If you want something misspelled or misplaced, ask Yanukovych.
He’s already done this to countries, continents, names, guests and job titles. The list goes on.
The next time “Esteemed Madam Secretary General” Clinton drops by, she’ll probably discover more of his God-given potential.
In the meantime, Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, came to claim his fair share.
As he congratulated Yanukovych on his 60th anniversary, a spelling bee invaded Ukraine's airspace.And, presto, Yanukovych found himself declining the noun vuvuzela as vuzeli instead of vuvuzeli!
I pity the smartass who put the V-word on his talking points.
Anyway, I hope the lavish birthday party, attended by throngs of officials, oligarchs and celebs (including Lara Fabian), more than compensated for the faux pas.
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.
3:53-4:52
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.
2:22-3:04
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.
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.
8:02-8:30
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.
8:31-8:59
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.
Political humor gets even more political and even more (or less) humorous when it crosses cultures.
Channel 1+1 presents...Barack Obama Superstar: The Untold Story.
As President Obama visits Russia, it’s important that the olive branch he brings to the table does not hit the dove on the head.
Naturally, the Obama-Forrest Gump-Che Guevara-Larry King-Chavez sequence may entertain U.S. conservatives and irritate U.S. liberals. Anyway, to a Ukrainian like me, the Putin part looks very close to home.
The cartoon was produced by CFC Consulting, “a Ukrainian company with a global sense of humor,” in partnership with Future Media Arts.
Eland states my country’s name as “the Ukraine.” Most English-speaking Ukrainians consider such usage insulting or ignorant. To us, “the Ukraine” means a territory, not a country, and underscores centuries of Russian domination. Since independence, Ukraine has persuaded the U.N. and the U.S. to drop the article and switch from Kiev (the Russian name)to Kyiv (the Ukrainian name).
So either Mr. Eland knows little about Ukraine, or “the Ukraine” carries a coded message from the Independent Institute. By the way, Obama said “the Ukraine” during the presidential debates. To me, this came as a shock. How could the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on European Relations say that? Hadn't he mentioned his visit to Ukraine in The Audacity of Hope?
Indeed, U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine, in practical terms, is all about chicken Kiev change.
It can be summarized by the following quote from Don’t Admit the Ukraine into NATO:
In any honest assessment of U.S. security goals, the faraway Ukraine is not strategic to the United States. To Russia, given its history of being invaded by foreign powers, the Ukraine, a large neighboring country, is much more strategic than even its small Baltic neighbors.
So “the faraway Ukraine” is no longer as “strategic” as it was in 1993-1995, when Washington was twisting our strategic arms? And Ukraine has never been invaded? Not even by Russia?
In other words, “disarm and disown.” That’s the policy. Wait, how about this one: Wasn’t Czechoslovakia more “strategic” to Germany than it was to France and Britain when they signed the Munich Agreement?
A fool and his nukes are easily parted. When Ukraine — lulled by the “end of history” — gave up its nuclear deterrent, it did one hell of a foolish thing. It gave up power and got poverty in return. The IMF loans we received in exchange for our 5,000 warheads did not help us to the “sweet harvest” that U.S. President Bill Clinton promised us. Instead, they helped our President Kuchma convert his sweet reform rhetoric into an overnight billion dollar fortune for his family.
Contrary to Western clichés, Ukraine did not just “inherit” its nuclear arsenal from the USSR. Ukraine invented and ingested a huge part of that arsenal. Ukraine produced some of the deadliest ICBMs in the Soviet nuclear forces and, on orders from Moscow, deployed them on its territory. Ukraine paid the price of collectivization, industrialization, Chernobyl and grabitization.
Now, what benefits did Ukraine get from its denuclearization? Or, in a narrow sense, what did “friends of America” in Ukraine get from “friends of Ukraine” in America? Prosperity? No. A ticket to Western Civilization? No. Constant threats from Moscow? Yes. A bunch of appeasement artists from Washington? Yes!
So what should Ukraine’s story tell Iran and North Korea?
A. Hey, why don’t you drop your weapons like Ukraine did? B. Hey, why don’t you follow Ukraine into the NPT and the MTCR? C. Wanna be bossed around? D. Wanna get your chicken change?
Finally, what effects would Russia's appeasement-induced adventurism have on U.S. security goals?
Obozrevatel: Did Tymoshenko really have other coalition options?
Melnychenko: In all objectivity, my argument is with Yushchenko, too. How could the President use one hand to appoint the PM and use the other hand to put spokes in her wheels??? Unfortunately, as of today, I don’t see in what role Yushchenko can go down in Ukraine’s history. As a reformer? No. As a person who did something outstanding? No. He only has one chance left: He can be remembered as the ruler who took the Kuchma case to its logical conclusion. It’s not just the journalist’s murder. The Gongadze case and the Melnychenko recordings is a wide range of crimes committed by Kuchma and his team.
It is necessary that the Kuchma family repay its debt to the people, give back the stolen billions. As of 2000, this family had a net worth of $8 billion dollars. At that time, Kyiv’s entire housing market was worth that much. Now, using the money stolen from the people, Pinchuk [Kuchma's son-in-law] buys Bill Clinton from the U.S., wholesale with his wife Hillary, the current U.S. Secretary of State. What kind of policy will the States now frame toward Ukraine? Do we need a U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine edited by Viktor Pinchuk? I’m sure we don’t. Therefore, the Melnychenko recordings provide the legal mechanism not only for confiscating the Kuchma family’s illegal possessions, but also for reducing the international pressure on our country.
However, one should seize the moment. Eight years is quite a bit of procrastination.
By the way, tests of the recordings began as late as the end of last year through no fault of our Genprokuratura [short for Generalna Prokuratura, Office of the Prosecutor General]. In the past, the stalling was done by…the FBI. The thing is, in 2007, when the Genprokuratura agreed to an international test, the FBI agreed to conduct it. They did agree, but it didn’t go any further.
Obozrevatel: You mean, it was Pinchuk’s American lobby, the Clintons, who pulled the strings?
Melnychenko: Definitely, yes. In summer 2008, it appeared as if the FBI finally agreed and, in July, I was to give them the recordings. However, an interesting thing happened: The FBI suddenly refused to conduct the test. So, I can’t blame our Genprokuratura for procrastinating since 2007. They spent more than a year in talks with the FBI, and we ended up being led around by our noses. When the FBI refused, the Genprokuratura found new experts and finally progress was made. Let me emphasize that it was by pure coincidence that the test’s beginning came with the appointment of Volodymyr Lytvyn as speaker.
Mykola Melnychenko is the mysterious man who served on Kuchma’s security detail in the rank of major and claims to have bugged his office. The resulting recordings, first made public in fall 2000, possibly implicate Kuchma in the Gongadze murder and countless other crimes.
In his recent stream of allegations, Melnychenko alleges that, in 2004, Lytvyn had a role in a quid pro quo deal pondered by Putin and Kuchma, key backers of Yanukovych. Once it became apparent that Yushchenko would win the election, the two tried to work out an exit strategy.
The would-be deal, Melnychenko says, would have guaranteed Kuchma’s safe retirement and immunity from prosecution had Kuchma not interfered in the election process.
After Yushchenko became president — catapulted to power by the Orange Revolution — his administration chose not to pursue Kuchma. Nor did it choose to pursue Kuchma-era crimes whatsoever, thus breaking Yushchenko’s key campaign promise: “The bandits will sit in prison.”
This, along with other broken promises, deeply alienated Yushchenko supporters, not to mention Maj. Melnychenko. “Only recently did I become convinced that Yushchenko’s entourage was playing its own dirty game,” the Major added.
Obviously, not all of Melnychenko’s allegations add up. Theories abound on his agenda.
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.
For America, support for an independent Ukraine secure in its recognized borders is not only a matter of sympathy, it is a matter of our national interest as well. We look to the day when a democratic and prosperous Ukraine is America's full political and economic partner in a bulwark of stability in Europe.
'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.
