‘Obama seemed to tell more truth then he meant to tell’

RT: President Obama said in an interview with Fareed Zakaria that the US “had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.” He is referring to talks in February between the former President Viktor Yanukovich, and the opposition, leading to the power handover. Washington was not even present at those talks, what does this admission say about the US role in the Ukrainian events?

Daniel McAdams: Well, I think, one thing that it says is the President can’t get a story straight. There are probably a bunch of people having a heart attack in the State Department when he said that, but essentially it’s true. What I wonder is if it’s true on a different level than we even know. Maybe the deal we brokered is something that the President and the US State Department was doing behind the scenes while the EU was engaged in negotiating with Yanukovich, in negotiating this sort of a transition of power away from the President. As we know that night was a very mysterious night. Everyone went to bed thinking that a deal was brokered to stave off the violence that followed. When we woke up in the morning power had been seized by a group that was close to the US. So maybe he was telling more truth then he meant to say in that statement.

READ MORE: Obama openly admits “brokering a power transition” in Ukraine

RT: How does such a statement sit with US claims that the power change in Ukraine was purely the Ukrainians' choice and a democratic process?

DM: Well, we’ve been here in this garbage for more than a decade. The US claimed that the Orange Revolution was purely the action of Ukrainians who wanted a better life, and certainly there is an element of that in all color revolutions. There is an element of people who genuinely, A) want a better life and who doesn’t, and B) who buy into the West propaganda that if you just do x, y or z you will be living like the Swiss, you know, rich and happy. But the reality is the US is pumping billions of dollars into Ukraine and we all know the quote from Nuland that the US has spent US$5 billion promoting democracy in Ukraine. It’s not even up for discussion the US financed the Orange Revolution and Victoria Nuland and the State Department were heavily involved in this latest revolution in Ukraine.

RT: It's not the first time that the US has, openly or not, admitted to a role in the events that led to the current situation in Ukraine. How crucial was the US role here because we remember the quote of Victoria Nuland when she said they didn't even.. need the EU.

DM: Well, I’m glad you use the family friendly version of that. Isn’t that incredible for a US diplomat to be using such horrible language? And the arrogance of her speech to the ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.. and how amazing that someone like Pyatt is still sitting in the ambassador’s chair after violating not only international law but all the norms of diplomacy. It’s just unbelievable how far they have sunk. Did they need the EU.. certainly they don’t think they do. They are acting like the masters of the Universe in this call. And I think this call was just a tip of the iceberg. How interesting that the US media never discusses this phone call. It’s just simply consigned to the black hole of history. It never happened.

RT: How independent is the current Ukrainian government?

DM: Well, they’ll be independent as long as they continue to please the US. They can very easily be overthrown. I think we saw some rumblings this past week when a volunteer brigade was irritated that they had been decommissioned; they went down to Kiev and caused some trouble. We know in places like Yemen, in places like Libya you can be the US’s best friend one week, and then the next week you are on the wrong end of the bayonet.