Monday, 18 January 2010

Viktor Yanukovych

Membership neither of NATO nor of the CTSO.

"No urgency" about joining the EU.

Both Ukrainian and Russian as official languages.

Removal of existing barriers between East and West Ukraine.

What's not to like?
Posted by at

11 comments:

  1. Venichka18 January 2010 at 11:07

    Oh come on David, you can do better than this.

    Mr "Proffesor" Yanukovych, regardless of his policy positions, isn't fit to lead a football team.

    (And, it must be said, regardless of who wins the election - and the other principal candidate is hardly overwhelmingly appealing either, that Ukraine has next-to-no chance of being admitted to either NATO or the EU in any case; and in any case there is very limited support for the former, and only a little more for the latter)

    He's a petty thug and criminal (quite apart from the two terms in prison that remarkably do not appear on his CV, there are other persistant, more vicious still, rumours that circulate about other criminal acts).

    His time as governor of Donetsk, and actions as Prime Minister (whether under Kuchma or Yushchenko) do not suggest the man is a supporter of democracy or pluralistic political debate. Far from it.

    (Even without needing to mention the debacle of the 2004 presidential election - other than to note that he was reported to have advised Kuchma to send troops in to fire on the demonstrators, to which Kuchma - a gangster and crook, but not a pure thug - rightly objected)/

    A vile and unprincipled man. And also one who (unlike Tymoshenko - who at least has been skilled to obtain support across most of the country, to varying degrees - as indeed Kuchma did) has next to no support in one half of the country - in this case anywhere west of Kyiv.

    Also, look at this
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP0vWkqOQT8
    and tell me he is not just an unprincipled buffoon.

    The guy is a disgrace to Ukraine.

    ReplyDelete
  2. David Lindsay18 January 2010 at 14:15

    How very long ago your completely fake Orange "Revolution" seems now. And don't you just know it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wilf18 January 2010 at 15:34

    Lindsay endorses authoritarian regimes - no surprise there then. An apologist for Hitler, Mussolini, Franco - it just keeps coming doesn't it!

    I look forward to you running as the Anti-Democrat in a democratic election. Every village needs an idiot and you are ours.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Lindsay18 January 2010 at 15:36

    How very long ago your completely fake Orange "Revolution" seems now. And don't you just know it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous18 January 2010 at 15:37

    Come on David, you know that if people give the wrong answer then it doesn't count.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Venichka18 January 2010 at 15:51

    Hmm, don't answer any of the points then.

    Yes, Yushchenko has in some regards been a poor president. (His polling showing is quite the evidence of that).

    Above all, though, because he foolishly, and as part of the negotiations that got the stolen election re-run, he (along with Yanukovych) agreed to give up so many of the presidential powers...without even any constitutional clarity as to who they would be transferred to, parliament or the PM.

    That was the root cause of the paralysis that has underpinned Ukrainian public life since.
    And I think the reason for it was above all Yushchenko's decency and faith in human nature: dangerous to be too optimistic in any circs, but in post-Soviet Ukraine....

    On the plus side: a real plus: the press and media became genuinely free (which they had certainly ceased to be during Kuchma's 2nd term); and elections have been fair too.


    If Yanukovych wins, I wouldn't guarantee that will be the case again.

    Yanukovych's approach to democratic debate is illustrated very well by what his supporters (and family) did the first time, exactly a year before the last presdiential election, 31 Oct 2003, that Yushchenko attempted to hold a rally in Donetsk. The town was liberally covered in posters showing Yu in nazi uniform, giving a nazi salute, and with the slogan "for an ethnically pure Ukraine" (as you know Yushchenko's father was himself imprisoned in a Nazi camp); and hired thugs prevented the rally from being held.

    Something similar but on a smaller scale also happened in Sumy a bit latter.

    Yushchenko was never involved in anything remotely like that. Yanukovych may well bring about the re-evolution of Ukraine back towards being a gangster state and thugocracy. As a Catholic, you surely cannot support such a thing. Surely ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. David Lindsay18 January 2010 at 16:53

    How very long ago your completely fake Orange "Revolution" seems now. And don't you just know it?

    On the Catholic point, he's a good Orthodox rather than a global capitalist with all the attendant decadence and warmongering. A man of the True West rather than of the pseudo-West.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Venichka18 January 2010 at 17:15

    You're just embarrassing yourself now, David.

    "he's a good Orthodox rather than a global capitalist with all the attendant decadence and warmongering. A man of the True West rather than of the pseudo-West."

    --- actually a description that fits Yushchenko down to a tee; as someone whose religion and ethics are a genuine motivating force, and not just for show (a la Yanukovych. or to an even greater extent, Tymoshenko)

    Incidently, I take it you are aware which Ukrainian PM it was who signed signed the agreement for Ukraine to join the NATO Membership Action Plan (with the support of his party); and which Ukrainian PM it was who agreed on the dispatch of troops to support the US-led coalition in Iraq.

    Viktor Yanukovych in both cases.

    My objection to him has nothing to do with his (actual or putative) foreign policy; but with his quite evident lack of support for rule of law at home; and indeed his patent undermining of such as practiced by himself when governor of Donetsk, and by his party, particularly in Donetsk and Luhansk.

    So, please, stop being silly. You can do better than this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. David Lindsay18 January 2010 at 17:29

    How very long ago your completely fake Orange "Revolution" seems now. And don't you just know it?

    Oh, I am so enjoying this and several other headless chicken acts by old Bush-Blair devotees.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous18 January 2010 at 17:56

    They voted for the bit of a crook and a thug who has the right foreign policy over the whole of a crook and a thug who wants WW3 with Russia. They voted to keep Ukraine united, because the pro-war candidate's victory would have led to the secession of the east, triggering the WW3.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thomas21 January 2010 at 14:10

    Anonymous said it best. Ukrainian politics is a disastre in general...at least three main oligarchic factions competing. None of them offers economic justice or a popular Orthodox Christianity.

    However, one of them offered the right geopolitics - and one that I, as an American, can hope curbs the hubris of the Western elites. To some degree, Ukraine will be used by either the US/EU or Russia, but they will have more long-term stability with Russia.

    This is all not to mention the injustice of the Ukrainianising policies implemented by Juschenko upon 30-40% of the population, that Janukovych will at least partially reverse.

    Venichka's position is ridiculous. Even the 'Orange' parliament has concluded that Juschenko was not poisoned by the KGB.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)