Share |

Monday, June 08, 2009

Yanukovych, Tymoshenko Backpedal on Coalition, Deliver Stump Speeches

The Coalition of Impunity and Deprival? Not now, maybe later.

On the Orthodox holiday of Trinity, on a hot but rainy Sunday, the two appear to have scrapped their plans and gone their separate ways.

Yanukovych delivered his stump speech in the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, one of Ukraine’s oldest and largest Orthodox shrines, controlled by the Moscow Patriarchate.



Alas, the prodigal son of Ukrainian democracy came to worship direct presidential elections, but confessed no sins. He merely admitted that gutting the Constitution with the amendments he and Tymoshenko had proposed would have been a step back from democracy. The people should have been consulted, he said, as if reprimanding himself. Interestingly, he spoke like a robot, in a manner that betrayed the dirty little piece of equipment supposedly stashed in one of his ears.


A few hours after this throw-momma-from-the-train maneuver, Tymoshenko made her own televised stump speech.



In announcing her bid for the presidency, she accused Yanukovych of unilaterally pulling out of the coalition talks. To dilute responsibility and distance herself from the coalition’s undemocratic slant, she raised the number of would-be coalition partners to four: the Party of Regions, BYuT, NUNS, and the Lytvyn Bloc.


She vehemently denied seeking undemocratic Constitutional amendments. Moreover, she even blamed Yanukovych’s pullout on what she described as her refusal to his proposed Constitutional amendment to raise the presidential candidates’ age to 50. In other words, she’s just an innocent girl who wants the best for her country.

One may argue that, in this parade of disappearing acts and stump speeches, Yanukovych (sugar daddy) dumped Tymoshenko (material/anti-crisis girl). She got what she deserved. I hope he gets what he deserves, too.

Everyone was doing their job. She struggled to rekindle her Joan of Arc image and equip it with Mary Poppins features; he masqueraded as Dr. Democracy with the heart of Santa Claus. They both spoke to fifth-graders, which is how they view their voters.

According to a recent poll, 83.4% of respondents oppose the idea of indirect presidential elections.

P.S. A friend sent me this uncut version of Tymo’s stump speech (intro). She's very nervous. She switches back and forth from Ukrainian to Russian.



Tymoshenko, speaking Ukr: Thank you all for coming on such short notice on a holiday. [takes deep breath] God help me. [crosses herself, closes eyes, clears throat]

Tymoshenko, speaking Rus: Everything’s gone! Uh…no! Skip backward! The teleprompter’s wrong! [gets angry, gesticulates, adjusts position]

Tymoshenko, speaking Ukr: My darlings, first of all, let me greet you with the bright holiday of the Holy Trinity… [discovers her sweet Ukrainian voice]


Ironically, the Russian expression “пропало все!” can also be translated as “it’s over!” or “I’m screwed!” In fact, that’s exactly how she made it sound!

This tragic video made me recall the uncut version of Yanukovych’s November 2004 post-election address. As the President-Elect (soon to be dethroned by the Orange Revolution) stumbles, he gets showered with positive feedback by Hanna Herman, his then press secretary.




Yanukovych, speaking Ukr: Dear countrymen, dear friends, thank you for coming and casting your ballots for the new president — for me. Should I omit “for me”? [makes indecisive gestures]

Hanna Herman, his then press secretary: No, you can leave it that way! It's very good! You're doing very good…
Camera man: It was very good, organic.
Herman: It's very organic and even your hand gesture was organic!

Yanukovych: Let’s start all over again.

Very organic.

Videos uploaded from:

http://censor.net.ua/go/offer/ResourceID/123820.html
http://censor.net.ua/go/offer/ResourceID/123816.html
Original sources:
http://5.ua

27 comments:

DLW said...

how about that?

It seems the desire by Ukrainians to have a real democracy subverted the wheeling and dealing...

Publicly, forgive Timo for being a politician...
Privately, push hard for the use of regional mixed-member election systems that'll create two major parties along with a host of local third-parties so as to balance change and stability, along with a greater circulation of the elites.

dlw

Taras said...

I strongly disagree with you on the issue of forgiveness.

America never forgave Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay, right?

Well, those two amateurs would pale by comparison to the pros we have in Ukraine. So, if you’re unwilling to forgive your smalltime crooks, why should we forgive our bigtime ones?

If Ukraine wants to have a future, Ukraine should have zero tolerance for people who are using the government to create overnight billion dollar fortunes. These people are swindling Ukraine out of its future and should be put out of business.

Corruption is killing Ukraine. The only way to stop Ukraine from being killed by corruption is to kill corruption first. Tymoshenko has gone from being part of the solution to being part of the problem. That’s the best way to interpret “everything’s gone,” her unintended double entendre.

Her lust for power and lack of ethics has led Ukraine nowhere. There should be no forgiveness for politicians who put their private interests above public interests — way above public interests.

Abolishing the closed party-list system would require something bigger than one crook double-crossing the other. It would require mass protests. No pain, no gain. No protests, no progress. No end to the elite’s crooked behavior.

Ukraine should have a vocal, not voyeurist, majority that would keep the crooks in check around the clock.

In a rapidly depopulating country that ranks 134th in corruption and 152nd in economic freedom, this should be a full-time job.

DLW said...

It's "public forgiveness"...

Madoff and Lay were able to game the system because of systemic corruption in the US and only later finally exposed and penalized. But they were still protected by that system as they were being penalized. The US's justice system is first and foremost respectful of $peech and it gives tribute to justice because folks with $peech (and others) want it to.

The institutions that exposed and partially rectified abuses of power (or are somewhat in the process of doing so...) took a while to build up. So my point is you gotta pick your battles and make your peace w. de facto movers and shakers, while persistently pushing for substantial reforms that'll help circulate your elites more to get rid of or significantly reform the insincere or severely lapsed ones.

I'd never say Madoff/Lay were small-time crooks...

"If Ukraine wants to have a future, Ukraine should have zero tolerance for people who are using the government to create overnight billion dollar fortunes. These people are swindling Ukraine out of its future and should be put out of business.

Corruption is killing Ukraine. The only way to stop Ukraine from being killed by corruption is to kill corruption first. Tymoshenko has gone from being part of the solution to being part of the problem. That’s the best way to interpret “everything’s gone,” her unintended double entendre."

dlw: I'd guess I'd say there's no one thing that fosters development. Curtailing corruption matters, but it isn't the whole picture. Corruption is not wholly unlike the word "sin" in that it is kaleidoscopic. There is much that we can all agree on as corruption, but there's also a good deal that involves selective valuations of what gov't is s'posed to do or what's legit rents going to those in power and what's going over-board.

You're not wrong, but you're possibly over-focused on the negative, what or who's gotta be stopped. My suggestion is that, in public, to focus more on positive reforms. As for the massive involuntary transfers of wealth by the oligarchs, they will be judged wholly for all of their actions someday, but not in this lifetime...

The latter part of the last sentence is pretty much a fact, the first part is a matter of faith.

dlw

DLW said...

Taras:Abolishing the closed party-list system would require something bigger than one crook double-crossing the other. It would require mass protests. No pain, no gain. No protests, no progress. No end to the elite’s crooked behavior.

dlw: don't abolish it. Make it regionalized and dilute it with the use of mixed systems. This'll tend to create two national parties and subvert the domination of certain regions by certain parties. It'll also facilitate local third parties who'll be better at bringing more attention to local issues.

Taras: Ukraine should have a vocal, not voyeurist, majority that would keep the crooks in check around the clock.

dlw: We need to let go of our fears and be willing to suffer for something greater than our own self-interests, and we also need to both validate and restrain (thru collective/social and individual/personal means) the pursuit of our "happiness"...

Taras:In a rapidly depopulating country that ranks 134th in corruption and 152nd in economic freedom, this should be a full-time job.

dlw: pick your fights well, while cultivating allies and it could become such for you and others.

dlw

Anonymous said...

I was surprised that Yulia got handed the pumpkin but it is not surprising if going into alliance POR/Yanu would not be guaranteed the Presidency. Yanu desperately wants to be Pres. and how long can his paymasters wait? OR has stubbornly refused to die or drift away into the distant past. This is particularly troublesome for those near neighbors who want to want to proceed with their program.

Well I am happy that shyrka has been averted (the secret meetings in a SBU/bug-free room were not a positive thing IMHO). Though shyrka would have been a plus for BYuT in the end much more so than PoR - Tymo would have obtained more deputies to her side.

How (if true?) did the Yush. change Yanu's mind? My belief is some gentle blackmail as it seems that both sides have "goods" on each other but as it would mean mutual destruction if all came to light - it remains bargaining chips with nudge power.

For Yulia this episode will be spun and spun into her ratings are back on track. Though I am surprised that her deputies are not a little miffed with her - first she talked them into the position to accept shyrka and now they have egg on their faces. It shows how much of a tight reign she keeps that no criticism is allowed --- not even from the Pres. Well she is certainly showing her Soviet roots and early Pioneer training - no free speech allowed just get back to work.

IIU

Pawlina said...

Taras, great post and while I sympathize with DLW's position, I totally agree with your response. Forgiveness is divine, and there is nothing divine about politics, or many politicians.

Reading your post made me think how Yulia and Yanuk both are so like the evil Queen in the Chronicles of Narnia ... the witch in Hansel & Gretel, and etc. (I can't think of a male version at the moment but you get the picture.)

I hope that Ukrainians manage to find a way to revive the "razom nas bahato" spirit and give the crooks the boot.

Of course, easier said than done.

Still, you Ukrainians are pretty amazing people...

Taras said...

DLW,

Public forgiveness? On what ethical grounds? What for? To stimulate further wrongdoing?

You’d never say Madoff and Lay were smalltime crooks because you’ve never lived in Ukraine. Come live in Ukraine. Apply for Ukrainian citizenship, get a Ukrainian job and meet the bigtime ones. Full money-back guarantee!:)

Corruption is the #1 problem in Ukraine, believe me. We should fight it with sticks and carrots: strong enough to decimate corruption, smart enough to preserve democracy.

The goal is to convince everyone, from the president to the police officer, of one important thing: Corruption does not pay.

My preferred voting system: mixed, yes; closed-list, no.

If you look into our lists, you’ll discover oligarchs, secretaries, drivers, lovers, family members and whatnot. This is not “democracy material.” This is a corruption incubator, plain and simple.

Picking battles matters as much as picking allies. I once thought of Yushchenko and Tymoshenko as my allies. I voted for them. I trusted them to battle corruption.

But instead of battling corruption, they would battle each other and pick other allies, the ones they should have battled.

In the 20th century, Ukraine had suffered more than any Western nation. In the first decade of the 21st century, Ukraine has continued out-suffering the West.

I just don’t feel like suffering anymore. IMHO, it's time for the ☭$ elites to suffer.


Good to see you again, IIU!

It’s hard to say whom shyrka may have benefited. It may have boosted Yush’s approval ratings and killed Tymo’s chances of reaching the second round. I’m certain of one thing: this unholy Yanuk-Yush-Tymo trinity is fostering, not fighting, corruption and is wasting people’s time and trust.

Currently, the Orange Revolution does not inspire awe but, rather, casts a shadow that still scares some leaders, domestic and foreign. It appears Yanuk decided he could do without Tymo’s coalition votes. Specifically, he decided he’d be better off without getting his hands dirty in her policies, and without the risk of being sabotaged by her (or by her allies in the Party of Regions).

It’s funny how Yanuk kicked Tymo and how Tymo is now kicking Yush. I love this “kick the cat” syndrome:)


Good to see you again, Pawlina!

I think Tymo wanted to outsmart everyone but ended up outsmarted by Yanuk and, as some sources indicate, by Yush.

She wanted to play Janet Colgate, the female character in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, who gamed two virtuoso con artists while they thought they were gaming her:)

Tymoshenko failed to live up to that dream role of hers.

In many Ukrainians, the “razom nas bahato” slogan provokes a cynical knee-jerk response. That’s exactly the response that helps our corrupt elites control our country.

They have thrived on the Orange Revolution’s broken promise and the apathy that followed. They want every decent Ukrainian to stay in his or her stabilnist shell.

Coming out of this shell and shaking up the system is what Ukrainians must do to fulfill the promise of the Orange Revolution.

elmer said...

What is the best way to deal with an economic crisis in Ukraine?

What is the best way to get rid of massive corruption in Ukraine?

I know, I know, I know, I know!!!!

Hold secret closed-door meetings, deny that they are ocurring, and - change the Constitution!!!

The "new" Constitution would eliminate direct presidential elections, postpone parliamentary elections for 2 years, clamp down on free speech and a few other doozies.

It wouldn't change anything as far as the economic crisis or corruption?

Oh, well - in Ukraine, we make simple things complicated, and we put on a show of doing things, instead of actually doing something.

It's Alice in Wonderland, except you can't make this stuff up.

The Party of Regions just fired Taras Chornovil.

He was a part of the Orange Revolution, and the son of Vyacheslav Chornovil, an avid Ukrainian advocate for Ukraine, who was mysteriously killed in a car accident with some trucks.

His son, Taras, switched sides after the Orange Revolution.

They also kicked out Bohoslovska, a really odious witch - she wants to run for Prez, but that's inconvenient for Yanuk.


Tymo got taken - she made a mistake. It's the first time I've ever seen such a big mistake on her part.

She should have stuck to putting an anti-crisis plan on the table, in public view, instead of trying to change the Constitution for her own benefit.

People would have understood.

DLW said...

Taras,
Even if corruption is the no. 1 cancer in Ukraine, that doesn't mean it's the best strategy to try and root it out.

I think Ed Murrow in "Good Night and Good Luck". When he was standing up against the fear campaign of Joe McCarthy in '53, he had to avoid attacking other big-wigs who were harming free speech in similar ways.

He didn't publicly say nice things about them, he simply passed over them, unlike what he did w McCarthy.

So you know, yeah, Timo's been corrupted. Maybe she was from the beginning. I don't know, but I'd still say that she's pushed for more changes in Ukraine than Yush or Yanuk. I can empathize w means-ends thinking that got over-board perhaps in her case.

As for election rules...
it pays to keep things simple. Open lists add a lot of complications. The abuses of closed lists you mention will get trimmed along with the size of the lists when you have regional elections and some seats determined by local votes. Once the lists are shorter, the inclusion of gag-candidates will atrophy.

But it pays to choose the path of least resistance to make it easier for those in power to accommodate you. Then the reforms happen sooner and their effects will lift people spirits and make other reforms more likely.

dlw

Taras said...

Elmer,

Tymoshenko appears to be in denial of what happened.

She keeps telling those silly fairy tales. She keeps telling everyone that she didn't seek undemocratic amendments; that the coalition would have included four partners, not two; and that it was Ukraine, not she, that Yanukovych dumped.

She made her choice. She’ll pay the price.

Btw, Taras Chornovil switched sides in the middle of the Orange Revolution. He joined the Party of Regions faction in December 2004.


DLW,

It’s impossible to root out corruption. It is possible, however, to reduce it to Western levels. That’s what I meant by killing corruption before corruption kills Ukraine.

In many countries, free speech helps eradicate corruption. In Ukraine, it’s different. Free speech helps expose corruption, but not eradicate it. Since the Orange Revolution, we've had more freedom of speech but not less corruption.

Tymoshenko had her share of successes. As Vice PM in 2000-2001, she fought the barter economy; as PM in 2005, she helped raise real wages and resell Krivorizhstal; as PM in 2009, she booted RosUkrEnergo. Well, that’s about it. The rest is failure, deception, corruption and scheming (with Russia and the Party of Regions).

Do I trust her? No. Do I see her as a true leader? No. Will I vote for her again? Only if she runs against Yanukovych in the second round. (But then again, I’m not sure the choice will be right — because there’s not much to choose from.)

Waiting for the closed-list system to evolve into something better will not change anything. I'm in favor of a revolutionary approach.

The path of least resistance often leads to loss of integrity and ends in moral compromises. Our leaders have walked this path way too many times. That includes Yushchenko and Tymoshenko.

elmer said...

Taras - she is indeed in denial, and she is no doubt furious that she got hoodwinked so badly.

Like Ukraine's other politicians, she is a "control freak" (which one typically )sees around many, many corporations - the sovok mentality surfaces again.

If she's not careful, in her anger, she will make more mistakes.

I actually got a huge laugh out of Yanukovych's performance - every word was a lie! The Party of Regions have some good speech writers, but again - the sovok mentality - "think one thing, say another, do a third."


You are right - corruption is openly acknowledged, openly discussed - and yet, nothing is done.

This is even more amazing, considering that there are only a few oligarchs who have a stranglehold on government - via corruption.

But there is a far greater number of people who know about it, and who realize how it's killing the country.

One of the beneficiaries, Kolomoisky, doesn't even live in Ukraine - he lives very, very comfortably in Switzerland.

So, now the Rada has voted to "suspend and investigate" the lunatic mayor of Kyiv, Chernovetsky, for "unlawful appointment of city deputies" and other transgressions.

Cherno is a lunatic, who operates with and associates under the umbrella of an African preacher who preaches the "prosperity gospel" in order to defraud people.

Cherno is a lunatic who, in the capital city of Ukraine, doesn't even speak Ukrainian.

So the Rada finally "woke up" to Cherno's corruption. It's about time.

Yes, I know Taras Chornovil switched sides during the Orange Revolution. But that's nothing new in Ukraine, is it - just name your price.

Remember Kinakh, for example?

Did the closed little circle of the "political elite" really switch sides?

They are all on their own side, while they write nice speeches about "putting aside personal ambitions" and "considering the national interest."

So why is there a "wing of Firtash" in the Party of Regions?

And why did Yushchenko support Firtash? Could it be the bonuses that the secretariat got, and could it be the $54 million transfer to an account in Dubai to Yushchenko's brother?

Of course, the transfer of a construction contract for the Lviv airport by Tymo to her buddies, Serhiy Taruta and V. Hajduk - that's just another in a line of examples of huge corruption.

There is one good thing that came out of this - stopping some really bad amendments to the Constitution.

Not that it doesn't need to be fixed - just not in the way these crooks envisioned it.

DLW said...

Elmer, nationwide elections are a mixed bag, especially if it leads to two different parties controlling the different parts of the gov't and not being able to cooperate.

I myself, wd like something for my own country where we had a two-round election. On Nov 4, we select the top 3 candidates (allowing each voter 3 approval votes) out of like 7-10 candidates chosen meritocratically, probably by their incumbency and their ability to collect valid signatures. At the same time, we'd select 3 electors per congressional district out of 10 candidates, using a similar "top three" approval voting system. Then a week later or so, the 1305 would convene and get to meet the candidates, listen to another debate that would be broadcast nationwide, and cast the final vote for the next president using an instant-runoff-voting system where each of the electors would rank the three candidates, with the third place candidate removed and those who selected her or him as their first choice, having their vote transferred to their second choice.

It'd be relatively simple, more clean and hard to rig with $peech/fear-mongering. It'd also direct more attention by people to relating the presidential election to their local issues of import. And that would spill-over to improving voter-participation in other more local elections, which would make all of the politicians elected more accountable for their actions.

Taras,
Yes, Yulia has failed you. I'd say some of that was out of her hands. It's easy to fail when you're dealing with an 800 pound gorilla in the room doing its best to subverty any and all reform and you need to work w. the likes of Yuschenko and many others who have no interest in real reform, in part because of the paucity of institutions and how they defang the threat of elections.

So I'd say integrity means holding true to one's values. I believe in holding very strongly to a set of values in my community in private and in public, selectively accommodating the status quo set of values. I do this to provide space for my community against undue persecution and to bring about cultural changes in the wider society. In so doing, it may seem I'm being inconsistent, but I believe I'm acting with integrity with my belief in the limited role that the state inevitably plays in making sustainable changes possible.

When I participate in public decision-making, I'm bearing tribute to my ideals, nothing more, nothing less and that can mean going out of my way to focus on the aspects of the status quo that I am able to affirm.

I think you can affirm that if it weren't for Timo as a political force to be reckoned with, that Ukraine wd have back-slidden not unlike what has happened significantly elsewhere in the FSU.

I wasn't ever really a big fan of Clinton, although I did get enthusiastic about him when he came to speak at my grad school once. For me, he mattered more so for what he represented. He represented a way to keep the democracy/politics of my country competitive at a time when there was strong pressure for it to tilt hard to the right. He represented the decentralization of political capital in the US that has since then allowed further decentralization (and reconcentration) to occur.

This is part of democracy... working with what is in large part with the hope that something new is made possible.

dlw

DLW said...

I'd add that the failures of Ukrainian reforms also stem from the failure of the West to support Ukraine in the past half-decade. In the case of the EU, they're not set up for decisive collective action, especially against their major gas suppliers, and voluntarism gets restrained significantly by their top-down systems.

In the case of the US, part of this was because of GWII and the BushAdmin's (Powell left in 2005) general failure to see the threat in the Neo-Soviet Russia and to maintain healthy diplomatic ties with the other nations of the world.

And my own denomination(rooted in the Swedish Baptists) could have been more generous in our finances... We talk about dependency "we don't want them to become dependent on us..." , but we forget how generous financially the Northern Baptists were with Swedish Baptists in the mid-19th ctry, permitting them to press for greater democracy in the workplace, the gov't and in their faith-communities. This is part of what allowed greater freedoms to come earlier in Sweden than other parts of Europe and, as a result, the denomination gained a critical weight and enough European influence to differentiate it from the more garden-variety fundamentalism in the US.

So I'd say the fault for the failures to reform in Ukraine are widespread and I'd be less eager to penalize all of those who have failed. My recommendation is to push for reforms that'll expedite the centralization and circulation of the elites. A mix of winner-takes-all and non-winner-takes-all elections tends to lead to two major where power can be centralized. It also stymies the ability of either of the two major parties to dominate politics and provides spaces for grass-roots activism by outsiders to influence policy-reforms.
dlw

elmer said...

What is really hideous is that the chief editor of the Novy Kanal news program who showed the "everything's lost" video was sacked.

Volodymyr Pavliuk was asked to resign on the pretext that he "did not know when to stop."

I guess censorship and propaganda are not dead in Ukraine yet.

I think people in a democracy are entitled to know who their leaders are, and what the facts are.

And that means that "inconvenient truths" don't get squelched for the convenience of politicians.

http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-320723.html

Taras said...

Elmer,

I think she made her last mistake. She totally blew her cover and many people finally noticed the despot in her.

She wanted to hoodwink him before he would hoodwink her. She failed. The reporter who aired her “everything’s gone” video has been forced to resign, as if that would help her ratings.

As of today, it’s unclear whether she’ll make it to the second round.


DLW,

Tymoshenko failed me not because she didn’t have the votes with which to fight corruption.

She had just enough votes to make a good start. But she didn’t have the values.

Tymoshenko doesn’t care about values. She only cares about votes.

Clinton didn’t care about Ukes. He only cared about nukes.

The nastiest thing in U.S.-Ukrainian relations happened during his administration. My country ended up poor; by contrast, Clinton ended up with a $5M donation for his foundation.

Try donating three-fourths of your income to the Clinton Foundation. Maybe then you’ll be more eager to penalize those who have failed.

Crime should be followed by punishment. Otherwise, crime becomes a sport.

DLW said...

There's always propaganda and censorship in every gov't. In some its far more pronounced. And every political leader has a despot in them. The natural tendency of the system is all against all and so you gotta use both carrots and sticks to ensure the loyalty of those on your side.

You know better than I do the likely political futures of Timo. I'd say I'd focus on some practical reform: like the use of both winner-takes-all and winner-dsn't-take-all election systems with regional pr elections to shorten the party lists. (Winner-takes-all mitigates shyrka. Winner-dsn't-take-all keeps the competition from becoming too cut-throat and gives opportunities to smaller-groups to get their ideas in the public sphere. It's also inevitably easier to shorten party lists than to make them open, plus open list pr elections are generally too complicated, except for local elections with relatively few seats.)

So I'd find funding from outsiders/int'ls, toe the official line of saying the right things for those in power, while working w. non-party groups to disseminate and build up a consensus reform strategy. Then, after the seeds have been scattered broadly, I'd work w whatever movers and shakers are prevalent to make it so.

dlw

DLW said...

You'd think that Iran's leaders wd know better than giving themselves 63% when all they really needed was 51% to stay in office.

There goes Ukraine except for the grace of the OR. When violence comes into the equation, $peech always tends to have the advantage.

dlw

Taras said...

I think Ukraine can be compared to Shah's Iran. The Westoxicated elite was living off the country’s natural resources and nobody saw it coming.

Yes, the Orange Revolution was nonviolent. But except for strengthening freedom of speech, the Orange Revolution has failed. “The bandits never went to prison” — they went to parliament and government. “The rich hardly helped the poor” — it’s been the other way around.

Since the Orange Revolution, Ukraine’s population has declined by more than a million people.

It takes something more serious than the Orange Revolution to keep the elite from depopulating the country.

DLW said...

The OR got stymied by Russia's mucking things up and the West droppin the ball and Yuschenko's personal/psychological failings to be the sort of strong leader that was needed to keep things moving in the right direction.

It is crucial that the nonviolent reform-oriented nature of the OR be apologetically defended as not at fault for the failings of the past five years.

It's the only hope for any of us that we strive to bring back the spirit of the OR in our situations. If change comes in Iran, it'll be in spite of those who are violent. Most protestors are quite non-violent, recognizing that the real jihad lies within with our self-interested "fight-or-flight" human natures.
dlw

Taras said...

I wouldn’t directly attribute the demise of the Orange Revolution to any country except Ukraine.

Of course, Moscow never stopped messing things up, and Washington had actually dropped the ball years before to the Orange Revolution.

Still, what killed the Orange Revolution was neither Moscow nor Washington. What killed the Orange Revolution was its leaders’ corruption plus a lack of follow-up protests on the part of rank-and-file people like me.

Throughout history, almost all revolutions involved a certain degree of carnage. Fortunately, ours did not. But, unfortunately, it went like a carnival. People went home too early, too confident that everything would be fine.

We got it all wrong. Our elite simply regrouped. But it did not reform.

Nobody takes you seriously — whether domestically or internationally — unless you’re able and willing to inflict unacceptable damage to your adversary. “Speak softly and carry a big stick,” as Teddy Roosevelt said. No protests, no progress is what I’m saying.

So if you like the Orange Revolution just because no oligarchs were harmed, it’s only because you’ve never been harmed by them.

In fact, your country has been helped by them. I’m not just talking about Bill Clinton. I’m talking about ordinary Americans. First, you got your peace dividend and your security benefits from disarming us. Second, to a smaller degree, you benefited from our cheap commodities, made with our cheap labor and our cheap natural resources.

Now, would your country trade its nuclear arsenal for my country’s social contract?

I don’t think so.

DLW said...

Taras: I wouldn’t directly attribute the demise of the Orange Revolution to any country except Ukraine.

dlw: What if we all did it?

TR:Of course, Moscow never stopped messing things up, and Washington had actually dropped the ball years before to the Orange Revolution.

dlw:Aye, but we cda shda picked it back up again after the OR. There's a lot more we could have done if Iraq had not quagmired us and we didn't need Russia's help w dealing w Iran.

TR: Still, what killed the Orange Revolution was neither Moscow nor Washington. What killed the Orange Revolution was its leaders’ corruption

dlw: In today's globalized world, all local/nat'l leaders need $peech/int'l allies to do anything. The US cd never have gotten off, changing its leadership in 1828 if Great Britain hadn't been preoccupied with France and it's empire, to say nothing of the higher transportation costs and how they limited the movements of Capital/Corruption.

plus a lack of follow-up protests on the part of rank-and-file people like me.

dlw: IMO, you're beating yourself up for no good reason. You need institutions/intermediaries to sustain OR-style protests. Ukraine is still developing such.

TR: Throughout history, almost all revolutions involved a certain degree of carnage. Fortunately, ours did not. But, unfortunately, it went like a carnival. People went home too early, too confident that everything would be fine.

dlw: All real change involves self-sacrifice and usually those in power wielding (and provoking) violence from those they oppress. If it weren't for the spirit of peace during the OR, things wd've gotten ugly quickly.

No one expected things wd fall apart so quickly. I left Ukraine at the end of July and it was in August that Yusch and Timo split and it was downhill mostly from then on. Who knows what might have been needed to get them to stay together long enuf to force more accommodation from PoR/Russia?

TR: We got it all wrong. Our elite simply regrouped. But it did not reform.

dlw: Elites always regroup, they had next to nothing holding their feet to the fire to sustain reform.

TR: Nobody takes you seriously — whether domestically or internationally — unless you’re able and willing to inflict unacceptable damage to your adversary.

dlw: When one votes and engages in free speech that speaks truth to power with protests, one inflicts a "damage", which is of the sort that doesn't spiral easily into an eye-for-an-eye. The political technologists can always $pin things, but to $pin is to presume there are facts that transcend our $pin. This is what elicits accommodation, if we're not out to end their career in politics, it's usually easier for them to flip-flop some in return for a limited measure of forgiveness.

TR: “Speak softly and carry a big stick,” as Teddy Roosevelt said. No protests, no progress is what I’m saying.

dlw: Sure, but that TR was the president of a rising country, who incidentally was quite frustrated in his immediate goals as a president. His historic importance was more so in making further reforms feasible down the road.

TR: So if you like the Orange Revolution just because no oligarchs were harmed, it’s only because you’ve never been harmed by them.

dlw: Yeah, that's why I like the OR... and you are right that I'm too easily on my soap box from my vantage point, which doesn't mean I'm not right on the crucial point.

DLW said...

TR: In fact, your country has been helped by them. I’m not just talking about Bill Clinton. I’m talking about ordinary Americans. First, you got your peace dividend and your security benefits from disarming us.

dlw: Some dividend..., have you seen our budget deficits as of late?

TR:Second, to a smaller degree, you benefited from our cheap commodities, made with our cheap labor and our cheap natural resources.

dlw: More so EU, but yeah, we benefited from that more than the median Ukrainian to be sure...

We agree that you've gotten a bum steer and I'm probably too much of an optimist and too far removed to judge you.

But I think that the way the unholy coalition between Yanuk and Timo came apart is a sign that the OR is still impacting Ukraine for the good. My hope is that Yusch gets replaced soon with someone who is a better politician and a leader. To that end, I'd be willing to support Timo for President of Ukraine.

dlw

Taras said...

Your peace dividend can be attributed to the decade of 1991-2001.

My point was, while you Americans were celebrating your victory in the Cold War, we Ukrainians were reeling from hyperinflation and, later, from grabitization.

Let’s be honest: You didn’t contribute to our security as much as we contributed to yours. You didn’t help us with economic reforms in any significant way either. You only helped Kuchma take advantage of us.

Well, it’s all history now. Without forgetting what happened, we should move on.

Btw, I used the wrong adverb. It should have been “inflict unacceptable damage on,” not “inflict unacceptable damage to.” That doesn’t change the substance of my claim. I’ll stick to my guns.

It’s easy to tolerate things that don’t cause us any trouble, right? Specifically, it’s easy to tolerate our elite if you’re divorced from the reality of living with its evils. But make no mistake: If you walked in my country’s shoes, you’d be talking a different talk and walking a different walk.

So you say you’d be willing to support Tymo for president of Ukraine? Maybe I should reciprocate by saying that I'd be willing to support Madoff for U.S. president. Still, I’m not going to say that.

Let me just say that I’m not willing to support Tymo.

DLW said...

Don't support her then, if you got time to spare, try to get involved or get going a movement for election reform, but I'd still consider being a swing voter, voting for the side (among the likely top two) who'll either endorse election reform, or who uses fewer dirty tricks.... (not likely to be Yanukovich in the prez election).

idk, elites tend to linger in all countries..., and there's a need for circulation, no doubt.

But yeah, it's easier to tolerate elites when you live in a country where your top elite is a relative newbie, who makes his big bucks from books.

peace out,
dlw

Taras said...

Exactly! Our elites differ — and quite significantly so.

Your elite can act irresponsibly and create major problems domestically and internationally. Yet no matter how powerful it can be, your elite has at least one powerful constraint: your middle class.

By contrast, our elite has no such powerful constraint yet. In fact, our elite seeks to preserve power by preventing this constraint — a powerful Ukrainian middle class — from being born. Our elite views government as a business, with zero social responsibility.

The reason I no longer trust Tymoshenko is because she's no longer part of the solution. She's part of the problem.

When I had trust in her — some sort of trust — I would turn a blind eye to her gas background. I would praise her guts. I now hate her guts. The masks are off. She's an autocrat who only cares about power and, to that end, caters to her own cadre of kleptocrats and...Kremlincrats.

As of now, I don't see any differences between her and Yanukovych, except the latter's jail record.

Well, the Lviv Airport story alone would be enough to change that — anywhere west of Ukraine:)

DLW said...

What is the Lviv Airport story?

Taras said...

Click here.