Confidential Document: Soros’s Plan for Ukraine

Eric Zuesse

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 Government 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.

It’s the way things work. As one of the great investigative journalists noted: “We’ve known for centuries that powerful people — unless held to account — will get together and steal from everyone else.” If the only ideological polarity that effectively exists is between ‘liberals’ such as Soros and conservatives such as Koch, nothing opposes tyranny. All ‘democracy’ is then merely a sham.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of  Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.