Connect with us

Red Pill

News

One year of Porky. Eleven promises Poroshenko made in his first year as Ukraine’s President

We take a look back at what President Petro Poroshenko said he would do once he won Ukraine’s putsch elections, and what he actually did do as Ukraine’s President. Lot’s of broken promises in 365 days.

Published

on

20 Views

Presidential elections were held in Ukraine on 25 May 2014, resulting in Petro Poroshenko being elected President of Ukraine. Originally scheduled to take place on 29 March 2015, the date was changed following the US coup. Poroshenko won the elections with 54.7% of the votes.

The real President of Ukraine? It’s debatable. He did after all come into power after an illegal coup staged by the US and EU, and won elections which excluded a good portion of East Ukraine and Crimea.

Does he call the shots? It’s debatable. Certainly the CIA, with its offices in downtown Ukraine, has a say it what’s going on. Rumor has it that US Ambassador Pyatt is the real acting President of Ukraine, while Victoria Nuland is the de facto Queen of the land. With a cabinet of foreigners like Natalie Jaresko, Poroshenko may not really have much of a say in the big picture of all things Ukraine.

Will he last another year in office? Very debatable. At civil war, totally broke, and infested with militant, neo-nazi forces throughout the government and military structure, Ukraine is a failed state. Poroshenko is hanging on by a very thin thread. Washington holds the scissors that may very well clip that thread.

One thing that is not debatable…Porky’s promises. Poroshenko sure made a lot promises over his one year in office…promises that rarely came to being.

Let’s take a look back at what Petro Poroshenko promised the Ukrainian people and the international community in his 365 days in office.


 

Promise number 1:
May 26, 2014, “Ukraine’s Petro Poroshenko pledges ‘end to war'” (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27571612).

“My first decisive step will be aimed at ending the war, ending chaos, and bringing peace to a united and free Ukraine. I am certain that our decisive actions will bring fairly quick results.”

“For those people who don’t take (up) weapons, we are always ready for negotiations to guarantee them security, to guarantee their rights, including speaking the language they want.”

He also promised a dialogue with people in eastern Ukraine if he is elected.

Mr Poroshenko said he would also like to negotiate a new security treaty with Moscow.

Although he strongly backs closer ties with the EU, Mr Poroshenko also stresses the need to normalise ties with Russia.

Promise number 2:
May 26, 2014, “Poroshenko promises calm ‘in hours’ amid battle to control Donetsk airport” (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/26/poroshenko-peace-donetsk-airport-air-strike-separatists).

Ukraine’s president-elect, Petro Poroshenko, promised to end the armed insurgency in the east of the country in “hours”, as Kiev’s forces launched air strikes on separatists during an intense battle to regain control of Donetsk airport which left many injured.

“Their goal is to turn Donbass into a Somalia where they would rule with the power of machine guns. I will never allow that to happen on the territory of Ukraine,” he said.

He suggested that he would move quickly and decisively against the rebels: “The anti-terrorist operation cannot and should not last two or three months. It should and will last hours.”

Promise number 3:
June 7, 2014, “Poroshenko promises elections, Russian language, jobs in Donbas” (http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/news/poroshenko_promises_elections_russian_language_jobs_in_donbas_322517).

“Today we need a legitimate partner for dialogue. We will not negotiate with bandits. And we are ready to declare early local elections in Donbas to form partners for dialogue,” the president said.

Poroshenko also announced his intention to pay a visit to Donbas soon for dialogue with its citizens.

“As president, I’ll come to you soon. With peace. With the project of decentralization of power. With the guarantee of free use in your region of the Russian language. With the firm intention not to divide Ukrainians into “right” and “not right”. With a respectful attitude to the specifics of the region, with the right of local communities to their nuances in matters of historical memory, the pantheon of heroes and religious traditions. With the elaborated before the elections joint project with our partners from the European Union to create jobs in the east of Ukraine. With the prospect of investment. With the draft program for the economic reconstruction of Donbas,” he said.

Promise number 4:
September 22, 2014, “Poroshenko promises funding of Donbas territories under Ukrainian flag” (http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/224784.html).

“The Ukrainian budget will finance the territories which return under the Ukrainian flag. If there is a flag there is a special fund too… The financing mechanism will be simple: a special budget fund will be formed and this is a purpose of my visit – to prepare a donor conference for the special fund project, which, in particular, will include money from a special fund of the Ukrainian budget for the restoration of Donbas infrastructure,” the president said in an interview with Ukrainian television channels aired on Sunday night.

Poroshenko said he was talking tens of billions of hryvnias.

“Ukraine will finance the territories where there is peace and there are Ukrainian authorities, including local self-government bodies elected in a legitimate manner,” the president said.

Promise number 5:
November 16, 2014, “Poroshenko Promises Terror for East Ukraine”

“We (Ukraine) will have our jobs – they (Donbas) will not. We will have our pensions – they will not. We will have care for children, for people and retirees – they will not. Our children will go to schools and kindergartens… theirs will hole up in the basements. Because they are not able to do a thing. This is exactly how we will win this war!”

Promise number 6:
February 23, 2015. “Poroshenko Promises to Return Crimea” 
(http://humanrights.org.ua/en/material/poroshenko_poobicjav_povernuti_krim).

“Those who are now ‘nationalizing’ property of Ukrainian citizens, enterprises, institutions, and authorities, those who by illegal means are extracting minerals from beneath Ukrainian soil, who in defiance of national and international law use other resources of Ukraine in Crimea, should know that they will have to return everything that was illegally obtained and take responsibility for their actions,” Poroshenko said.

Poroshenko called the “referendum,” which was held in March of last year, “a farce designed to cover the open aggression of Russia against Ukraine” and attested that Ukraine will never recognize it “even more so because most of the people in Crimea, especially Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians, have expressed an active boycott of this political show, retaining their loyalty to Ukraine.”

Promise number 7:
April 6, 2015. “Ukrainian president says he’s open to referendum on regional powers” (http://rt.com/news/247201-poroshenko-ukraine-referendum-donbass/).

The Ukrainian president said he doesn’t object to a referendum on the decentralization of Ukraine, which could give greater powers to the Donbass region.

“I’m ready to launch a referendum on the issue of state governance if you decide it is necessary,” he told the parliamentary commission, which is working on relevant amendments to the Ukrainian constitution.

Poroshenko stressed he is still opposed to federalization for Donetsk and Lugansk, but favors decentralization of power.

Promise number 8:
April 8, 2015, “Poroshenko hopes for visa-free travel with EU from 2016” (http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/poroshenko-hopes-for-visa-free-travel-with-eu-from-2016-385717.html).

The Ukrainian authorities are hoping that after the Eastern Partnership summit in Riga the European Union will recognize Kyiv’s prospects for European integration and will agree to cancel visa requirements from January 1, 2016, Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko said.

Promise number 9:
April 27, 2015, “Ukraine will be able to apply for EU membership in 5 years — Poroshenko” (http://tass.ru/en/world/791988)

“We are ambitious in our plans and actions, and that is why we state that in five years we must implement the Association Agreement [with EU] and reach such conditions that are necessary for applying for EU membership,” Poroshenko said.

The Ukrainian president also asked the summit’s participants to acknowledge that Ukraine may become a full-fledged member of EU. “EU membership is a strategic benchmark for our changes. We ask EU to recognize that Ukraine may become an EU member if it meets all necessary criteria,” he said.

Promise number 10:
May 12, 2015, “The Kremlin commented on Poroshenko’s promise to recapture the Donetsk airport” (http://novorossia.today/the-kremlin-commented-on-poroshenko-s-promise-to-recapture-the-donetsk-airport/).

“I do not doubt that we will liberate the airport, because it is on our land. And we will reconstruct the airport. We will place the remnants of the carcass and concrete in a glass box and will write on it “Glory to the cyborgs!” in order for the memory of your heroic deed to live in generations of the Ukrainians, so that new generations of defenders of Ukraine were brought up through the example of your heroic deed”, Poroshenko said at the road show of “The Airport” documentary.

Promise number 11:
May 20, 2015, “Poroshenko Promises Poland to Change Law on Nazi Collaborators” (http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150520/1022381603.html).

During a telephone conversation with his Polish counterpart Bronislaw Komorowski, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said he will make amendments to the law on “the legal status and commemoration of Ukrainian freedom fighters of the 20th century,” the Polish Press Agency reported, citing Yaromir Sokolowski, advisor for the Polish president.

On May 9 the Ukrainian Parliament adopted a law on the glorification of the notorious Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and gave social benefits to its fighters. In particular, militants of the UPA and Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) were hailed as freedom fighters in Ukraine.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!

Latest

Canadian Lawmaker Accuses Trudeau Of Being A “Fake Feminist” (Video)

Rempel segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career

Published

on

Via Zerohedge

Canada’s feminist-in-chief Justin Trudeau wants to support and empower women…but his support stops at the point where said women start creating problems for his political agenda.

That was the criticism levied against the prime minister on Friday by a conservative lawmaker, who took the PM to task for “muzzling strong, principled women” during a debate in the House of Commons.

“He asked for strong women, and this is what they look like!” said conservative MP Michelle Rempel, referring to the former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who has accused Trudeau and his cronies of pushing her out of the cabinet after she refused to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to a Quebec-based engineering firm.

She then accused Trudeau of being a “fake feminist”.

“That’s not what a feminist looks like…Every day that he refuses to allow the attorney general to testify and tell her story is another day he’s a fake feminist!”

Trudeau was so taken aback by Rempel’s tirade, that he apparently forgot which language he should respond in.

But Rempel wasn’t finished. She then segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career. This from a man who once objected to the continued use of the word “mankind” (suggesting we use “peoplekind” instead).

The conservative opposition then tried to summon Wilson-Raybould to appear before the Commons for another hearing (during her last appearance, she shared her account of how the PM and employees in the PM’s office and privy council barraged her with demands that she quash the government’s pursuit of SNC-Lavalin over charges that the firm bribed Libyan government officials). Wilson-Raybould left the Trudeau cabinet after she was abruptly moved to a different ministerial post – a move that was widely seen as a demotion.

Trudeau has acknowledged that he put in a good word on the firm’s behalf with Wilson-Raybould, but insists that he always maintained the final decision on the case was hers and hers alone.

Fortunately for Canadians who agree with Rempel, it’s very possible that Trudeau – who has so far resisted calls to resign – won’t be in power much longer, as the scandal has cost Trudeau’s liberals the lead in the polls for the October election.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Tucker Carlson summarizes the Trump and Russian collusion saga [Video]

Tucker Carlson excoriates the slander against President Trump, but goes farther to call out the establishment elite in their crimes.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Speculation this week has been rather strong that Special Counsel Robert Mueller III is about to release his report concerning his investigation in to the allegation that Donald Trump and his campaign colluded with elements of the government of the Russian Federation to…?

What, exactly?

That is where things get a little unclear. The narrative line says to “influence the 2016 presidential elections”, or “to steal the election from Hillary Clinton” – but that is about as far as any official narrative line goes. This ambiguity, masquerading as clear language, has created a further belief among a very large number of Americans that what actually happened was that this collusion actually extended into some form of vote-tampering, and amazingly, a recent poll Tucker Carlson mentions in his video we offer here says that some 53% of Americans actually believe that somehow the election results were altered by the Russians.

The question Tucker Carlson leads his report with is, “did the President betray his country?” However, as one goes through the list of events, insinuations, fabrications, attacks and nonstop innuendo that has led the US and Russian relations to their worst point since the Cold War, for no specifically stated and verified reason, one wonders who is doing the betrayal.

Now, in one sense, America owes no allegiance to Russia. But Russia also owes no allegiance to America, and the idea that Russia should is part of this effort by the American establishment. That establishment seems to believe that all the world should owe allegiance to the United States, at least as shown by words and actions of the Americans vis-a-vie foreign policy matters. But the truth is much closer to President Trump’s own notion of a brotherhood of nation-states rather than hegemony. He stated this noble thought in his first UN address in 2017:

Being in a brotherhood relationship with Russia and China is apparently beyond the pale for the American political establishment, hence, the Russia collusion investigation and over two years of nonstop slander, ostensibly designed to keep this from happening.

This is one reason why the notion that Mr. Mueller will actually release a report now is being met with a lot of distrust. We have heard rumors from DC for probably well over one year that the “report was imminent”, but nothing ever came of it. Even this week, Vox reported that the Mueller office asked for an eleven-day filing deadline extension for some reason.

To be blatantly speculative, the likelihood is that the report is every bit of a non-event as the pro-Trump crowd believes it is. However, bringing a stop to the President’s hoped-for policy is something that must not happen. The chances are therefore that whatever is released (if anything) will also be somehow curiously coincidental with some very similar allegation coming from somewhere that shows that while Mueller didn’t find anything, someone else did… and then the full-on media blocking has a new basis for continuing its efforts to disrupt and even destroy the work of the current administration.

As a parenthetical side note, Tucker Carlson is known for excellence in reporting and following stories like this one. What is particularly striking in this video is the directness with which he calls out other examples of very bad policy and actions that resulted in zero punishment for the people who did it. In particular, he calls out the whole 2003 Iraq War noting that the narrative of “weapons of mass destruction” was similarly false, costing thousands of American lives (not to mention the hundreds of thousands that died in Iraq) and a trillion dollars wasted, yet the chief players in that event, such as John Bolton still hold important posts in US government today. The bitter truth is that there remains a strong “untouchability” in Washington, and there is nothing that is likely to change that except President Trump.

Perhaps that is the reason for the resistance to his presence there.

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

New Zealand weapons ban dream move of leftist activists

The American left is sure to pick this up and start screaming for an “assault weapons ban” because this supports their agenda so well.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Reuters reported on Thursday, March 21 that the Prime Minister of New Zealand enacted a sweeping change, banning weapons of the type that were used in the massacre of at least fifty Muslims, who were gunned down on livestream while in Friday prayer services in Christchurch last week. We quote from the Reuters piece below, with added emphasis:

New Zealand will ban military-style semi-automatic and assault rifles under tough new gun laws following the killing of 50 people in its worst mass shooting, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Thursday.

In the immediate aftermath of last Friday’s shootings at two mosques in the city of Christchurch, Ardern labeled the attack as terrorism and said New Zealand’s gun laws would change.

“On 15 March our history changed forever. Now, our laws will too. We are announcing action today on behalf of all New Zealanders to strengthen our gun laws and make our country a safer place,” Ardern told a news conference.

“All semi-automatic weapons used during the terrorist attack on Friday 15 March will be banned.”

Ardern said she expected the new laws to be in place by April 11 and a buy-back scheme costing up to NZ$200 million ($138 million) would be established for banned weapons.

All military style semi-automatics (MSSA) and assault rifles would be banned, along with parts used to convert weapons into MSSAs and all high-capacity magazines.

Australia banned semi-automatic weapons and launched a gun buy-back after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 in which 35 people were killed.

Ardern said that similar to Australia, the law would allow for strictly enforced exemptions for farmers for pest control and animal welfare.

“I strongly believe that the vast majority of legitimate gun owners in New Zealand will understand that these moves are in the national interest, and will take these changes in their stride.”

This is undoubtedly going to be real red meat (or perhaps real vegetables) for the anti-gun lobby in the United States. This is because New Zealand strongly resembled the US in terms of firearm rights and the penetration of numbers of guns in the populace of this remote island nation. Reuters continues, with statements that would probably surprise, even horrify some gun owners in the States, but which are doubtlessly useful for the application of pressure on such individuals:

New Zealand, a country of fewer than 5 million people, has an estimated 1.2-1.5 million firearms, about 13,500 of them MSSA-type weapons.

Most farmers own guns while hunting of deer, pigs and goats is popular. Gun clubs and shooting ranges dot the country.

That has created a powerful lobby that has thwarted previous attempts to tighten gun laws.

Federated Farmers, which represent thousands of farmers, said it supported the new laws.

“This will not be popular among some of our members but … we believe this is the only practicable solution,” a group spokesman, Miles Anderson, said in a statement.

The main opposition National Party, which draws strong support in rural areas, said it also supported the ban.

The changes exclude two general classes of firearms commonly used for hunting, pest control and stock management on farms.

“I have a military style weapon. But to be fair, I don’t really use it, I don’t really need it,” said Noel Womersley, who slaughters cpoliticalattle for small farmers around Christchurch.

“So I’m quite happy to hand mine over.”

To be absolutely fair, the attack on the mosques was an awful event, made the worse by the shooter’s deliberate attempts to politicize various aspects of what he was doing and what he “stood for” as an attack ostensibly against US President Donald Trump, some seven thousand miles away in the United States.

The immediate reaction of the people interviewed, some among them related or friends with the victims of the massacre, was to embrace the weapons reform laws:

Nada Tawfeek, who buried her father-in-law killed in the attacks, Hussein Moustafa, on Thursday, welcomed the ban.

“It’s a great reaction. I think other countries need to learn from her [Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern],” Tawfeek said.

Mohammed Faqih, a member of the Islamic clergy who flew in from California and attended the funerals for some victims on Thursday, said he was “extremely grateful” for the gun ban.

“I wish our leaders in the States would follow on her footsteps and do the same thing,” he said.

One can expect there to be quite the outcry among American liberals about gun control, especially if anything remotely resembling this event takes place or is thwarted in coming days in the US.

It may seem very cold and cruel to focus on the political angle of this story rather than the human tragedy that it is. However, in this situation we have seen signs that the most vile form of human tragedy has actually taken place – the murder of dozens of innocent people for a mere political point. Indeed this thought has been noted and vilified already, as Mr. R.X. Dentith, writing for the New Zealand website Spinoff here quoted:

American paleo-conservative Rush Limbaugh was one of the first to note: “There’s an ongoing theory that the shooter himself may, in fact, be a leftist who writes the manifesto and then goes out and performs the deed purposely to smear his political enemies, knowing he’s going to get shot in the process. You know you just can’t – you can’t immediately discount this. The left is this insane, they are this crazy. And then if that’s exactly what the guy is trying to do then he’s hit a home run, because right there on Fox News: ‘Shooter is an admitted white nationalist who hates immigrants.’”

…[P]eople like Limbaugh… can’t stomach the idea the terrorist action in Otautahi might be motivated by the kind of rhetoric Limbaugh helps disseminate – tend to think there is a culture war going on, and they are on the losing side.

This war has many names, and the enemy is easily identified: it is the battle against Cultural Marxism; the fight against Toxic Feminism; the resistance to Identity Politics; and the fear of the Great Replacement, the thesis at the heart of the terrorist’s own manifesto.

The Great Replacement thesis posits that the majority white European countries are being “invaded” by non-white, non-European peoples. Not just that, but due to declining birth rates in the West, this “invasion” constitutes a wholesale replacement of the white population over time.

Mr. Dentith tries further to knock down this notion of the Great Replacement. However, he misses a much more basic point.

Someone who goes and takes human lives and broadcasts them for any reason is not a mere political operative. The person who does this is a very sick, deranged human being indeed. Evil is certainly appropriately used here.

However, evil is often quite cunning, and despite the intellectual arguments about the reality or non-reality of any particular manifesto statement, in this case, the killer played the media with infernal intelligence, and they took the bait. It is possible that Prime Minister Ardern also took the bait, in this most awful of bad situations, and to give her credit, she took swift actions to try to “correct” what was wrong.

But the problem here was not the type of weapons used. The problem is the fact that they were used by a person who thought these fifty people’s lives were worth nothing more than a bit of policy change. One of the worst examples of human evil in recent times, this incident shouts to the world that there is a problem, but the problem remains unsolved, even though many people will hand over their firearms out of a genuine wish for compassion to those lost and the hope that somehow this action will prevent a future incident.

But the logic of this emotional reaction is nil. And what is worse is that the American Left knows this, but does not care. The movers and shakers of liberalism will likely milk the actions of sincerely horrified New Zealanders for all they are worth to try at affecting change in American constitutional rights.

And the innocent dead will not rest in peace, because the real problem has not even been examined.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending