Yatseniuk Praises Vladimir Putin
August 1, 2009 – 4:57 pmIn the current issue of Korrespondent Arseniy Yatseniuk is interviewed and is asked about Vladimir Putin.
“What did he do? he saved the country. In reality he saved the country. But of course not all of his methods do I agree with”. He says that Putin inherited a mess from Borys Yeltsin: oligarchs, impaired institutions and state governance, Chechnya, , separatism and chaos. He thinks this is little different to Ukraine today. Hence, why, Ukraine (in the form of Yatseniuk) needs a President who will also “save” Ukraine.
When asked if he wants to become a Ukrainian Putin he replies “No. This is not necessary”.
21 Responses to “Yatseniuk Praises Vladimir Putin”
He’s absolutely correct, calling it “praise” though?…. I gotta laugh.
By Wolodymir on Aug 2, 2009
I am in Kyiv and the word on the street is that this is “praise”. It might not look like that from the est but here it is seen as one of his mistakes in praising Putin.
By Taras Kuzio on Aug 2, 2009
Sure.
By Wolodymir on Aug 2, 2009
But again, therein lies a huge problem – “Putin ’saved’ impaired institutions.”
Which “impaired institutions” did Putler save? The KGB, the Kremlin, siloviki. Oh, yeah, Kirill of the Holy $36,000 Watch waves his arms and lights candles with Putler and sprinkles holy water in all of this in return for his cut of the “saving.”
The oligarchs are still there – some in England, many still in Russia.
The ones who are still in Russia feed and feed off of Putler.
Lord, save us from such “saving.”
I think Yatseniuk needs to re-think his “analysis.”
By elmer on Aug 2, 2009
Yatseniuk is slammed for what Kuzio calls “Praising Putin”, yet Tymoshenko stayed silent when Putin invaded Russia.
By Wolodymir on Aug 2, 2009
Georgia.
By Wolodymir on Aug 2, 2009
What should Yats have said?
Nothing.
That way there’s no “lie to the people.”
Problem solved – simple.
When Yeltsin was President, at least there was a semblance of democracy, and at least there was a chance that democracy could develop.
Under Putler, there is no democracy at all. There is no free speech, there is no opposition, and people are beat over the head for the worst possible crime that one can commit – opposing Putler.
Or is that something that is too harsh for the delicate little flowers in Ukraine, who want to hear only good things about Putler in Ukraine?
By elmer on Aug 2, 2009
Elmer cares not how, or even whether, Russians live, only that their government submit to Western political and economic experimentation, no matter the consequences to Russians. Under Yeltsin, deaths exceeded births by ~750,000 per year. That gap closed to ~400,000 per year. In Western-oriented Ukraine, that gap is 240,000 per year, and is more than twice as large in percentage terms, since Russia has about 3 times the population of Ukraine.
It can easily be seen that Elmer also cares not how or even whether Ukrainians live, only that their government is hostile to Russia, so he can spout about some mythical character named “Putler”.
By rkka on Aug 17, 2009
Read this:
Excerpt below.
http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/47102
Democratic Ukraine, autocratic Russia: Why?
Today, 11:54 | Andreas Umland and Ingmar Bredies, Special to Kyiv Post
Kyivan Rus, the medieval state that
existed from 880 to the middle of the
13th century, gave rise to modern-day
Ukraine and Russia. The two nations
have taken divergent paths toward
governance, differences that began in
the old empire.
Developments in the former Soviet Union in recent years were fascinating for the specialist and might have puzzled the layman: Why have Europe’s two largest countries developed in such different ways? Russia has returned to authoritarianism while Ukraine seems to be maturing towards a real democracy. How did this happen – in spite of these nations’ similar Eastern Slavic Orthodox cultures and intertwined histories?
By elmer on Aug 18, 2009
Yatseniuk has made a very interesting and valid comment, referring to the Ukrainian electorate.
His point is that, while professing dissatisfaction with the government, they vote for the same old “Ivan Ivanovich,” knowing that the same old Ivan Ivanovich is corrupt and incompetent.
And here is a very incisive comment reported in the Washington Post:
http://blog.kievukraine.info/2009/09/kremlin-intensifies-pressure-as-ukraine.html
Julia Mostovaya, deputy editor of Kiev’s most independent newspaper, Zerkalo Nedeli, said Yushchenko’s failure to pursue further democratic reforms after the Orange Revolution has left Ukraine vulnerable to Russian influence.
“It’s a very dangerous situation now,” she said. “We have two leading candidates without principles, and Russia has leverage to influence both.”
By elmer on Sep 14, 2009
According to recent opinion polls Putin has the support of over 80% of Russians 57% of Ukrainians.
By comparison Viktor Yushchenko has less then 4%
The facts speak for themselves.
By UkrToday ukrai on Sep 20, 2009
Enmlmer BS. The main danger and threat to Ukraine today is Yushchenko, always has been. He spouses the words of Democracy and Nationalist values BUT his actions and policies are undemocratic and against the best interest of Ukraine. His proposed constutitional amendments would see Ukraine revert back to a Presidential autocracy where the President would have absolute authority and control over the Courts, the Parliament and the Government. No checks and balances.
The good news is his term of office is about to come to an end. 118 days to go.
By UkrToday ukrai on Sep 20, 2009
The main danger and threat to Ukraine today is the oligarchs, who have Ukrainian government by the throat, and by other body parts as well.
The main danger and threat to Ukraine today is that the Ukrainian Parliament is not really representative government.
The members are elected via “party lists,” not by voting districts, and the “party lists” are owned and controlled by oligarchs – party machines.
Parliament is not accountable to anyone. Hence, the Party of Rogues has been physically blocking the rostrum in the Rada for 2 years now, thus blocking Parliament.
The Party of Rogues, which engaged in secret negotiations to eliminate presidential elections via constitutional amendment, and to “fix” office holders in back rooms, without elections, is the main danger and threat to Ukraine today.
And that includes Akhmetov, Firtash, and all the other thugs in and out of office that have Ukraine’s government by the throat and by the gonads.
By elmer on Sep 21, 2009
The dangers are many:
Internal – elite disunity, legal and constitutional chaos, lack of leadership by the president, disfunctional parliament, politicians and elites beyond the law, growing corruption and public cynicism.
External – Russian threat will be a major and growing factor up to 2017, Western disinterest and disregard for the 1994 Budapest Memorandum which provided security assurances to Ukraine (one of the five who provided them is Ukraine’s main external threat).
By Taras Kuzio on Sep 21, 2009
Roosha would not be a threat if all Ukrainians finally realized that they live in Ukraine – and not in rasha.
Plus – I doubt very much that the thugs who comprise the Ukrainian “political elite” want to wind up like Khodorkovsky.
For that reason alone, they should not kowtow to Putler and rasha.
Otherwise, who will pay all the Brazilian soccer players millions of dollars to chase after a soccer ball for the Donetsk Miners?
By elmer on Sep 22, 2009
You know things are really bad in Ukraine when
I start to serious;y agree with Yanukhovych over the more ‘moderate’ Tymoshenko. It appears that your darling of the central democratic spectrum is trying to get a law instituted that would ban any ‘negative’ views of herself & her
policies as the premier…& I quote Yanukhovych who sounds like the true democrat that I know he isn’t:
“????????? ???? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ??? ?????, ???? ???? ??????, ?? ?? ?????? ??????? – ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?????????? ???????????? ???????. ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ?????????????? ????? ?? ??????????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?????. ??????? ????? ???????????? ???????????. ? ????? ??????? – ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ?????. ????????, ??? ???????? ????? ??????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????, ???????? ?????????? ????????????? ?????? ?????? ????? ? ???????? ????????? ???? – ?????????? ??? ??????????? ? ??? ??????????? ???????. ???? ?? ???? ?????? ? ???? ??????? ??????? ????????? ????????????? ???????? ? ????? ???????”. – ?????? ????????.
By KK on Sep 25, 2009
Well, that’s exactly right – squelching free speech is not a good idea.
Especially when you have a government like Ukraine’, which is a cancer, a yoke on the Ukrainian nation, run by oligarchs for their own personal benefit.
Prohibiting free speech does not make the stench, the rot of Ukrainian government go away.
http://www.rferl.org/content/Former_Czech_Foreign_Minister_Talks_About_Missile_Defense_Belarus_And_Russia/1836572.html
Eastern Security
RFE/RL: A question from our Ukrainian Service: Ukrainian intellectuals and politicians, including ex-President Leonid Kravchuk, warn the West of a rising Russian threat. They call on Western leaders to hold an international conference to provide guarantees for Ukrainian security. Do you support this proposal?
Schwarzenberg: I don’t know, somebody would have to explain to me how a conference could provide security guarantees for Ukraine.
I do think…that the greatest danger for Ukrainian security is the fact that the political will of the nation is so split. If the political parties in the Ukraine would be more cooperating, more capable of making a compromise — an arrangement — and if Ukraine could present itself as a united country, behind the government, the president, the leadership of the country, then of course I think the greatest danger for Ukraine would be to belong to the past.
We can support Ukraine, but we — [and] first of all, the Ukrainians themselves — must solve this problem. Nobody who is not able to manage his own country can expect that anybody else will do the work for him. And of course if there were a united Ukraine which developed a healthy political life, then I do think it would get much more support and I do think anybody who would be interested in treating the country or having decisive influence on the country would have much more difficult job to tackle.
But you can’t have them between themselves. If [there is an] enemy of the country, the job is much easier. But as we know, that was already the problem of Ukraine in the past centuries: necessary unity.
RFE/RL: So the first job must be done by the Ukrainians. But is there something specific that Europe — or, more specifically, the Czech Republic — can do to encourage Ukraine?
Schwarzenberg: We can, of course, help them in many questions of the development of the Ukraine — technical, scientific, economic — there’s a lot that can be done by Ukraine. We can, of course, [do] much less…. Then, of course, you can get the diplomatic help too…. But, first of all, we must know what is the point of view of Ukraine.
By elmer on Sep 27, 2009
Wait till Yatesniuk gets a hold of the Prime Minister and Yanu in a debate. Many think we have a lot of trash on them. Wait till Yateniuk starts on them. He’ll also destroy her stats, if she’s going to dare use them, from what her tenure has developed. That’s where the ratings will change.
By yuri-kharkiv on Sep 30, 2009
I am surprised at anybody still thinking Yatseniuk has any wind in his sails. I am in Washington DC this week where I have heard from US government sources that Biden believed he was a “lightweight”. This tallies with what German friends found when the Konrad Adenaeuer Stiftung took him to Germany this year (i.e. that he is neither ryba ni myaso. See Hrabovsky at: http://pravda.com.ua/news/2009/9/28/102330.htm. It also tallies with Ukrainian media reports this week at his flopped presentation to the Yalta European Strategy (http://pravda.com.ua/news/2009/9/28/102325.htm). He has no ideology, is not pro-Western and has deserted all of Our Ukraine’s 2007 platform. Swedish parties refuse to work with Front for Change as it in their eyes a top down party, in other words, not a Western political party but another typical post-Soviet virtual party. On Monday on Shuster TV debate, Tymoshenko did very well faced by journalists (even though it was interrupted by 3 Regions gate crashers). Lets see how well Yatseniuk or anukovych do when faced by 2 hours of gruelling journalists. Yatseniuk will flop in a debate.
My prediction is that Grytsenko will win unexpectedly the third place in the first round – not Yatseniuk.
By Taras on Oct 1, 2009
How’s Sevastapool going? Hope its shiny and new, sparkling and jointly inhabited by both the Russian and Ukranian Military.
By Giselle on Oct 8, 2009
I agree with your assessment Taras. Yastseniuk has lost any momentum and is fighting for the lions share of the same slice of meat.
Yatseniuk, Yushchenko and Hrytsenko are all competing against each other. This is a well known flaw in the first-past-the-post voting system. a system that is undemocratic and outdated.
The good news is that this leaves Tymoshenko and Yanukovych to fight it out in a second round of voting. The bad news is it costs over 100 million dollars per round. and even mopre if you take into account the ocsts of campaigning.
The while notion of a directly elected presidential system is wrong. At best Ukraine will get a president that represents a slim majority.
Ukraine should take a closer look at Canada and other European States and adopt a Parliamentary system of governance.
If they must have direct election of their head of state then they should adopt a single round preferential ballot.
By UkrToday on Oct 20, 2009