Too bad that no one seems to be answering!

The claim of bias is unsupported. Asking questions of the president, but not of the prime minister (PM), says nothing about an inquirer’s “biases.” For example, the questions for the PM may still be forthcoming. There may also be more reasons to ask the president (Yushchenko) rather than the prime minister; Yushchenko has been in power for almost three years, while Tymoshenko has been in and out. Lastly, on this particular occasion, Kuzio issued the 10 questions at a time of the president’s trip to Canada.

Nothing is wrong with asking tough questions. There should be more of this, not less. And yes, Tymoshenko should not be treated any less differently and ought to be held accountable for her (in)actions.

So “genuine questions” cannot be criticisms? If anything, a good question is critical in nature because it forces the queried party to reconsider its previous position.

I agree that the press should strive to be balanced. When it fails to be so, it looses credibility. However if a newspaper disagrees with Kuzio’s position, it can still publish his views as an op-ed, and write an editorial that would put forth its own view on the issue. This is what the giants like the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times do – liberals and conservatives have published in both.

In conclusion, it’s unfortunate that so much of the furor has been in the form of back-at-you questions, and ad hominem attacks instead of a debate and reflection on the substance of the original ten. Politicians in Ukraine, be it Yushchenko, Tymoshenko or Yanukovych need to be held accountable and asked difficult questions. Gordon Brown, as Kuzio points out, knows how it feels.

So to get back on the topic…why indeed has Yushchenko “not fulfilled [his] 2004 election promise to charge oligarchs a one-off tax surcharge and use some of the proceeds to repay lost Oshadbank savings to Ukrainian citizens?”