Share |

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Tymoshenko Presidency: 47% Order, 53% Dictatorship, Studio Poll Says

From Gas Princess to Queen of Populism to Dictatress. She's coming home!

At a recent Shuster Live studio poll, 53% of respondents viewed a Tymoshenko presidency as dictatorship and 47% as order (or 64%-to-36% in the 18-25 audience). Instead of drawing the line between order and dictatorship, Tymoshenko blurred the line.

PM Yulia Tymoshenko: Savik, what makes you think that after all the chaos that grips politics, after all this disorder, irresponsibility — this whole, if you’ll excuse my non-parliamentary language, barking — people don’t want dictatorship? I already do want the country to have order, regimentation, and perhaps a sufficiently strong system of government, and not what we have today. [applause]
Savik Shuster, host: This…this here…wait, I have a little...I have...I have...I have...I too have...

Tymoshenko: And you absolutely have no idea: whether people want dictatorship or not — because they’re tired of it.
MP Iryna Akimova (PRU) [chimes in]: You saw it! Yulia Volodymyrivna wants dictatorship in our mass media!

Shuster: No, people probably…
Akimova: And she makes it happen, Savik. Or does she?

Shuster: I can’t hear you, sorry.
Akimova: You didn’t hear me? Yulia Volodymyrivna does want dictatorship. She just said it.

Shuster: I...
Akimova: And unfortunately, she wants it in the mass media.

Shuster: Excuse me, Iryna, I’m having a strict commercial break here, and after that Mykola Azarov will take the microphone.
Akimova [continues]: Because she doesn’t allow commentary to the interesting footage that we’ve seen on the screen. It’s called dictatorship, Savik. [show closes for commercial break]

Tymoshenko’s usage of the noun стрункість (stroon-kist) strikes me as particularly dictatorship-driven.

Literally, стрункість means slimness. In the above context, however, it sounds like a derivative of “Струнко!” (stroon-koh), which roughly equals “Parade rest!”
In Russian, they say “Смирно!” (smeer-noh). The Russian expression по стойке смирно refers to regimentation. Tymoshenko’s recent mega-Freudian slip, “I want, on behalf of Russia...sorry, on behalf of Ukraine” carries the point further.

If Tymoshenko wins, will we have “one law for all” or “one lady above all laws?” The same goes for the other lady: Yanukovych.

Video uploaded from:
Original source:


Bravecat said...

Thanks for the wishes! I am actually planning a trip to Kiev sometime this October, so hopefully will still see some yellow foliage :)

elmer said...

Akimova is one of 2 hatchet hags that Azarov, the founder of the Party of Regions, brought to the show when the 3 of them gate-crashed it.

She also has a nasty sovok habit of being long-winded, rude, and putting words in other people's mouths.

Ukraine has an utterly abysmal government today.

And Tymoshenko is absolutely right - it is chaos. The Party of Regions has been blocking Parliament, literally physically, like some big no-holds barred wrestling match, for 2 years now, in order to prevent it from working.

What Ukrainians don't get, because they still don't know how to think, and still have the effects of sovok brainwashing, is that the dictatorship in Ukraine doesn't come from Tymoshenko, even if she wanted a dictatorship.

It comes from the damn Party of Regions, and its sovok-style machine politics, and idiot sheeple voting in lock-step blindly for the corrupt political machine that is the Party of Regions.

That's why Yanukovych, a 2-time criminal, and proven election falsifier in the 2004 presidential elections, is still at the top of that dung heap.

For Tymoshenko to call for an orderly government is not the same as calling for a dictatorship, notwithstanding the not-so-clever distortions by the Aximova hag.

A group of chimps would be more orderly than the Ukrainian Parliament, given the shenanigans of the Party of Regions, and the likes of Hissing Hanna Herman and Hatchet Aximova.

Taras said...


You’re welcome! You haven’t been here how long? Anyway, tons of yellow foliage are waiting for you:)!


Are you falling back in love with Tymoshenko? Did you just forgive and forget all her capers or does her idea of order-dictatorship appeal to Americans?:)

Lingüista said...

Hey, I dislike the idea of order-dictatorship (Lukashenko, anyone?) just as much as the next guy. But considering the alternatives... what the heck? Doesn't it seem likely that Yanukovych would be even worse?

If politics is the art of the possible, then what is possible in today's Ukraine?

elmer said...

The problem is, Taras, that right now Ukraine's system of government (if one can all it that, because it's simply chaos) has to rely on the decision of assorted players to cooperate with each other.

But in Ukraine, or anywhere else, people are not angels. So what you have is the "political elite" pooing and peeing all over each other, except when it's convenient for them to continue to grab money.

Example - the privatization of the Odessa Port.

Yushchenko says yes - Tymo says no. Tymo says yes - Yushchenko or someone else says no.

It's not about maximization of value for the benefit of the country - it's about who can step on each other's toes.

However, none of the "political elite" has made a move to bring about an orderly system of government - none.

To the contrary, Tymo and Yanuk and their respective hordes recently made a move to eliminate presidential elections. Hatchet Hag Aximova is trying to distort history by painting Yanuk as a "democratic" kind of go who withdrew at the last minute - but that means he was ready to do it.

And, indeed, Tymo is fiercely proud of her efforts on behalf of Ukraine, and the all-important sovok legacy - the pension.

She is correct in calling for a more orderly system - other people have repeatedly called for that as well. Yushchenko tried his hand at proposing constitutional amendments, which turned out to be fairly laughable.

But so far, neither she nor anyone else in Ukraine have taken any steps in the right direction as far as creating an orderly system of government.

Britain has an orderly system of government - it's not a dictatorship.

And the Prime Minister is required to appear not only before the press, but also before Parliament, to answer tough questions.

But each member in the Parliament in the House of Commons in Britain, in stark contrast to Ukraine, is accountable to a specific set of constituents in a voting district.

In Ukraine, it's just a bunch of oligarch wolves barking and howling at each other, unless they are trying to win votes.

So Tymoshenko is certainly correct in calling for orderly government - which, again, is not the same as calling for a dictatorship, no matter what Aximova the Distorter spits out.

It remains to be seen what Tymo - and more importantly, the Ukrainian people - will do to demand AND IMPLEMENT a good system of orderly government.

Because what's been done so far clearly has not worked, except for the oligarch wolves.

Anonymous said...

"A dictatorship of laws?" Familiar language, isn't it?

You remember, Elmer, who made that phrase famous?

And now Yulia - NOT Yanukovich, by the way - parrots it.

Kalle said...

Nice clip. I'll try to find time to watch the whole show tomorrow, nice of them to put it on their website. :-)

I saw the first installment of Kiselev's new show a week ago, and most of the second one yesterday, but can't decide what to make of it. Has Inter become less anti-Tymoshenko or not, what do you say?

Btw, it was really nice to visit Kiev, and the swim in Dnepr was a great bonus. Hope to be back some time next year!

Taras said...


It’s speeches like this one that make me question her “lesser of two evils” role. When she uses order and dictatorship interchangeably, she becomes a synonym for Yanukovych.

In fact, she’s raiding Putin’s vocabulary. Your mom-in-law should like it:)


With all due respect, you're putting words in Tymoshenko’s mouth.

She did not make the distinction. Instead, she made the two overlap. I think it would be wrong to interpret her explicit acceptance of dictatorship as a passionate plea for order.

She’s simply playing the “benevolent dictator” card, a vote-getter amid today’s poverty and lawlessness.


After spending so much time with Putin making deals that have driven Naftogaz to the brink of bankruptcy, no wonder she speaks Putinese.

“A dictatorship of law is the only kind of dictatorship that we must strive for,” as Putin phrased it in 2000.


You’re welcome! We’re having a sunny day in Kyiv, and the water’s still warm. (Warm enough for me:)

I haven’t seen Kiselev’s show entirely yet. I’ll see what it’s like.

elmer said...

Look, Taras, I agree, a dicatorship of laws is a stupid phrase to use.

But if you watched the show, what you saw was Tymoshenko pointing out the rampant corruption on the part of the Party of Regions - including Azarov - and the open recognition by her and the journalists that the Prosecutor General's office is controlled by the Party of Regions.

Very convenient for corruption.

She told Azarov that when he could explain how he acquired a dacha from the government, he could then ask her about the budget.

Azarov had nothing to say about his dacha, and hung his head.

That's not the only instance of corruption - Yanukovych's huge Mezhihirya estate which he also got from the government is well known.

And there's more.

She is not perfect - but who else is there?

Yushchenko sits like Jabba the Hut, and mumbles about corruption - then help Akhmetov get the drilling rights to the Black Sea Prykerchenska Shelf. What did Yushchenko do about corruption? Fired all the traffic cops - then re-hired a high-ranking one.

Yatseniuk? Supported by Pinchuk and possibly Firtash, 2 of the worst corruptioneers around?

Yanuk? The guy who had a key role with the Party of Regions in falsifying elections in 2004?

Yulia pointed out that the Parliament cut the Prime Minister's pay (she was not complaining).

But somehow they did not cut perks and privileges for themselves, in a time of economic crisis.

Azarov and Hissing Hanna Herman did not have anything to say about that either.

Yulia pointed out how Naftohaz had subsidiaries, which somehow received mysterious transfers of funds.

And same with one of the banks that was bailed out - the bank received funds, and the bank was then drained of those funds by transfers to other subsidiaries.

All under the "watchful eye" of the Party of Regions.

So who else is there, Taras?

She's by no means perfect, and noone is going to let her set up a dictatorship.

But who else is there, out of all the spineless snakes that comprise the "political elite? in Ukraine?

elmer said...

One more thing, Taras.

Азаров как-ав і молотив па расійське про пенсії.

Azarov got up there and started hammering away at Yulia about those all-important pensions, and why they haven't been raised.

Yet Azarov and the Party of Regions, as Tymo pointed out, did not raise pensions before the economic crisis when the Party of Regions were in power.

And one constantly hears criticism of Yulia about her "populism."

To me, this reeks of sovok schizophrenia and hypocrisy.

And it's another example of the fact that the Party of Regions has nothing to say, and is at this point trying to hide all of the raping and pillaging of Ukraine by the oligarchs.

Including the ones that Ukrainian oligarchs invited over from Rasha.

elmer said...

About an hour and 40 minutes and an hour and 54 minutes into the program (geez, Ukrainians are long-winded - if there was no time limit, I bet they would still be talking!!!) a discussion of dictatorship and "black" campaign ads came up.

What set Yulia off, so that she went and got a court ruling?

Well, she has been putting up billboards all over the place - "they argue, SHE works", and "they blockade the Parliament, SHE works" - etc, etc.

Soo, the Party of Regions got itself some TV ads, which talks about how bad things are while SHE works, and if this is the way SHE works, then maybe it's better if SHE went on vacation.

So, under the law which deals with advertising, Yulia got herself a court ruling which prohibits such "black" campaign ads "not in good conscience.'

She analogizes this to ads which disparage a competitor's goods, by falsely claiming that they're poison, for example.

Which, of course, is a false analogy, because we're not talking about cars, or chocolate bars, or peanut butter, or tennis shoes here - we are talking about government and politics, and free speech, which above all needs to be protected.

Yulia claims that the law in Ukraine is almost exactly similar to this type of laws in other countries - which is, of course, incorrect.

There is discussion by a journalist, who is rightly terrified of such a court ruling.

First, the journalist very cleverly brought up the fact that the ad referred only to "SHE" and not to Yulia (a nice joke).

But secondly, it is a general ruling, rather than a specific one - which endangers free speech.

He also brought up the Obama and McCain presidential campaigns, in which there were lots of political ads, and lots of claims.

The journalist has it right on this one.

Yulia has it wrong on this issue.

As far as dictatorship - Yulia very clearly and specifically acknowledges that noone is going to allow dictatorship in Ukraine.

What she correctly points out is that the system of government in Ukraine today is neither fish nor fowl - it is a hodge podge inviting perpetual conflict.

And that Ukraine should have either a parliamentary government, or a presidential type of government.

For example, like in Germany (parliament) or England (parliament) or the US (presidential - with checks and balances) or France (presidential, with a legislative body.

Where she falls down is accepting that the Rashan model would be an acceptable model - it's not.

elmer said...

The question of the economic crisis and "working with others, including the opposition" came up.

On this, my question to Tymoshenko would have been:

- why did she find it necessary to hire the Blackstone Group, and pay them $16 million to advise her in how to deal with the IMF (as reported in Ukrainian Pravda)? Are there no economists in Ukraine? Are there no people in Ukraine capable of dealing with the IMF?


- why has Ukraine not implemented the reforms required by the IMF as a condition of the latest loans?

Taras said...

She's a snake herself. Not spineless, but a snake she is. If she wins the election and makes a deal with the scorpionic Party of Regions, we'll have a dictatorship of sorts.

"It's easy if you try," as John Lennon put it.

Different countries have different laws. I think negative campaigning, as opposed to defamation, should be part of living in a democracy.

Tymoshenko's use of the IMF money has nothing to do with reform and everything to do with stabilnist: getting elected whatever the cost and letting her oligarchs prosper.

In this regard, IMF stands for Investing Money in Friends.