Taras Kuzio’s Blog

I can agree with most of written by A.Romanov, even with the last sentence:
“Unfortunately, the crisis showed that there are no real statesmen in our country” –
if the author intentionally used the word “statesMEN” for the “two Victors-one vector”.
But why there is no “Happy End” (which was and unfortunately remains the subject of criticism of “American” movies, “American dream” among our so-called “intelligencia”)?
As for me, fortunately today there is “statesPERSON” in our country, and her name is Yulia Tymoshenko.
Maybe if all of us get rid of total pessimism, of nonproductive slogans “all are bad!” populated by our mass-media – “the wind of change” will at last become a reality?

By Yuri_D on Nov 22, 2009

The main cause for concern is and has alwayts been Yushchenko. He has undermined Ukraine’s democratic development at every step. He betrayed democracy and the “Orange revolution” and all those who supported his election. The alliance began to crumble when Yushchenko’s party refused to form a Orange governing coaliton after the March 2006 Parliamentary elections. Yulia was forced into makeing oublic pleas for Yushchenko to come on baord. Yushenko tried to oust Yuklia from the eladership whilst negotaiting with Party of Regions. When that failed they went after Moroz. Time was ticking and Moroz was foreced into abandoning Yushchenko. If Tymosehhnko made a mistake it was not backing Moroz and his right to be appointed Speaker.

iN 2007 Yushennko brought the county close to breaking point. Seven months of political instability and civil unrest followed. Yushennko should have been forced to the polls back in 2007.

I 2008 Yushchenko did it again this time attcking Tymsoshenko. his plan backfired and his own party rebelled against him.

Ukraine could not have elected a worst candidate for President.

It would be nice if Yulia cou;d rebound and win the election. But it would be living a false dream to think this is possible. Yanukovych already has 50% of the total two candidate preferred vote. Some twenty percentage points ahead of Tymoshenko

We can expect that a number of minor candidates will pull out of the election in order to regain their $300,000 deposit.

As long a Yatseniuk and Yushchenko remain candidates both will lose in the first round.
d

By UkrToday on Nov 27, 2009

More ignorant flooding.

By Wolodymir on Nov 27, 2009

UkrToday, it seems you are too far from Ukraine if you beleive our so-called sociologists, to say nothing of Donetzk’s “R&B Group” results. Its head Eu.Kopat’ko openly supports Yanukovich’s Party in every TV-show.
And one more thing to think of. On my opinion it is the conservation of such undetermined state of our country with permanent elections, artificial political dividing, etc. that allows our huge army of pseudo- politologists, sociologists, journalists to earn dozens times more money than if they were honest scientists and professionals.

By Yuri_D on Nov 28, 2009

Its not just r&b the polls from all other including Yushchenko’s think tanks are saying the same thins. They aren’t all wrong, 10 percentage points can not be picked up/. The only way things can change is if candidates start withdrawing in favor of other candidates and they are able to transfer their support. If Ukraine had a perefential “Instant run=off voting system that then you might have to rethink a little BUT even then I do not think a preferential voting system can deliver the election to anyone else.

I do not support Presidential system I could not care who is elected President, a total wast of limited resources if you ask me. The president should hold not power other then the bare minimum and even then it should be limited.

A parliamentary election would have produced a better outcome.

That is by the way side. In my personal view Hryhoriy Nemyria would make a good President. Some of the minor candidates have appeal voting but as I tell my associates and friends in Ukraine, many who will be voting for the first time, voting for a minor candidate is a wasted vote.

The main thing for Ukraine now is to replace Yushchenko, Ukraine could not have made a worst choice then Yushchenko, hopefully once a new head of state is elected Ukraine united can put an end to the presidential system and begin to rebuild a new democratic state based on true democratic values and an effective equable representative model. Moldova right now is looking better then Ukraine in terms of democracy.

Yulia was right There are a number of issues that need debate first in considering constitutional reform.

President versus parliamentary system. (Parliament in my view is the obvious democratic choice)

As a separate exercise Ukraine then needs to consider it’s representational model.

There is merit in the notion of direct accountability (This is the only print I would concede to Yushchenko but not his proposed option). The establishment of local electorates would provide for better political outcome and development.

Ukraine needs to decide does it need a bicameral parliament or can it just as well be served with a unicameral parliament. Ukraine is not a federation but a unitary state. A bicameral parliament provides little benefit. It it does opt to have one then the senate should be a national house and the legislative body based on multi-member local electorates. Both the senate and the legislative body should have fixed terms (i.e a fixed date for holding elections) The senates terms being tied to the legislative house. I would reject outright any suggestion that t6eh senate be a Oblast/Regions based assembly where the number of representatives is the same and the number constituents vary more then +/- 5%.

The legislative electorates should be multi-member 5 7 or 9 members. Each electorate must be designed to return the same number of representatives on a (16.7, 12.5 OR 10% quota respectively) 9 member constituents produce the best outcome.

So as to ensure the election is fair the method of voting should be via a single-transferable proportional representation voting system. A form of preferential proportional representation. Counting of the ballot to be by the Meek method (Designed by Brian Meek a mathematician and used in New Zealand public elections

The system will not resolve all potential problems BUT it would be based on and provide a fair and equitable representative model which in turn should provide the basis for good representative governance. It certainly would be much better option then that proposed by Yushchenko.

The prime minister would be elected from and by the legislative chamber and members of the cabinet nominated by the Prim-minister with parliamentary consent.

The head of state being appointed by a two thirds or 60% constitutional majority of the parliamentary body.

If Ukraine opts for a bicameral system then the distribution of power and authority would alter somewhat with the senate taking a on a role of body of review but only on the basis that the Senate is formed as outline above to represent national interest and is elected nationally by a system of proportional representation.

The Parliament must be representative of the electorate and it must be fair and equitable the rest is up to good intentions and Ukrainian voters.

Get the foundations right and I believe Ukraine can build a truly democratic European state.

By UkrToday on Nov 29, 2009

Tymoshenko was on Inter last night, on the “Big Politics” show, where she repeated the theme that everyone has banded together against her.

Some interesting things:

- she revealed how she was getting revenues for the government

– 1) closing up tax evasion and

– 2) payments to Ukraine for gaseous (CO2) carbon emission credits (which has been reported previously in the international press).

She had come from a meeting with the European Union delegation that has traveled to Ukraine for talks about eventual membership in the European Union.

She was “loaded for bear,” as they say – with a big, 3-ring binder full of charts, graphs, and documents (with highlighting).

One odd thing – she started talking about how the Prime Minister lacks governmental authority, such as appointing governors, for example, in the various “oblasts” (provinces).

I think government officials, as many as possible, should be elected, not appointed – that’s been part of the huge corruption problem in Ukraine.

Plus, she’s running for Prez, not PM – her remark seems to conflict with the position she seeks in this election.

Plus, there was the usual talk about corruption and how to eliminate it.

Including the huge problems with the judiciary and judicial system in Ukraine, the bribery, the judges, and no place to turn to when judges are corrupt.

So we’re finally getting at least some specifics about how to eliminate corruption in Ukraine.

The journalists on the show took a run at her on several topics (e.g., Lozinsky, and her meager declared income compared to her lifestyle, and her husband’s “beeznesses”), but the ones that were there clearly don’t know how to handle her – although she did appear nervous and uncomfortable on some of the questions.

Interesting.

By elmer on Dec 5, 2009

Tymoshenko dodged questions about her income and wealth as well as stating her husbands contruction business was “very small” and refused to name it. Leaving everyone to guess that her fortune fell from the sky.

By Wolodymir on Dec 5, 2009

“closing up tax evasion”

every politician says that. Other commentators say a) she forced businesses to pay early b) the IMF funds c) the budget has a huge hole anyhow.

“So we’re finally getting at least some specifics about how to eliminate corruption in Ukraine”
How can anyone who gives such an obviously fake income declaration be taken seriously on this? Rules are for everyone else not for her. Ukranians complain about their politicans but they and some of their journalists let them get away with things that would never be accepted
elsewhere.

By anon on Dec 6, 2009

BTW as for “closing up tax evasion” I wonder how Yulia fills up her income tax forms. Only her salary? No other taxable income or assets? What about local property taxes? If her relatives write everything on their names what sort of taxes do they pay? How do they get the money to pay them with next-to-no inocme?

By anon on Dec 6, 2009

It just so happens that Savik Shuster had one of his 3-hour marathon shows last night – about corruption.

http://shuster.kanalukraina.tv/video/3517_chi_ruki_nichego_ne_brali?/

In Ukraine, all of the politicians have learned to use nominees and dummy corporations to hide their true wealth. Example – it turns out, as reported by Ukrainian Pravda, that Yanukovych, how owns a 400-acre fabulous mansion estate called Mezhirya, which used to be government property, through a complex scheme of leases and corporations (one of the corps. is partially owned by one of Yanuk’s sons) – and even a “fishing club” corporation!

And all of the politicians hide their true income.

Corruption has been talked about in Ukraine for quite some time. And that’s exactly the problem – Ukrainians are drama queens, they are very long-winded, but they don’t do anything – well, except that the oligarchs steal left and right.

One of the guests on the Savik show made the comment that a talk show is no place to solve corruption – but where the heck else in Ukraine would you solve it? The Party of Regions has blocked the Parliament on a daily basis now for well over a year.

There are laws in place to battle corruption – but the Prosecutor General’s office is firmly in the hands of the Party of Regions, the Party of Regions has the most oligarchs – and nothing is done.

As far as eliminating corruption – Hrytsenko, as Defense Minister, did not take bribes, nor did he tolerate bribe-taking in the military.

Tymoshenko got rid of Firtash and RosUkrEnergo – which, of course, suited her purposes, because Firtash was a major source of funding to the PoR and to Yushchenko (and that includes private jet rides). She also got rid of the Vanco Prykerchenska deal, which went to Akhmetov (Party of Regions) under shady circumstances – with the approval of Yushchenko. That suited her purposes as well.

On Savik’s show, there were some fireworks – the oligarchs are, after all, going to try to hang on to their government piggy bank as long as possible.

There was discussion about mechanisms to battle corruption, including the death penalty – but the sovok union had the death penalty for corruption, as Savik pointed out, and Saudi Arabia brutally cuts off body parts.

Savik was against the death penalty, and he’s right – there are more efficient mechanisms to battle corruption.

Moroz complained that Kuchma had him investigated for “kompromat” many, many times – which brings to mind that the foxes should not be guarding the hen house in the battle against corruption.

I always feel like a fool when I watch Ukrainian windbags spill words all over each other and the public for over three hours.

But – nevertheless – Savik is doing a great public service.

The politicians certainly don’t get together in Parliament – so they might as well get together on Savik’s show.

By elmer on Dec 6, 2009

Also – during the Savik Shuster show, the Party of Regions people claimed that they did not rely on financing from Firtash (RosUkrEnergo).

And Moroz, displaying either muddled thinking, or a deliberately cynical political ploy, started screaming about how the price of gas from Gazprom – after Firtash – had risen.

Bass ackwards thinking in Ukraine is very, very prevalent, and a serious problem.

By elmer on Dec 6, 2009

Elmer: There are laws in place to battle corruption – but the Prosecutor General’s office is firmly in the hands of the Party of Regions, the Party of Regions has the most oligarchs – and nothing is done.

The P-G office is constitutionally under the President in both the 1996 and 2006 constitutions. Yushchenko has therefore controlled who would be P-G on his watch. That has been 2 dinosaurs:
Piskun (probably the guarantor for Kuchma’s immunity and immunity to the elites struck during the round tables. Piskun returned on 9 December 2004 as P-G a day after parliament voted on the compromise package agreed at the round tables. Piskun is in parliament on the Regions ticket.
Medvedko is his second choice and a close Regions man from Donetsk.As Tymoshenko said, the P-G’s office is in Regions hands at the behest of Yushchenko.

Why is Yushchenko promoting Regions dinosaurs as P-G’s? What does this say about his attitudes to battling corruption?
The answers to both questions are obvious.

By Taras on Dec 6, 2009

Ukraine’s president reinstated Oleksandr Medvedko as Prosecutor General Friday, the government’s press service said.
Medvedko, who served as Prosecutor General from 2005 until late April 2007, was nominated by Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, head of the parliamentary coalition which has been embroiled in a protracted standoff with pro-Western President Viktor Yushchenko.

Medvedko appointed the president’s previous designate for the post, Viktor Shemchuk, his first deputy.

Following a court ruling, President Yushchenko dismissed Medvedko April 27 and appointed Svyatoslav Piskun as Prosecutor General by decree.

On May 24, Yushchenko recalled the April 27 decree, dismissing Piskun, and issued a new decree appointing former Crimea prosecutor Shemchuk to his post. The Party of Regions-dominated parliament, however, was adjourned, so that Yushchenko failed to have Shemchuk approved by the lawmakers.

“The Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc was expected to disapprove of Medvedko, as Tymoshenko disagreed with Piskun’s dismissal from the start, and apparently still hopes for his reinstatement. “

By Wolodymir on Dec 6, 2009

One of the points Hrytsenko made on the Savik Shuster show was that there are some anti-corruption laws in place already – he cited the specific sections, and read from them.

And he made the point – the President appoints the Prosecutor General, which, as you state, Taras, is firmly in the hands of the PoR. And that as President, if the P-G is not doing his job, he would immediately dismiss him – giving a signal, and leadership, from the very top.

Because if the President is corrupt – why should the people care about fighting corruption? If the Parliament is corrupt – why should the people care about fighting corruption?

Except for the purpose of NOT fighting corruption, why anyone would want an idiot/baboon like Piskun to be P-G is beyond me.

This is the same baboon who, with a straight face, told Myroslava Gongadze that yes, indeed, a man could shoot himself twice in the head in order to commit suicide (referring to one of the murdered witnesses in the Georgiy Gongadze case – amazing how one can also commit “suicide” by stabbing oneself in the back).

How can Yanukovych or Yushchenko, with a straight face, say that they have actually done anything to stop corruption – except to flap their yaps about it, and then take money from Firtash and others?

By elmer on Dec 6, 2009

Just exactly what has Tymoshenko done, as Prime Minister, to curb corruption in Ukraine?

“Five out of the Ukrainian parliament’s 15 factions refused to back Medvedko. The Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc was expected to disapprove of Medvedko, as Tymoshenko disagreed with Piskun’s dismissal from the start, and apparently still hopes for his reinstatement. Her bloc’s allies — United Ukraine and Reforms and Order — predictably supported her.”

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=31065

From your own Jamestown Foundation.

By Wolodymir on Dec 6, 2009

http://www.ibyut.com/arch07_files/298.html

“Seated stiffly behind a desk alongside a blue and yellow national flag, Tymoshenko said her cabinet had started a country-wide analysis of corruption, reviewing the operations of those who were previously in power.

“We must find out clearly what they managed to do. I hereby guarantee that we will check every kopeck spent, every public tender, every license, every illegal act. Let no one be in doubt that you must answer for all shady, illegal deals.”

Where are the prosecutions, the exposure of illegal acts, and who has answered for all the shady illegal deals?

She’s as phony and full of BS as all the rest.

By Wolodymir on Dec 6, 2009

http://tap-the-talent.blogspot.com/2009/05/tymoshenko-helps-tycoon-bag-hr-900m.html

Q: What does it take to cancel an open bid and instead choose a certain company as the lead contractor?

A: The Tymoshenko Cabinet.

In yet another must-read article, Ukrayinska Pravda’s Mustafa Nayem continues exploring the unstoppable wheeling and dealing in the world of Ukrainian government.

As part of preparing Lviv Airport for Euro 2012, the government initially planned to award a Hr. 900M/$118M modernization contract in an open bid. To organize the bid, Transport Minister Yosyp Vinsky sent a directive to Lviv Airport Director Oleksandr Zahreva in late January.

Four companies applied.

However, on March 17, Minister Vinsky issued another directive. This time, he ordered Lviv Airport to cancel the open bid, citing orders from PM Tymoshenko.

That’s despite the fact that reversing the course put Vinsky and Tymoshenko in violation of a host of Cabinet regulations, Nayem reports.

Guess who emerged as the lead contractor? Azovintex, a company owned by Serhiy Taruta, one of the richest men in Ukraine’s rust belt and one of the two men who serve as Tymoshenko’s allies in a region otherwise controlled by the Party of Regions.

Taruta’s partner, Vitaliy Haiduk, has been a prominent figure in the Tymoshenko Cabinet, leading a staff of advisers. He reportedly owns a plant in Hungary and, last year, had a hand in a controversial decision that set sub-domestic rates for Ukraine’s electricity exports.

By Wolodymir on Dec 6, 2009

I guess thats how its done, right?

By Wolodymir on Dec 6, 2009

Vitaliy Haiduk, has been a prominent figure in the Tymoshenko Cabinet

But Tym said she doesn’t have any businessmen in BYUT influencing her cabinet. True Haiduk’s not in BYUT!!!!!!

By anon on Dec 7, 2009

Haidiuk has NEVER had a government position. Only advisory, like Tihipko.

By Taras Kuzio on Dec 7, 2009

But that’s exactly the problem in Ukraine – none of the oligarchs owns any property in their own name, but they are worth billions; and oligarchs provide “advice” to the government, and cash.

What kind of “advice” would an oligarch jerk like Haiduk provide to the government, in return for his cash? To whom is he accountable, except to himself?

And to whom is the government accountable, as Yatseniuk pointed out on the Savik Shuster show, once anyone in government takes money or other favors from an oligarch in some back room or some secret transfer of money or favors?

Or is Haiduk, together with the other oligarchs, entitle to form some sort of shadow government through “advice”?

Tymoshenko is paying the Blackstone Group about $15 million per year from “advice” on dealing with the IMF.

That worked out pretty well, didn’t it? The IMF has refused to lend the third tranche of the $16 billion commitment.

What kind of “advice” was Firtash providing to Yushchenko and the Party of Regions?

Or, for that matter, Boiko, Bakai, Taruta, Zhevago, Kolomoisky, and all the other jerk oligarchs?

The “advice” consisted, and still consists of how to suck money out of the government into their own personal pockets, with some part of that going to those in government.

It is a sick, sick system.

By elmer on Dec 7, 2009

Mr. Vitaliy Haiduk has served as the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine. Previously, Mr. Haiduk held the posts of Deputy Chairman of the Donetsk Regional Council; First Deputy Minister and Minister for Fuel and Energy; Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine; and Chair of the Industrial Group consortium.

By Wolodymir on Dec 7, 2009

These were posts he held in the Kuchma era until 2004:
First Deputy Minister and Minister for Fuel and Energy: 2001
Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine: 2002-2003

In the Yushchenko era from 2005 he has not held government or state positions. The 4 secretaries of the NRBO under Yushchenko were Poroshenko, Kinakh, Plyushch and Bohatyriova.

By Taras Kuzio on Dec 7, 2009

Thats correct, but, he has held government positions in the past, and is Tymoshenko’s main advisor.

By Wolodymir on Dec 7, 2009

Seems she always has something or someone to blame, don’t you find that convenient?

By Wolodymir on Dec 10, 2009

Seems like Yushchenko always lacks an excuse for not doing anything or some lie to cover-up what he should not have done.

Yushchenko was the wrong choice to represent Ukraine. Ukraine should not put all its eggs on one basket. 5 years is too long of a time between elections. Yushchenko should have faced the people and been forced to renew his mandate back in 2007. Even Saaks went to the polls early to renew his fledgling mandate. Yushchenko knows he would have lost.

–
Taras whilst there is an outside chance that Yushchenko could rebound (He would have to have a few candidates such as Yatseniuk to withdraw in his favour to remain in the race) Yushchenko will not be re-elected to a second term of office. Earlier polls on a Yushchenko Yanukovych contest made that clear.

A Tipiko versus Yanukovych poll has not been done. Again this is where a preferential voting system provides much more information as to the makeup of the electorate. It’s like a CAT scan to an x-ray. Ask those surveyed to rank each candidate in order to preference 1 to 18. I think it would be most telling and interesting under the circumstances.

–

Yushchenko attacks on Lutz is a means of shifting focus in an attempt to divide and discredit Yushchenko’s opposition. Humpty Dumpty can never be put back again.

It pretty obvious that Yushchenko is out to oppose Yulia and in the process support Yanukovych.

By UkrToday on Dec 11, 2009

Tigipko does not impress me much. But then I do not support Presidents per-say.

I would like to see more pols. Some of the few polls that come out of left field do seem strange and defy political science.

The main thing to come from this Presidential election is the removal from office of Yushchenko. I would think Yulia would have a lot of information on Yushchenko that if it comes out would be damaging in deed. I believe that the campaign will enter in the last stretch come December 21, which is the last date candidates can withdraw whilst able to reclaim their deposit.

Yatseniuk campaign as stalled mid flight. Yushchenko has potential growth but he will not get there. The one Poll that put him on 9.5% did not list Simonenko which was rather strange.

I am not sure if it is the reporting of polls that is a fault or the polls themselves, maybe both. As they say there is only one poll that counts. The election.

By UkrToday on Dec 15, 2009