Share |

Monday, July 05, 2010

Clintons Talk ‘God-Given Potential’ to Ukraine (1995-2010)

Nothing has changed since the Clintons first visited Ukraine in 1995.

Except that the Baltics (buy) became Europe, and Ukraine (sell) remains Eurasia.

Otherwise, it’s all the same: same speeches, same shibboleths.

Bill Clinton (May 12, 1995): But your efforts will not be in vain, because the course is right, even if the path is difficult. The toil is bitter, but the harvest is sweet, as the old Proverb says. In time, your transformation will deliver better, more prosperous lives and the chance for you and your children to realize your God-given potential. You and your children will reap the harvest of today's sacrifices.

In the pursuit of peace and prosperity, you have been well-served by President Kuchma and his government's bold and farsighted leadership. You should know this: As you build your future, the United States will stand with you.

Now, compare that oldie to this newie:

Hillary Clinton (July 2, 2010):
Ukraine matters not just to Ukrainians; Ukraine matters to the world. Because there are so many opportunities for Ukraine to assume a position of prominence and influence in the region, in Europe, and even beyond. An open, innovative Ukraine has much to offer. When I look at the students who graduate from this institute, and know that you are among the best of the world, I see limitless possibilities.

And the world is looking to you to secure your democracy, grow your economy, deepen your integration with your...and create the conditions that will allow you and every Ukrainian citizen to make the most of your God-given potential. The United States wants to be your partner.


Fifteen years go by, and guess what? Our “God-given potential” keeps going strong!

What, no “stand with you’s” this time

Hillary Clinton (July 2, 2010): So no matter where one lives in the world today there is always a temptation to get discouraged, dispirited, give up on the promise of democracy because it is a slow and sometimes messy process. And I'm here to urge to do just the opposite: to work even harder to strengthen your democracy, to build more civil society, to empower your media, to ensure that your future here in Ukraine is as positive as you deserve it to be. Now, this work is never easy.


It’s never easy when you’re caught between a “reset” and a hard place.

And here's what that place looks like.

Back to the Clinton speech:

I discussed the importance of defending these rights with your president, and he has made a commitment to uphold Ukraine’s democracy, to strengthen the rule of law, to maintain a strong respect for human rights.


Obviously, State doesn't know any better than to copy and paste from Yanukovych's latest address to the nation.
Trying to appeal to the man's better self, huh?

Anyway, in case you missed it, he has already broken that “commitment.”

As you tried to commit him to liberty, some protesters ended up committed to a lockup.

The United States applauds these statements and we welcome these commitments, but we recognize that rhetoric alone has not changed the game. These statements need to be followed by with concrete actions. And we have said very clearly to the Ukrainian government that we will help to make sure that these values and freedoms are protected.

Exactly! And to be honest, what you’re saying sounds like pure rhetoric. At least, that's been my impression so far.

It’s important, too, that we look at how to promote broadly based prosperity. One of the problems in societies around the world today is that too much of the productivity of the economy is going to too few — too few people. The political and economic elites are realizing the vast majority of benefits from economic activity.


I hope the Clinton Foundation no longer accepts donations from our elites. Or am I being a little too audacious here?

That IMF loan really hits the spot! We lose our nukes, you help our crooks.
Again. The Clinton model of U.S.-Ukrainian relations lives on. Let's call it “Thanking the Thieves 2,” shall we?

Oh, sorry, thanking the elites. Our elites can't live without more luxury clothing, cars, jets and villas. And we, the ordinary people, can't live without footing the bill, right?

Naturally, I couldn’t find any videos of Bill Clinton’s Shevchenko University address. But, surprisingly, I found this.

Like I said, nothing has changed since 1995.

Same rhetoric, same religion.


Anonymous said...

In the 3rd video from the end, did he mention Budapest? If yes, then his Hungarian pronunciation is near perfect.

Here American politicians are not welcomed too warmly, because the security measures (road closures). Our president even denied to go to the US so we are not so friendly with the US, despite they consider us allies, but our Prime Minister may go in the autumn.

Anonymous said...

Hillary's hair has changed! And looking a bit..... Junior high.

James Stanhope said...

On the map placed in this blog post, what do the blue and red/orange shadings signify?

Anonymous said...

Well, to be fair there was an idiot in the White House from 2001-2009. Bill Clinton sent lots of money to Ukraine. What Kuchma did with it you'll have to ask him.

Taras said...


Yes, he mentioned the Budapest Memorandum, a joke of an agreement that robbed Ukraine of the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal and provided nothing in return.

In Ukraine, Uncle Sam no longer commands the admiration he did in the euphoric ‘90s when many of us thought we’d make relatives.

Friends of America in Ukraine (I mean those who didn’t steal anything) ended up disarmed and disowned.


That hairstyle makes sense. Wasn’t she meeting with a ProFFessor of Economics who called her “Secretary General”?:)


They signify average GDP PPP per capita (blue=above world average; orange=below world average).


Bill Clinton sent lots of money to Leonid Kuchma, not Ukraine.

Why? Because Kuchma wanted to remain in power amid economic freefall and supported nuclear disarmament, a decision made without a referendum.

Later, the Kuchma family sent millions of that stimulus money back to the Clinton Foundation.

My parents never voted for Kuchma.

As a 14-year-old at the time Kuchma got elected, I did not support any policies pursued by Kuchma and sponsored by the Clinton administration.

I did not sign up for the corruption, poverty and injustice they created.