Obozrevatel: Pinchuk to Lobby for Tymoshenko in Washington?

Obozrevatel published another interesting article. This time, it’s about Pinchuk supposedly pimping Tymoshenko’s ride, not Clinton’s.

I translated a portion of it:

Adding fuel to the fire was information, leaked to the [Presidential] Secretariat, that Lady Y was “putting the charms” on Viktor Pinchuk with an eye toward having him engage in “lobbyism,” that is, in the well-placed choreography of her less-than-humble persona in Washington.

It’s no secret that Pinchuk is an old friend of the Clinton family, a sponsor of their foundation. In 2008, he was awarded the great honor of rendering financial assistance to the Obama campaign. Today, having won the laurels of a philanthropist and charity giver, Kuchma’s son-in-law has a lot of authority in the West. One can hardly call him the “leader of opinion,” but Viktor Mykhailovych’s* word still carries a lot of weight. [Viktor Mykhailovych Pinchuk (Pinchuk’s full name)]

In Europe, Tymoshenko’s “goodwill envoy” is Vice Premier Nemyrya; in Russia, it’s Viktor Medvedchuk; in Washington, she would like to have this role filled by Pinchuk. Now that he’s passed her “test of loyalty” in Davos with flying colors, literally laying it at YVT’s* feet, it’s even more apparent. [Yulia Volodymyrivna Tymoshenko (Tymoshenko’s full name)]

The question is, does Pinchuk himself want it? Especially, given his longstanding Dnipropetrovsk-era antagonism with Yulia Volodymyrivna — a blood feud, to be precise. [Both Pinchuk and Tymoshenko launched their careers in the heavily inudstrialized city of Dnipropetrovsk, which became a battleground of their disputes.]

In the Tymoshenko-Pinchuk affair, there can be only one motive: securing “protection” for his family and business, so that, for him, 2010 will not be a repeat of 2005.

Besides, no oligarch can avoid “self-determination” in the context of the presidential election. Everyone has their own way of “giving.” Some will “help” using money, some will “help” using other resources, and Pinchuk will “help” using connections and…air time. [Pinchuk reportedly controls ICTV, STB, Novy Kanal and M1.]

Actually, it was on this that Viktor Mykhailovych and Yulia Volodymyrivna agreed in the course of their latest and rather lengthy tête-à-tête meeting. The fact that at least one such “tryst” has occurred was gleaned by Oboz from credible sources in the government. Speakers from the Premier’s inner circle claim there have been several meetings.

The fact that Kuchma’s son-in-law contributed up to $5M to the Clinton Foundation merits no further discussion. By contrast, the allegation that he contributed to the Obama campaign merits a separate discussion.

If it happens to be accurate, then one thing should finally hit home: being “well served by President Kuchma and his government's bold and farsighted leadership.”

Sources:
http://obozrevatel.com/news/2009/2/17/286631.htm

American Expats in Lviv Celebrate Obama’s Victory

Channel 5 presents a short video of how Americans residing in Lviv received the election results.



Meanwhile, the American expat community in Kyiv held a gala event, attended by U.S. Ambassador William Taylor.

Video uploaded from: http://5.ua/newsline/184/0/54855

Zhirinovsky Endorses Obama

If you support Obama, don’t shoot. I’m just a messenger.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Vice Speaker of the Russian State Duma, basks in publicity as the enfant terrible of Russian politics, and one famous for his strong neo-imperialist, anti-American and anti-Ukrainian sentiment. Channel 5 offers a short interview with the man.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky: In foreign policy, we hope there will be major changes. Barack Obama will not support the dictator in Tbilisi, because Saakashvili is the Georgian Pinochet. And there will be seismic changes in this area. I think America might just as well quit NATO sometime in the future. What good is NATO for them? America will not fight anybody. Barack Obama will start implementing his program of renewal — doesn’t he say change, change? It is this renewal that corresponds to our perestroika. He’ll do everything. In America, they like Gorbachev very much. Thus, Barack Obama will restructure America. He will make it totally different: when democracy will be for the colored, not just for whites. And America will never threaten anybody.

As you can see, Zhirinovsky keeps his expectations high. His vision of Obama’s foreign policy fits his own foreign policy agenda.

To a Soviet-born Ukrainian like me, the change-perestroika analogy sounds like a mixed blessing. Naturally, the quit-NATO prophecy should alarm the hell out of fresh NATO members, aka “fledgling democracies.”

Let’s just hope that Obama, if elected, will not fulfill Zhirinovsky’s foreign policy expectations.

Happy Election Day!

Video uploaded from: http://5.ua/newsline/251//54827

Russian Cartoonist Portrays Obama, McCain, Palin, Ukraine

Sergei Elkin (spelled yol-kin) is the king of political cartoons in Russia, famous for his satirical takes on Russian, Ukrainian and world leaders.

What sets him apart from Kremlin propagandists is his relatively balanced and multidirectional approach.

Here’s how he frames the U.S. presidential race. “Plan Putina” refers to Putin’s Plan; the cartoon addresses Palin’s recent remark on Obama and Ukraine.

Elkin appears to be an LJ user. His works can also be found at:
http://www.elkin.ru/engl_index.html
http://www.rian.ru/caricature/20081028/153934395.html
http://caricatura.ru/master/elkin/
http://ex.by/2008/05/23/prikolnye_karikatury_elkina_2_43_shtuk.html
http://sergei-elkin.blogspot.com/

Images:
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/3303/elkin99.5/0_19d0a_ca30b245_XL.jpg http://plakat.censor.net.ua/pic/posters/very_big/1224857514.jpg

Palin: Obama’s Stance "Would Only Encourage Russia’s Putin to Invade Ukraine Next"

Never before has Ukraine been as frequently mentioned in a U.S. presidential race as it is mentioned these days.

Speaking at a rally in Reno, Nevada, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said this about Ukraine:

After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence — the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.

Note: The remark comes 1:45 into the video.

Shushannah Walshe at Fox News did a blog posting on Palin’s speech, drawing more than a hundred comments, one which I would like to quote, partially:

Comment by BradKT
October 21st, 2008 at 4:12 pm

People…think this through. Do you actually think that the United States should go to war with Russia over its invasion of Georgia…or if it invades the Ukraine? I don’t think so…and neither does the Bush Administration.

This comment made me want to trot out the same old lines:

Dear BradKT,

Just think about it: If Russia invades Ukraine, oil will be trading at above $300 a barrel.

Of course, you won’t have to go to war with Russia. But you will be spending more on defense and humanitarian aid. Besides, the war will create a huge black market supply of conventional weapons plus, quite possibly, radioactive material. Do you actually think it will benefit your country?

You and I will be better off if you elect a president who will spare no foreign policy effort to make Russia’s invasion cost-prohibitive.

All the best from the Ukraine,

Taras

Sources:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2008/10/22/83289.htm
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/21/palin-hits-obama-for-stance-she-expressed-support-for/
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/10102

Obama Voices Support for Ukraine, Cites Holodomor

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has sent his greetings to the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, VOA Ukrainian Service reports.

In a letter to the UCCA, which recently convened in Cleveland, Ohio, Obama said this about Ukraine:

Friends of Ukraine in the West should continue playing a key role in building a secure and prosperous future for Ukrainians.

The experiment of Ukrainian democracy should succeed — not only for the sake of prosperity for Ukrainians, but also to be an inspiration for those in the region who are struggling for democracy, including even Russia.

In courting Ukrainian American voters, many of whom favor McCain, Obama said he believes that Ukraine is ready for a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP). He added that he will work with U.S. allies in NATO so that Ukraine will be granted the opportunity to make a further step toward joining the Euro-Atlantic community, VOA reports.

Obama called the Holodomor a “terrible crime,” saying, “We must never forget about this famine and must always ensure that future generations will know about this tragedy so that it will never be repeated.”

Note: Since no English-language sources could be found, I did a back-translation of Obama's quotes from Ukrainian into English.

Sources:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2008/10/21/83172.htm
http://www.voanews.com/ukrainian/2008-10-20-voa1.cfm

Ukraine in the Second U.S. Presidential Debate

Last night at Belmont University, Obama and McCain reiterated their positions.

As always, the subject of Ukraine emerged in the Russian context. Watch the video.



McCain specifically addresses Ukraine 3:52 into the video, advocating for Ukraine’s admission into NATO.

Obama does not say “the Ukraine” again (nor does he say "Ukraine") and stresses a pro-active foreign policy.

Video embedded from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25DDzrI5vSo

Who’s Who on Ukraine in the U.S. Presidential Debate

And What’s in It for Ukraine?

Obama comes from a state with a significant Ukrainian American community. McCain comes from a party that many Ukrainian Americans vote for. Both have visited Ukraine.

Still, there seem to be certain differences in how the two view Ukraine, as far as the debate can tell.



While Obama did not shortchange Ukraine on NATO membership prospects, he referred to us as “the Ukraine” and went on to discuss cooperation with Russia. (Obama mentions Ukraine 4:42 into the video.)

By contrast, McCain demonstrated a deeper grasp of our current affairs, emphasized the threat from Russia, and exhibited a warmer attitude toward Ukraine’s NATO track. (McCain mentions Ukraine 7:07 into the video.)

It’s up to the American people to decide who will be the next president of their country.

Whoever that will be, it’s important for Ukraine that the next U.S. president builds bipartisan consensus and ensures foreign policy continuity with regard to Ukraine.

Leaving Ukraine at the mercy of the Kremlin would encourage bully behavior and would effectively penalize Ukraine for relinquishing its nuclear arsenal, the world’s third-largest.

For the West, the outcome would be a flood of refugees, a natural gas shock, and a spike in defense spending.

Make no mistake: The costs of coping with the Kremlin’s adventure far outweigh the costs of preventing it.

No ‘Stability’ in U.S. Presidential Campaign

'Change' — not 'stability' — is the buzzword. I learned this after studying CNN and CBS reports on the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.

No matter how desperately I searched for 'stability,' my search efforts suffered a massive failure. I couldn’t find a single S-word in the campaign rhetoric of either Democrats or Republicans. All they talk about is change.

And change does not merely pervade the campaign rhetoric. It also characterizes the primaries dynamics.

Apparently the bovine stabilnist brand brought by U.S. spin doctors to one of Europe’s poorest countries has too few fetishists at home.

White House hopefuls shun the word ‘stability.’ Maybe it’s because their voters stick to a different diet?

"The numbers tell us this was a debate between change and experience, and change won," said CNN political analyst Bill Schneider.

"You came together as Democrats, Republicans and independents to stand up and say that we are one nation, we are one people and our time for change has come." (Obama)

"For most of this campaign, we were far behind," he said. "We always knew our climb would be steep. But in record numbers, you came out and you spoke up for change." (Obama)

Clinton, speaking with 96 percent of the vote in, portrayed herself as the candidate who could bring about the change the voters want.

Clinton had worked to convince Iowa caucus-goers she has the experience to enact change, while Edwards and Obama preached that she is too much of a Washington insider to bring change to the nation's capital.

Edwards, in a tight race for second, said Iowa's results show that "the status quo lost and change won."

"Now we move on ... to determine who is best suited to bring about the changes this country so desperately needs," he said.

Sources:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/03/iowa.caucuses/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/08/nh.main/index.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/04/ap/politics/main3676274.shtml
Photo courtesy of AP