President Poroshenko, Soros lays out "A short and
medium term comprehensive strategy for the new Ukraine," expresses his
confidence that the US should provide Ukraine with lethal military
assistance, “with same level of sophistication in defense weapons to
match the level of opposing force," and finally explained Poroshenko's
"first priority must be to regain control of financial markets," which
he assures the President could be helped by The Fed adding "I am ready
to call Jack Lew of the US Treasury to sound him out about the swap
agreement."

The hacking group CyberBerkut claims it has penetrated Ukraine’s
presidential administration website and obtained correspondence between
Soros and Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko. It has subsequently
posted all the intercepted pdfs on line at the following location. More
details as RT earlier reported:

The hacktivists have published three files online, which include a draft
of “A short and medium term comprehensive strategy for the new Ukraine”
by Soros (dated March 12, 2015); an undated paper on military assistance
to Kiev; and the billionaire’s letter to Poroshenko and Ukraine’s Prime
Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk, dated December 23, 2014.

According to the leaked documents, Soros supports Barack Obama’s stance
on Ukraine, but believes that the US should do even more.

He is confident that the US should provide Ukraine with lethal military
assistance, “with same level of sophistication in defense weapons to
match the level of opposing force.”

“In poker terms, the US will ‘meet, but not raise,” the 84-year-old
businessman explained, supposedly signing one of the letters as “a
self-appointed advocate of the new Ukraine.”

The Western backers want Kiev to“restore the fighting capacity of
Ukraine without violating the Minsk agreement,” Soros wrote.

Among other things, the leaked documents claim that the Ukrainian
authorities were also asked to “restore some semblance of currency
stability and functioning banking system” and “maintain unity among the
various branches of government” in order to receive assistance from
foreign allies.

Soros believes that it’s up to the EU to support Kiev with financial
aid, stressing that “Europe must reach a new framework agreement that
will allow the European Commission to allocate up to $1 billion annually
to Ukraine.”

As for the current state of economy, the billionaire wrote that former
Chilean finance minister, Andres Velasco, after visiting Ukraine on his
request, returned with “a dire view of financial situation."

“The new Ukraine is literally on the verge of collapse” due to the
national bank’s lack of hard currency reserves, Soros warned Poroshenko.

The correspondence shows that the billionaire has been in constant touch
with the authorities in Kiev and consulting them.

Digging into the details of the documents, we find one intriguing snippet:

As you know, I asked Andrés Velasco, a prominent economist who was
Chile’s very successful minister of finance from 2006-2010 to visit Kyiv
where he met the Prime Minister; the President was in Warsaw at the
time. Velasco came back with a dire view of the financial situation. The
National Bank of Ukraine has practically no hard currency reserves. That
means that the hryvnia has no anchor. If a panic occurred and the
currency collapsed as it did in Russia, the National Bank could not
stabilize the exchange rate even if only temporarily as Russia did by
injecting $90 billion.

Your first priority must be to regain control over the financial
markets—bank deposits and exchange rates. Unless you do, you will have
no way to embark on deeper reforms. I believe the situation could be
stabilized by getting the European Council to make a commitment in
principle that they will pull together the new $15 billion package that
the IMF requires in order to release the next tranche of its original
package at the end of January 2015. Based on that commitment the Federal
Reserve could be asked to extend a $15 billion three months swap
arrangement with the National Bank of Ukraine. That would reassure the
markets and avoid a panic. ... I am ready to call Jack Lew of the US
Treasury to sound him out about the swap agreement.

One wonders what other matters of national importance involve George
Soros getting on the line with the US Treasury Secretary to arrange
virtually unlimited funds courtesy of the US Federal Reserve just to
promote one person's ulterior agenda?

And just like that, conspiracy Theory becomes Conspiracy Fact once again.

The full documents are below:

Ironically, the first document laying out the "short and medium-term
comprehensive strategy for new Ukraine" and signed by George Soros, "a
self-appointed advocate of the New Ukraine", was ironically created
byTamiko Bolton, the 40 year old who became Soros' third wife several
years ago.

Soros Ukraine Strategy

The next letter, one directly sent by Soros to Ukraine's president
Poroshenko and prime minister Yatseniuk, comes courtesy of a pdf created
by Douglas York, Soros' personal assistant.

Priority To Fix Financial Markets

Finally, a letter (authored by Yasin Yaqubie of the International Crisis
Group based on its pdf metadata properties), which lobbies the US "to do
more."

Ukraine Letter to Potus - Lethal Aid

To sum up: Soros is basically lobbying on behalf of Ukraine, pushing for
cash and guns, to oppose Putin in every way possible.

If genuine, and based on their meta data, they appear to be just that,
these lettes show how Soros is trying to weasel around the Minsk
agreements (for instance, how to train Ukrainian soldiers without having
a visible NATO presence in Ukraine). The documents link up Nuland with
Soros, and clears up who is truly pulling the strings of the US State
Department.

Finally, while the documents don't mention what Soros has in store for
Ukraine, one can use their imagination.

(2) Soros calls for "Big Bang" Privatization of Ukraine energy sector, &
Deregulation (price rises)

http://engineeringevil.com/2015/06/02/george-soros-hacked-e-mails-in-regards-to-the-ukraine/

George Soros Hacked E-mails in Regards to the Ukraine ?

By Ralph Turchiano on June 2, 2015

Editors Note: ( Ralph Turchiano ) These are Alleged, and need
confirmation to their validity

Letter 1 : Short letter in regards to Financial Assistance
PDF 1 267364476-Priority-To-Fix-Financial-Markets

Letter 2: His Strategy for the Ukraine
PDF 2 267364428-Soros-Ukraine-Strategy

Letter 1

GEORGE SOROS

December 23, 2014

His Excellency Petro Poroshenko

President of Ukraine

Kyiv

UKRAINE

Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, My Dear Friends,

I want to appeal to you to unite behind the reformers in your government
and give your wholehearted support to a radical, “big bang” type of
approach. That is to say, administrative controls would be removed and
the economy would move to market prices rapidly rather than gradually.

As you know, I have left no stone unturned trying to drum up support for
a larger financial package at the European Summit dinner on December 18.
You could see from the communique that I did not have much success,
although the comments by Presidents Tusk and Juncker were helpful. There
was a widespread feeling that the Ukrainian government has not got its
act together and is not really committed to radical reforms. Yesterday
morning I spoke to Christine Lagarde who has been most supportive of my
arguments and she has expressed similar views.

This puts the “new” Ukraine, that is adamantly opposed to the “old”
Ukraine with its endemic corruption and ineffective government, into
jeopardy. The public is willing to put up with a certain amount of
sacrifices for the sake of a new Ukraine, but Ukraine needs a larger
financial package than the $15 billion currently contemplated to keep
the drop in living standards to a tolerable level. In order to justify a
larger package the government needs to present a convincing budget with
significant savings. The civil service headcount needs to be cut by much
more than 10% and Naftogaz needs to be reorganized with a big bang
replacing the hidden subsidies provided by Naftogaz with direct
subsidies for the needy. As Yuriy Vitrenko explained to me this could be
made to work by assuring people that their request for subsidy will be
granted for the first year whether they are entitled to it or not (using
social pressure to discourage unjustified

Page 2

requests) and not requiring them to pay more than the year before. That
would give the authorities a year to organize an orderly transition from
hidden to explicit subsidies. That is why I urge you to endorse the big
bang approach.

You are fortunate to have appointed three “new Ukrainian” ministers and
several natives who are committed to this approach. They could
reorganize their own ministries, cutting the headcount to a fraction of
its current size but raising the salaries of the remaining staff. This
could provide an example for the other ministers to follow. The
ministers who undertook radical reforms could be held responsible if
they failed, but they must be given a chance to succeed by allowing them
to choose their own deputies.

When I asked President Juncker’s diplomatic advisor what he had in mind
when he spoke about the lack of progress, surprisingly he emphasized
constitutional reforms. Indeed, Ukraine is at a unique moment when the
public is passionately interested in constitutional issues and this
moment should not be missed. Civil society needs to be actively engaged
in the discussions. This raises the role of the National Reform Council
which I hope you will clarify between the two of you.

As you know, I asked Andrés Velasco, a prominent economist who was
Chile’s very successful minister of finance from 2006-2010 to visit Kyiv
where he met the Prime Minister; the President was in Warsaw at the
time. Velasco came back with a dire view of the financial situation. The
National Bank of Ukraine has practically no hard currency reserves. That
means that the hryvnia has no anchor. If a panic occurred and the
currency collapsed as it did in Russia, the National Bank could not
stabilize the exchange rate even if only temporarily as Russia did by
injecting $90 billion.

Your first priority must be to regain control over the financial
markets—bank deposits and exchange rates. Unless you do, you will have
no way to embark on deeper reforms. I believe the situation could be
stabilized by getting the European Council to make a commitment in
principle that they will pull together the new $15 billion package that
the IMF requires in order to release the next tranche of its original
package at the end of

January 2015. Based on that commitment the Federal Reserve could be
asked to extend a $15 billion three months swap arrangement with the
National Bank of Ukraine. That would reassure the markets and avoid a panic.

I believe the communique from Brussels and the comments by Presidents
Tusk and Juncker are having a calming effect on the market. It is for
you to decide whether you consider the danger of a financial panic real
enough to take preventive measures. If you do, you would have to call
Chancellor Merkel to ask for a commitment in principle on a

Page 3

$15 billion package. I am ready to call Jack Lew of the US Treasury to
sound him out about the swap agreement.

I have to leave for Asia on December 27th and I would like to discuss
this issue with you by phone or preferably by Skype before I leave. I
shall have to reduce the intensity of my involvement in Ukraine for the
next three weeks. I plan to visit Kyiv after Davos. My deputy Chris
Canavan is ready to visit earlier if necessary.

With continued best wishes,

{signed} George Soros

Letter 2:

Draft Non-Paper/ v14

A short and medium-term comprehensive strategy for the new Ukraine

Short-term: The next three to five months

Medium-term: The next three to five years

I. The Starting Point

1. Putin prefers a financial collapse and political infighting that
would destabilize all of Ukraine to a military victory that would give
him control over part of Ukraine. This is corroborated by the fact that
he twice converted a military victory to a cease-fire that recognized
the facts on the ground without depriving him of his first mover advantage.

2. Minsk 2 brings Putin close to attaining his preferred outcome. He is
now reverting to military de-escalation in the belief that he has
accomplished his mission and in the hope that he can avoid a renewal of
the economic sanctions when they expire in July.

3. The financial and political deterioration of Ukraine makes Putin the
winner. This is doomed to continue or accelerate unless Ukraine and its
allies can agree on a comprehensive strategy that will deprive Putin of
his first-mover advantage. Just as Putin does not obtain Merkel’s and
Hollande’s signature before executing his strategy, the same applies in
reverse to the strategy below.

II. The Strategy

Ukrainian and allied leaders should agree on the following principles:

1. In the absence of adequate support from its allies, the new Ukraine
is no match for Putin’s Russia.

2. It is in the collective self-interest of Ukraine’s allies to enable
the new Ukraine not only to survive but to prosper; and as long as they
can agree on a way of providing adequate support without getting
involved in a direct military conflict, they should be able to prevail
against Putin’s Russia.

3. While it would be more desirable to have Russia as a partner than an
enemy, that is impossible as long as Putin persists in his current policies.

4. It will be much more costly, particularly for Europe, to defend
itself against the threat that a victorious Putin regime will pose when
the new Ukraine collapses, than to provide adequate support to the new
Ukraine while it is still alive.

5. Keeping the new Ukraine alive and helping it to succeed should take
precedence over sanctions against Russia. Sanctions must be maintained
and if necessary strengthened as long as Putin persists in overt
military attacks on Ukrainian soil; but they harm not only the Russian
but also the European and global economy. They also reinforce Putin’s
narrative that blames Russia’s problems entirely on the implacable
hostility of the ‘West’. This helps him to retain the support of the
Russian people and to consolidate his power. By contrast, a functioning
democracy in Ukraine that manages to reform its economy even in the
midst of Russian aggression would turn Putin’s narrative into a lie that
no amount of propaganda could cover up. More and more Russians would
want to follow Ukraine’s example.

6. Therefore Ukraine’s allies should treat Ukraine as a defense
priority, not as another Greece. They should declare that they will do
whatever it takes to help the new Ukraine succeed short of getting
involved in direct military confrontation with Russia or violating the
Minsk agreement.

III. The short-term: the next three months

A. What Ukraine must deliver

1. Restore the fighting capacity of Ukraine without violating the Minsk
agreement.

2. Restore some semblance of currency stability and a functioning
banking system.

3. Maintain unity among the various branches of government.

4. Preserve the institutional integrity and independence of the National
Bank of Ukraine (NBU)

5. Provide tangible evidence that the government knows where the leaks
in the budget are and knows how to stop them.

6. Prepare and initiate a convincing economic and political reform
program that both donors and investors would find attractive.

7. Present an impressive case at a donors’ and investors’ conference in
three months time with two months leeway.

B. What the allies must deliver

1. Help restore the fighting capacity of the Ukrainian army without
violating the Minsk Agreement. The allies must imitate Putin in the
practice of deniability to deprive him of his first-mover advantage.

2. Europe must reach a new framework agreement that will allow the
European Commission to allocate up to ?1 billion annually to Ukraine
charging only 9% to the budget and to use it also for other than balance
of payments support. This requires a political decision by Chancellor
Merkel and President Hollande, as signatories of the Minsk Agreement,
and the expenditure of considerable political capital to overcome legal
hurdles and reach unanimity.

3. Be ready to commit some or all of these funds if the Ukrainian reform
program justifies it. To turn the tables on Putin, Ukraine needs to be
converted from a source of political risk to an attractive investment
destination. That will require larger EFF’s and reinsurance for
political risk insurance at attractive rates.

IV. The State of Play A. Ukraine

1. General Wesley Clark, Polish General Skrzypczak and a few specialists
under the auspices of the Atlantic Council will advise President
Poroshenko how to restore the fighting capacity of Ukraine without
violating the Minsk agreement.

2. Through no fault of its own, the IMF’s Extended Funds Facility (EFF)
program came too late. The NBU started running short of reserves in the
fall of 2014 and the currency was supported mainly by hope. But the
deteriorating military situation undermined confidence and the currency
broke free of its anchor at the end of February and dropped from 16 to
33 in a few days. The climax was reached on February 25th when the NBU
introduced import controls and raised interest rates to 30%. Since then,
the President’s jawboning has brought the exchange rate back close to
the 21.7 level on which the 2015 budget is based. But the improvement is
extremely precarious. The temporary collapse has shaken public
confidence and endangered the balance sheets of banks and companies with
hard currency debts. It has also undermined the calculations on which
the IMF programs are based. There is no way Ukraine can save $15.4
billion from restructuring its debt. The Extended Fund Facility is
insufficient even before it is implemented. EU member states have shown
no willingness to consider any additional bilateral help on account of
their own fiscal restraints (which is why Ukraine’s leaders are so
hesitant in proposing the strategy outlined above). The new Ukraine is
literally on the verge of collapse.

3. After nearly a year of preparations, all the ingredients of a radical
reform program are available; they only need to be put together. The
framework for bringing the various branches of government together has
also emerged. The National Reform Council (NRC) brings together the
presidential administration, the cabinet of ministers, the Rada and its
committees and civil society. It was established by presidential decree
which has naturally caused some friction between the President and the
Prime Minister. Yatsenyuk considered the NRC an unconstitutional
encroachment by Poroshenko into economic policy. The performance of the
Governor of the NBU has been another source of friction. Yatsenyuk and
Poroshenko are leaders of different political parties and local
elections in the fall are looming.

4. Nevertheless, the NRC is up and running. It functions quite well in
setting the legislative priorities and the President and the Prime
Minister have been working together pushing bills through the Rada. An
unresolved conflict remained concerning implementation and the
functioning of the Project Management Office (PMO) but it was resolved
on March 5th. In short, the conflict between

Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk has been greatly exaggerated both in Ukraine
and abroad.

5. The International Renaissance Foundation which is the Ukrainian
branch of the Soros Foundations was the sole financial supporter of the
NRC until now and it will be one of the main supporters of the PMO,
which is in charge of financing the NRC and implementing various reform
projects, from now on.

The structure of the PMO is worth sketching out because it is quite new
and not yet legally established, although it has had a small staff at
work for the last couple of months. It will operate under the control of
a three-member committee consisting of Dmytro Shymkiv on behalf of the
president, Aivaras Abromavi?ius, Minister of the Economy, on behalf of
the cabinet and Hanna Hopko or someone else, on behalf of the Rada.
Minister Abromavi?ius will also be in charge of donor coordination and
in organizing a donors’ and investors’ conference in three month’s time.
So everything seems to fit together very well. There is a stark contrast
between the deteriorating external reality and the continuing progress
in internal reforms.

6. The centerpiece of economic reforms will be the reorganization of
Naftogaz and the introduction of market pricing for all forms of energy,
replacing hidden subsidies with explicit subsidies for needy households.
The PMO has engaged McKinsey Consulting to assist Naftogaz and the other
interested parties in preparing the plan for presentation at the donors’
conference.

7. Institutional reforms should include three major elements: First, set
up the anti-corruption agencies, such as the National Anti-Corruption
Bureau, and the National Agency for Prevention of Corruption, and
finalize anti-corruption legislation according to the international
standards. Second, implement the first stage of the judiciary reform,
including setting up of the new High Council of Justice, and launching
the re-appointment procedures for judges. Third, launch the
Constitutional reform program with decentralization as the first goal.
The process has been slowed down by the insistence of the newly elected
Rada on proper procedures and total transparency.

8. The distinguishing feature of the new Ukraine is that, while the
oligarchs are influential in the political parties, ministers and other
officials are selected not on the basis of party affiliation but
personal integrity and professional qualifications. This feature needs
to be preserved. Moreover, the budget is still a leaky container. The
sources of the large leaks are well known- Naftogaz and the banking
system; the government needs to stop these leaks in order to induce the
donors to pour money into the container. It is essential for the
government to produce a visible demonstration during the next three
months in order to change the widely prevailing image of Ukraine as an
utterly corrupt country.

B. The European Union

1. Since member states don’t have adequate financial resources, a way
has to be found to use the AAA credit of the European Union itself. The
search has zeroed in on a well-established financial instrument, the
Macro-Financial Assistance (MFA) facility. The MFA has an unusual
feature: only 9% of the allotted funds are charged to the budget of the
European Union; the EU borrows the rest from the market, using its AAA
credit. This makes it very popular. The European Commission used it to
contribute to the first IMF rescue package and also to the EFF. They had
great difficulty in scraping together 2.5 billion euros for the EFF
because the 2015 budget was already over-committed.

2. The European Commission will undertake a mid-term review of the EU
budget in 2016 and intends to allocate 1% of the budget or one billion
euro to Ukraine.

3. If the entire amount were channeled through the MFA it would make 11
billion euros available to Ukraine annually starting 2017.
Unfortunately, that is not possible because the framework agreement that
determines the size of the MFA guarantee fund has expired at the end of
2009. Since then the Parliament and the Council have taken legislative
decisions on individual MFA operations under the ordinary legislative
procedure (co-decision), resulting in a lengthy decisionmaking process.
The Commission tried to introduce a new framework regulation in 2011 to
streamline decision-making, but it was withdrawn in 2013 because the
co-legislators could not agree. Since then, the EU operates in a legal
limbo when extending assistance to non-EU Member States.

4. In order to increase the guarantee fund, the European Commission
needs to introduce a new MFA framework regulation and get it approved by
the Council. Unfortunately that requires unanimous consent. The
political leadership needs to reach a political decision and use up
considerable political capital to make it unanimous. Once that is done
the allocation of ?1 billion to Ukraine from the European budget could
be introduced in the form of a supplemental budget that requires only a
qualified majority and could become effective in 2016.

5. A ?1 billion annual allocation to Ukraine with only 9% charged to the
budget would make ?11 billion available annually. This would be more
than sufficient to make comprehensive political risk insurance available
in addition to providing budgetary and other support to Ukraine. The
insurance would be sold through the established national and
international institutions like Euler Hermes in Germany, OPIC in the US
and MIGA at the World Bank, but these institutions would be reimbursed
by the EU through the MFA to make the insurance commercially attractive.
Using MFA for purposes other than balance of payments support and using
it to make political risk insurance commercially attractive runs into a
number of legal hurdles that need to be overcome in the next three to
five months.

6. The larger the volume provided, the less likely that the guarantee
fund would be invoked. But the European Union cannot be expected to take
on the additional risk unless Ukraine demonstrates its determination and
ability to fulfill all the requirements listed above. Ukrainian
reformers strongly support conditionality and accountability.

7. Once the insurance is available, I am prepared to invest up to $1
billion in Ukrainian businesses. This is likely to attract the interest
of the investment community. As stated above, Ukraine must become an
attractive investment destination. The investments will be for-profit
but I will pledge to contribute the profits to my foundations. This
should allay suspicions that I am advocating policies in search of
personal gain.

8. If possible, both the insurance scheme and my investment fund should
be announced at the donors’ conference. That would come as a surprise to
the business community and transform Ukraine’s economic outlook for the
better.

V. A Winning Scenario

1. Putin is likely to be impressed by a ‘whatever it takes’ declaration.
His main constraint has been that he could not afford to let down the
Russian nationalists because they would return to Russia and accuse him
of betraying them; but he discharged that obligation with the second
Minsk agreement. Therefore, he is likely to abstain from military
escalation until July in the hope that the economic sanctions will be
allowed to expire.

2. By July, Ukraine will have presented a convincing reform program and
the allies rewarded it by planning additional budgetary support and
announcing their intention to introduce a political risk insurance
scheme. Constitutional reform will likely be stalled because the
separatists will insist on a federal constitution and Kyiv will resist it.

3. The allies will then make the expiration of sanctions conditional on
Russia agreeing to Ukraine depositing the $3 billion in a facility that
would be used to underwrite the political risk insurance scheme. If
there is a covered event during those five years, then the injured party
is indemnified by the facility. If there is no covered event, then the
Russians get their money back, but only after five years.

4. At the same time, the allies will offer face-saving measures short of
accepting the illegal annexation of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine.

5. Since military re-escalation is liable to run into military
resistance from Ukraine and strong domestic opposition in Russia, Putin
may well accept the facesaving measures. The tables will be turned and
Ukraine would become an attractive investment destination.

George Soros

A self-appointed advocate of the new Ukraine March 12, 2015

(3) Soros wants Merkel & Hollande to finance the weapons for a third
invasion of Donbass by Ukraine

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:19:21 +0900 Subject: Confidential Document:
Soros's Plan for Ukraine by Eric Zuesse From: chris lancenet
<chrislancenet@gmail.com>

..."Soros wants Ukrainians to get rid of Vladimir Putin.."

http://rinf.com/alt-news/featured/confidential-document-soross-plan-for-ukraine/

A hacked document from the Ukrainian Government, in which George Soros,
on 12 March 2015 (a month after the Hollande-Merkel Minsk II ceasefire
agreement had been signed), advised Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko
how to re-arm and resume the war against the Donbass region in Ukraine’s
far east. (According to a Russian television report dated 14 April 2011,
Soros had been financing the political careers of the people who have
now become the leading politicians in Ukraine, since at least 2008.)

The newly revealed document (hacked by “Cyber Berkut,” a reliable
source) opened by acknowledging that Ukraine’s military had been twice
defeated in their attempt to restore that region to Ukraine’s control
(here was the first defeat; and here was the second), and that, both
times when a ceasefire was established, it “recognized the facts on the
ground” instead of requiring Donbass forces to move back to the earlier
war-front demarcation lines. (And here was the final result.)

In other words: Soros acknowledged that both of Ukraine’s previous two
invasions of Donbass had been defeated, and he laid out here his plan
for a third invasion, yet to come, after the West will have restored
Ukraine’s military and taken stronger control over it.

His “Draft Non-Paper/v14,” which presumably was the 14th in a series of
ongoing instructions to the Ukrainian Government — the Government that
had been established by the U.S. coup in Kiev in February 2014 (and
which he was proud to have helped bring about) — was titled, “A short
and medium-term comprehensive strategy for the new Ukraine.” It defined
“Short-term” as “The next three to five months,” and “Medium-term” as
“The next three to five years.” (There was no “Long-term” in it.)

The document opened by acknowledging that there had been “twice
converted a military victory to a cease-fire that recognized the facts
on the ground,” and he wrote under the core assumption that the fighters
who were defending Donbass were not locals who live there and who were
protecting their families against attacks from the Ukrainian military,
but instead Russian soldiers. He assumed that the people who are living
there, and who are shooting down some of Ukraine’s bombers, which were
dropping bombs on the cities, and which Ukrainian Government forces in
Donbass were firing rockets at schools and hospitals and apartment
buildings and indiscriminately at residential neighborhoods, were not
people who had lived there all their lives, but instead invading Russian
soldiers; and Soros asserted that it was Russia’s Vladimir Putin himself
who “twice converted a military victory to a cease-fire that recognized
the facts on the ground without depriving him of his first mover
advantage.” By “first mover advantage,” Soros was referring to Putin as
being the invader — the Ukrainian Governmen forces were merely
responding to these invaders from Russia, he assumed; Soros started with
the assumption that the people who actually live in that region, of what
had formerly been part of Ukraine, don’t count, and are not a factor in
the war — that they were not fighting, if they even really existed.
(They did and do exist. Here they are, telling their own stories, and
showing their corpses, maimed, and destroyed homes, and explaining why
they have taken up arms against the invading Ukrainian armed forces.)

Soros says: “It is in the collective self-interest of Ukraine’s allies
to enable the new Ukraine not only to survive but to prosper; and as
long as they can agree on a way of providing adequate support without
getting involved in a direct military conflict, they should be able to
prevail against Putin’s Russia.” In other words, boiled down, he was
saying: “Let’s you and him fight.” “Ukraine’s allies” won’t be the ones
spilling blood there, he’s telling Ukraine’s President, whose forces
“should be able to prevail against Putin’s Russia.” The U.S. will just
send weapons and trainers, to assist in the bloodshed, and the victory
“against Putin’s Russia” (not against the residents in Donbass, who
don’t even exist, for him).

Before the U.S. coup in Ukraine, the entire nation was at peace, and
Crimea was peacefully part of Ukraine, and so was Donbass. (It was sort
of like Iraq under Saddam Hussein had been, until George W. Bush invaded
that, except Ukraine was a democracy before obama overthrew its
Government and installed a racist fascist anti-Russian regime there.)
But now that the U.S. had overthrown that democratic Ukrainian
Government and installed its own regime (basically, selecting the new
leader on 4 February 2014, 18 days before the coup), George Soros is
telling them to go to war yet a third time against Russia (not that
Ukraine ever actually was at war with Russia), using as the staging-area
for America’s proxy-war against Russia, Donbass, on Russia’s very
border, and perhaps also even Crimea (which is actually unlikely to be
invaded by Ukraine, because Crimea immediately was taken over by Russian
troops, in order to prevent the new U.S. regime in Kiev from grabbing
Russia’s main naval base, which since 1783 has been located in Crimea.
Immediately after the coup, Putin recognized that Russia’s naval base
was endangered; and for Ukraine to invade Crimea would thus be for
Ukraine to be really and directly at war against Russia itself, which is
what Soros seems to want.)

Soros’s document then went into a section titled “II. The Strategy.”
This section made clear that the purpose of his war is regime-change in
Russia. He said: “While it would be more desirable to have Russia as a
partner than an enemy, that is impossible as long as Putin persists in
his current policies.” In other words: Russia should be a “partner” but
this means replacing Vladimir Putin with a leader whom Washington
approves of, just as had earlier happened with Ukraine’s former
President, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Obama overthrew. (Yanukovych was just
a stepping-stone in this plan to topple Putin.) Whereas America invaded
Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein, Soros wants Ukrainians to get rid of
Vladimir Putin, and this requires heavily arming Ukraine. Soros was
giving instructions to this regime that he had proudly helped bring into
power. But he pretended that doing this would economically benefit Ukraine.

Soros declared his goal to be: “a functioning democracy in Ukraine that
manages to reform its economy even in the midst of Russian aggression,”
and that the reason for this goal is that it’s the way to “turn Putin’s
narrative into a lie that no amount of propaganda could cover up. More
and more Russians would want to follow Ukraine’s example.” In other
words: Soros is saying that so many Russians will envy the new Ukraine
that they’ll rise up and overthrow Putin. (But, actually, at the very
time that Soros was writing this, Ukraine’s economy was already in
free-fall with no light visible at the end of any realistic tunnel but
only total economic collapse. Soros ignored that reality, which he
almost certainly was aware of.)

Under the category “What Ukraine must deliver” within “the next three
months” (which means by now, as this is written) are included:

“1. Restore the fighting capacity of Ukraine without violating the Minsk
agreement.” …

“7. Present an impressive case at a donors’ and investors’ conference in
three months time with two months leeway.” (As if that would even be
realistic in light of Ukraine’s surviving now only by going
ever-more-rapidly ever-deeper into debt to the IMF, EU and U.S., and
with bankruptcy plans for Ukraine already being prepared.)

Under the category “What the allies must deliver” (in that same
timeframe) are:

“1. Help restore the fighting capacity of the Ukrainian army without
violating the Minsk Agreement.”

The rest of this section calls for tons of money from the EU to pay the
military contractors and arms-merchants. He underlines the following:
“This requires a political decision by Chancellor Merkel and President
Hollande, as signatories of the Minsk Agreement, and the expenditure of
considerable political capital to overcome legal hurdles and reach
unanimity.” He expects Merkel and Hollande to finance the weapons for a
third invasion of Donbass by Ukraine, which would actually violate the
Minsk agreement that Merkel and Hollande had worked feverishly (and
without America’s participation) to achieve. He expects Merkel and
Hollande to get in line behind the U.S.

The next section “The State of Play,” opens: “1. General Wesley Clark,
Polish General Skrzypczak and a few specialists under the auspices of
the Atlantic Council will advise President Poroshenko how to restore the
fighting capacity of Ukraine without violating the Minsk agreement.” It
then discusses the “National Reform Council (NRC)” which was recently
formed in Kiev; and he says:

“The International Renaissance Foundation which is the Ukrainian branch
of the Soros Foundations was the sole financial supporter of the NRC
until now and it will be one of the main supporters of the PMO, which is
in charge of financing the NRC and implementing various reform projects,
from now on.”

So, Soros is telling the Ukrainian Government that his tax-exempt
foundation will continue to fund them. Furthermore, he tells the
Ukrainian Government whom the top three officials at the “PMO” (“Project
Maintenance Office”) will be. And, then, yet again, he underlines a
passage: “There is a stark contrast between the deteriorating external
reality and the continuing progress in internal reforms.”

He closes a sub-section on “Institutional reforms” by noting that: “The
process has been slowed down by the insistence of the newly elected Rada
[parliament] on proper procedures and total transparency.” He wants less
“transparency” in the process toward “internal reforms” and
“institutional reforms.” It must be “reforms” that are in the direction
of less “transparency,” instead of more. That’s how he used the term
“reforms”: they must be away from “transparency.”

He then discusses the role of “The European Union,” and opens with:

“1. Since member states don’t have adequate financial resources, a way
has to be found to use the AAA credit of the European Union itself. The
search has zeroed in on a well-established financial instrument, the
Macro-Financial Assistance (MFA) facility. The MFA has an unusual
feature: only 9% of the allotted funds are charged to the budget of the
European Union; the EU borrows the rest from the market, using its AAA
credit. This makes it very popular.”

In other words, just as Wall Street had done with Mortgage Backed
Securities when George W. Bush was America’s President, investors who
trust AAA credit-ratings will be socked with the losses on Ukrainian
bonds too late to do anything about their losses. The money will already
have been spent, mainly on weapons.

His program closes with “A Winning Scenario,” which will be based on a
“whatever it takes” commitment from the EU to fund Ukraine’s Government
until ultimate victory (“short of getting involved in direct military
confrontation with Russia or violating the Minsk agreement”). In other
words: the EU and its taxpayers, and the world’s investors who trust the
AAA credit-ratings, will fund the way to Ukraine’s victory.

His “Winning Scenario” opens by saying, “1. Putin is likely to be
impressed by a ‘whatever it takes’ declaration.” And it closes by saying:

“4. At the same time, the allies will offer face-saving measures [to
Russia] short of accepting the illegal annexation of Crimea and parts of
eastern Ukraine.

“5. Since military re-escalation is liable to run into military
resistance from Ukraine and strong domestic opposition in Russia, Putin
may well accept the face-saving measures. The tables will be turned and
Ukraine would become an attractive investment destination.” (Presumably,
this will happen by virtue of Ukraine’s achieving AAA credit-rating.)

That’s the end of Soros’s document. It does not describe any — not a
single one — of what it has referred to as “Medium-term: The next three
to five years.” Nor does it even so much as mention the 2.5-year period
between that and what he calls “Short-term: The next three to five
months.” It’s only a three-to-five-month plan. If this is to be the
business-plan for his Ukrainian Government, it covers only the
“Short-term: The next three to five months.” This means it’s already
actually almost over. Whatever investors are left from the faked
Ukrainian bonds, and the “Institutional reforms” that have less
“transparency” than Ukraine’s parliament recommends, those investors are
expected to eat the resulting losses. They are to be the Daddy Warbucks
of the situation.

Because Soros, like his client Barack Obama, insists that Crimea’s being
Russian will never be recognized, even though Crimea was part of Russia
from 1783 to 1954 and Crimeans were always opposed to the Soviet
Government’s transferring it to Ukraine in 1954, Soros’s point numbered
4 just above, where it says “short of accepting the illegal annexation
of Crimea,” is asserting, in effect, that the United States will insist
upon continuation of Obama’s sanctions against Russia, as being an
essentially permanent condition. Soros is saying that one of the reasons
Ukraine is being armed by the U.S. is in order to assist Ukraine in
ultimately invading Crimea to retake it. But it’s not going to happen.
However, the threat of it happening is important to Soros.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko thus felt free to say, on April
30th, “The war will end when Ukraine regains Donbass and Crimea,” and he
repeated this promise on May 11th (though without “Crimea”), by his
saying, “I have no doubt, we will free the [Donetsk] Airport, because it
is our land.” He was strictly adhering to Soros’s instructions there.
However, on May 12th, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry publicly warned
Poroshenko against following through with that threat. But then Kerry’s
subordinate, Victoria Nuland, three days later, publicly contradicted
her boss on the matter, and Kerry simply was silent about that; so,
apparently, President Obama is siding with Nuland (and Soros) on this
matter. It seems that the game-plan calls for permanent economic
sanctions against Russia, until Putin falls or otherwise is replaced by
someone whom Washington (or Soros) accepts (which will be never, unless
and until Russia becomes almost a U.S. satellite like it was during the
Gorbachev-Yeltsin era).

The Minsk II accords made no mention whatsoever of Crimea, but only of
Donetsk and Luhansk, the two halves of Donbass; so, for Poroshenko to
fulfill on his threat against Crimea would cause him to lose the support
of Hollande, Merkel, and probably of the entire EU; it would leave
Ukraine with only one remaining national patron, the U.S., which would
then have to decide whether to go to war directly against Russia. NATO
could not be a part to that war, because the NATO charter requires
unanimity of all member-nations. So: obviously, Ukraine will never do
any such thing. Ukraine won’t invade Crimea. America’s real focus is on
continuation and intensification of the anti-Russia sanctions. If
Ukraine invades Crimea, the EU will abandon those sanctions. So,
Obama-Soros don’t actually want Poroshenko to follow through with that
threat. Nuland had contradicted Kerry on that probably because Obama
became angry at Kerry’s making policy; he was likely reasserting to
Kerry that the President and only the President makes policy. Using
Nuland to do that was then punishment of Kerry by Obama, for having
overstepped into the President’s prerogative on the matter.

George Soros, as of 2 June 2015, has a net worth of $24.2 billion,
according to Forbes. He is sometimes referred to as being, to America’s
Democratic Party, what Charles and David Koch are to the Republican
Party, but there are differences in the ways that the respective
billionaires funnel their money into poltical campaigns. Also, whereas
the Kochs spend most of their political cash so as to cause people to
disbelieve what 97%+ of climate scientists say about global warming,
Soros spends most of his political money promoting pro-corporate
Democrats of any type. Whereas the Kochs want to shove off onto the
public the costs of pollution, etc., Soros wants to shove off onto the
public the costs of governmental corruption per se. But in both
instances, the benefits go to the billionaires; the costs go to the
public. So: the two types of billionaires are actually quite similar,
brothers-under-the-skin, as it were.

Very few billionaires are in a different camp than those two: almost all
want the broader society to eat the losses from their business
activities. Among the few exceptions, who game neither the environment
nor finance, are Tom Steyer, who has around a billion dollars, and
Jeremy Grantham, who isn’t even included in any list of billionaires but
who has perhaps had a bigger impact than anyone else to fund scientists
who research global warming. None of the major billionaires opposes in
any concerted way exploitation both of the environment and of the
government — it’s one or the other, but most of them favor any type of
exploitation. Perhaps that’s essential in order for them to be (or stay)
among the world’s hundred or thousand wealthiest people. In other words:
to be both anti-corruption and anti-pollution is to be not among the
world’s wealthiest people, not a “serious player” on the world-stage.

Anyway, this Soros document (and its background) helps to explain how
international power actually functions, and how people (such as in
Ukraine) become cannon-fodder at either the delivery-end or the
reception-end of the “cannon.” It’s just a way that business is
transacted among major billionaires, so as to leave the losses with the
masses. It’s the way “the free market” naturally functions. It functions
by weapons, and by wealth. That’s the way to maximize the freedom of the
extremely rich, against the lives, safety, and welfare, of everybody
else. And the very rich know it, and practice it. This confidential
document from Soros is a good example of it, in actual practice.

Poroshenko has his assignment: it’s to take from the public their blood
and money, and to transfer the profits to oligarchs such as Soros,
Poroshenko, and other members of the anti-Russia coalition. It’s a
competition between the Western aristocracies versus Russia’s
aristocracy. Russia’s response has been to join forces with the Chinese
and other BRICS aristocracies.

As Obama told graduating West Point cadets on 28 May 2014: “Russia’s
aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe,
while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors.
 >From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and
governments seek a greater say in global forums.” He was telling
America’s future military leaders that America is “the one indispensable
nation” (which means that all other nations are “dispensable”) and that
America’s military are in service to block foreign aristocracies from “a
greater say in global forums.” Only “the one indispensable nation” has
the indispensable aristocracy. And West Pointers serve those people.
Though they’re paid by America’s public, they actually work for
America’s aristocrats. They’re guns-for-hire who are to serve America’s
aristocrats though they’re paid by America’s public. This is ‘democracy’
in ‘the one indispensable nation.’

Soros, and Poroshenko, know all about it.

From: "Ken Freeland diogenesquest@gmail.com [shamireaders]"
<shamireaders@yahoogroups.com> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 23:38:07 -0500
Subject: [shamireaders] FW: Ukraine: An American Oligarch‘s Dirty Tale
of Corruption

(4) Soros wants to buy up the Ukrainian state gas and energy monopoly,
Naftogaz - F. William Engdahl

An American Oligarch‘s Dirty Tale of Corruption

F. William Engdahl/ New Eastern Outlook/ June 6 2015

http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/12/an-american-oligarch-s-dirty-tale-of-corruption/


Rarely does the world get a true look inside the corrupt world of
Western oligarchs and the brazen manipulations they use to enhance their
fortunes at the expense of the public good. The following comes from
correspondence of the Hungarian-born billionaire, now naturalized
American speculator, George Soros. The hacker group CyberBerkut has
published online letters allegedly written by Soros that reveal him not
only as puppet master of the US-backed Ukraine regime. They also reveal
his machinations with the US Government and the officials of the
European Union in a scheme where, if he succeeds, he could win billions
in the plunder of Ukraine assets. All, of course, would be at the
expense of Ukrainian citizens and of EU taxpayers.

What the three hacked documents reveal is a degree of behind-the-scene
manipulation of the most minute details of the Kiev regime by the New
York billionaire.

In the longest memo, dated March 15, 2015 and marked “Confidential”
Soros outlines a detailed map of actions for the Ukraine regime. Titled,
“A short and medium term comprehensive strategy for the new Ukraine,”
the memo from Soros calls for steps to “restore the fighting capacity of
Ukraine without violating the Minsk agreement.” To do the restoring,
Soros blithely notes that “General Wesley Clark, Polish General
Skrzypczak and a few specialists under the auspices of the Atlantic
Council [emphasis added—f.w.e.] will advise President Poroshenko how to
restore the fighting capacity of Ukraine without violating the Minsk
agreement.”

Soros also calls for supplying lethal arms to Ukraine and secretly
training Ukrainian army personnel in Romania to avoid direct NATO
presence in Ukraine. The Atlantic Council is a leading Washington
pro-NATO think tank.

Notably, Wesley Clark is also a business associate of Soros in BNK
Petroleum which does business in Poland.

Clark, some might recall, was the mentally-unstable NATO General in
charge of the 1999 bombing of Serbia who ordered NATO soldiers to fire
on Russian soldiers guarding the Pristina International Airport. The
Russians were there as a part of an agreed joint NATO–Russia
peacekeeping operation supposed to police Kosovo. The British Commander,
General Mike Jackson refused Clark, retorting, “I’m not going to start
the Third World War for you.” Now Clark apparently decided to come out
of retirement for the chance to go at Russia directly.

Naked asset grab

In his March 2015 memo Soros further writes that Ukrainian President
Poroshenko’s “first priority must be to regain control of financial
markets,” which he assures Poroshenko that Soros would be ready to
assist in: “I am ready to call Jack Lew of the US Treasury to sound him
out about the swap agreement.”

He also calls on the EU to give Ukraine an annual aid sum of €11 billion
via a special EU borrowing facility. Soros proposes in effect using the
EU’s “AAA” top credit rating to provide a risk insurance for investment
into Ukraine.

Whose risk would the EU insure?

Soros details, “I am prepared to invest up to €1 billion in Ukrainian
businesses. This is likely to attract the interest of the investment
community. As stated above, Ukraine must become an attractive investment
destination.” Not to leave any doubt, Soros continues, “The investments
will be for-profit but I will pledge to contribute the profits to my
foundations. This should allay suspicions that I am advocating policies
in search of personal gain. “

For anyone familiar with the history of the Soros Open Society
Foundations in Eastern Europe and around the world since the late
1980’s, will know that his supposedly philanthropic “democracy-building”
projects in Poland, Russia, or Ukraine in the 1990’s allowed Soros the
businessman to literally plunder the former communist countries using
Harvard University’s “shock therapy” messiah, and Soros associate,
Jeffrey Sachs, to convince the post-Soviet governments to privatize and
open to a “free market” at once, rather than gradually.

The example of Soros in Liberia is instructive for understanding the
seemingly seamless interplay between Soros the shrewd businessman and
Soros the philanthropist. In West Africa George Soros backed a former
Open Society employee of his, Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf,
giving her international publicity and through his influence, even
arranging a Nobel Peace Prize for her in 2011, insuring her election as
president. Before her presidency she had been well-indoctrinated into
the Western free market game, studying economics at Harvard and working
for the US-controlled World Bank in Washington and the Rockefeller
Citibank in Nairobi. Before becoming Liberia’s President, she worked for
Soros directly as chair of his Open Society Initiative for West Africa
(OSIWA).

Once in office, President Sirleaf opened the doors for Soros to take
over major Liberian gold and base metals assets along with his partner,
Nathaniel Rothschild. One of her first acts as President was to also
invite the Pentagon’s new Africa Command, AFRICOM, into Liberia whose
purpose as a Liberian investigation revealed, was to “protect George
Soros and Rothschild mining operations in West Africa rather than
champion stability and human rights.”

Naftogaz the target

The Soros memo makes clear he has his eyes on the Ukrainian state gas
and energy monopoly, Naftogaz. He writes, “The centerpiece of economic
reforms will be the reorganization of Naftogaz and the introduction of
market pricing for all forms of energy, replacing hidden subsidies…”

In an earlier letter Soros wrote in December 2014 to both President
Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, Soros openly called for his
Shock Therapy: “I want to appeal to you to unite behind the reformers in
your government and give your wholehearted support to a radical, ‘big
bang’ type of approach. That is to say, administrative controls would be
removed and the economy would move to market prices rapidly rather than
gradually…Naftogaz needs to be reorganized with a big bang replacing the
hidden subsidies…”

Splitting Naftogaz into separate companies could allow Soros to take
control of one of the new branches and essentially privatize its
profits. He already suggested that he indirectly brought in US
consulting company, McKinsey, to advise Naftogaz on the privatization
“big bang.”

The Puppet-Master?

The totality of what is revealed in the three hacked documents show that
Soros is effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in
Kiev. Soros Foundation’s Ukraine branch, International Renaissance
Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His IRF doled
out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall
of the Soviet Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine’s
independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also admitted to financing the
2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government
into power.

Soros’ foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange
Revolution that brought the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into
power with his American wife who had been in the US State Department. In
2004 just weeks after Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation had
succeeded in getting Viktor Yushchenko as President of Ukraine, Michael
McFaul wrote an OpEd for the Washington Post. McFaul, a specialist in
organizing color revolutions, who later became US Ambassador to Russia,
revealed:

Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine? Yes. The
American agents of influence would prefer different language to describe
their activities — democratic assistance, democracy promotion, civil
society support, etc. — but their work, however labeled, seeks to
influence political change in Ukraine. The U.S. Agency for International
Development, the National Endowment for Democracy and a few other
foundations sponsored certain U.S. organizations, including Freedom
House, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic
Institute, the Solidarity Center, the Eurasia Foundation, Internews and
several others to provide small grants and technical assistance to
Ukrainian civil society. The European Union, individual European
countries and the Soros-funded International Renaissance Foundation did
the same.

Soros shapes ‘New Ukraine’

Today the CyberBerkut hacked papers show that Soros’ IRF money is behind
creation of a National Reform Council, a body organized by presidential
decree from Poroshenko which allows the Ukrainian president to push
bills through Ukraine’s legislature. Soros writes, “The framework for
bringing the various branches of government together has also emerged.
The National Reform Council (NRC) brings together the presidential
administration, the cabinet of ministers, the Rada and its committees
and civil society. The International Renaissance Foundation which is the
Ukrainian branch of the Soros Foundations was the sole financial
supporter of the NRC until now…”

Soros’ NRC in effect is the vehicle to allow the President to override
parliamentary debate to push through “reforms,” with the declared first
priority being privatization of Naftogaz and raising gas prices
drastically to Ukrainian industry and households, something the bankrupt
country can hardly afford.

In his letter to Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk, Soros hints that he played a
key role in selection of three key non-Ukrainian ministers—Natalia
Jaresko, an American ex- State Department official as Finance Minister;
Aivras Abromavicius of Lithuania as Economics Minister, and a health
minister from Georgia. Soros in his December 2014 letter, referring to
his proposal for a “big bank” privatization of Naftogaz and price rise,
states, “You are fortunate to have appointed three ‘new Ukrainian’
ministers and several natives (sic) who are committed to this approach.”

Elsewhere Soros speaks about de facto creating the impression within the
EU that the current government of Yatsenyuk is finally cleaning out the
notorious corruption that has dominated every Kiev regime since 1991.
Creating that temporary reform illusion, he remarks, will convince the
EU to cough up the €11 billion annual investment insurance fund. His
March 2015 paper says that, “It is essential for the government to
produce a visible demonstration (sic) during the next three months in
order to change the widely prevailing image of Ukraine as an utterly
corrupt country.” That he states will open the EU to make the €11
billion insurance guarantee investment fund.

While saying that it is important to show Ukraine as a country that is
not corrupt, Soros reveals he has little concern when transparency and
proper procedures block his agenda. Talking about his proposals to
reform Ukraine’s constitution to enable privatizations and other
Soros-friendly moves, he complains, “The process has been slowed down by
the insistence of the newly elected Rada on proper procedures and total
transparency.”

Soros suggests that he intends to create this “visible demonstration”
through his initiatives, such as using the Soros-funded National Reform
Council, a body organized by presidential decree which allows the
Ukrainian president to push bills through Ukraine’s legislature.

George Soros is also using his new European Council on Foreign Relations
think-tank to lobby his Ukraine strategy, with his council members such
as Alexander Graf Lambsdorff or Joschka Fischer or Karl-Theodor zu
Guttenberg, not to mention former ECB head, Jean-Claude Trichet no doubt
laying a subtle role.

George Soros, now 84, was born in Hungary as a Jew, George Sorosz. Soros
once boasted in a TV interview that he posed during the war as a gentile
with forged papers, assisting the Horthy government to seize property of
other Hungarian Jews who were being shipped to the Nazi death camps.
Soros told the TV moderator, “There was no sense that I shouldn’t be
there, because that was–well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like
in markets–that if I weren’t there–of course, I wasn’t doing it, but
somebody else would.”

This is the same morality apparently behind Soros’ activities in Ukraine
today. It seems again to matter not to him that the Ukrainian government
he helped bring to power in February 2014 US coup d’etat is riddled with
explicit anti-semites and self-proclaimed neo-Nazis from the Svoboda
Party and Pravy Sektor. George Soros is clearly a devotee of
“public-private-partnership.” Only here the public gets fleeced to
enrich private investors like Mr. Soros and friends. Cynically, Soros
signs his Ukraine strategy memo, “George Soros–A self-appointed advocate
of the new Ukraine, March 12, 2015.”

(5) A Winning Strategy For Ukraine, by George Soros at Project Syndicate
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/ukraine-winning-strategy-by-george-soros-2015-06
http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2015/06/19/george-soros-a-winning-strategy-for-ukraine/

A Winning Strategy For Ukraine

By George Soros

Published at Project Syndicate on JUN 17, 2015
Published at Jewish Business News on: Fri, Jun 19th, 2015

At the beginning of this year, I proposed a strategy for Ukraine that
recognized that sanctions on Russia are not enough. They must be coupled
with a political commitment by Ukraine’s allies to do whatever it takes
to enable the country not only to survive, but to succeed in
implementing far-reaching political and economic reforms, despite the
implacable opposition of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Sanctions, though necessary, are harmful not only to Russia but also to
Europe’s economy. By contrast, enabling the Ukrainian economy to
flourish would benefit both Ukraine and Europe.

Even more important, sanctions by themselves reinforce Putin’s narrative
that Russia is the victim of a Western or Anglo-Saxon plot to deprive it
of its rightful place as a great power equal to the United States. All
of Russia’s economic and political difficulties, the Kremlin’s
propaganda machine argues, have resulted from Western hostility.

The only way to counter this narrative is to combine sanctions with
effective support for Ukraine. If Ukraine prospers while Russia
declines, no amount of propaganda will be able to conceal that Putin’s
policies are to blame.

Unfortunately, Europe’s leaders have chosen a different course. They
treat Ukraine as another Greece: a country in financial difficulties –
and one that is not even a European Union member state.

This is a mistake. Ukraine is undergoing a revolutionary transformation,
and the current government is probably the one best able to deliver
radical change.

There are indeed some significant similarities between the “old Ukraine”
and Greece: both suffer from a corrupt bureaucracy and an economy
dominated by oligarchs. But the new Ukraine is determined to be
different. By keeping Ukraine on a short financial leash, Europe is
jeopardizing the country’s progress.

In a sense, Europe’s failure to recognize the birth of a new Ukraine is
not surprising. Spontaneous uprisings occur frequently; the Arab Spring,
for example, spread like a wave across North Africa and the Middle East.

But most revolts do not endure; their energy is exhausted quickly – as
with Ukraine’s Orange Revolution a decade ago. Today’s Ukraine is one of
the rare cases in which protest is transformed into a constructive,
nation-building project. Although I participated in that transformation
process, I confess that even I underestimated the new Ukraine’s resilience.

Putin has made the same mistake, but on a much larger scale. He has been
so successful in manipulating public opinion that he was unwilling to
believe that people could act spontaneously. That has been his Achilles’
heel.

Twice he ordered former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych to use
force against the people protesting in the Maidan, Ukraine’s
Independence Square. But, instead of fleeing the violence, people rushed
to Maidan, willing to sacrifice their lives for their country. The
second time, in March 2014, when the protesters faced live ammunition,
they turned on the police, and it was the police who ran away. Such an
event can become a nation-founding myth.

Putin knows that he is responsible for turning Ukraine from a pliable
ally into an implacable opponent, and he has made it a top priority to
destabilize the country ever since. Indeed, he has made considerable –
though purely temporary – progress on this front. Given that Putin also
recognizes that his regime may not survive two or three more years with
oil substantially below $100 a barrel, his sense of urgency is
understandable.

His progress – measurable by comparing the Minsk II ceasefire agreement
with Minsk I – can be attributed partly to his skills as a tactician.
More important, whereas he is willing to go to war, Ukraine’s allies
have made it clear that they are incapable of responding quickly and
unwilling to risk a direct military confrontation with Russia. This has
given Putin the first-mover advantage, because he can switch at will
from hybrid peace to hybrid war and back again. Ukraine’s allies cannot
possibly outbid Russia by military escalation; but surely they can
outbid Russia on the financial side.

European leaders, in particular, have failed to appreciate Ukraine’s
importance. By defending itself, Ukraine is also defending the EU. If
Putin succeeds in destabilizing Ukraine, he may then apply the same
tactics to divide the EU and win over some of its member states.

If Ukraine fails, the EU would have to defend itself. The cost, in
financial and human terms, would be far greater than the cost of helping
Ukraine. That is why, rather than drip-feeding Ukraine, the EU and its
member states should treat assistance to Ukraine as a defense
expenditure. Framed this way, the amounts currently being spent shrink
into insignificance.

The problem is that the EU and its member states are too fiscally
constrained to support Ukraine on the scale needed to enable it to
survive and prosper. But that constraint could be removed, if the EU’s
Macro-Financial Assistance (MFA) facility were redesigned. The MFA
already has been used to provide modest assistance to Ukraine; but it
needs a new framework agreement to fulfill its potential.

The MFA is an attractive financing instrument because it requires no
cash outlay from the EU budget. Instead, the EU borrows the funds from
the markets (using its largely untapped triple-A credit rating) and
lends these funds to non-member governments. A cash outlay from the EU
budget would materialize only if and when a borrowing country defaulted.
Under prevailing rules, just 9% of the loan amount is charged to the
current budget as a non-cash outlay to ensure against this risk.

A new framework agreement would allow the MFA to be used on a larger
scale and in a more flexible manner. At present, the MFA can be used for
budgetary support but not to provide political risk insurance and other
investment incentives to the private sector. Moreover, each allocation
must be approved by the European Commission, the European Council, the
European Parliament, and every member state. The EU’s contribution to
the International Monetary Fund’s rescue package in February took until
May to process.

The strategy for Ukraine that I proposed at the start of the year has
run into three roadblocks. First, the debt restructuring that was
supposed to account for $15.3 billion of the $41 billion contained in
the second IMF-led rescue package has made little progress. Second, the
EU has not even started to construct a new MFA framework agreement. And,
third, EU leaders have shown no sign that they are willing to do
“whatever it takes” to help Ukraine.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande
are eager to ensure that the Minsk II agreement, which carries their
signatures, is successful. The trouble is that the agreement was
negotiated by the Ukrainian side under duress, and was left deliberately
ambiguous by Russia. It calls for negotiations between the Ukrainian
government and representatives of the Donbas region, without specifying
who those representatives are. The Ukrainian government wants to
negotiate with representatives elected according to Ukrainian law; Putin
wants Ukraine’s government to negotiate with the separatists, who took
power by force. [...]

George Soros is Chairman of Soros Fund Management and of the Open
Society Foundations.

© Project Syndicate 1995–2015

(6) Ukraine now much poorer than before Yanukovych ouster
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1039

How The IMF Really Works

By Brother Nathanael Kapner

June 16, 2015 @ 7:49 pm

It sounds like bad business.

The IMF just announced that if Ukraine defaults on its debts to
creditors, it will still loan it money.

Would you loan money to a deadbeat?

That’s how the IMF works. It loans billions to countries who it knows
can’t pay back.

It’s a Jewish scam to ‘foreclose’ on a country’s assets.

You see, the IMF’s major shareholder is the US Treasury with sole veto
rights.

Current and former heads of the Treasury—Jacob Lew, Larry Summers, and
Robert Rubin—are all Goldman Sachs boys.

Sounds like a guest list to a Bar Mitzvah, doesn’t it?

Goys too….Paulson and Geithner…both shills for the Bar Mitzvah bunch at
Goldman Sachs. Lagarde is just Gentile window dressing.

Connect the dots.

The US Treasury that runs the IMF is bankrolled AT INTEREST by the Fed,
a consortium of Jewish banks orbited around the Rothschild dynasty.

The IMF is a Jewish bankster operation whose loans are not to boost a
country’s economy but to pay off creditors it already owes, many of whom
are part of the kleptocracy.

Yats says so himself.

[Clip: “You are well aware that the government launched a four year EFF
program with the IMF, together with the IMF. We expect to get up to 25
billion dollars in the forthcoming four years, but the gap is much
bigger. Much bigger. As you are well aware, this money goes directly to
our creditors.”]

And with a One-Two punch the IMF is screwing Ukraine.

Punch One is to shrink the economy via “austerity.”

This is done by IMF ‘conditionalities’ which demands raising taxes and
cutting government benefits.

And Yats takes the bait.

[Clip: “Despite the fact that the government has frozen all social
expenditures, we shut down the number of entitlement programs, we did
everything we can to fix the budget gap. We still need an enormous–an
additional enormous amount of financial support.”]

It’s a bottomless pit.

Cutting government programs and raising taxes only widens the budget
deficit by reducing the purchasing power of the citizens.

With no buyers, the GDP shrivels up.

And with Ukraine ditching its lucrative Russian market, and with Europe
spurning Ukrainian-made goods, Ukraine is now a failed state. The IMF
likes it like that.

Now comes Punch Two.

With compound interest climbing and the debt unserviceable, the IMF
demands that Ukraine sell off its assets to cool the creditors.

Even with privatization the debt will never be paid off and Ukraine
becomes an eternal vassal to Jewish banksters.

And with Yats and US Commerce Secretary Penney Pritzker now planning a
Ukrainian fire sale, the IMF and its client, Monsanto, are licking their
chops over Ukraine’s farmland too.

Not for nothing did they install Saakashvili as the new governor of
Odessa, a vital part of Ukraine’s breadbasket and maritime shipping.

He just admitted that things were much better under Yanukovich, who
Nudelman of the US State Department toppled.

[Clip: “Now Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe. If the collapse of
the economy suddenly stops and Ukraine develops by four percent
annually, we will reach the level of 2013 in 20 years. Only in 20 years
will we return to the figures of Yanukovych’s Ukraine.”]

Ain’t gonna happen. Once the IMF fleeces the assets, “Yanukovych’s
Ukraine” will be a Jewish-owned state.

And that’s how the IMF works.

My dear Ukrainians, you can kiss your country goodbye!