Hacker News Reader

Comment by yucky | Hacker News Reader

  > What do you think diplomats do?

Well, large parts of our diplomatic corps tend to foment and finance coup's around the world. We're pretty smart about it though, first we bring in the NGO's like The National Endowment for Democracy (and many others) which act as an outsourced part of our CIA, then we apply pressure from within. Our playbook is pretty well known by now.

Or wait, how many coups do you think the US has actually been involved in since WWII?

Then again, the fact that you claim the US uses no coercion means you're probably trolling and I fell for it, so well played.

View on HN

Of course the US uses coercion. There have been numerous appalling cases that are utterly deplorable, mostly during the Cold War, but we’re talking about Ukraine. They didn’t use any in Ukraine, they didn’t need to. As the overwhelming vote in the Ukrainian parliament in favour of the EU accords, and numerous elections and polls in Ukraine since demonstrated clearly.

So which one is this an example of - not coercion or not bribery? Or not both:

https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-t...

Do you think a government donating a billion dollars in aid money to a country has a legitimate interest in fighting corruption in that country, and a responsibility to their tax payers to ensure that money is well managed?

You didn't answer the question. We promised to give a billion dollars, then threatened to withhold it if they didn't do what we wanted. That is not a gift or a donation, that makes it a bribe. That was also a clear example of coercion - and it was done by our current President who was VP at the time.

I'm sure you were well aware of this and many other examples and yet you are on here pretending we don't use those tactics in Ukraine. Why?

It was a donation with conditions. International aid always comes with conditions as to how the money is used and managed, and donations to third world countries often include conditions relating to tackling corruption. There was nothing nefarious in that case. That prosecutor was obstructing corruption investigations, it would have been irresponsible to allow the money to go into Ukraine without ensuring the Ukrainian government was serious in tackling corruption.

Here's a UN report on aid agencies using their influence on recipient countries to demand better governance and fight corruption. So the answer to your question is, it was responsible aid management in line with international norms.

https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/publications/aid_ag...

On the Hunter Biden thing, since someone inevitably brought that up. According to the Ukrainians there never was any plan to investigate him, there was no evidence or reason they were aware of to bring a case, under that prosecutor or any other. Zelensky even refused to open such an investigation as spurious when directly threatened with withholding US aid as explicit coercion to do so.

Since you're so deeply concerned about US coercion of Ukraine for the personal political advantage of US politicians, I'm sure Trump's blatant attempts to do so as confirmed by several members of his own administration are particularly outrageous to you. Strange that you didn't mention it.

  > I'm sure Trump's blatant attempts to do so as confirmed by several members of his own administration are particularly outrageous to you. Strange that you didn't mention it.

Yes, a bunch of Trump's dealings are outrageous to me. One of the many reasons I didn't vote for him, he's a con artist. That doesn't change anything with the shady dealings, coercion and outright bribery that Biden has been involved in as VP and now as President.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com