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

0 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

Pat Buchanan: “The Late Hit” On Judge Kavanaugh

Wha exactly is professor Ford’s case against Judge Kavanaugh?

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org:


Upon the memory and truthfulness of Christine Blasey Ford hangs the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, his reputation and possibly his career on the nation’s second-highest court.

And much more. If Kavanaugh is voted down or forced to withdraw, the Republican Party and conservative movement could lose their last best hope for recapturing the high court for constitutionalism.

No new nominee could be vetted and approved in six weeks. And the November election could bring in a Democratic Senate, an insuperable obstacle to the elevation of a new strict constructionist like Kavanaugh.

The stakes are thus historic and huge.

And what is professor Ford’s case against Judge Kavanaugh?

When she was 15 in the summer of ’82, she went to a beer party with four boys in Montgomery County, Maryland, in a home where the parents were away.

She says she was dragged into a bedroom by Brett Kavanaugh, a 17-year-old at Georgetown Prep, who jumped her, groped her, tried to tear off her clothes and cupped her mouth with his hand to stop her screams.

Only when Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge, laughing “maniacally,” piled on and they all tumbled off the bed, did she escape and lock herself in a bathroom as the “stumbling drunks” went downstairs. She fled the house and told no one of the alleged rape attempt.

Not until 30 years later in 2012 did Ford, now a clinical psychologist in California, relate, in a couples therapy session with her husband, what happened. She says she named Kavanaugh as her assailant, but the therapist’s notes of the session make no mention of Kavanaugh.

During the assault, says Ford, she was traumatized. “I thought he might inadvertently kill me.”

Here the story grows vague. She does not remember who drove her to the party. She does not say how much she drank. She does not remember whose house it was. She does not recall who, if anyone, drove her home. She does not recall what day it was.

She did not tell her parents, Ford says, as she did not want them to know she had been drinking. She did not tell any friend or family member of this traumatic event that has so adversely affected her life.

Said Kavanaugh in response, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

Mark Judge says it never happened.

Given the seriousness of the charges, Ford must be heard out. But she also needs to be cross-examined and have her story and character probed as Kavanaugh’s has been by FBI investigators as an attorney for the Ken Starr impeachment investigation of Bill Clinton, a White House aide to George Bush, a U.S. appellate judge and a Supreme Court nominee.

During the many investigations of Kavanaugh’s background, nothing was unearthed to suggest something like this was in character.

Some 65 women who grew up in the Chevy Chase and Bethesda area and knew Kavanaugh in his high school days have come out and spoken highly of his treatment of girls and women.

Moreover, the way in which all of this arose, at five minutes to midnight in the long confirmation process, suggests that this is political hardball, if not dirt ball.

When Ford, a Democrat, sent a letter detailing her accusations against Kavanaugh to her California congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, Ford insisted that her name not be revealed as the accuser.

She seemingly sought to damage or destroy the judge’s career behind a cloak of anonymity. Eshoo sent the letter on to Sen. Diane Feinstein, who held it for two months.

Excising Ford’s name, Feinstein then sent it to the FBI, who sent it to the White House, who sent it on to the Senate to be included in the background material on the judge.

Thus, Ford’s explosive charge, along with her name, did not surface until this weekend.

What is being done here stinks. It is a transparently late hit, a kill shot to assassinate a nominee who, before the weekend, was all but certain to be confirmed and whose elevation to the Supreme Court is a result of victories in free elections by President Trump and the Republican Party.

Palpable here is the desperation of the left to derail Kavanaugh, lest his elevation to the high court imperil their agenda and the social revolution that the Warren Court and its progeny have been able to impose upon the nation.

If Kavanaugh is elevated, the judicial dictatorship of decades past, going back to the salad days of Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black and “Wild Bill” Douglas, will have reached its end. A new era will have begun.

That is what is at stake.

The Republican Senate should continue with its calendar to confirm Kavanaugh before Oct. 1, while giving Ford some way to be heard, and then Kavanaugh the right to refute. Then let the senators decide.

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

Latest

Arizona Senator Jeff Flake Opposes Vote on Kavanaugh Until Leftist Accuser Has Her Say

The end of the Republic inches closer as Identity Politics knows no bounds: Republicans join the fight to delay Brett Kavanaugh confirmation vote.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Via The Gateway Pundit


FLAKE OUT — ARIZONA SENATOR OPPOSES VOTE ON KAVANAUGH

Anti-Trump Senator Jeff Flake, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview Sunday evening that until he learns more about the sexual assault allegation regarding Brett Kavanaugh, he is “not comfortable voting yes” on Kavanaugh.

It’s Flakes last chance to poke President Trump and the country in the eye before he rides retires and likely finds a job in the liberal media.

Via Mike Cernovich:

Kavanaugh’s accuser is a far left anti-Trump activist.

Via Zerohedge


Over the past few days, what appeared at first to be a merely token resistance to the nomination of Trump SCOTUS pick Brett Kavanaugh has morphed into something entirely more menacing. And for the first time since Kavanaugh’s name was first floated in June, his nomination may be in jeopardy.

After allegations of decades-old sexual improprieties first surfaced last week, it looked as if Kavanaugh would easily surmount this obstacle. But we have to give the Democrats credit: They have lined up their dominoes perfectly. And on Sunday, they set their plan in motion when the Washington Post published an in-depth interview with Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. The story detailed a blow-by-blow accounting of Ford’s allegations, as well as her explanation for why she neglected to share her experience until decades later. Tellingly, the story also noted that Democrats have been sitting on the story since July, and that Ford only decided to out herself after some unscrupulous members of the Judiciary Committee shared her identity with the press – or at least that’s what California Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office alleges.

While the allegations are relatively tame by #MeToo era standards (the incident allegedly unfolded when Kavanaugh was 17), it has apparently been enough for Democrats and a handful of turncoat moderate Republicans to successfully shut down a planned Thursday vote of the Judiciary Committee. Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake effectively shut down the vote last night when he revealed that he wanted to hear more from Ford before voting. Without Flake, the Republicans’ 11-10 majority on the Judiciary Committee shifts to a 10-11 vote in favor of the Democrats. While Committee Chairman Charles Grassley has said he’d like the vote to proceed as scheduled, media reports say he is quietly working to organize a private call involving Ford and curious Senators in an effort to help mitigate their concerns.

But looking further ahead, Republican leaders might have more difficulty as Tennessee Republican Bob Corker – who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee but could still hold up the final confirmation vote – said Sunday that he’d also like to see Thursday’s committee vote delayed.

Here’s more from Bloomberg:

“I’ve made it clear that I’m not comfortable moving ahead with the vote on Thursday if we have not heard her side of the story or explored this further,” said Flake, who has the power to stall consideration if all Democrats on the panel join him since Republicans only hold an 11-10 majority on the committee. Flake’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Corker of Tennessee, who isn’t a member of the panel but whose vote is critical to confirmation, also doesn’t want the committee to vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation until Ford’s allegations can be heard, said his spokeswoman, Micah Johnson. The senator wants the allegations to be heard promptly, she said.

The backlash intensified late Sunday when Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski told CNN that Thursday’s hearing should be delayed.

“Well, I think that might be something they might have to consider, at least having that discussion,” Murkowski.

[…]

“This is not something that came up during the hearings. The hearings are now over. And if there is real substance to this it demands a response.”

However, at least one of the Senate’s reputed moderates has stood up to the Democrats in an interview with the New York Times, castigating them for withholding this information until so late in the process (remember: Feinstein justified this decision by saying she had referred Ford’s allegations to the FBI, who reportedly added them to his background check file).

“What is puzzling to me is the Democrats, by not bringing this out earlier, after having had this information for more than six weeks, have managed to cast a cloud of doubt on both the professor and the judge,” Collins told The New York Times.

Collins asked if Democrats believed Ford, “why didn’t they surface this information earlier,” and if they didn’t believe Ford, “why did they decide at the 11th hour to release it?”

“It is really not fair to either of them the way it is was handled,” Collins said.

Collins comments come after Ford spoke publicly about the alleged incident for the first time during an interview with The Washington Post that was published on Sunday.

On Monday, in the latest sign that Ford could appear at an embarrassing public hearing, Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, told “Today” that her client would be willing to testify publicly before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “She’s a credible person. These are serious allegations. And they should be addressed.”

The White House, for its part, is standing by Kavanaugh, and allowing the Senate to sort things out. According to Bloomberg, Kellyanne Conway said Ford should not be “insulted and ignored” in what appears to be an attempt to beat the Democrats at their own virtue-signaling game.

Still, according to a White House spokesperson, Trump isn’t giving an inch. Washington Post reporter Seung Min Kim, citing WH spokesperson Kerri Kupec, reported that Judge Kavanaugh “categorically and unequivocally” denied this allegation: “This has not changed. Judge Kavanaugh and the White House both stand by that statement,”she said.

In fact, as Axios reports, Senate Republicans could “play hardball” by calling on Ford to testify before Thursday’s scheduled vote. Though Republicans wouldn’t surprised if Ford holds a press conference or gives a TV interview, which Axios says “would raise the stakes considerably.” Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, has repeatedly called for an FBI investigation and a postponement of the vote

To be sure, the Democrats’ goals here are obvious. After Sen. Corey Booker’s “selfless” decision to release unauthorized documents about Kavanaugh’s time in the Bush Administration failed to even delay the process, Democrats have now played their Trump card – no pun intended. Their goal: Delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation at least until the Oct. 1 mark – the beginning of SCOTUS’s next term – to put a halt to any controversial decisions that could reverse important precedents. Of course, their ultimate goal is to stonewall the White House until after Nov. 6, when a few victories in the midterms might allow them to sink Kavanaugh’s nomination once and for all.

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

Latest

University announces “White Awake” safe space for white students

The University of Maryland at College Park has set up a new diversity support group to create a “safe space” for white students to discuss their feelings.

Campus Reform

Published

on

Via Campus Reform:


Update: After publication of this article, University of Maryland-College Park changed the name of the group to “Anti-Racism and Ally Building Group,” along with a shorter description, which reads,  “Do you want to improve your ability to relate to and connect with people different from yourself? Do you want to become a better ally? Members will support and share feedback with each other as they learn more about themselves and how they can fit into a diverse world.”

In a statement provided to Campus Reform on Friday, the university explained the name change: “Our Counseling Center acknowledges that we did not choose the right words in raising awareness about this research-based initiative, and how this group has been perceived is counter to the values of inclusiveness and diversity that we embody. Therefore, we are renaming the group to better reflect our intention and values.”


The University of Maryland at College Park announced Friday a new diversity support group to create a “safe space” for white students to discuss their feelings about “interactions with racial and ethnic minorities.”

The support group, called “White Awake,” will help white students who may “sometimes feel uncomfortable and confused before, during, or after interactions with racial and ethnic minorities.”

“This group offers a safe space for White students to explore their experiences, questions, reactions, and feelings,” the description explains. “Members will support and share feedback with each other as they learn more about themselves and how they can fit into a diverse world.” The description asks students if they want to “improve [their] ability to relate to and connect with people different from [themselves]” or if they want to become a better “ally.” The new group is now one of four in the university’s “Diversity Issues” program series.The group is being led by Noah Collins, who works for the UMD Counseling Center, and will be held once a week. Collins specializes in group therapy and is interested “especially in the areas of racial and cultural awareness,” according to his faculty bio.The safe space has been met with harsh criticism from students on social media.

“I am ashamed over the execution of white awake nor do I fully understand its clause. ‘How they can fit into a diverse world’? Why do they need to attend therapy sessions on how to be a decent human being in society?” a UMD student wrote on Twitter. “Why do they need to have these sessions to learn how to coexist?”

“Just like classes. You can’t take one class and feel like you have all understanding over a certain subject,” the student added. “It takes practice, it takes problems, it takes more than one course, so ‘White Awake’ has good intention but I am skeptical over the fairytale result.”

Campus Reform reached out to Collins and UMD for comment but did not receive a response by time of publication. If and when a comment is received, the article will be updated.


Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @Grace_Gotcha

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