Taras Kuzio’s Blog

There is no contest.

Ukraine is just throwing money away.

Eighteen candidates have been registered for Ukraine’s next Presidential election scheduled for January 17, 2010.

Sixteen out of the eighteen candidates will lose in the first ballot.

Whilst the election fuels the pages of the news and this blog the fact is there is no real contest.

Baring a miracle, an act of god or assignation (god forbid) or unexpected withdrawal of candidates the final presidential race will be between Viktor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko.

Under Ukraine’s two round “first-past-the-post” presidential voting system the only real contest in the first round of voting is between second and third place.

According to all the opinion polls the third placed candidate, Arseniy Yatseniuk, who is on 7.5%, is more then 10% behind the second place candidate Yulia Tymoshenko with 18% support.

Given this is the case the question must be asked, “Why go to the expense of holding a second round when the same result can be achieved in one single round of voting?”

Ukraine should adopt a single round preferential voting system and ask voters to rank candidates in order of preference so that when the votes are counted they can decide who is elected in one round of voting and at half the cost required to hold two rounds.

By UkrToday on Nov 14, 2009

Is Yushchenko’s second term campaign being funded by the Tobacco industry? Has he sold his soul and the heath of Ukraine in order to pursue finance his campaign.

Yushchenko is a caretaker president yet on November 11 he vetoed a law on the increase of taxation on tobacco products raising serious questions as to his motive.

With one third of Ukrainians addicted to cigarettes and Yushchenko could hope that with the tobacco lobby support he could win over sufficient support to stay alive in the campaign even though the long term health of the nation is put at risk. Yushchenko is more hell bent on seeding economic destruction then concern for the welfare and health of Ukraine.

His actions and policy undoubtably would cause serious strain and disagreement with Ukraine’s European neighbours. The EU and the World Health Organisation has been calling on Ukraine to increase taxation on tobacco products.

By UkrToday on Nov 14, 2009

Interesting, for all the post flooding you’ve done over the years Ukr, I can’t recall anyone who has agreed or supported your call for single round preferential voting in Ukraine. That ought to tell you something now, shouldn’t it?

By Wolodymir on Nov 15, 2009

Dr. Kuzio, I don’t know whether you’ver seen it, but Savik Shuster had a very, very interesting show where corruption made up the better part of one of his long-winded 3 hour programs. Very, very interesting.

As was pointed out by one of the journalists, in each election the candidates scream about corruption, and claim that they themselves are clean, and it’s everyone else who is corrupt.

The difference this year is that there are far more details coming out, and Tyahnybok and Hrytsenko are especially vigorous in this regard, and rightly so.

What is really funny is that Bohoslovska has gone to the extent of portraying herself as having left the Party of Regions in order to “fight corruption.” I don’t find her posture to be credible.

Hrytsenko and Tyahnybok are far more credible in this regard.

In other words, all 3 are distancing themselves from the incumbent parties as “outsider” against corruption.

Incumbents are screaming that these are “vicious tactics” and there is no need for discussion about corruption.

http://shuster.kanalukraina.tv/video/3223_zapad_nam_ne_pomozhet?_silnaya_ruka_ili_zheleznyi_kulak?/

By elmer on Nov 15, 2009

In the program there was also a discussion of what Ukraine should look like, its progress towards democracy. Shockingly, and amazingly, Nestor Shufrych, the putrid punk, said that “government is money, and money is government.”

Then there were a whole lot of platitudes about democracy – but very few specifics, except from Tyahnybok and Hrytsenko.

And, Bohoslovska actually made a good point – Yanukovych, Tymoshenko and Yushchenko merely send representatives, instead of appearing in person and answering for their actions directly in front of the people on live TV in debates.

But a lot of the conversation about democracy, and the “road to Europe” is still frustratingly abstract (except, as I said, for Tyahnybok and Hrytsenko). It reminds me of this quotation from P.J. O’Rourke:

—————–
Nina took me to talk with the leaders of the TV-station protest. This was one of five or six political interviews that I did while I was in the Soviet Union – with Ukrainian Nationalists, Ukrainian non-Nationalists, a member of the Ukrainian Parliament, anti-Gamsakhurdian Georgians, pro-Gamsakhurdian Georgians and some people I don’t know who they were.

I can tell you what they all had to say, if you like, I mean if you’re having trouble getting to sleep or something. I would ask them what their group advocated, and they would say, “Democracy must be defended.” I would ask, “How do you propose to do this?” They would say, “There must be a structure of democracy in our society.” I would ask, “What are your specific proposals?” They would say, “We must build democratic institutions.” I would ask, “By what means?” They would say, “Building democratic institutions is necessary so that there is a structure of democracy in our society at all levels.” And by this time I’d be yelling, “BUT WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO??!! And they would say, “Democracy must be defended.”

The Soviets were firmly rooted in the abstract, had both their feet planted on the air. It was impossible to get them to understand that government isn’t a philosophical concept, it’s a utility, a service industry – a way to get roads built and have Iraqis killed.
———————-

The nomenklatura still lives on in Ukraine. They won’t let go voluntarily.

By elmer on Nov 15, 2009

1. Tymoshenko has appeared in person on Shuster – she was prepared to face journalists for 3 hours.
2. Tyahnybok is not a good example as a supporter of battling corruption and supporting democracy. I do not know if it is true where he obtains his funding (Party of Regions, Kolomoysky?) but it is a fact that to be a candidate you need to spend (and definetly lose if you have only 1-2%) $300,000 deposit and spoend hundreds of thousands on billboards. Where has Tyahnybok received this funding?
3. Bohuslovska is a nut job – everybody in Ukraine thinks that. Which idiot is throwing half a million away by funding her? Pinchuk – who has been her protege since 2002?
4. Grytsenko has failed to make an impression on voters although he could have a higher vote than polls suggest. Ukrainians don;t take him as a serious candidate, even though they like him and his clean character.
5. Corruption – yes it is true that the elites are so inter-connected that it is difficult to see how they can be untangled and be criminally charged. This would never be done by parliament (a reason not to have a full parliamentary system) but only by a strong willed President. Forget Grytsenko or Tyahbybok as they both have only 1% each. The potential to fight corruption lies in the hands of Yanukovych or Tymoshenko as only one of them will be Ukraine’s President in 2010.
6. After reading the presidential election programmes I am struck at how cynical they are, how hypocritical, how intellectually weak and how stupid they must think voters are (they are cleverer than elites think).
7. The biggest question in the 2010 elections is why no third force, younger face managed to appear and receive popularity? Tyhipko and Grytsenko are not from the YOUNGER, NEW FACE generation! Why did Yatseniuk’s campaign so badly flop? He is seen as rather ridiculous by voters:
take a look at the front cover of Ukrayinsky Tyzhden than I just bought (http://www.ut.net.ua/) and see how he is portrayed on the satirical TV series for TRK krayina that was axed before it appeared (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7405B03B692B03D3).
I was at the Ukrayina cinema last night watching 2012 and before it came on there was a Yatseniuk ad with the other commercials. The packed cinema laughed and did not take it well that their cinema was interrupted by politics.

By Taras on Nov 15, 2009

Your 6th point really hit home – they really do count on the electorate being stupid.

But when you break it down, why would anyone in their right mind vote for Yanukovych, a 2-time crminal, corrupt to the hilt, and up to his neck in falsifying votes in the last presidential election in 2004?

During Savik’s show, there was a segment on energy and the military, where the facts and figures, and corruption, really came out.

They had a former military officer as a guest, and it was very telling, when Savik asked him what his impression was of the current lack of funding of the army – he stated that he did not want to criticize anyone in high office.

In other words, he still had the sovok mentality that someone in government is going to beat him over the head if he spoke his mind directly.

Contrast that with the attitude in Western democracies, where people truly feel that government official are servants, and not masters.

And if Ukrainians don’t take Hrytsenko as a serious candidate (I HATE the sovok habit of turning “h” into “g” because rooshans don’t have the letter “h” in their language), then what does that tell you about Ukrainians? Hrytsenko is analytical, concise, logical – and he has good credentials.

I don’t find Bohoslovska to be credible – but she makes some good points about corruption – she has joined the chorus. Rather odd that she gets funding from a hideously corrupt oligarch – Pinchuk, who appears to be spreading his slimy claws everywhere.

Tymoshenko did indeed appear on Savik’s show, where he had journalists lined up, and the thugs from the Party of Regions hogged the whole show.

But Tymoshenko does not always answer the question that’s been asked.

Interestingly enough, on the show that I linked to, Tymo was once again accused of robbing the country, with Lazarenko, through United Energy Systems. To which the BYuT representative responded that yes, indeed, she was a part of United Energy Systems, but he did not see how that amounted to stealing.

In the context of energy, there was discussion about the “sweet” old days, when Ukraine paid for gas with galoshes and other bartering schemes(that’s been covered in detail by Global Witness and others, in covering RosUkrEnergo and the history leading up to the current situation).

And a funny – Shufrych’s retort to Tyahnybok accusing the Party of Regions of corruption was “I’d like to remind you, Alex, that you and I played chess together in the Rada.”

That’s a rather bizarre comeback, but Shufrych is pretty much of a putrid punk, after all.

I hope that the corruption discussion continues, and that more specifics come out into the open.

Where has Tyahnybok received his funding? Where do any of the slimeballs in Ukraine receive their funding?

To me, that’s a loud call for election reform – limits on campaign contributions, and required reports of contributions and spending.

Yushchenko just called Tymoshenko a “hobo” (bomzh) because, despite her lavish oligarch lifestyle, she declared only her meager Prime Minister salary as her only income, and no assets.

But that applies to all of them – how does Yanykovych have Mezhirya, a huge 350 acre (149 hectares) estate?

It’s all done through dummy corporations, including foreign corporations in Austria and elsewhere, and lease deals.

I hope there is more Internet penetration in Ukraine, so that Ukrainian people can get more informed about these things.

By elmer on Nov 15, 2009

1. It is more complicated. The Ukrainian elites are neo-Soviet elites (including the arrogant Yatseniuk) and they look down on the narod while praising it and using it to name their parties. They do not realise that the narod (i.e. voters) is far more clever than they think and is not “lumpen” or “boloto” or “Kazly (as Yan called his orange opponents in 2004). The gulf remains between the narod and elites. One politician cuts through because of charisma (Tymoshenko) but is called a populist for this. But, this is like Bush who although from the aristocracy is still seen as “one of the boys” by middle America.
2. Grytsenko’s real spelling is GRYTSENKO. I have asked him. There is a g in Ukrainian and some names do have them. Similarly with BaloGA – Professor Magocsi (Chair of Ukrainian Studies, University of Toronto), told me that the G spelling is correct and is quite common in Trans-Carpathia because of Hungarian influences.
3. Even in the West no military officer would criticise his political superiors who are in charge of the military (democratic control of the armed forces). Colin Powell has never criticised Bush. In the West you resign and stay quite.
4. Tymoshenko does not always the questions being asked. Urrrhhh? How many Western politicians answer questions honestly? Give Tymoshenko credit for agreeing to go to a 3 hour grilling. Yanukovych and Yatseniuk would never do so.
5. Pinchuk funded 2 political projects of Bohuslovska’s: KOP (WInter Crop Generation) in 2002 and Viche in 2006. They both failed and she went in 2007 to Regions. She then left them and is now on an ego trip. somebody has to be funding her and Tihipko – maybe Pinchuk in both cases? The theory could be he is seeking to place either of them as head of Regions if Yan loses and is replaced as Regions leader. Tihipko would modernise the party. Bohuslovska would be a disaster.
6. Tymoshenko’s response on the bomzh accusation: http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2009/11/14/105294.htm
How did Yushchenko and first lady declare 1.5 million hryvnia income last year and only 35,000 hryvni in 2003. Of the 1.5 mn. only half a million is salary and a million is from business dividends. In 2004 Yushchenko said he would not permit officials to make money from business activities when they were state servants.

By Taras on Nov 15, 2009

- The Ukrainian officer was retired. Nobody was asking him to criticize a sitting head of state in Ukraine, or even a retired one – just to give his view on the situation.

It is quite common to see retired military personnel of very high rank on FoxNews and other channels commenting even on current Obuma (spelling intentional) “policy”.

Also, retired military personnel, such as Wesley Clark, who was tied in with Klinton, had no reservations about criticizing Bush. And Obuma is still obsessed with criticizing Bush.

- I give Tymoshenko credit for agreeing to a 3 hour grilling. I also recognize that she dodges some questions.

- As I said, the problem with Yushchenko’s “bomzh” accusation is that such a situation is not limited to Tymoshenko. Plus, Firtash gave Yushchenko’s family jet rides to Belgium. And Yushchenko’s support of Firtash and the corruption of RosUkrEnergo was absolutely reprehensible. Yanukovych is just rotten to the core – it stinks.

By elmer on Nov 15, 2009

- The Ukrainian officer was retired. Nobody was asking him to criticize a sitting head of state in Ukraine, or even a retired one – just to give his view on the situation.

It is quite common to see retired military personnel of very high rank on FoxNews and other channels commenting even on current Obuma (spelling intentional) “policy”.

Also, retired military personnel, such as Wesley Clark, who was tied in with Klinton, had no reservations about criticizing Bush. And Obuma is still obsessed with criticizing Bush.

- I give Tymoshenko credit for agreeing to a 3 hour grilling. I also recognize that she dodges some questions.

- As I said, the problem with Yushchenko’s “bomzh” accusation is that such a situation is not limited to Tymoshenko. Plus, Firtash gave Yushchenko’s family jet rides to Belgium. And Yushchenko’s support of Firtash and the corruption of RosUkrEnergo was absolutely reprehensible. Yanukovych is just rotten to the core – it stinks.

By elmer on Nov 15, 2009

Tymoshenko’s reply to the “hobo” situation – “I did not take any government ‘quarters’ (housing) as did Yanukovych, Azarov, etc., even though I had the right to do it.”

And – she was “surprised” to see a 19 hectare piece of property in Yushchenko’s declaration.

And then she “apologized” to journalists for using slang words.

Well, it’s very clever of her to go on the offensive.

Ukrainian Pravda has published Tymoshenko’s “quarters”, and those of her family, several times, and they are lavish.

But they don’t show up in her government declaration.

She’s got the same problem as all the other “political elite”, whether she took government housing or not – they are not honest about their wealth.

By elmer on Nov 15, 2009

Voloydmir: Obviously do not support democracy unless it supports your point of view.

Democracy is not about electing someone you agree with.

Democracy is based on rule of law and representative governance.

The presidential system a joke and is your support for minor candidates. Obviously you have no experience and or understanding of the electoral process.

The whole presidential election is a wast of limited resources. it will not resolve Ukraine’s problems. Sure replacing Yushchenko is a step forward. But it still depends on the skill and good will of one individual. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Personally I do not support any candidate for President But I do and will continue to support Ukraine’s parliamentary government and the democratic process. as long as the government maintains the support of the parliament I believe they have the right to govern.

I supported the previous government and also support the current government even though the previous government was unconstitutionally dismissed the fact is agreement was reached in holding elections. I am still of the belief that Yushchenko should have also faced the people of Ukraine back in 2007 or should have been impeached for his actions. They most certainly were not democratic.

As to Yulia I think she is doing remarkably well under the circumstances. The main obstacle is Yushchenko. His policies and actions are destructive. Replacing him is Ukraine primary objective right now. anyone but Yushchenko would be a potential improvement.

Again I must stress the presidential system has failed Ukraine and will most likely continue to do so.

Hopefully once this circus is over who ever is elected will engaged in meaningful consideration and debate about reform of Ukraine’s parliamentary system. I would certainly advocate a representative model of direct local representation. 40 to 50 electorates each retuning 9 members of parliament based on universal franchise and elected by a system of Single transferable vote – Proportional representation being the most democratic representative model and system available.

Contrary to your limited understanding=a preferential; ballot system is by far more efficient and democratic. Certainly much more so then the outdated 19th century first past the post plurality voting system advocated by Yushchenko. Canada recently debated this issue and preferential STV voting was widely supported. It would ideally be suited to Ukraine.

Single round with the same outcome.

The current election is estimated to cost Ukraine one billion dollars

In terms of the current presidential election the fact still remains it is not a contest.

There are only two candidates that will progress to the second round of voting. Instead of holding two round of voting Ukraine could achieve the same result with one round using a preferential voting system at half the cost.

Which is better the two round first past the post system at great expensive or a single round more democratic less expensive option?

Of course it will not guarantee the election a candidate of your choosing but it will reflect the opinion of a majority of Ukraine as would a parliamentary constitutional majority collegiate ballot.

By UkrToday on Nov 15, 2009

“1. It is more complicated. The Ukrainian elites are neo-Soviet elites (including the arrogant Yatseniuk) and they look down on the narod while praising it and using it to name their parties.”

Taras -

I agree. And here is another take on it.

What did the audience hear on the Savik Shuster show? “The members of the Party of Regions provide many jobs, ‘take care’ of many people (with their businesses).”

That’s not the first time that sort of idea has been used.

It is a threat – vote for Yanukovych and the Party of Regions – or you will lose your jobs.

But voting for crooks and thugs, whether they are oligarchs or not, is never a good idea.

I hope that the people can finally break out of it.

By elmer on Nov 15, 2009

That line is used by all conservative right wing organisations. It is not unique to Ukraine. Nor will it change the outcome of the election which is more or less decided.

There is no candidate at president other then Tymoshenko and Yanukovych that will even come close to surviving the first round. Yulia’s biggest mistake in government was dealing with Yushchenko . She should have stuck with Moroz and supported his appointment as Speaker. But it was always Yushchenko’s game plan to undermine the Tymoshenko leadership. Together they had the numbers in 2006 yest Yushchenko betrayed them.

On one hand it would be best of Tymoshenko could win the election at least there is a degree of check and balance ion a Tymoshenko election. Yanukovych will be tempted more so by power and I expect will soon abandon thought for democratic reform and the completion of a transition to a European system of parliamentary democracy.

By UkrToday on Nov 15, 2009

As i’ve stated before, you’ve been flooding forums and comment sections for years, not one supporter of your preferential systemn, doesn’t that jar anything loose up there? It should.

By Wolodymir on Nov 15, 2009

One man can make a difference. This is what I wrote comparing Ukraine and Georgia on battling corruption:

The President might seek to claim credit in assisting in battling corruption but the situation today is either as bad as in the Kuchma era or has not improved since 2004. There has been no systematic programme launched by the President that has sought to battle corruption and the Presidents support for RosUkrEnergo brought large amounts of corrupt money into the Presidential Secretariat, Presidents own family (i.e. Petro Yushchenko) and the Party of Regions. Corruption in the Prosecutor-General’s office, judiciary and Interior Ministry is out of control. Ukraine’s elites remain above and outside the law as Yushchenko has not supported convicting any high ranking officials for abuse of office. The German think tank on world-wide corruption, Transparency International, found that Ukraine improved its battle against corruption only in 2005 and 2006 but then stagnated rapidly from 2007 back to low levels. Ukraine’s catastrophic increase in corruption since 2007 is a product of the country’s lack of leadership, political crises and inter-elite conflict for which Yushchenko is primarily to blame. During the five years since the Rose Revolution in Georgia, President Mikheil Saakashvili has shown the political will that was absent from Yushchenko. Georgia has progressed in its battle against corruption each year since 2004 and this year only 5 countries in the European Union and European Free Trade Agreement have better records in fighting corruption levels than Georgia. You need political will to fight corruption and Yushchenko has none. In the 2008 Corruption Perception Index Ukraine has a ranking of 134 and Georgia that of 67 (http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2008/cpi2008/cpi_2008_table). The 2009 Global Corruption Barometer gives Ukraine a ranking of 4.3 (with 5 the worst figure and 1 the best). Meanwhile, Georgia receives a ranking of 3.1, which is better than the USA (3.7) or Canada (3.2) (http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/gcb/2009).

By Taras on Nov 16, 2009

And indeed, one of the points made by Tyahnybok, and others, on the Savik Shuster show was – the disastrous effects of corruption.

Examples – people getting run over and killed by “mazhory”, who either have immunity, or the money to buy judges and prosecutors, and escape any consequences.

And the way judges are appointed to their positions.

Grytsenko said quite clearly that when he was Defense Minister, everyone clearly knew that he did not take bribes in return for promotions in military ranks, and that he did not tolerate bribes as Defense Minister.

Even Poroshenko, when he appeared on Savik’s show the other day, drew the comparison between corruption in Ukraine and elsewhere – in Ukraine, there are no consequences.

In other countries, there are consequences – one of the examples he brought up, among others, was Berlusconi, in Italy, who is going through some prosecution now for his shenanigans.

By elmer on Nov 16, 2009

Who’s in charge of the Justice Ministry? Why hasn’t Lutsenko been fighting corruption like he’s supposed to? Who appoints the Justice Minister? Get Real!!!

By Wolodymir on Nov 16, 2009

The Justice Minister has always been Yushchenko’s man. The most important area Yushchenko has not reformed is the Prosecutor’s Office – he has had 2 Soviet dinosaurs in there, Piskun and Medvedko. You cannot expect anything from these 2 neandathals.
Lutsenko is a drunk with limited vision. He will never Europeanise the Interior Ministry into a European police force. He was Yushchenko’s choice in 2005 and 2007.
Since 2005 Yushchenko has insisted that his Our Ukraine receive 50% of government seats even though they received only 14% in the 2006 and 2007 elections compared to BYuT’s 23 and 31%. In 2005 with the government then under Yushchenko under the 1996 constitution and after both elections Yushchenko demanded as “his quoto” of Cabinet posts – Justice, Interior and others.

By Taras on Nov 16, 2009

Yushcenko’s man?? Lutsenko is Ukraines Top Cop and sits at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. Even after his drunken exhibition in Frankfurt, she refused to dismiss him. He has openly supported her for President, she needs his support and will cater to his support at the expense of fighting corruption, so please Taras, enough of the spin, tell it like it is for once.

By Wolodymir on Nov 16, 2009

Lutsenko was Yushchenko’s man in 2007 when he headed the OU-PSD (NUNS) bloc in the elections. He was proposed by YUSHCHENKO after the Tymoshenko government was formed under the Presidents quota in the government. Yushchenko insisted without any constitutional right to do so to have the Interior Minister.
Fast forward to autumn 2008-2009. The majority of senior NUNS deputies, including Lutsenko,Tarasiuk, Zhvannia, Stretovych, Kaskiv, etc., half of the faction, and most of the parties in NUNS, are no longer loyal to Yushchenko.
Today, Lutsenko is Tymoshenko’s man just as Tarasiuk is and he should have been forced to resign after the Frankfurt drunken brawl. But, the pro-European/Western Yushchenko initially in 2007 put Lutsenko in as a) head of his election bloc b) his Interior Minister.
So why don’t don’t you stop re-writing history and get off your anti-Tymoshenko high horse.

By Taras on Nov 17, 2009

Yushchenko put him there initially, Tymoshenko keeps him there. It seems the only way you can prop up Tymoshenko is by attacking her opponents in the Election. Too bad you can’t gather enough to actually write an article about her.

By Wolodymir on Nov 17, 2009

According to 2004 constitutional amendments that took effect after the 2006 parliamentary elections, the Interior Minister is now nominated by the Prime Minister and appointed by the Verkhovna Rada (parliament), without formal influence of the President.

By Wolodymir on Nov 17, 2009

Evolution not revolution. Ukraine needs to first build confidence and stability. Yushchenko has done neither. His policies have been destructive. (What can you expect from a presidential system).

Voldimire again as I have stated you obviously do not know how the preferential system works. It is effectively an exhaustive first-past-the-post system. If no one has an absolute majority of votes (50% or more) then the candidate with the least votes is excluded and their votes redistributed according to the voters next choice(preference). Voters who support minor candidates are not disenfranchised. One round not two.

But then it is also obvious you not only understand how the voting system works but you do also not support democratic values.

By UkrToday on Nov 17, 2009

What has any of this rubbish have to do with the discussion at hand? Like I posted before, years of this nonsense and you’ve yet to have one supporter? Tell you anything? Now, run along.

By Wolodymir on Nov 17, 2009

Constitutionally since 2006 the President controls only the Prosecutor, SBU, Military, Foreign Ministry, and National Security and Defence Council. Parliament controls other ministers.
But, this is Ukraine and there is the constitution and there is reality.
Yushchenko insisted after the 2006 and 2007 elections that he appoint the Justice and Interior Ministers as he as commander in chief control all “silovi struktury”. He had no legal right to do this and no moral right as OU received far fewer votes than BYuT and therefore should not demand 50% of government seats.
Lutsenko was re-appointed Interior Minister because he was Yushchenko’s choice in 2005 (under the 1996 constitution the President controls the government) and in 2007. In 2007 there was an added reason because he was head of YUSHCHENO’s election bloc.
Since summer 2008 Lutsenko and most other senior OU leaders are pro-Tymoshenko.

By Taras on Nov 18, 2009

Tymoshenko now has the authority to dismiss Lutsenko, why didn’t she? Yes this is Ukraine, the reality of the situation is that Tymoshenko needs Lutsenko’s support, one hand washes the other. She’s willing to overlook his drunken fiasco to keep his support.

By Wolodymir on Nov 18, 2009

Wolodymir – let’s say that Dr. Kuzio is a raving Tymo fanatic, which he’s not – I think he knows the political landscape in Ukraine very, very well.

Let’s say that Dr. Kuzio is a paid shill for Tymoshenko, which he’s not.

For the moment, let’s put that all aside.

Who would you say is the best candidate for president out of the 18?

Or even who are the best 4?

At one time, I thought Yushchenko was a heaven-sent angel, sent to Ukraine to make things right – he broke my heart, and I think he broke the heart of Ukraine. It turns out that he talked like his heart was in the right place, he had the people in the palm of his hand, but when push came to shove – he wasted the Orange Revolution big time. He did some good things for Ukraine, but …..

Forget about Yanukovych – he is just a crooked thug and not very bright. Forget about Protyvsikh, he’s a travesty and a sick joke, forget about Boohoohooslovska, I don’t trust her. Forget about Vitrenko (well, she wasn’t able to pay the $300,000 registration fee anyway), she’s just a sick sovok witch. Tihipko is just another oligarch. Suprun is just a windbag full of platitudes – she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Yatseniuk is a bright young guy, but why on earth did he have to get tied up with snakes like Pinchuk and Firtash, and you need more than just a bright guy for President, especially in a snake-infested pit like Ukraine.

For my money, the best 3 are Hrytsenko, Tyahnybok, Tymoshenko, and not necessarily in that order.

Wolodymir – Tymo is no angel. But none of them are, they’re not saints, they’re not even decent people. None of them. Well, I trust Hrytsenko when he says he did not take bribes.

So – who are your best 4?

And what would you expect them to accomplish as President?

By elmer on Nov 18, 2009

The president has too much power and Yushchenko has demonstrated time and time again how it is open to misuse and abuse.

The Presidential system has failed Ukraine. Yushchenko’s greatest achievements is in his failure as it has demonstrated the futility of the presidential system. The Constitutional amendments to Ukraine’s constitution were a step in the right direction, and much better then the proposal put forward by Yushchenko. Ask yourself would you support absolute power in the hands of Yanukvoych?

The main problem Ukraine faces was when it first declared independence it failed to adopt a European parliamentary model of governance. All other Former soviet states did. As a result they have prospered and Ukraine and faltered. The last five years have acheivied very little. Yushchenko has set back Ukraine 5 to 10 years. In 2006 The orange coalition had teh opportunity to make changes., Yushenko and his party refused to unite and support the formation of an orange coalition. In fact Yushchenko has worked against Ukraine. He could not work with one group. Yulia’s biggest mistake was trusting Yushchenko as long as she did. She was suffering battered wife syndrome.

As I have stated before there is no contest in the first round of voting. The distance between second and third place is over 10%. Ukraine should be able to make and vote once in one round of voting. In the end it is Tymoshenko or Yanukovych. baring a miracle, unexpected resignation or assignation (God forbid) The outcome of the election will not change.

Once in power we can expect the newly elected head of state will seek more power. Hoi0pefully Yushchenko’s recommendations will never see the light of day and democracy prevails.

By UkrToday on Nov 18, 2009

Volodymir try making a solid argument in debate. You have not made and valid comments or criticism to back up your position or alternatives. If in fact you have one. Do you support wasting millions of dollars on a flawed electoral system? What is your opposition to Ukrainians deciding the outcome of then election in a single round?> Surely giving people the right to cast a vote with the right of alternatives is something that should be supported. You do believe in democracy do you not. Or do you believe Ukraine should be denied the same democratic rights as other nations?

By UkrToday on Nov 19, 2009

Elmer, my personal choice for president makes no difference to the argument.
Mr. Kuzio seems obsessed with anyone running against Tymoshenko. I would have more respect for him as an academic if he actually sat down and wrote a piece outlining whats good about Tymoshenko and why she would make a good Ukrainian leader, however, that seems to escape Mr. Kuzio. (I can only surmise he can’t find enough good about her that would stand up to scrutiny, to fill 4 or 5 paragraphs). Put it simply, if you can’t write anything good about the candidate you support, write negative attack articles against those running against her and hope it makes her look that much the better. If you’re going to support a candidate be man enough to admit it and go for it. Throwing mud at the competition and spinning the facts to make your candidate look better really isn’t what a true academic should be doing.

By Wolodymir on Nov 19, 2009

Volodymir is quick to criticize others but slow in proving a reply to criticism. He has already stated that he does not believe democracy is for Ukraine but has failed to outline exactly what he wants in its place. Try making some constructive input and argu8mnet in support of your case.

By UkrToday on Nov 19, 2009

Wolodymir – put aside all of the supposed bias of Dr. Kuzio. Let’s just assume that Dr. Kuzio does not exist. I understand what you are saying about Dr. Kuzio, I understand you don’t like what he says, but let’s just put it aside for the time being.

Who are your top 3 or 4, or at least, what is your evaluation of each of the candidates?

Voters in Ukraine will have to deal with what’s before them on election day.

To me, it’s not a pretty picture, not only because of the candidates, but also because virtually every one of the candidates is painting the powers of the presidential office as something other than what they are. I’ve also given you my thoughts on the candidates.

Corruption, more than ever, is out in the open. Distrust of government, more than ever, is out in the open. It’s a pretty sick joke when a candidate changes his name to “Against All.” Plus, “the system,” which the “Nedotorkani” satirized so seriously, has no adequate checks and balances, no adequate division of responsibilities and powers.

So – I’m interested in your thoughts.

By elmer on Nov 19, 2009

Doesn’t matter who I prefer, I’m not here to promote a candidate(s) Mr. Kuzio has a responsibility as an academic to give an unbiased view. I’d hardly call his slanted articles unbiased. Man up and admit who your supporting, it’ll go alot further to cast your candidate in a better light.

By Wolodymir on Nov 19, 2009

Well, Wolodymir, it obviously does matter, because you are posting here to vociferously attack Dr. Kuzio. Obviously, you think that he has a lot of influence via this blog and his articles.

You are attributing some power to him, as a Professor in Canada and the US, over elections in Ukraine. And you obviously have a candidate in mind different Tymo, which is why you are screaming about Dr. Kuzio being biased and having a “responsibility” to provide unbiased views as an academic.

My suggestion to you is this – what is constructive about ripping into Dr. Kuzio? Why don’t you put forth your positive alternatives, in a constructive way?

I am not criticizing you, Wolodymir. What I am suggesting is that you should engage in a constructive discussion, which I have asked you to do.

Ukraine will never find a solution to its current problems if the only thing that people do is to say that “someone else is wrong.”

If “someone else is wrong,” that does not give me a proper alternative.

So I am asking you to put forth your constructive, positive alternatives – it matters, Wolodymir.

Especially because Ukraine has a very, very difficult task – transforming itself, first, from a command and control sovok government to a pseudo-democracy (oligarchy), and next to a true democracy from a country run by a crappy “political elite.”

So, it matters, Wolodymir. It matters a lot.

I hope that I can see your constructive thoughts and discussion. It’s important.

By elmer on Nov 19, 2009

Volodymyr,

I challenge you to list my “unbiased” articles. If you can’t shut up and get off your high horse.

By Taras on Nov 20, 2009

Elmer, your own words: “Ukraine will never find a solution to its current problems if the only thing that people do is to say that “someone else is wrong.”

If “someone else is wrong,” that does not give me a proper alternative.”

You should be directing these words to Mr. Kuzio, who’s every article is about whats wrong with someone else, havn’t seen one constructive article from him yet.

Yes, Mr. Kuzio does carry influence on the elections, he’s featured in the Kyiv Post, Jamestown foundation, The Eurasian Daily Monitor, and as recently as last week appeared on ICTV Svoboda Slovo television broadcast in Ukraine, who are you kidding?

I’ll give you my thoughts, Ukraine will remain in its current state until pro russian influence is removed from its political agenda, until there is lustration to cleanse the system, nothing will change. The country will remain a corrupt slave nation lacking in national identity and spirit. Those who stand for a true, free and independent Ukraine are quickly labeled as “Fascists” and right wing lunatics. So be it, but we’ve all seen what the alternative has gotten them, infighting, tug of wars twixt east and west, Soviet era corruption and a 3rd world mentality. Been in a Ukrainian hospital lately? Try the main hospital in Lviv, with the floors being washed with dirty rags and mold growing on the walls, half working medical equipment from the 70’s. Its no wonder so many are being infected and dyiing of the flu. The answer, bash everyone but your candidate, and flood the forums and blogs with preferential voting nonsense, thats the answer I guess. Sorry, not for me, and hopefully not for Ukraine.

By Wolodymir on Nov 20, 2009

Wolodymir – you know what? I agree with what you say. And thanks for sharing your views.

Well, except that the tug twixt east and west was the “Ukrainian third way,” by which Ukraine/Kuchma extorted money from east and west, and which enabled commies to go wild and enrich themselves into oligarchs.

(Side note – do you really think that Dr. Kuzio has that much power and influence over elections in Ukraine?)

Lustration simply means removing people from office. Originally, it applied to commies. But you are right – it does no good if the system itself is faulty.

Proof – what have the “political elite” been doing, other than robbing and pillaging Ukraine, that leads to a “free” health care system like the one you describe in Lviv?

Or unreliable hot water supplies? Or lousy roads? Or no garbage pick-up? The list goes on.

“If men were angels, there would be no need for government” – those are not my words, someone said that a long time ago. It’s just as true today.

And obviously, the system of government has to keep people in check. Otherwise, you get Ukraine, and the pig oligarchs feeding at the government trough like swine.

The best description that I have heard about Ukrainian politics/government is that it’s a kaleidescope – the pattern may change, but the “pieces” remain the same.

And the system is set up to support only oligarchs. There are 2 countries in Ukraine, which share the same territory – one for oligarchs, and one for everyone else.

The candidates, and their supporters and detractors, will obviously continue to bash each other.

One solution is to eliminate the “party list” system, and have voting for Parliament on a district level, where voters elect only one person to represent them in Parliament, and that person answers to the voters, not to oligarchs.

In the meantime, there is this problem of a presidential election in Ukraine.

And who is going to be the best candidate to address the problems in Ukraine, which you described.

I think that blogs like Dr. Kuzio’s, and blogs and forums all over Ukraine, are an excellent opportunity to discuss that.

After all, the Orange Revolution got its big impetus from maidan.org.ua.

And from web sites like Pora.

Obviously, Yanuk, and most of the other list, aren’t going to reform the system at all. Yanuk’s Mezhihirya depends on it.

Tymo? Maybe.

We’ve already talked about Yushchenko.

Tyahnybok and Hrytsenko seem to me to be the ones who will take actual steps to reform the system.

What do you think?

By elmer on Nov 20, 2009

One more thing, Wolodymir – if you know the history of Ireland, you know that it is similar to that of Ukraine, in a general sense, but even more tragic. Assorted Irish “kings” fighting amongst each other, to the point where they invited the Scots, the Vikings, the Spanish to rule over them.

England finally did – and here’s what it caused, in the 18th century.

“They had enslaved the bulk of the Catholic Irish for the enrichment of their Protestant superiors, and they had also, less intentionally, encouraged in the Irish the characteristics of slaves: idleness, mendacity, a protective foolishness, and, and a light, smiling gaiety that masked a sense of wrong.”

A History of Ireland, by Peter and Fiona Somerset Fry, page 177.

Of course, today Ireland is a far different country.

By elmer on Nov 20, 2009

elmer: There are only two serious candidates in this parade of clowns. Sure some of the minor candidates are of interest (And there are those that did not nominate who would make a good head of state) BUT you would be wasting your vote supporting a minor candidate. *This is the main flaw of the first-past-the post voting system. If your chosen candidate is not in the top two your out. You have no say in who should represent you) There are only two candidates nothing has changed since the beginning of the year to change this fact. Your beloved Yushchenko is a spent force of destruction OUR Ukraine has four candidates all fighting for a lick of the same bone. Our Ukraine would have to be one of the most ill considered political forces on the planet the main cause for the collapse of the orange revolution. I doubt very much they will remain in existence once Yushchenko is out of office. Like rats on a sinking ship, A ship they sunk, they will soon try and jump ship.

By UkrToday on Nov 20, 2009

Volodymir is a troll. He does not answer questions or make any substantial argument to back up his point of view. When someone does not support his opinion he claims that that they are bias, a paid operative or member of the KGB/Russian mafia. LOL As if the only reason they hold a particular point of view is because they are paid to hold such, Tell us volod are you a paid to pump out such ill informed statements? Your not Ukrainian (You do not have a vote as you have said.. So exactly what is your interest. Its not to promote democratic values as you have already stated that you do not believe Ukraine can decide unless they agree with your chosen candidate.

By UkrToday on Nov 20, 2009

UkrToday, Anthony Devries Van Der Craats, wannabe Australian blogger. I don’t respond to incompetant idiots like you. All you know how to do is post the same garbage on every blog and forum you can find, over and over and over. Thats why you’ve been banned and kicked out of just about every blog and forum you’ve come in contact with. I owe you absolutely no response, you arent worthy of one. You know what you can do. Now, stop harassing me.

By Wolodymir on Nov 20, 2009

elmer,I am in agreement with you , Tiahnybok is a good choice, he is one of the few candidates who seems to actually give a hoot about Ukraine as a nation, and has some very good ideas about how to get it on course. I’ve read his election program and like what ive read. The only problem is, he is labeled as a fascist by those who wish to see Ukraine under the Kremlins thumb. Sorry to say, but Ukraine has a long way to go before it will become truely independent, self serving nation.

By Wolodymir on Nov 20, 2009

Look, Craats, Yushchenko was not the only cause, or the main cause, for the failure to implement what was promised in the Orange Revolution.

Tymo is a fiercely, obsessively self-centered competitor, and she did her share in biting back at Yushchenko in their cat fight. Behind both of them were their own set of oligarchs.

And the Party of Regions did their part in trying to undermine the Orange Revolution as well.

A huge part of the problem is, like Nestor Shufrych, putrid punk, said on the Savik Shuster show – “money is government, and government is money.”

There are no limits on campaign contributions – so a candidate has to be wealthy, or has to find wealthy supporters. Campaign reporting of contributions and expenses, so that the public knows who’s behind each candidate? Try to find it.

They find out anyway, but it’s not a transparent process.

And Ukrainian oligarchs and rooshan oligarchs are still joined at the hip, and every other body part there is.

And Ukrainian oligarchs, who have a stranglehold on government, don’t give a hoot about Ukraine or its people.

One can’t blame absolutely everything on Yushchenko. Or on Tymoshenko. Or even on Yanukovych.

By elmer on Nov 21, 2009

Elmer fudd your living a life of self deception Yushchenko was and is the main problem facing Ukraine he was the main cause for the collapse of the orange coalition. In 2006 BYuT, OU and the SPU had a majority won the majority of the parliament. Yushchenko and his team refused to form a governing coalition. Instead they tried to play off each side negotiating with party of regions. The negotiations stretched out for months to the Point where Ukraine was about to face another constitutional crisis, one of Yushchenko’s making. Yushchenko at first tried to oust Yulia Tymoshyenko from being appointed Prime Minsiter tehn he went after Moroz and tried to have him replaced by Porshenko. maybe your were not arroudn you your failed to notice the numerous public spats between Y^u8kia and Yushchenko that were splashed out across the front pages of the media. If your in denial and which to continue your abuse I can republished them. Yushchenkos was and is the most destructive force in Ukraine today. his policies and actions have set back Ukraine decades. De betrayed all those around him. Disunity is a sure fire sign of defeat. To be honest Yulia gave him far more chances then he deserved.

in 2007 his dissmissle of Ukraine’s parliament was unconstitutional and illegal. His interference in the independence of Ukraine’s constitutional Court was a direct denial of democratic values and the law of Ukraine. he should have been impeached for that alone.

I am in two minds about Yulia. her main fault appears to have been giving Yushcghenko too many second chances. Chances he does not and did not deserve.

There is nothing I can recall that Yushenko has done except undermine Ukraine economic and democratic development at every step.

You can continue to live in a fantasy of denial of facts and the truth.

The sooner Yushenko is replaced the better.

But as I have said before I do not hold much faith in the presidential system, It has and will continue to fail Ukraine. have you read Yushchenko’s constitutional proposed reforms? the another clear example as to why Yushchenko should not be re-elected top a second term of office. if implemented Ukraine would no longer be a democratic state. Ukraine’s future lies in its ability to complete the transition for soviet style presidential autocracy to European parliamentary democracy.

By UkrToday on Nov 22, 2009

Vladymir (Not your real name obviously) Won’t or can’t… Your still have not explained why Ukraine should have to go to the polls twice to elect a new head of state when it can achieve the same result in one ballot. I guess you have no valid argument in support of your ill-considered position. In the same way as your attacks on Taras Kuzio are unfounded.

By UkrToday on Nov 22, 2009

Rather interesting – Boohooslovska and Tihipko both claim that they have “no connection” with the Party of Regions.

Tihipko appeared on Inter the other day (on the “Big Politics” show) – it was, in effect, the “Tihipko Show.” One female journalist started blubbering, in rooshan, how “macho” he is. To which Tihipko replied “thank you for macho.”

Both of them were tied in up to their necks with the Party of Regions.

Now, Tihipko is claiming that he is “independent,” and that Ukraine needs “new faces.”

It is amazing what the sovok system created – snakes like these, schizoid to boot, who have no trouble lying through their teeth, who believe that whatever lie they spew is actuality, and who are very good actors – they don’t blink an eye when they are lying.

Or to use the Ukrainian phrase (transliterated, because the Cyrillic characters don’t appear for some reason) – “breshe yahk sobaka.”

By elmer on Nov 22, 2009

54 Days and counting

With less then eight weeks left before the next presidential election little has changed in terms of expected results.

Ukraine’s embattled President, Viktor Yushchenko, will launch his bid for a second term today, a bid that will surely fail. Whilst the first set of official opinion polls are yet to be published there is little change expected in the overall outcome.

The two highest polling candidates remain Viktor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko. Yasteniuk comes in a distant third – 10 percentage pointed behind Yulia Tymoshenko with the rest of the flotilla lagging even further behind. With little prospect of any significant change occurring in the next 8 weeks.

Yushchenko’s party Our Ukraine is floating four candidates in this election with each candidate competing against each other dividing their share of the overall vote.

With Yushchenko expected to lose outright in the first round his Party Our Ukraine will soon after dissolve and split into two with one section seeking sanction and support from Yulia Tymochenko and the remnants hoping to be taken under Yanukovych’s wing. This in itself will cause some concern as to the constitutionality of a parliamentary faction that is no longer a united. Withy the demise of Our Ukraine will come the consolidation of the two main factions. A number of commentators expect that Our Ukraine supporters will transfer there support to Yulia Tymosehnko and give cause for a possible close finish in the final round.

The odds are still in Yanukovychs favor. But his support rating does not appear to be rising as fast as one would expect.

The period between now and December 21st will be crucial. Candidates have until December 21 to decide if they will see the election out. If they pull out before then they have a chance of getting their deposit back, if not 16 will sure enough lose 2.5 Million hrivinias.

In a rather cynical and blatant statement Sergei Tigipko has suggested that he might trade his support for a spot on the parliamentary front bench and he has pitched to both Yanukovych and Tymoshenko his bid to become Prime Minister. I guess it is similar to the US primaries where the various players seek to secure a favorable position in turn for delivering what could be a decisive and significant number of voters.

One commentator has suggested he might receive up to seven percent of the vote. This assessment is a bit high and the seven percent would have to come from somewhere. One poll had him level pegging Yushchenko on around 3.5%. Certainly not in a winning position. Tigipko’s support is unlikely to increase much beyond that level.

Those supporters who are disappointed at Yushchenko’s standing in the polls have suggested that Ukraine might vote for the stooge candidate Vasyl Protyvsikh. This is laughable as a vote for Portyvish will only entrench the positions held by Tymoshenko and Yanukovych. A vote for Protyvish would be a wasted vote, they would be better off not voting at all.

By UkrToday on Nov 23, 2009

Yatseniuk is am member of Our Ukraine alliance and yet he is now claiming he is not only independent but also a NGO. (LOL as if he is in the same league as the Red Cross)

Yushchenko also is claiming he is independent following his party’s decision not to support any candidate when in fact four of their members are running against Yushchenko.

The only good thing to come from the presidential elections is the ousting of Yushchenko. Irrespective of who wins Ukraine without Yushchenko will be better off. Ukraine will have a real chance for political stability and hopefully effective reform.

Yulia’s biggest mistake was giving Yushchenko as many chances as she did. It was back in 2006 that Yushchenko really showed his true undemocratic colors. It was pretty obvious back in 2006 When Yulia had to go public to try and get Our Ukraine to agree to the formation of a orange governing coalition. Our Ukraine and Yushchenko betrayed those who supported Yushchenko’s election in 2004.

Yushchenko’s legacy of betrayal will linger on in the history books for decades to come. He makes Kuchma look like a statesman.

By UkrToday on Nov 23, 2009

I see the comment section here has gone the way of Kyiv Post, obsessive flooding by UkrToday, Anthony Van Der Craats, the wanna be Australian blogger. You had a good thing going here Mr. Kuzio, its now become a dumping ground for UkrToday. Too bad.

By Wolodymir on Nov 23, 2009

You may be right. I took my eye of this too long. I will keep an eye on it from now. Thanks.

By Taras on Nov 23, 2009

Volodimir (Not his real name) is just trying to intimidate and remove open discussion on relevant topics. It is a form of censorship and attempt to silence their critics they have applied before in other forums.

By UkrToday on Nov 24, 2009

There is no need to post the same nonsense over and over, once is sufficient. Just have a look at what you’ve done at Kyiv Post.

By Wolodymir on Nov 24, 2009

Volodymir your attempts to stiffle political debate never cease to amaze just have a look at your own comments attacking Kyiv Post and Taras Kuzio on the so called Ukraine English News forum. A forum where only pro Yushchenko supporters are welcomed.

Each article stands alone and many issue need to be stated time and time again. It is obvious that you do not understand many of the issues (Your failure to outline any argument in opposition to a single round ballot preferential ballot, preferring instead to waste limited time and resources without justification the two round first past the post ballot) You attempts at intimmidations and abuse are testaments to this fact. Your agenda is to silence your critics and those who speak out against Yushchenko and his betrayal of Ukraine and democracy itself.

Many statements published in the media need to be put in context with facts and restated Yushchenko has lied time and time again and continues to lie. He has betrayed Ukraine and democratic principle of rule of law and those who supported his election. In all the disputes he has had with Yulia Tymoshenko dating as far back as 2005 Yushchenko has been at fault. He has caused more problems then he is worth. Much, if not all, of the disputes and political crisis over the last five years relate to the ongoing abuse of presidential authority.

We do not see any outside political leaders coming to the aid or defense of Ukraine’s embatteld President. He has lost support of the international community. Eben US president Obama will not meet with him. The European community is also very much aware of his role in undermining stability in Ukraine. 2007 and seven months of civil and political unrest was bad enough. But Yushchenko’s consent attempts to prevent constitutional reform that the transition to a parliamentary system of governance has won no favour or support. Europe will be glad to see the end of Yushchenko’s term of office. He should have faced the people in early presidential elections back in 2007.

As much as you would like to deny the facts Yushchenko and his party Our Ukraine was the cause for the collapse of the Orange revolution and the the alliance. In spite your effort of denial Yushchenko’s support rating at 3% is a refection of of the loss of respect he has within Ukraine.

By UkrToday on Nov 24, 2009

Re Yushchenko’s bid for re-lection.

Yushchenko’s statements and reports in the media have demonstrated why he should not and will not be re-elected to a second term.

Yushchenko’s demands that the parliament must adopt his proposed constitutional reforms or face dismissal shows a complete lack of understanding of Ukraine’s laws and democratic values. Yushchenko attempts to force a referendum to impose constitutional change would be rejected by the courts as it breaches Ukraine’s constitutional order.

This is not the first time Yushchenko has acted to usurp power unconstitutionally by seeking to impose his will over Ukraine’s democratically elected parliamentary representatives.

Ukraine’s constitution cannot be amended by a simple majority voting at a referendum. It can only be amended with the support of two thirds of Ukraine’s parliament. Any proposal to try and force constitutional reform will be rejected by the Courts and the international community throwing Ukraine back into ongoing civil conflict

Yushchenko’s rhetoric is just that. Even if his attempts to turn the clock back and reinstate a presidential autocracy were presented to a referendum without wide support it would fail. His proposed reforms are undemocratic and unrepresentative.

Under Yushchenko’s model the President would hold absolute control and power over all arms of government including the executive, the judiciary and the parliament. Ukraine would no longer be a democratic state with proper checks and balances but subject to arbitrary will of the president.

By UkrToday on Nov 24, 2009

See what I mean?

By Wolodymir on Nov 24, 2009

http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2009/11/24/105840.htm

I rest my case. The head of Yushchenko’s election campaign – Ihor Tarasiuk – who is a civil servant – drives a Porsche Panamera that only began to be produced in mid 2009. See the photo here.

They cost around $120,000.
See:
http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/panamera/

Tarasiuk did not have even the decense to hide the fact he drives this by coming in it to the Orange Revolution anniversary where Yushchenko re-launched his campaign.

By Taras on Nov 25, 2009

Whoa, there, Taras! The headline of the article is “Yushchenko conducted psychotherapy for his supporters”

It was a gathering for his political speech, and they handed out “talking points” for his campaign.

Tarasiuk did drive up in a very expensive car – he was “hoping no one would notice” – but, in typical Ukrainian fashion, he claimed it “was not his,” and a “friend lent it to him to get the feel of it.”

Sort of reminds one of Hanna Herman, when she did not know who owned the SUV in which she was being chauffered.

Ukrainians are truly psychotically sick people – the sovok system created people who lie, steal, cheat, rob, and pillage, and then say nice words about it – all without batting an eyelash.

That’s why I was truly heartened by the recent (thankfully) short episode on the Savik Shuster show, only 45 minutes, instead of the usual 3 plus hours, hosted by sit-in Mustafa Nayem, discussing “Maidan – 5 years after”.

http://shuster.kanalukraina.tv/video/3375_do_vstrechi_na_maidane?/

There was a collection of younger people, who do not appear to have been influenced by the sovok system. Oh, sure, Moroz was there – and he actually made a good point, in agreement with the general consensus – that “Maidan,” or the Orange Revolution, was not the property of any politician or political party, but it truly was the people’s outpouring of demands towards the government, a call for reform.

Chervonenko, one of the old sovoks, sat there with a tight face – he, of course, was part of the “anti-Orange” clans, and had to sit there and take it all – he did not say much.

There was some talk about freedom of the press, etc – and then they ran out of time, because they had meandered around too much.

But – a bonus! Lydia, the fantastic looking blonde who used to do newscasts for Channel 5, was there! What a babe! I was wondering where she had gone, and there she was! She used to do newscasts with a fantastic-looking brunette!

Anyway, it looks like the younger people are beginning to break through and break free of the wretched sovok mentality.

Well, except the ones who are rewarded with Porsches for continuing and supporting the same old sick Ukrainian government/political system.

By elmer on Nov 25, 2009

Oh, I forgot – Baba Paraska was on as a guest! Good for her. She sure is feisty, and while she was talking, others tried to cut her off, and she told them not to interrupt her!

Problem – the attitude in Ukraine as far as government is concerned is that citizens like Baba Paraska should sit down, shut up and listen, and be seen and not heard.

True, she did babble on a bit about her own personal woes – but that Ukrainian attitude about citizens needs to change.

By elmer on Nov 25, 2009

Tarasiuk’s car? How about Tymoshenko’s millions? How about Yanukovichs millions? How about Yatseniuks Millions?, How about Putins Millions? How about Bush and Obamas millions? Oh, sorry I forgot, Tymoshenko doesnt really have an income. All her wealth fell down on her from above one day. Bring back Lazarenko!!

By Wolodymir on Nov 25, 2009

Her mama, Ukraine Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko – also known as Ukraine’s “gas princess” due to her multi-billion dollar personal fortune gained from 1997-2001 near to the pinnacle of power and influence in Ukraine – has repeatedly claimed that her fortune has since been lost. Now we discover from a “deep insider” – Sean Carr, who has no better sense than to speak the obvious facts that he sees in front of him regarding Evgenia’s luxurious lifestyle in the most expensive city in world, London – that his obviously spoiled and pampered dyevushka is loaded with money. The Australian online newspaper (among others) describes her as heiress to a multi-billion pound fortune from – her mama. (1 pound equals approximately 1.8 US dollars.) That makes Evgenia a very, very rich girl.

How? Why? How many Ukrainians have had to go hungry, or worse, to afford her lifestyle in London, jet-setting to Egyptian bars (probably among many others), even affording her the flippant luxury of a husband too foolish to know when to keep his mouth shut and not reveal Evgenia’s luxuries?

Where did that money come from? It came from her mama, and so in turn came from the wealth of Ukraine, and so in turn came from the pockets and lives of ordinary Ukrainians.

By Wolodymir on Nov 25, 2009

Wolodymir -

Bush (I guess you are talking about Bush 43, the son, and not Bush 41, the father – the numbers stand for 43rd and 41st presidents of the US) did not acquire his wealth in the same way as Tymo, Yanuk, Yatseniuk or Putler.

Obama did not come from wealth, and does not have millions.

Tymo’s wealth came from Ukraine, as did that of the others, because the nomenklatura, having learned to operate beyond any accountability to people, and beyond the public view and examination of anyone, went wild with crooked privatization, etc.

Much to the detriment of Ukraine and the rest of the people who were not sovok nomenklatura-turned-oligarchs.

Sad and sick.

Now they are all pretending that they are going to “make things right” via their ads on the big billboards.

By elmer on Nov 25, 2009

Obama’s personal wealth soared in the past decade. His annual household income fluctuated in the range of about $250,000 during the first half of this decade, before his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004 and MILLIONS in book royalties and advances that started rolling in during 2005.

Why single out one candidate? Is Yuschenko the only wealthy candidate in Ukraine? We all know for a fact he isn’t. I can think of a few more dubious millionaire/billionaire candidates in Ukraine than Yuschenko.

By Wolodymir on Nov 25, 2009

Wolodymir – yes, he received royalty income of between 2 to 7 million.

BUT – that income is taxed.

He made the money from selling his stupid books. I don’t know why you are trying to bring him into the mix in Ukraine.

By elmer on Nov 25, 2009

On second thought, let me re-phrase the whole thing.

Obama had to report his income and assets to the Federal Election Commission as a presidential candidate. A false statement on the report carries criminal penalties. The other presidential candidates also had to do the same.

What about Ukraine?????????

By elmer on Nov 25, 2009

I for one absolutely believe Yulias income declaration. She’s just another Ukrainian peasant girl running for president. Is Ukraine the only country on earth to have millionaires running for office? Obama doesn’t have a good accountant to “cook his books”? Why single out one candidates campaign manager? Whats the point here? You tell me.

By Wolodymir on Nov 25, 2009

Latest opinion poll by Research and branding indicate once agian that there is no competition. Yanukovch and Tysmoehnko will be progress to the second round. Yatseniuk’s vote has collapsed (now on 6.1%) Tigipko (4.4%) is one percentage point above Yushchenko (3.5%)

Under Ukraine’s flawed first-past-the-post voting system only the two highest polling candidates progress to the second round of voting. Yushchenko still remains the biggest loser stuck on 3.5% Lytvyn is holding ground doubling his last months rating. Yatseniuk is dropping by the week but still remains in third place ten percentage points below Tymoshenko.

On a two candidate preferred basis Yanukovych is on 47.4% to Tymoshenko 28.1% – adjusted for the expected turn out (87%) Yanukovych wins over 50% of the vote

Both Elmer and Volodimir (Not his real name) is in denial of basic facts.

As much as I would like to see Yulia Tymoshenko rebound I can not see this happening with less the 50 days to go

Yushchenko and the reminanets of his party are trying to claim that the election is rigged, as if 3.5% could win. Its quite laughable if it was not so serious.

In spite Yushchenko efforts to undermine Ukraine democratic development democracy is alive and well in Ukraine. The people will be given a chance to elect a new head of state. It will hopefully put and end to the division, and instability created by Yushchenko.

At an estimated cost of over one billion dollars the whole election is a sad joke. Ukraine would have been much better off had a constitutional majority of the parliament elected Ukraine’s head of state.

Any attempt to derail the election at this late stage would throw Ukraine into a civil cobnflict. Something that I would hope that not even Elmer and Volodymir would support.

By UkrToday on Nov 27, 2009

UkrToday (not his real name), has already decided the outcome of the race based on polls. Everyone in Ukraine and elsewhere for that matter, except UkrToday, remembers what the polls said in 2004. Ukrainian polls are bought and paid for, you’re only fooling yourself, thank God there are still elections, which ultimately prove the polls wrong.

By Wolodymir on Nov 27, 2009

Volodymyr (not his real name) the 2004 election was always predicted to be close. The first round voting was close. This is not the case this time round. Our Ukraine have four candidates competing against each other and the gap between second and third place is 10%. Other candidates even further behind. Look at it as a horse race. Favorites out front nags behind. Unless there are last minute scratchings I would not be putting any money on a horse that was not favorite at this stage.

God has nothing to do with elections that is a man made concept. but if it gets you though the night…

Tell us who do you think is in a winning position and what is the basis of your analysis and assessment? You do have a valid alternative opinion don’t you? Clearly you have more insight into the electoral process then the professionals. Or are you just delusional and disappointed that you supported candidate is losing?

By UkrToday on Nov 30, 2009

Viktor Baloha has a good article published on zik.com.ua

Wolf-crying about likely vote rigging presidential candidates try to justify their future defeat

Various statements by marginal presidential candidates about the likely electoral fraud are aimed to create a background for their post-election information campaigns and lawsuits, the leader of the Yedyny Tsentr Viktor Baloha said Nov. 24.

Alarming declarations about the likely vote rigging directly point to organizational weaknesses of some candidates as the law allows for reliable barriers against any electoral fraud. For instance, any presidential candidate can send his 2 representatives to sit on local and regional electoral commissions, appoint observers to keep an eye on voting and counting of ballots. Proxies of candidates who have wide authority can also supervise the course of the voting.

“These representative must have absolute trust of their patron. Everything depends on the correct choice of a candidate and professional level of his team,” Baloha summed up.

Other effective barriers to electoral fraud are the Central Election Commission [whose members are appointed by major parliamentary parties on a quota principle] and numerous international observers. Mass media and NGOs, notably, the Committee of Voters of Ukraine, will also be effective in helping to curb fraud. Of great importance for establishing the final tally are also exit polls run by respected polling companies.

“There are more than enough supervisory tools, as you see, and they will all be used during the campaign. All the more so that there are 18 presidential candidates, some having considerable weight. That is why any declarations about the likely fraud are just attempts to justify a defeat of those who make them. Note that those candidates who are selling themselves as strong-willed and tough are most given to such declarations. In fact, such declarations expose them as would-be losers and outsiders,” Baloha added.

By UkrToday on Nov 30, 2009

Tymo’s response to the hobo question: “How did Yushchenko and first lady declare 1.5 million hryvnia income last year and only 35,000 hryvni in 2003. Of the 1.5 mn. only half a million is salary and a million is from business dividends.”

You took that for an adequate response? I don’t believe it!!!! Let’s suspose that candidate Obama declared that all he has was his sentor’s salary. Journalists then photograph several large pieces of property and light upon other assets. Obama says they all belong to his relatives but journalists can’t discover the sources of the relatives’ incomes. Obama then says well John McCaian unaccountably acquired a piece of farmland during his term as senator. Come on not one single American journalist would accept that as a response and Obama would never have been elected.

By anon on Dec 5, 2009

What about Yushchenko’s sweat-heart deal with the Tobacco giants? How much are they contributing to his campaign costs in return for the win fall he delivered them last month? So much for his concern for Ukraine’s heath

By UkrToday on Dec 8, 2009