Taras Kuzio’s Blog

Tymoshenko -

She’s lying, and it’s getting tiresome.

Her premise is that the constitution needs to be changed in order to deal with the economic crisis, in order to “unite” all of the “political forces” to deal with the crisis.

HOGWASH!!!!

Furthermore, she seeks to justify her actions in seeking a shyrka with PoR. Her justification? “The crisis has changed everything.”

HOGWASH!!!

She starts out by invoking a religious holiday. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

She next lambasts Yanuk for unilaterally stopping the “shyrka” talks – which took place in secret, then were denied, then were finally admitted.

She next blames the current Constitution to state that “noone is in charge,” and that the current Constitution is causing political antagonism.

Again – if the politicians truly wanted to get together to deal with the economic crisis, NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT CONSTITUTION IS NECESSARY.

They simply would need to agree upon, and act upon, an anti-crisis program.

They’s talked endlessly for hours on the Savik Shuster show about the “national interest,” and dealing with the crisis.

Case in point – it took the IMF practically beating Ukraine over the head before the maggot “political elite” finally made the changes necessary to get the second tranche of the $16 billion IMF loan.

And she took a pot shot at Yushchenko.

She also denies that the goal of the “shyrka” changes to the Constitution was the prolongation of the current Rada’s power and postponement of Parliamentary elections.

In short, she’s lying.

By elmer on Jun 7, 2009

Yanukovych is even worse.

It’s all platitudes and nonsense about the election of the president, and what he, Yanukovych, has had to suffer through in order to stand by his “beliefs.”

He takes a page (a technique) from Cicero – “I won’t mention all of the insults hurled at me, or the fact that I urged unity many, many times in the past.” (Tymo also claimed that she has urged unity.)

Then – a bunch of platitudes about how one always need to consult with the people!!!!! — odd, given that all these talks were in secret.

He’s pushing the same false premise – that a change to the constitution is necessary in order to deal with the crisis.

But he has a different excuse – “they’ve run out of the time.”

More baloney about how he has always believed that the president should be elected by the people, government should be open and transparent (ha, ha, ha, ha,), blah, blah, blah, and at the end -

May God help us all.

Yep.

Because the maggots in the “political elite” have been helping themselves for 17 years now.

By elmer on Jun 7, 2009

Yan pulled out because he thinks can win the elections, based on the polls. Plus, he wanted to be elected president by the Rada while keeping all of the current presidential powers.
All Ukrainian politicians look at constitutional reforms not through if they are good for the country but if they are good for themselves.

By Taras on Jun 7, 2009

Yep.

But they have learned to mouth assorted nice-sounding phrases, like “the national interest,” or in Yanuk’s case in the TV statement, “we should put aside personal ambitions.”

The problem is that Ukraine still needs to develop its democracy, and fast.

Ukrainians absolutely hate to hear that Ukraine is a developing democracy – but it’s true.

And Ukraine still has a huge task ahead of it – getting rid of the vestiges of the sovok system, and transforming government from an oligarchy to a full democracy.

It’s a difficult task.

I don’t know if most Ukrainians clearly understand how important it is to accomplish it.

By elmer on Jun 8, 2009

You ought to check out the video in this Ukrainian Pravda article, and the article itself.

The video covers the seconds just before Tymo have her drama queen performance and announced that she was running for President.

Also, interesting little excerpt, which I’ve pasted in below – the Post Office paying for ads of the Ministry of Transport. Joseph Vinsky is the Minister of Transport, and a “friend” of the guy who asked a question about whether it’s democratic for the president to be elected by Parliament.

In other words, everyone knows they’re corrupt – but they’re happy to leave the corruption just as it is.

http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2009/6/8/96147.htm

– ?? ??????? ????????, ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ? ??????????, – ??????????? ????????? ?????? ???????.

???? ???????? ??????? ????? ????? ? ??????? ?????????, ?? ??????? ?????????? ? ?????????? – ??????????????, ??????? ??? ?????????:

– ? ????????????, ???? “????????” ??????? ?? ??????? ??????????!

????????? ?????, ???? ?? ???????? – ??? ?? ????????? ??????? ? ?????????: ??????? – ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ?????????.

By elmer on Jun 8, 2009

Elmer, I’d like you to look and try to analyze the situation in Ukraine from another point of view.
I pretty well can imagine that it’s very hard to understand our political life for a person who was born in some country with old and stable democratic traditions.
What factors should be taken into account?
You are right placing corruption on the first place. But what is corruption? It’s not a point that “bad officials take bribes” – yet long time ago it became inherent part of both political systems and economical relations (born maybe even earlier than Russian Empire, and lasting till now). One of derivatives or faces of this phenomenon is Yushchenko’s “kumism” (nepotism, so widespead in some Asian countries). To understand the deepness of this evil one has to live here as simple native citizen. But it’s primitively to explain this in terms “people are guilty themselves” – in such type of system (BTW, Ukraine is not the only country with this sickness) sometimes it’s faster, cheaper and even more natural way to solve simple everyday problems. But it’s primitively for politicians trying to struggle against this phenomenon with slogans like Yushchenko said early in 2005: “Officials, don’t steal!”. The same can be said about Grytsenko’s law (despite some disagreements I estimate him mostly positively as good executive authority) – imprisonment for life!
Despite “historical” adaptation to corruption I’m sure that 90% of our population (East or West – in this question no difference) are sure that this is evil.
And if to look at our top potential politicians – real candidates to be the heads of a state (let’s stop dreaming of angels, saviors or “young generation” that sometimes are more cynic than old communists) – let’s compare them from the point of view of their intrinsic intentions, political qualities and abilities.

Ambitions: any person who wants to gain success, solve hard problem etc. must have them. It’s based on one of the strongest human instincts – the need of self-affirmation. Difference (sometimes polar) is in goals and how the person understand this. What’s interesting – even highly negative meaning of the word “ambitions” in Soviet Russian (partially in Ukrainian, there is positive word “ambitny”) was widely used in anti-Tymoshenko’s propaganda by most politologists and journalists.

Well, let’s compare. All of them have high ambitions and it’s normally.
Yanukovich’s – on my opinion are the smallest – he doesn’t have any global goal for the good of Ukrainian society and also he understands his place, who gave it to him, and how uncertain it is.
Yushchenko – he was honest (before 2002) when maybe subconsciously told smth. like that he did not want to be the leader of NU, as well to go higher. But later his ambitions were cultivated and multiplied by so different conglomerate as NU – Yushchenko was a good candidate as a flag, symbol, without any “compromate” and at the same time very comfortable for them because of his well known dislike for hard work and dislike to make own decision. And although I did not take him as strong politic in 2004, I voted for him with great hope and confidence. Today I would not be surprised that after adopted virus Constitution in 2004 somebody from his “dear friends” could have plans to take a chair of Prime Minister, move Yushchenko from the first role and continue to imitate democratic reforms. On my opinion Yushchenko’s ambitions is some mix of old patriarchal type (“father of nation”, “master in his house”) and ambitions of 12-years old infant, who mostly playing the childish games sometimes wants to show that “I am the King!” in even unpredictable way. Today, analyzing all his dids, I can only say that his ambitious plans (more exactly, voiced by him) which I fully support (Western way, NATO, prosperity etc.) simply do not correspond to his abilities, possibilities and nonprofessionalism in politics. But anyway if I could return on time machine to 2004 – I again voted for Yushchenko, simply without any enthusiasm, like I voted for Kuchma choosing him as “the lesser evil” than Symonenko.
And at last – Tymoshenko. My first opinion when I saw her on political scene was “too great ambitions” and “the same as all who’s near Kuchma, Lazarenko” – somewhere between indifference and negative. She attracted my attention and changed opinion in positive direction not due to her “friends” but “enemies”. All of those who made war against her (Kuchma, Vitrenko, as well as in mass-media: Pikhovshek, Korchynski – the list is very long and till now without end) were highly unpleasant for me yet long before I knew her name. Gradually, comparing her with her opponents mainly in live TV interviews, discussions, I was surprised to see the birth of new politician, quite different from most of others, and what’s the main – with full set of qualities needed for real politician, high intellect, logics in answers and speed of reaction, minimum of standard empty words. Well, as for her ambitions – they are still high, but what these ambitions are? Of course, my estimation is half-intuitive, half-logical, and can be wrong. But in our everyday life we have to make choice in a similar way, isn’t it? I guess there are key differences between Tymoshenko’s and Yushchenko-Yanukovich’s. It’s only my own assumption, but it seems that Tymoshenko wants to be the first leader in Ukrainian history who would be able to turn society on the irreversible way towards democracy, justice (of course not in communists understanding) and as a result – prosperity. Her motivation in struggle for power is not to become a “dictator” (she’s wise enough to understand that today is 21th century) – the power is needed as a tool, some kind of lever in achievement this goal. And the other ones (two Victors – one vector) seem to have common and much simpler ambitions – they maybe understand that will not be the richest ones but “how it’s cool to show everybody their importance and influence in the richmen’s world!”. Maybe another reason of incompatibility with Tymoshenko (not only for these two ones) – their understanding of values is different, they cannot understand how dare she, being earlier so rich and successful in business, escape from their “high society”! As for Yushchenko’s way of thinking I can additionally suggest that he cannot accept any possibility for WOMAN!!! to play so loved by him role of “father of nation”. And of course the main reason and fear – her system-level approach in struggle with corruption and instinctive feeling that today she is the only one who has both strong desire, ability and support in society.
Sorry that I wrote so many lines but I don’t like to make conclusions without any arguments. It’s far and far not enough to understand our political life, manipulations of public opinion in mass media etc.

By Yuri_D on Jun 8, 2009

Well, Yuri_D, I was with you all the way except for your statement that she does not want to be a “dictator.”

I took your clarification to mean that she wants to be what used to be called a “beneficent despot” – someone with totalitarian power who wields that power in a “magnanimous” way.

The problem with that is that changing the constitution from a democratic form of government to a “shyrka” rigged democracy is not democracy.

Tymo cannot be a “democratic dictator,” no matter how much she envisions herself as a kind, beneficent person.

To put it differently, as one of the US Founding Fathers put it a long time ago – “if men were angels, there would be no need of government.”

And – “that government is best which governs least.”

Ukraine has to transform itself from a government which “governed” every little thing, to a government which is truly representative of the people, not oligarchs.

I fully understand why Ukraine is in the shape it is today, as far as government is concerned – the sovok legacy is a heavy burden. People have no feel for a true democracy. And worst of all, although people see what’s happening, they haven’t yet figured out what to do about it.

Democracy is hard work.

And when you have the additional heavy, heavy burden of corrupt oligarchs holding everything down, it’s even harder.

And, of course, Ukrainians can find any reason to argue amongst themselves, rather than organizing and defining and implementing and achieving a common goal. 2 Ukrainians – 3 hetmans, as the old saying goes.

Ambitions are fine. Corruption is not.

Democracy, true democracy, with a system of checks and balances, keeps both of those in check and in line.

What’s funny is this – each one of the thugs in government knows exactly where the skeletons are, where the bodies are buried, and where the corruption is.

And sometimes it leaks out – Yushchenko talking about Tymo buys her support by handing out Lexuses; the excerpt above from the article, which talks about how the Post Office finances Vinsky and his Transport Ministry; Firtash; Mogilevych; Kolomoisky; Hanna Herman and her diamonds; Yanuk’s huge estate with its own soccer field – Mezhihirya.

But so far they have been selective in when they really “care” about it, because they are all beneficiaries of corruption.

Look, Yushchenko said it over and over, and he’s exactly right – “corruption is killing the country.”

The problem is still – what are the people going to do about it? Shrug their shoulders and live with it?

That’s not an answer – you get more of what you have.

And, as far as I can tell, Ukrainians have what the West has – cars, freedom, economic prosperity, good jobs, houses, etc.

But you can’t do that as long as the oligarchs have almost everything, and people keep blowing up in coal mines.

So Ukrainians have figured out a solution – leave the country.

But you can’t have a country when almost everyone wants to leave.

And – I don’t think you have to apologize at all for writing “so many lines.”

I, for one, welcome your comments.

By elmer on Jun 8, 2009

http://www.uceps.org/eng/journal.php?y=2008&cat=121

If you want to see what values Ukrainians hold take a look at the tables and graphs in this issue of the Razumkov Centre’s excellent monthly magazine. This issue is on Ukraine’s middle classes. Ukraine’s elites do not reflect the democratic and other positive, European values held by Ukrainian society (explaining why they are so disliked and why there is so little trust in state institutions).

The president of the Razumkov Centre up to 2004 was Grytsenko and in the 2004 elections the centre became the research-analytical wing of Yushchenko’s campaign.

By Taras on Jun 8, 2009

Today’s Kupchinsky article on Firtash’s business buddy in RUE, Semyon Mogilevych. As they say there is no honour among thieves:

Eurasia Daily Monitor, 8 June
Controversial Fraud Trial Closed in Moscow

On June 2 the long-awaited trial began in Moscow’s Tushinsky District Court of Vladimir Nekrasov, the reputed owner of Arbat Prestige, the largest chain of cosmetics stores in Russia and the CIS and his co-defendant, Semyon Mogilevich, (alias Sergei Shneider), a person wanted by the FBI on charges of fraud and money laundering. The two men, who were arrested in Moscow in January 2008, are charged with tax evasion while Mogilevich is additionally accused of being the hidden owner of Arbat Prestige, a company he allegedly created and then installed Nekrasov as its CEO. But the trial has little to do with perfumes, lipstick and even less with tax evasion -and least of all with transparency.
The trial appears to have a hidden agenda, one which deals with Russian gas export schemes, a subject which does not implicate Nekrasov, who apparently knows nothing about the gas trade. However, were this trial conducted openly it might implicate the highest elected officials in Russia of collusion with Mogilevich in illegal activities -which has already created concern throughout Europe about energy security. In other words, it smacks of a massive cover-up by Russian officials of their illicit deals.
In what might be seen as a move in order to prevent any transparency, both the defense and the prosecution agreed on June 1 to keep the trial closed to the public. The reason for this according to the Russian newspaper Kommersant was: “the unanimous decision by both sides to insure the comfort of its subjects…The trial, according to my information, will drag on all summer, which undoubtedly will be very warm,” one of the lawyers said. “This would make the proceedings intolerable for the numerous defense witnesses, the two prosecutors and the crowd of observers and journalists” he explained (Kommersant, June 3).
Earlier, prosecutors told the media that they favored a closed trial to prevent exposure of their investigative methods (Moscow Times, May 21). These so-called methods turned out to be wiretaps on Mogilevich’s phone -not a particularly legal means of gathering evidence. But the ultimate argument for closing the trial to the public was the forecast of a hot summer in Moscow. Apparently this particular courthouse does not have air conditioning or ceiling fans.
On May 20 the court rejected the defendants offer to post bail of $7.5 million. Or as the Moscow Times pointed out on May 21, “five times more than the amount they are accused of failing to pay in taxes.” Nekrasov is accused of evading $1.5 million in taxes.
But the hidden issue remains Mogilevich’s suspected links to Dmytro Firtash and the various gas trading companies he created – Eural Trans Gas (ETG) and the Gazprom-Firtash joint company RosUkrEnergo (RUE). The Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, has claimed that Mogilevich was linked to RUE while other sources show more direct evidence of these links.
In a special report issued by the Jamestown Foundation in February 2009, it states that:
“From its inception RUE had two co-directors – Konstantin Chuychenko and Oleg Palchykov. Chuychenko was nominated by Gazprom to represent its interests in RUE. A former KGB officer, he headed Gazprom’s legal department. …Following Dmitry Medvedev’s election as president, Chuychenko was given a high-level post in the new administration.
The other co-director of RUE, Oleg Palchykov, was the former director of the ETG office in Moscow… Palchykov represented Dmytro Firtash and Ivan Fursin, the then-hidden owners of the other 50 percent of RUE through their Viennese-registered company Centragas… Palchykov’s appointment as a co-director of RUE was met with a great deal of skepticism in the media and rekindled earlier suspicions about a possible link to organized crime. Alexander Ryazanov, deputy director of Gazprom and a member of RUE’s coordinating committee, told the Russian newspaper Vedomosti “[Palchykov's] candidacy was submitted by Raiffeisen Investment and we were unable to stop it” (Gazprom’s European Web, Jamestown Foundation, February 2009).
Why Gazprom would want to prevent Palchykov’s appointment in the first place is not clear. Gazprom had always publicly insisted that their partners in RUE were honest and transparent businessmen. Has this view suddenly changed? Palchykov gave his home address as 2 Oktyabr Street in the Russian village of Shakhovskoye, but when reporters arrived they discovered it was an abandoned wooden barrack. Why did Palchykov lie about his address? Part of the explanation could be that the Moscow ETG office Palchykov headed was located at 14 Novyi Arbat, which was also used by an alleged mobster. Russian records show that Palchykov was the Moscow representative of a number of companies, including Highrock Properties, Elmstad, and Lindown at the time that he represented ETG.
Highrock Properties had on its board of directors Igor Fisherman, a man wanted by the FBI in connection with the so-called YBM Magnex case and who is described in the U.S. indictment of Mogilevich as “a close associate and top financial advisor to defendant Mogilevich.” Mogilevich’s then-wife, Galina Telish, and Fisherman’s wife, Olga Zunzerova, were also members of the board of Highrock. Little is known about the origins of Elmstad (registered in Cyprus on April 26, 2001) and Lindown except that their representatives in Moscow and Kyiv used Highrock Property’s e-mail address (Gazprom’s European Web, Jamestown Foundation, February 2009).
Are facts like these the real reason that the Russian authorities have closed the trial of Mogilevich and Nekrasov to the public?
In a letter to the E.U. commission sent on May 31 by Global Witness, the UK-based NGO, it states: “The European Union needs to adopt a coherent strategy, implemented by the European Commission and member states, to increase transparency in the gas trade. Until… measures are taken, significant parts of Europe’s gas supplies could fall under the control of persons unknown” (www.globalwitness.org, May 13).
–Roman Kupchinsky

By Taras on Jun 8, 2009

Battling corruption needs among other things POLITICAL WILL (as well as government and political stability). That is the difference between Georgia’s President and Ukraine’s. Compare the Transparency International (TI) annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) rankings since the 2003 Rose and 2004 Orange Revolutions.
In the 2004 TI CPI results, Ukraine was listed 128th out of 145 countries (with the country ranked in first place being rated as least corrupt), and in 2005 there was an improvement as Ukraine it was listed as being 107th out of 158 countries which continued into 2006 with Ukraine being placed at 99th (out of 163 countries). From 2007 Ukraine regressed in its battle against corruption and fell back to 118 and 134th out of 180 countries surveyed in the 2007 and 2008 rankings respectively. The improvement in 2005 during the first Tymoshenko government according to TI was deemed: “a slight improvement but in no way a dramatic improvement as corruption remains an absolutely huge and chronic problem in Ukraine”. Ukraine’s 2008 ranking (134) was worse than the ranking it received in 2004 (122). Georgia, in contrast, has improved its rankings every year since the 2003 Rose Revolution with a 2008 ranking of 67, far better than Ukraine. In 2004 Georgia was ranked 133rd, similar to Ukraine’s 122nd. In 2009 Georgia was ranked better than Hungary,the Czech Republic, Italy, Romania and Bulgaria. Ukraine was ranked in 2009 at the bottom of the 8 CIS countries TI surveyed.
Why has Georgia done so well compared to Ukraine has not been analysed by anybody. Despite loud opposition protests, Saakashvili remains popular – unlike Yushchenko. Politicians should take note that battling corruption wins votes, whether in eastern or western Ukraine.

By Taras on Jun 8, 2009

Elmer, your statements “…except … that she does not want to be a “dictator” or “beneficent despot” – who could dictate you such a wrong opinion? I could understood this if you are from Russian or “Russian-thinking” citizen of Ukraine. What are trustworthy sources of information on your opinion? I don’t say about most of Russian and Ukrainian mass-media – they were and continue to be in great extent anti-Ukrainian and anti-democratic. Difference in “intellectual quality” of their production.
What is much worse – the favorite and most trusted sources at the time of Maidan-2004 – TV “Channel 5″ (Poroshenko’s) and “Ukrainian Pravda” (??? today it seems to be Fitash’s) – starting from Yushchenko’s inauguration and just after Tymoshenko’s removal began fabricate public opinion against her. At first (when she was Prime Minister) Roman Skrypin and Danilo Yanevsky quite innocently used to name her “premierka” (in Ukrainian language state official is of masculine ending: “premier”), as well as discuss her dresses (as for me – it’s a shame for men!). And after her removal by Yushchenko they eventually transformed into the source of selective public manipulation and desinformation directed on lowering her ratings. One should not be high intellectual to understand that their goal is to steal her votes from those regions where she won last elections (by number of administrative regions she was on the 1st place, Yushchenko’s NU had majority only in one – Zakarpattya, controlled by Baloga). Into whose hands are they playing? It’s obvious that for Yushchenko-Yanukovich’s “shirka”. Look only to UP’s paparazzi Leshchenko – the number of characters written by him against Tymoshenko seems to be larger than Lenin wrote against bourgeoisie in all 50 volumes!
What is my main complaint to Tymoshenko – she does not pay enough attention on dirty informational war against her. The level of activity of her PR-managers (if such ones exist) is low, some of her advisors are weak as politologists, having no mass-media resources she does not use actively her Internet resources, they are also weak. Maybe it’s a reason that I, ordinary elector, never being a member of any party (only took part in V.Chornovil’s Rukh in 1989-91) in some maybe naive way try to defend the leader whom I support and trust.
Returning to dictator – don’t you know the difference between Russia and Ukraine? If in Russia historically was mostly in one arms (even church served “tsars” and was the tool of state machine) Ukrainians mostly suffered from polyarchy, everlasting struggle for power and even trends to anarchy. There is precision popular wisdom: “2 Ukrainians = 3 Het’mans”.
Anyway who told you that Tymoshenko is willing to be the “dictator” or “despot” (you’ve forgotten yet another word “tyrant” )? She told you tete-a-tete? Or Leshchenko from UP hypnotized you? What facts of her decisions you can evaluate as trends to dictatorship? How do you understand the term “power”? Can you understand that the role of political leader – head of the state (there is no difference president or prime minister) in any democratic country is to make final decisions on his (her) own. It’s not a thankful role to take decisions knowing that they will not be accepted by all. Who can consider George Bush as dictator after his hard and unpopular decision on Iraq? Or General de Gaulle? Or maybe Margaret Thatcher somebody calls so because of “iron lady”? BTW, do you know who and why first called her so?

By Yuri_D on Jun 8, 2009

Yuri-D -

1) Tymoshenko promotes herself continuously, via her own web site, where there are second-by-second pictures and videos of her every activity on a daily basis, together with speeches and videos and articles, continuing on to numerous TV appearances and TV articles – she is a master at self-promotion.

She is very highly intelligent, but she is a born self-promoter every step of the way.

2) “Benevolent despot” comes from her own words and actions. In a democracy, one does not seek to postpone elections, or to have a puppet president, or to make secret deals behind closed doors about amending the Constitution.

It is clear that her idea behind the “shyrka” was to give her enough control so that she could do things her way. Yanuk was to be a puppet president (he’s a puppet of the Donbass Mafia), and she was to be Prime Minister in charge of as much as possible.

Which is not to say that she is different from other politicians in Ukraine in that regard – wanting to grab power.

Do I trust her more than Yanukovych and his Donbass Mafia? Without a doubt.

But she is not above “bending the truth” a bit if it suits her purposes.

Again, in that regard, she’s not much different from other politicians in Ukraine.

As has been said before, one does not need to amend the Constitution in order to deal with the crisis.

But that was the excuse that she, and others, used.

What’s even worse is that they all lied about what was happening. That includes Tymo.

In short, their proposed “shyrka” with the proposed amendments to the Constitution was not in line with true democracy.

Especially because her first priority should have been to eliminate the “party list” system and parliamentary immunity – as she had promised before.

Those 2 changes would lead to more democracy in Ukraine than anything.

3) George Bush made his decision on Iraq subject to the advice and consent of Congress. It is not possible for the Prez of the US to declare war by his lonesome self.

Congress had access to the same secret information that the US President had.

There is a system of checks and balances in the US, as in other countries.

In Ukrainian government, you have only oligarchs and their hired servants.

That includes Tymoshenko, until she decides to clean up her own act, as well as the acts of others.

By elmer on Jun 8, 2009

(Elmer)
” …Do I trust her more than Yanukovich and his Donbass Mafia? Without a doubt”

Wonderful! Because I started to doubt (sorry) in your independency of thinking.
And that’s the case – I’d like only to ask you about your hypothetical choice – whom do you vote for in given conditions (assuming you are supporter of democratic way, you know that ignoring elections will give negative result and in that way your vote will be a gift to Yanukovich & Co. Ltd.) I don’t like you to accept my relatively high estimation – for thinking voters they must differ down to the level of “lesser evil”. Also don’t consider me as “a fan” – I cannot be such by education (physics) and work in research labs. I pretty well know the difference between “real” and “ideal” vapors, crystals, and before interpreting results firstly try to check for apparatus or own errors.
Well, a few points to consider.
From the point of view of ordinary US voter the choice between two parties is smth. near of “where it’s better to live: in New-York or San-Francisco?”. The difference in expected variations of social parameters, economical growth etc. is no more than 5-10% to say nothing of unchanged style of life and what’s the main – political and economical system as a whole. Can you imagine such a situation if one party (supported by wealthiest) agitates for the system like in South American countries, other – like in Northern ones? More over – one of the three small parties (5-7%) want to live like in Northern Korea, and the rest two also small don’t say before elections whom they will support after? Thrilling, isn’t it?
But it’s very close to our political situation. More over one should add lack of democratic education and experience, majority of mass-media are owned by supporters of mixed “South-American” and so-called “Asiope’s (Russian) way. Also add artificially created by the same mass-media the highest level of polarization of society (division by supporters of political parties, language, even ethnicity). How do you like such “logics”: Kravchuk is not right recommending Yushchenko to resign because: a) he is Communist b) he was in Medvedchuk’s party”? Maybe it means that I have to reject communist’s statement “2+2=4″ or believe some BYuT’s member if he write Newton’s law in a form: “a = F x m”? Unfortunately it’s not so rarely when people evaluate political events not thinking of “what was said?” but “who said?”.
Current political battle can be compared with “cold civil war”. No, this war is not between ordinary people – it’s not rarely picture in L’viv (Western Ukraine) to see people peacefully drinking coffee (or smth. else) one of them speaking Ukrainian, other Russian and discussing their business problems or last football game. But at the same time how do you like to see Tyahnybok or Kendzior on the meetings or local TV and discussing: “Why Tymoshenko does not say that her grandfather was “Latvian Jew” whereas Yushchenko’s N generations were “pure” Ukrainians?” How it is called in US or other democratic countries? I think – “narrow-minded racism”. Unfortunately, it also works, maybe only on several percents, but if you are tracking Ukrainian politics, only two votes in Rada (Plushch, Kril’) was enough for Yushchenko to bury (de facto) yet so weak and unstable democratic coalition. Maybe after that somebody would say that Tymoshenko likes Lytvin? Or Yuanukovich? And if one can agree that in some extent it’s similar to “war”, the value of victory is absolutely polar: “a way to the western democracy” OR “to Asiope”. And don’t we know what methods are used in the war? I don’t believe that in peaceful life any business or political negotiations between sides are openly translated in “live” mode. As for me, in the state of hard and dirty political war the best time to discuss the questions of “purity of democratic ideas” is AFTER the victory of democracy. Because one may open his eyes next morning and find himself somewhere like in R.Sheckley’s “Status Civilization”.

By Yuri_D on Jun 9, 2009

1) You are right – lack of democratic education, knowledge and experience, and a sovok legacy, are a huge problem in Ukraine – but despite that, somehow the Orange Revolution occurred, and people distributed copies of Ukrainian Pravda despite Kuchma.

Another big problem – the tendency of Ukrainians to make simple things complicated.

2) You are right again – sometimes the source of a statement, who said it, is not relevant. But Kravchuk calling for Yushchenko’s resignation is wrong, not because Kravchuk said it, as a “former” Commie, or member of Medvedchuk’s party, but because Yushchenko was elected for a 5-year term, and he should serve his full term – unless he has committed high crimes in office.

3) You are right again – there are 165 political parties registered in Ukraine, not all of them are really interested in anything other than draining votes away from specific targets, or acquiring power for themselves. In a sense, a parliamentary system is more democratic, because there are multiple parties represented.

But the overwhelming, over-arching parameter here, the immutable force of gravity, which Ukrainians can’t seem to figure out how to get rid of, is – oligarchs.

Despite the multiple parties, it’s oligarchs who are waging war, and it’s oligarchs who have a stranglehold on Ukraine’s government, and they seem to be cemented into place.

Noone is immune.

Akhmetov, the wealthiest, is a member of the Rada, but he never shows up for sessions.

Tymo is, of course, herself and oligarch.

Yushchenko, who claims that “these hands never stole,” has apparently learned the old trick perfected in Western democracies before corruption was largely eliminated – “don’t pay me, pay my brother and my family, or other relatives.”

I could not understand why Yushch supported Firtash. Now I do.

Question – who represents you in the Rada? Where can you go if your rights are violated? Or if you have a complaint? Does Yanuk’s son represent you? Does Akhmetov? Or Lytvyn? Or Hanna Herman?

4) You are right – in large measure, ordinary people, who distrust government in Ukraine, go about their daily business.

But ignoring government and its shenanigans is a dangerous thing.

I am glad that these amendments to the Constitution, hatched in secret closed-door meetings, have been defeated – for now. It looks like the maggots will try again.

5) You are partially right, if I understood you correctly – with regard to “purity of democratic ideas,” — “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

Democracy is not perfect. It is not “efficient.” Dictatorships are “efficient.” Ukraine has already gone through that.

I’m not sure exactly what your point is there, and I’m not sure exactly what you are talking about.

But you are flat wrong about the time for discussing “democratic ideas.”

It is BEFORE they are implemented – not after a mistake has been made.

6) In Ukraine, EVERYONE KNOWS the government is corrupt. EVERYONE KNOWS the government is inefficient. All you have to do is take a look at Euro 2012 preparations. All you have to do is look at the space lunatic who is the mayor of Kyiv – and doesn’t speak Ukrainian in the capital of Ukraine. All you have to do is look at Yanuk’s Mezhihirya, his huge mansion estate with its own soccer field and children’s playground.

Question: How long will Ukrainians let it continue?

By elmer on Jun 9, 2009

What points are you trying to make?

1) Every one of Ukraine’s “political elite” has let Ukraine down – the ones that were elected in order to implement the promises of the Orange Revolution.

Some people shout and scream and want Yushchenko to resign now. But his failure to keep his promises will be reckoned with at the next election.

Failure to keep political promises is not a crime. Politicians who fail to keep their promises have their day of reckoning in the next elections.

However, if the president commits a crime, he must be held accountable – that’s what impeachment is for, and that’s what criminal prosecution is for.

2) Dictatorships are more “efficient” than a democracy in the sense that a dictator does not have to wait for the normal mechanisms of a democracy to make and implement decisions.

As I mentioned, Ukraine’s already had dictatorship.

3) There are lots of ideas that have been discussed, and Yushchenko, and Tymoshenko, and Yanuk have all contributed to the “war of all against all.”

To put it bluntly, it is like sharks in a feeding frenzy. Even wild dogs are better behaved than the “political elite.” And dogs don’t kill people with their BMW’s and Mercedes and Maybachs and Lexuses.

Part of it is called “NIH” – “Not Invented Here”, meaning that each of the “political forces” wants to take credit for everything that’s good, and to block anything proposed by the other side.

Which illustrates that government in Ukraine is not representing the people, but oligarchs.

And it’s really, really inconvenient for them to actually have to deal with elections and people.

Soooo – what are Ukrainians going to do about it?

What points are you trying to make?

PS Winston Churchill, even in time of war, was subject to checks and balances. Noone would reasonably call Churchill a dictator.

By elmer on Jun 9, 2009