The Most Senseless Statement Stakes, I would rank accordingly ...

1. "Yushchenko's assurance that Ukraine will be allowed into NATO at the December 2008 meeting" ... Assurances are inherently senseless. They are nothing but speculation, lies, manipulations or self deceit or pr or other. No sense at all.

2. Luzhkov's comments about Sevastopol ... It ranks for me #2 in the senseless dept. not because it was not a calculated move but because it actually acts to alienate people from warm fuzzy feelings for RF and if it needed to be explicitly stated to the population of Sevastopol then there is a major disconnect between the communicator and the target audience. (If the target audience needs to hear that RF will support them in fighting to have the Russian Navy remain they have been living under a rock or in a cave for years.) All the public declarations were imo good for were soundbites for Russian tv and starting up "persona non grata" war. Some sense.

3.BYuT's offer to Klitchko ... It is not only senseless it is is insulting. The points he commands are not sky high but they are not paltry either. It did have sense and did provide to Klitschko a real statement of how he is considered in the BYuT camp - of very little worth. If he takes the position he is doomed to obscure servitude in come closet office hell, if he refuses it he is labeled as not a 'team player'. Most sense of all, as it waves the olive branch while hiding the sword in its scabbard.

I would like to add to the list my own vote for senseless statement and that is the one of Kaskiv for traveling to Russia and promptly not being let into the country -
http://unian.net/eng/news/news-251142.html
What satellite hookups are too tech. advanced for Russian tv? Did the man NOT REALIZE that he was being set up?

I want to add this one: Yush ditched Tymoshenko's government for Yanukovych in 2006. Come on Moroz switched sides giving Ynauk a majority. Blame the right person. And in any case Tym didn't yet have a government to ditch.

anon: Thanks for contributing. Thank you a ton, because you made me realize I had the date wrong. I didn't mean the 2006 alliance (in which the Socialists bolted first, you are absolutely right), I meant the 2005 firing of Tymoshenko's government and agreement of non-aggression with Yanukovych that "brought Yanukovych back in from the wilderness" as Kuzio said. Sorry for the slipup.

Essentially, Yushchenko had the choice since Dec 2004 between Tymoshenko and Yanukovych, that's the only political alliance choices he's had that have been meaningful. Since he didn't ever commit to Tymoshenko, he was implicitly allying himself with Yanukovych, though he pussyfooted around actually saying so since voters (rightly) didn't think it a very difficult decision. As many faults as Tymoshenko has, I've never seen any evidence that would convince me that choosing Yanukovych was the better choice. In early 2005 I wouldn't even have thought it was a calculation he had to make, it was so obvious. That he was calculating inclines me to believe he is more at fault in spoiling the alliance. That he has, in the last few months, seemed to be willing to actively oppose reform simply to spite Tymoshenko makes me even less sympathetic to him.

What is truly flabbergasting here, is how foolish he is actually behaving, and how oblivious he is about it. If his primary goal were to prolong his term in government, I'd be hard pressed to determine how he could have sabotaged his own efforts more effectively than by behaving as he has for the last three years. If his primary goal were to improve the situation in the country, his activities have been just as self-sabotaging. Bizarre.

The sentence is still wrong. It should read he ditched Tymoshenko in favour of Yerkanouv (however you spell it). Yanukovich as we've said became PM only in autumn 2006 because of Moroz (and the Ukranian voter). Yerkanuov instead of Tymoshenko was much better the only shame was Yush hadn't done it in Jan 2005. He was a much better economic manager and unlike her was really interested in reform:-, before the election a whole ton of necessary legisation was prepared but the voters didn't give him a chance to implement it.Also Yanukovich didn't need Yush to bring him back from the political wilderness - someone with almost half the support of the populace and solid at that which Kuzio just ignores doesn't need anyone's seal of approval.

In short Yush has never chosen Yanuk over Tym. Under him she's had two chances at being Prime Minister and both times she's shown not the slightest interest or even talked about the necessary reforms, What she's interested in is revenge masquerading as justice. She simply uses the powers of government against her political and business enemies but shows absolutely no interest in reforming the system so that the original sins don't re-occur in the future.

Yush's problem is the the lack of serious political support for his agenda which causes him to maneouvour, so he looks pussyfooting between two stronger and corrupt political forces backed a lot of business money and both of whom get support by standing as uncompromising against the "enemy" ie west or east, and one of whom gets the automatic regional support of almost half the country and the other has her charisima which he doesn't.

revenge for what, anon?

The entire political system in Ukraine is based on a few "political elites" to which the electorate has surrendered all power.

It is based on the notion that only the "political elites" belong in politics and government.

The "political elites" consist mostly and mainly of a few oligarchs plus assorted sycophants, who are constantly fighting among each other, while mouthing platitudes to the public.

The Orange Revolution offered the promise of some changes.

Now, Ukraine has backslid and is backsliding into trench warfare.

Yes, there is freedom of speech in Ukraine. Yes, Ukraine has been accepted into the WTO - which will benefit a few oligarchs.

And there are lots of promises to the people, which are not kept.

Well, except that people got a small portion of their lost sovok-era savings returned to them.


http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373062

There is no vision for the country, no goals, only vague generalization, while Yushchenko relies on a punk to try to trip up Tymoshenko.

Well, if we're getting into the silly season, here's a nominee for silly actions -

Kyiv voters voting Chernovetsky back into office as mayor, if it happens.

It is absolutely baffling to me why people would vote for an obvious looney tune space cadet crook like Cherno.

Is his corruption a secret? Do people not know about his corruption?

This is the best depiction of Ukrainian politics I have ever seen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwirWWnzJKM

I agree with Elmer. It's three steps forward, two steps back.

And btw, Bohatyryova to this day remains a card-carrying member of the Party of Regions, despite some Regionalists' calls to expel her for moonlighting as NSDC Secretary.

http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2008/4/19/74915.htm
http://tap-the-talent.blogspot.com/2008/04/bohatyryova-reflects-on-her-role-raisa.html

Don't discard her! She's right where she belongs:)!

revenge for what, anon?

I have heard the theory put forth that she is seeking revenge for when Kuchma and his henchmen threw her in jail.

I think that she should continue to work hard on what she promised - revoke carte blanche, total parliamentary immunity.

By the way, Yanukovych's son is a member of the Ukrainian parliament. The "party list" system at play - I would not dare call it "work."

I wonder how much he has contributed to the good functioning of government in Ukraine?

Well, not Ambassador Taylor has come into the Vanco Energy picture.

He's "disappointed":

http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-252277.html


Ambassador Taylor is correct in calling for Vanco and the Ukrainian government to talk. But the original contract was awarded to Vanco Energy, not to Vanco Pecherskaya or some other Vanco Virgin Islands company. And how did the Russian Novitsky, and Rinat Akhmetov, who is a pal of Prime Minister Yanukovych who approved the deal, and some mysterious Integrum outfit from Austria suddenly get into this deal?

When the US awards contracts, it is through elaborate procurement procedures, including detailed identification of parties, submission of qualifications, and publication of requirements and specifications through an open bidding process (with certain exceptions).

Ambassador Taylor needs to decide whether the US wants to support corruption in Ukraine, because this deal stinks to high heaven, and whether he wants to turn into a lobbyist for a tiny energy company from Houston.

Because Yanukovych and Akhmetov, and now it appears Yushchenko, are not going to support open, clean, honest, effective, non-corrupt government.

And that affects people in Ukraine VERY negatively, whether Ambassador Taylor realizes it or not.

Akhmetov claims to be doing charitable works - where are they? Kuchma's daughter buys an $800 million mansion in Londongrad. Pinchuk pays Clinton to come to Crimea and hug Kuchma, who, it appears, ordered the murder of newspaperman Gongadze, and squelched freedom of the press in Ukraine.

Is more of the same to the liking of Ambassador Taylor? Because that's what this is about. Russian oligarchs, and Ukrainian oligarchs continuing to rob Ukraine blind to the detriment of the Ukrainian people.

Vanco Energy, as a good corporate citizen (which it claims on its web site), needs to do a clean deal. Free of mysterious, shadowy unidentified companies represented by Austrian lawyers.

I fully agree with Elmer. As idealistic as it sounds, the right to decide Ukraine's internal affairs rests with the Ukrainian government, not with foreign governments or companies.

If Vanco Prykerchenska indeed caters to special interests, then America’s diplomatic intervention will only breed ill will toward America.

Let me correct Elmer’s calculus and strengthen his point.

Here’s a photo set from Kuchma daughter’s AIDS fundraiser that netted Hr 2.7M ($557,000).

http://tabloid.pravda.com.ua/photos/482ddbd673406/

And here’s the £80M mansion she reportedly bought in London:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23445248-details/%C2%A380m:+most+expensive+house+sold+in+London/article.do

A few more pics of the Londongrad mansion here:

http://realestalker.blogspot.com/2008/02/hoo-righ-ah-who.html

I don't know what the conversion rate is, but 80 million Euros converts these days, it seems, to a far bigger number of dollars, given the strength of the Euro.

And in Londongrad, the mayor of Moscow lives right down the street from Kuchma's daughter!

There is, of course, a difference between Vanco Pecherskaya (the "Pecherskaya", in its Russified form, refers to the ancient monastery-caves in Kyiv) and Vanco Prykerchenska.

But I think the Ukrainian government knows the difference between Vanco Energy, from Houston, and Vanco Prykerchenska, from the Virgin Islands with 3 parasites from Russia, Ukraine and Austria (Novitsky, Akhmetov and Integrum) loaded onto it, even if Ambassador Taylor does not seem to.

I wonder if the monks in the Pecherska Lavra would approve?

I don't know about the monks, but some of the Moscow Patriarchate clergy probably would.

We can find Archbishop Pavlo of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra on the Party of Saints ticket.

http://www.risu.org.ua/ukr/news/article;21726/

And guess what? Initially, Archbishop Pavlo intended to run with...the Communists!

http://ua.pravda.com.ua/files/8/_Picture_file_path_8721.jpg
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2008/4/15/74644.htm

When dealing with the Party of Saints, we should give Marx some credit for divining that "Religion is the opium of the people."

anon: Coming back into this conversation way late again, after yet another trip out of town last weekend.

Thank you for the response--very thought-provoking.

> The sentence is still wrong. It should read he ditched Tymoshenko in favour of Yekhanurov... Yerkanuov instead of Tymoshenko was much better the only shame was Yush hadn't done it in Jan 2005. He was a much better economic manager and unlike her was really interested in reform, before the election a whole ton of necessary legisation was prepared but the voters didn't give him a chance to implement it.

> Also Yanukovich didn't need Yush to bring him back from the political wilderness - someone with almost half the support of the populace and solid at that which Kuzio just ignores doesn't need anyone's seal of approval.

Hmm... I will preface by saying that I also liked Yekhanurov coming in. He seems like a smart businessperson. But there was a very big compromise struck to get him into power: Yushchenko had to sign a "memorandum of understanding" with Yanukovych. This was a very big deal: regardless of Tymoshenko's well-known and obvious ambition, it was a major boost for Yanukovych.

And you can look at the polling numbers to see what kicking out Tymoshenko and pulling in Yanukovych did to Orange support:
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/8/AFF32F85-5069-45A0-81C9-03D9163C6C98.html
http://orangeukraine.squarespace.com/journal/category/21-public-opinion
http://orangeukraine.squarespace.com/journal/category/21-public-opinion
http://orangeukraine.squarespace.com/journal/category/21-public-opinion


Essentially, there was a great mass of supporters not for Yushchenko personally, but for the movement towards reform and against corruption. They were energized, and Yushchenko's government might have been divided, but it was making some small progress on fulfilling its goals. By firing that government when the only real alternative to coalition with Tymoshenko was coalition with Yanukovych, Yushchenko, at one stroke, totally demoralized his base and gave Yanukovych back his relevancy. Yes, Yanukovych had supporters. But they were demoralized and divided, and their candidate's party was polling low both because of its failure to push through the election fix, and because of its position as nothing but a spoiler from January to July. They were hemorrhaging votes.

In addition, Kolesnykov could have been the first of many prosecuted (in August), but while Tymoshenko hadn't punished much corruption, there was one political unit guaranteed to punish even less: a coalition between NU and PoR. That was the key platform of the Orange Revolution: don't you consider Yushchenko's firing of Tymoshenko (given his options) a betrayal of that, even if Yekhanurov was intelligent about economics?

And don't you think it unfair to compare what Yushchenko and NU promised to do if elected in March 2006, to what the Yanukovych government actually did, and then also include blame for Tymoshenko supporters? Just because Yushchenko makes nice sounding pronouncements (sometimes daily) doesn't mean even he has the political will to push them through. And if he can't push them through on his own strength, and can't make deals to push them through, then they are no credit to him.

> Yush's problem is the the lack of serious political support for his agenda which causes him to maneuver, so he looks pussyfooting between two stronger and corrupt political forces backed a lot of business money and both of whom get support by standing as uncompromising against the "enemy" ie west or east,

But doesn't NU have its own oligarchs? What makes you consider them less subject to corruption by business interests than Tymoshenko's bloc, or Yanukovych's for that matter.


> In short Yush has never chosen Yanuk over Tym. Under him she's had two chances at being Prime Minister and both times she's shown not the slightest interest or even talked about the necessary reforms, What she's interested in is revenge masquerading as justice.

Which good reforms has Yushchenko been pushing recently (rather than just talking about) that Tymoshenko has been opposed to? Because it looks to me that Yushchenko is playing spoiler much more often than he puts weight behind reform.

Take privatization. Privatization would be of benefit to the country, if done correctly. We may be suspicious that Tymoshenko will try to do so to businessmen closer to her party, but the alternative would be to do so closer to businessmen in other parties: all the biggest businesspeople in the country are tied to somebody's party or another, and many of the foreign companies have ties to similarly questionable businesspeople in Russia. There's probably a significant amount of self-interest involved, but it is something big that Tymoshenko is trying to do.


Elmer: Actually, I sympathize with Kyiv. As the Kyiv Post says, this election should never have happened. It only occurred because BYuT and NU are already wasting time jockeying for position ahead of elections.

http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/editorial/28999/

Chernovetsky is erratic, undisciplined, and certainly odd, but I think the main reason you can't understand why people would vote for him is that he is significantly less crazy than you think, and because Ukrainians deal harshly with politicians for wasting their time.

Look at the alternatives: Klitchko, and Ukrainians have a very reasonable suspicion of political newbies without a track record for them to judge. Turchynov: merely a tool of Tymoshenko. BYuT had to start putting her picture on the board with him eventually because he has so little identity of his own, he blended in with the technical candidates.

I don't like Chernovetsky, I'd be happy to see Klitchko beat him, but there is certainly justice in watching BYuT and NUNS get humiliated for wasting the nation's time for a month.

Dan, here's the thing: I think that Cherno puts on a crazy act - but he is corrupt to the bone, to the great detriment not only of Kyivites, but also to the great detriment of Ukraine.

The results have come in - very interesting.

Unfortunately, Cherno seems to have won, but by a far lesser percentage than originally projected.

And look at the numbers for City Council - if BYuT and Klichko can get their act together, with their combined percentages that are far greater than that of the corrupt Cherno - well, I trust them far more than I do the weirdo Cherno.

Party of Regions went over like a lead balloon, despite sponsoring a free concert by the German rock band "Scorpion."

Dan, when the courts and prosecutors are corrupt, what mechanism is there for getting rid of a corrupt mayor? The only thing I can think of is pre-term elections.

Cherno, the Martian, has been grabitizing land on a MASSIVE scale. Yet, nothing has been done about it.

I don't think that BYuT or NUNS or Klichko got humiliated here, and I don't think they were wasting anyone's time.

The problem seems to me to be that there are still too many older people left who are victims of a genetic sovok culture of fear, who are willing to sell their votes for a little bit of buckwheat provided by Cherno.

And Cherno knows it, and is taking advantage of it.

But to lesser effect this time.

So God bless Yulia, and Lutsenko, and Klichko for taking a run at it.

Too bad Chernoco didn't lose.

But it looks like the City Council will be able to keep him in check, if BYuT and Klichko cooperate.

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Well, this is the first report I've ever seen, no matter how fuzzy, with at least some specifics about how elections in Ukraine really happen.

Buckwheat and increased pension incrememts - what a lethal combination.

Spending over $100 million dollars by 78 candidates for Kyiv mayor - there must really be something valuable to gain by becoming mayor of Kyiv!!!!!

And Ukraine's very own way of getting around the "fairness doctrine" (which, in the US, generally speaking requires TV networks and others to give equal time to political candidates).

Kyiv right now looks as if one of those propaganda airplanes flew over it and dumped tons of propaganda leaflets and flyers all over the place. What a colossal waste of paper!

http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/28993/

Mayor election spending soars
by Taras Ilkiv, Novynar Staff Writer
May 22 2008, 03:42

© KP Media, photo by Svitlana Shpak
Election campaign workers thrust literature, stickers and flags at Kyiv residents walking along a pedestrian thoroughfare in the Pozniaky district on May 14.
At the beginning of the mayoral campaign, the Committee of Voters of Ukraine (CVU) forecasted the total expenses of all the participants in the Kyiv mayoral election would be about $100 million.

However, the total cost of the elections has already exceeded the aforementioned amount by double, according to Oleksandr Chernenko, a CVU spokesperson. This is five times more than what was spent during the last mayoral election in Kyiv in 2006.

This year’s candidates are not afraid to appear on national television channels, only two years ago not a single candidate for the mayor’s seat dared to do so.

According to law, each candidate can spend no more than $100,000 on advertising, campaign fliers and salaries for campaign headquarters staff.

“But this sum can be doubled,” noted Chernenko. Since a candidate is closely connected with his or her party, the total election fund of a particular political force amounts to $200,000: half of the sum goes for the candidate and the other half for the party itself.

“Even though the law forbids using a party’s money on advertising its candidate and vice versa, it is almost impossible to trace such things,” Chernenko said.

Leonid Chernovetskiy, Vitali Klitschko and Oleksandr Turchynov are the biggest spenders, according to the CVU. However, Viktor Pylypyshyn and Mykola Katerynchuk are not lagging far behind.

Since the end of April, more than 20 expensive flat screens are blaring every day at the campaign tents of Internal Affairs Minister Yuriy Lutsenko and his People’s Self­Defense party.

The Ekta company leased the screens, and the company’s sales department told Novynar that one day of leasing such a screen costs about $1,500.

Simple mathematical calculations give us a figure of at least $600,000 – a lot more than what is allowed by law.

Thousands of newspapers with election promises and interviews with campaign candidates are also a big expenditure.

For example, a newspaper called Kyivskiy Maidan, whose last four issues have been campaigning for Turchynov, has a circulation of 50,000. Printing costs for one issue amount to at least $1,500.

In order to somehow squeeze into the expense limits allowed by law, candidates are advertised on the background of newspaper logos loyal to them – as if this wasn't a mayoral candidate’s advertising, but rather of the printed publication itself.

In this way Lutsenko “advertises” for the newspaper Hrani Plus, Klitschko for Chas, and Turchynov for Vechirni Visti.

Another important expense item in a party’s budget is payment of district election commission members. The state pays them per diem for such work and it amounts to about $100.

Of course, few people are interested in such money, so parties on their own initiative provide additional payment to commission members and observers.

As a rule, these people represent the interests of their respective parties or candidates during voting and the vote count.

Novynar found out that parties pay an additional $100 to $300 to commission workers.

“As in previous elections, campaign headquarters are using a method of direct bribery of the electorate,” explained Chernenko. Workers from the Tymoshenko Bloc and Viktor Pylypyshyn, the candidate from the Volodymyr Lytvyn Bloc, attempted to bribe prospective voters, he said.

At the beginning of May, at least $40 per vote was offered at the residence halls of Shevchenko National University in Kyiv.

Money was offered by people who encouraged voting for the Lytvyn Bloc. A Novynar journalist was also offered for his vote for that political party.

The payment scheme is simple. The contact information of a person who has agreed to vote like that is written into a list of voters in a certain electoral district.

On the eve of the election, the person gets a pre­payment of about $20 if the person shows their invitation to the voting station. After all the votes are counted, and the number of votes equals the number on the list, the voter gets paid the rest.

“However, it is still not known for certain whether this was a provocation or direct bribery,” explained Chernenko. “Such a method does not bring the desired results since a voter can take the money, but still not vote for the intended candidate or party.”

Contenders for the mayor’s seat have no scruples about using paid journalistic reports on television too. In April alone, experts at Telekrytyka noted 42 news reports that were made violating of standards of timeliness, relevance and balance.

Nevertheless, those reports were shown in the main news programs of the top national television channels. The media broadcast 11 news reports in favor of Chernovetskiy and his team. The remaining candidates followed in this order – Pylypyshyn, Turchynov, and Klitschko.

At the end of April, Ukrainian Sociology Service conducted a poll to find out whose candidate’s advertising Kyivans remember most.

Chernovetskiy was the poll’s leader with 71 percent of respondents saying they paid attention to his television advertising, while only 11 percent of respondents paid attention to Klitschko’s ads.

The reason for Chernovetskiy’s success is not only due to his constant TV campaign. Food rations of buckwheat, sunflower oil and chocolate, which were given to people on behalf of Chernovetskiy up until February this year, have been replaced with more substantial financial incentives.

Now, in addition to their pensions, people are given an additional sum between $15 and $26 a month.

If Chernovetskiy keeps the mayor’s seat, he promises that instead of giving out his "legendary buckwheat," he will expand social payments. Not only will pensioners be getting additional payment from the city’s budget, but teachers and doctors will be getting some as well.

Other campaigns have boosted their charity this year too. The Party of the Regions of Ukraine gave food to pensioners in Kyiv’s Rusanivka district.

Meanwhile, Klitschko campaigners have promised Pechersk district pensioners with eyesight problems new glasses and even collected prescriptions.

elmer: thanks for the interesting response! Lesya are required to do some last-minute travel here (dealing with visa issues) so I can't respond adequately now, but I will try to respond more later.

Dan, while you're thinking about it - here's another thought.

The people of Kyiv, the voters of Kyiv, had a chance to make a statement against corruption. Cherno's land grabitization is no secret, and it is open corruption in government.

Sadly, the people of Kyiv decided to vote FOR continued corruption. It's true that they did not have much of a choice, but out of the 3 highest vote getters, even Klichko would have been superior to cherno.

Whether it was due to Cherno's handouts, or his promise of increments to pensions, Tymoshenko is right - cherno "invested" a few measly bucks - for a return on his "investment" (measly handouts to voters) of BILLIONS.

The voters of Kyiv might as well adopt a new slogan:

"for a few pennies, we will let our politicians rob us, and our kids, blind"

The селепки (village idiots) of Kyiv voted - FOR corruption.

Kharkov is going to host Euro-2012 games. The city will accept ten thousand fans from Europe. And none of them knows, that during 2007 year 10423 tuberculosis infected persons have died in Ukraine. Many of them have forgotten, that illness. Germany, Finland, Austria, Italy do not inoculate their citizenzs against this lethal disease.

Unfortunately, funds became insufficient and the Kharkov authorities made an original decision. Keeping within the limits of Euro-2012 preparation Kharkov reduces the number of tubercular departments. So, by March, 15th 345 places of 545 available will be reduced in the first Kharkov’s antitubercular clinic №1. But do not worry, it is a temporary situation: liquidation of last two hundred places and complete liquidation of the whole clinic will occur till the end of this year.
<a>http://ua-ru-news.blogspot.com/2009/01/shvonders-struggle-with-crisis.html</a>