I'd like to know more about Soros's investments in Ukraine. What does he have to gain or lose?



When Soros begins by claiming Ukraine is a black and white case with Putin as the aggressor, he gives up the game. This is the propaganda line. Look at the Ukraine government and it is evident who the aggressor is.



President Poroshenko is an oligarch and State Department cables published by Wikileaks show he has been a US informant since 2006. They describe him as Our Ukraine Insider (see https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06KIEV1706_a.html), the cables also point out his corruption. The Prime Minister Yatsenyuk was the chosen one in a telephone conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt where they discussed who should lead Ukraine after the coup and Nuland said "Yats is the guy." See http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957. The Ukraine Finance Minister, Natalie Jaresko, was a long time State Department official who came to Ukraine after the Orange Revolution, went into finance and reportedly funded a lot of the $5 billion that Nuland admitted the US spent in Urkraine to develop opposition to the Russian-leaning government. On the day she became Finance Minister she was also made a Ukraine citizen by the president. So, the US has three top positions in the Ukraine government, after a coup they supported by people they funded -- and Soros calls it black and white that Putin is the aggressor!



On top of all this Biden's son and a long-time Kerry friend and major political donor are on the board of the largest private energy corporation. And, the US corporation Monsanto has been given free reign to spread it GMO products throughout Urkaine agriculture. But, for Soros, US is the aggressor.



Europeans have listened to statements made by the top US general in Europe, General Breedlove, and been astonished by his exaggerated claims about Russian troop movements. These claims, inconsistent with European intelligence, are designed to escalate conflict but in fact add to the divides between Europe and the US (add NSA spying, listening in on Chancellor Merkel's phone calls etc). Breedlove is trying to propagandize European leaders as if they don't have their own intelligence capabilities. See http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/germany-concerned-about-aggressive-nato-stance-on-ukraine-a-1022193.html.



Russia did not want the US encouraged coup, did not want a US dominated government and economy, does not want a civil war on its borders. It is just not in its interest to have chaos and US influence on its border. Russian proposals for a Ukraine federation with Eastern Ukraine, but remaining in Ukraine, is the way out of the civil war, but the US will not accept it because it has always wanted the Russian Navy out of Crimea. That is just not something Russia can accept.



If the EU were wise it would build relationships with Asia and Russia and recognize the US is drawing it into conflicts it does not need. There is no reason for NATO to be surrounding Russia with military bases and missiles, just as there is no reason for the US to be surrounding China with the Asian Pivot and economically with the Trans Pacific Partnership. EU should break from the aggressive, over-stretched US Empire of military bases and recognize that the fall of the US Empire will damage them if they do not build new alliances outside of the United States. Hopefully, the involvement of the UK, Germany and France in the new Chinese development bank is the beginning of a multi-polar work, not one dominated by US hegemony.