Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Ukraine President “Porky” Poroshenko is cooked. US Media exposes $25 million land deal cover up

Grab your knives and forks folks…some tasty Porky is about to get cooked! Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has published a report on Ukraine’s putsch President Poroshenko, revealing how he used presidential influence to quietly appropriate historic sites and bury subsequent inquiries.

Published

on

0 Views

If it was not clear the other day from John Kerry’s visit to Sochi, where the US Secretary of State travelled to Russia in what many believe was Obama taking his first baby steps towards reconciliation with Russia and dropping the nazi basket case that is Ukraine, in order to focus his remaining few months in office on resolving more pressing, “important” world issues with Russia’s help…then this bombshell of a report from non other than western backed Radio Free Europe may be more proof that America is ready to barbecue some Ukrainian Porky.

If Kerry’s Sochi warning to Poroshenko was the barbecue’s appetizer, as the US Secretary of State said,

“If indeed President Poroshenko is advocating a forceful engagement at this time, we would strongly urge him to think twice not to engage in this kind of activity.”

…then Radio Free Europe exposing a Poroshenko $25 million land deal cover up may be the main dish consisting of roasted Porky!

It all begins with an investigation by US State Department mouthpiece Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that shows that Ukraine’s putsch President Petro Poroshenko may have used his influence to shut down investigations into a land deal aimed at building a private mansion on a historic site in the Ukrainian capital.

Wait a minute…I thought the Euromaidan crowd was all pissy about Yanukovich’s mansion. Now the guy that the US put in power to replace the guy they overthrew is building a new mansion.

Radio Free Europe reports…

Two reports broadcast on RFE/RL’s Ukrainian-language television program, Schemes, reveal that over the course of seven years, Poroshenko quietly appropriated more than a hectare of protected land in Kyiv’s elite Pechera district and recently quashed an inquiry into the damage of an 18th-century structure caused by construction work on his plot.

The revelations come as Poroshenko, soon to mark his first year in office, faces growing criticism for failing to divest his billion-dollar business holdings and diminish the political influence of Ukrainian oligarchs like Dmytro Firtash, who last week claimed he personally orchestrated Poroshenko’s rise to the presidency.

Supporters of Poroshenko — still one of Ukraine’s richest men, with an estimated fortune of $750 million — defend him as a “president of de-oligarchization.” But his failure to honor his campaign pledge to divest himself of his assets, as well as new findings about his property holdings, may add to questions about his commitment to separating politics from property and money.

Ouch…that’s a US State Department media outlet saying the above. It gets better…

Radialna Street is short, but it runs through some of the prettiest land in Kyiv. Located in the forested neighborhood known as Tsar’s Village, it is part of the protected Pechera district that runs along the western bank of the winding Dnipro River.

The district is home to two of the city’s best-known historical attractions, the St. Sophia Cathedral and the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, also known as the Monastery of the Caves. Both are recognized by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site and are protected under Kyiv city law, together with a 220-hectare buffer zone.

Within Tsar’s Village, two plots share the address Radialna 5. One, undeveloped and strewn with debris, belongs to Poroshenko. The other, across the street, already boasts a fenced-in mansion and tennis court. It belongs to one of Poroshenko’s closest friends and business partners, Ihor Kononenko.

Kononenko is a lawmaker who currently serves as deputy head of the Petro Poroshenko Bloc’s faction in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament. Bald and solidly built, he is sometimes referred to as the bloc’s “gray cardinal.” But in 2009, he was a member of the Kyiv government and an ally of then-Mayor Leonid Chernovetskyy, who presided over a city vote handing the Radialna 5 plots to a company co-founded by Kononenko — for free.

How does protected state land with a market value of more than $25 million get handed free of charge to a little-known company run by a city lawmaker?

Documents suggest that Kononenko had his eye on the Tsar’s Village land as early as 2003. That was when he helped create Zelenbudservis-K, a private limited company that assumed control of the state landscaping service responsible for the St. Sophia and Pechersk grounds.

Until then, the landscapers had operated out of a series of greenhouses and storage facilities located conveniently close to the monastery complex — at Radialna 5. But almost immediately, Zelenbudservis-K began hatching plans for a new greenhouse facility. Within five years, the landscapers had been moved to their new location, far from the Pechera district in a dreary section of industrial Kyiv.

Olha Krystovnikova, the facility’s head agronomist, confirmed to Schemes that the landscapers had moved to the new greenhouse complex in 2008, and that they had previously been based at Radialna 5.

Google Earth images from 2008 show the landscapers’ former greenhouses and storage units still standing on the Radialna plots. Now they’re gone, replaced by Kononenko’s mansion and Poroshenko’s still-empty lot.

In an interview with Schemes, Kononenko openly acknowledged his role in the transfer.

“I’ve really been dealing with this issue since 2004,” he said, adding that he had acted at the behest of Chernovetskyy’s mayoral predecessor, Oleksandr Omelchenko, in finding a new location for the landscapers.

land scheme

This document shows Poroshenko’s ownership of the land, signed by then-Mayor Leonid Chernovetskyy.

With the Radialna grounds in the process of being vacated, Zelenbudservis-K — which still held operating rights to the Tsar’s Village plots — quietly dropped its private status in 2007, reregistering as a housing cooperative society. That switch, under Ukraine’s land code, allowed Zelenbudservis-K to receive ownership of the Radialna 5 land for free — the transaction that was approved by a voting majority of Kyiv city lawmakers in April 2009.

Rights activist Oleksandr Dyadyuk said such land-acquisition schemes reached their peak under the notorious mayoralty of Chernovetskyy, a quirky millionaire who was nicknamed “Kosmos” after announcing plans to travel to space with his cat.

landscheme 3

Radialna Street is just a stone’s throw from Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, known as the Monastery of the Caves.

“Large lots of valuable land were transferred in precisely this way, through fake housing cooperative societies,” said Dyaduk. The acquisition of Radialna 5, he added, “was the biggest and most important free-appropriation land scheme in Kyiv.”

There are numerous irregularities in Radialna 5’s path from state greenhouse to luxury-home turf. None of the 12 members of the Zelenbudservis-K cooperative society was on the housing register, a legal step meant to ensure that free land is going to those in need. Of the 12, at least six have close ties to Poroshenko and Kononenko, including Kononenko’s sister and a Poroshenko political adviser.

In addition, Oles Dovhy, the city council secretary who agreed to initiate the process of transferring the land to Zelenbudservis-K, has close ties to Poroshenko. And Ukrsel, the company that officially purchased the Radialna land from Zelenbudservis-K before selling it to Poroshenko and Kononenko, was an Odesa-based shell company liquidated shortly after the final transfer of the land in late 2009.

Most worrying to critics, however, are suggestions that Poroshenko may have since used his presidential imprimatur to shut down a probe into his use of the land.

In 2012, employees at the Kyiv-Pechersk reserve were alarmed to see construction machinery begin excavation work at the Radialna 5 plot belonging to Poroshenko. In a letter to the Culture Ministry, the reserve’s director Lubomyr Mykhaylyna expressed concern that the digging was taking place inside a UNESCO buffer zone and within meters of an early 18th-century fortress that is part of the site’s historic properties.

land scheme2
This map shows the proximity of Poroshenko’s property to the 18th-century fortress.

Construction is not prohibited on protected land, but it is strictly regulated. Building projects can only proceed after receiving two separate sets of approvals — one from the Culture Ministry’s cultural-heritage department, and one from archaeological experts at the National Academy of Sciences.

Preservation experts wrote directly to Poroshenko, informing him of the threat to the fortress. Construction work was finally suspended in early 2013, but not before one of the fortress’s lunettes — structural walls in the shape of a half-moon — was partially destroyed.

At the time construction started, Poroshenko had not received permission from either the Culture Ministry or the National Academy of Science. (He ultimately received NAS approval, but only in December 2012, a month after excavation began.)

A Pechera district prosecutor quickly opened a criminal case into the lunette’s destruction, citing national laws protecting monuments of cultural heritage. But on November 6, 2014 — five months after Poroshenko’s presidential inauguration — the proceedings were closed. Olena Yakhno, a spokesperson for the Kyiv prosecutor’s office, said no criminal violations were found. Eighteen days later, on November 24, Poroshenko signed off on a new declaration to resume construction at the Tsar’s Village plot. (As of May, there has been no sign of work at the site.)

Poroshenko and his spokesperson Svyatoslav Tseholko declined to speak to Schemes. Oleksandr Lutskyy, a former deputy mayor of Kyiv and Chernovetskyy ally authorized to speak on the president’s behalf, provided RFE/RL with a copy of Poroshenko’s construction declaration but later told a correspondent, “You’re digging where there’s nothing to dig.”

References:

http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-poroshenko-land-deal-questions-tsars-village/27013945.html

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

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
0 Comment authors
x4cwym845tx4f8w4fw84rffw485fedw3cm9wy7vf5kcwxjc3ytxk0crtsxergsdxcmwnv54ec8tnv5cev5jfdcnv5ccn2785xdnwdc5bwedsj4wsndbDid Obama Quietly Announce his Intention to Abandon the Ukrainian Government? | Shenandoah Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
trackback

[…] After two months of relative calm in the eyes of Washington, D.C., suddenly Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty(RFE/RL) springs this shocking report (h/t RedPillTimes.com): […]

trackback

ccn2785xdnwdc5bwedsj4wsndb

[…]very couple of internet websites that come about to become in depth beneath, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[…]

trackback

xcmwnv54ec8tnv5cev5jfdcnv5

[…]the time to read or pay a visit to the content or web sites we have linked to below the[…]

trackback

Title

[…]very handful of internet websites that take place to become comprehensive beneath, from our point of view are undoubtedly very well really worth checking out[…]

trackback

Title

[…]although sites we backlink to below are considerably not connected to ours, we feel they may be actually worth a go by way of, so possess a look[…]

Latest

Trump’s wish to take the US out of NATO leaves NeoCons seething

The US President has seen the truth of the irrelevance of NATO, but there is enormous resistance to change.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Tucker Carlson, Fox News and Russian and American news outlets alike have picked up the story that US President Donald Trump has on numerous occasions, opined that the United States would do well to depart from the North Atlantic Military Organization, or NATO.

This wish caused enormous fury and backlash from those opposed, which, oddly enough include both Democrats and Republicans. Their anger and alarm over this idea is such that the media networks through much of the US are alive with the idea of impeaching the President or bringing 25th Amendment proceedings against him for insanity!

Take a look:

Tucker Carlson, as usual, nailed it.

NATO was formed to make Western Europe secure in the face of a perceived Soviet threat. In 1991, the USSR collapsed and the threat of Ivan the Communist bad guy collapsed with it.

But 28 years later, NATO is still here. And, why?

Well, many “experts” continue to point at Russia as a threat, though after that statement no one seems honestly able to elucidate precisely how Russia would, in fact, threaten any nation, take over it, or conquer the world. Indeed, if anyone seems to understand the perversity of being in charge of the whole world, it seems to be Russia, as expressed by politician and LDPR leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky (see how this is so here).

Zhironovsky observed that China is the other nation that is running at full force, but viewing the problems the US is having with being the leader of the world, China stops short of trying to attain this position itself. The question becomes “What does a nation that rules the world actually do then?”

President Trump appears to be seeing the same question, or some similar variant based on the same theme. NATO serves no constructive purpose anymore. Despite the conflicts in Ukraine and Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Israel and Syria, there simply are no great threats in the world as it stands today. While there are certainly still wars, none of these wars represents an existential threat to the United States.

Why wouldn’t a US leader want out? In fact, there is further no existential threat to Europe from any present war, nor is there a threat from Russia itself. In fact, Russia has been entering into business relations with many European countries who wish to buy cheap and easily available Russian natural gas. Turkey purchased an S-400 antimissile system in addition to its US made Patriot battery.

There would seem to be very little in the way of concrete and reliable reasoning for the alliance to continue.

But the American Deep State and liberal establishment have come together to resist the US President in a truly furious manner, and it is revelatory of the hypocrisy of anti-Trump politics that American liberals, typically the “sing Kum-ba-yah peacenik” crowd, displays paroxysms of outrage and horror that NATO might be disbanded.

As the result of that, the American media is determined to choke off any possibility of one thinking, “well, what if we were to disband NATO?”

Why is this?

Simple. A lot of people make their living by preparing for the Russian “threat”, and it would mean the end of their work, the end of their money, and a great disruption in life. It does not matter that while this is true, these same people could conceivably apply their considerable skill sets to deal with real problems that face a world that no longer has a dipolar alignment, or to help prevent a real problem from arising from real situations, such as the recent and current Islamization of many European cities.

One of the great afflictions of American politics and policy has been that so much of it appears to be focused on “short term” or “no term” matters. We see this with the problems related to border security, the coming advent of AI-based automated processes that may furlough low-skilled workers in tremendous amounts in a short period of time. Rather than solve real problems, the elected representatives and media seem more content to oppose Donald Trump when he, as a businessman ought to do, makes a federal case out of what he sees on the horizon.

The Border Wall, for example, is a highly logical part of a properly handled set of immigration policies. But the very direct behavior of President Trump helped amplify the resentment the Democrats still hold against him for defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016, and so, the Democrats have effectively said “nuts!” to the needs of the nation and they take out their resentment on the nation by refusing to negotiate with the President about how to close the border.

NATO is another example. The alliance served its purpose. It is time for the alliance to end, or to be radically restructured in terms of new goals based in real, and not just flimsy rhetorical, needs.

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

Latest

A dispassionate case for the American border wall

All the arguing on both sides is a rhetorical war that prevents action from happening. Here are simple reasons the border wall should go up.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

One of the hottest news stories in the American press has been that over the border wall, proposed by President Trump during his campaign, and now resting at the center of a debate that has about one-quarter of the US governmental services in a state of shutdown. We have observed fiery, passionate, and even disgusting levels of rancor and bitterness in the political rhetoric concerning the wall. This debate goes on in the news media, and many of the Americans who watch and listen to this take on the fire of these arguments to even more passionate levels.

However, the passion has largely obscured the actual issue of border security, perhaps by design. As long as people keep fighting over it, it still is not getting done. And while thankfully the American government is designed to work very slowly in determining important matters, here, that trait is being exploited, mostly by Democrats, but also by Republicans and even possibly, President Trump himself.

The motives each side has vary.

President Trump wants Congress to pass wall funding because then it is a legislative act that the Legislative and Executive branches of government agree on. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will be called upon to test such a resolution for its legality. This is one very significant reason why the President is trying every way possible to get this through Congress.

If he goes the route of declaring a “National Emergency” then, according to a number of sources, the first thing that is likely to happen after the build order is a lawsuit that stops the process in its tracks – probably a land-use lawsuit regarding eminent domain and damage to the properties of private citizens, who for various reasons do not want a barrier built through their lands. This is a problem that the American government has sadly created for itself with a very poor reputation of proper reparations for the invocation of Eminent Domain land claims.

This is the simplest way to explain the raison d’être behind the President’s hesitation to invoke executive emergency powers.

For the Democrats, the motive is interesting. The rhetoric from conservatives, including the President, is that the Dems do not want the wall simply because the “imposter” President wants one. 

For anyone who thinks that this is an utterly insane, and indeed, childish, argument, well, you would be exactly right. It is.

It also appears to be true. Evidence for this is shown by the fact that almost every critic quoted by the mainstream press is a Democrat. How is it possible that Democrats have a unique hold on facts that other people just don’t? Even when a Republican expresses a concern about the wall, there is still actual logistical information backing the claim:

Republican and Democratic lawmakers raised immediate concerns over shifting funds that have already been approved by Congress for projects in states across the nation.

Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, a top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said he has been hearing from lawmakers in recent days concerned that Army Corps projects in their states could be canceled or postponed.

(This is a concrete situation that is based on normal concerns about money and not about ideological political views.)

“If they drag the money out of here,” Simpson said in an interview late Thursday, “a lot of members will have problem with it.”

(But now in come the Democrats, and observe as logic leaves and is replaced by fiery language.)

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., the incoming chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said in an interview that rebuilding the disaster areas is “a way higher priority benefiting the American people than a wasteful wall.”

He said the Army Corps works on dams, levees and other projects across the nation and has an enormous backlog of unfunded needs. “It would be an incredible disservice to the American people and the economy” to divert the money to the border wall, he said.

And Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., said in a statement that it would be “beyond appalling for the president to take money from places like Puerto Rico that have suffered enormous catastrophes, costing thousands of American citizens’ lives, in order to pay for Donald Trump’s foolish, offensive and hateful wall.

“Siphoning funding from real disasters to pay for a crisis manufactured by the president is wholly unacceptable and the American people won’t fall for it,” she said.

The Republican here spoke without passion, simply saying there is concern about shifting funds for the wall. But the Democrats used incendiary language like “wasteful” and “foolish, offensive and hateful” as adjectives to describe the border wall. Very passionate expressions, which are being repeated ad nauseam by the mainstream press and all of the Democrat party.

The bias most notably and publicly showed in the accusatory language of the Democrat kingpins themselves, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

There is little true “debate” about the border wall. Most discussion on the news media or social media is verbal rock-throwing rather than respectful, honest and fair discussion. As noted before, this may be part of the design to prevent action on the wall.

However there are dispassionate and reasonable arguments that support the construction of this project. Here are some of those reasons:

  •  A 30-35 foot tall wall running the entire length of the border is probably the cheapest and most cost effective single deterrent to illegal border crossings. Whoever wants to cross the border has to make some provision for dealing with the wall. If that provision is rather difficult, it will dissuade most people from trying it.
  • A wall reduces the need for manpower along the border. While it is absurd to assume that the wall alone would keep every illegal immigrant out, it also facilitates efficient deployment of manpower and other means for active border control.
  • Even if the wall is not continuous along the entire length of the border (which is likely to wind up as the case), where it isn’t is easier to monitor. This is another aspect of the manpower issue. There are likely to be gaps and open spaces for a variety of reasons. But right now, there are about over 1,200 miles of the 1,954 mile long border that have no barrier present. That is a lot of space to monitor actively.

These three reasons are really so close as to be almost the same exact reason. But the arguments for and against the border wall are being conducted in an apparent context that in order to secure a border, this is all anyone needs to do. This is an absurd idea and is being used to try to deflect action.

  • The best border security systems in the world are systems of walls, fences and monitoring facilities. Even the Great Wall of China did not stop all invaders. It deterred a lot of probable attempts though. The wall was also manned so that active attempts to get through it could be stopped in active manners.
  • The North – South Korean DMZ and the Berlin Wall are also particularly effective as parts of an overall border crossing deterrent system. The fences, trenches and watchtowers along the length of these two borders create an extremely effective measure to deter illegal crossings. For example, the Berlin Wall stood from 1961 to 1989, a total of 28 years. During that period, only five thousand people crossed that border. The US Border Patrol conducted over 300,000 apprehensions of illegal immigrants crossing the border in 2018 alone.

The imagery of walls like North Korea’s and East Berlin’s are part of the reason why the border wall comes across as an unsavory idea. There is probably no American that does not know this image, and no one in the country like the idea of such a barrier being associated with the United States.

However, that is simply not the issue. The US is not a police state trying to keep people inside. It is dealing with a decades-long stretch of bad policy regarding immigration which will not be stopped except by radical means.

Many families made a very long journey this year in the migrant caravans to try to game the American system. It is understandable that many of these people are trying to get away from bad conditions in the countries they left. But taking advantage of the United States is wrong, and the wrong is shared equally by the actions of the illegals and by the weak posture of the United States herself.

The simplest fact is that only strength assures freedom. A strong border reinforces safe immigration. A strong and effective immigration policy relies on having a tightly controlled border AND an asylum and entry facilitation process that is thorough, lawful and dispassionate. The USA has had this in place in other points of entry, such as Ellis Island. Leaving the Mexican frontier open now is just stupid policy. An integrated, careful process to process would be immigrants as quickly and carefully as possible needs to become part of the new American way of doing things. There is no swifter way to guarantee overall immigration policy change than the construction of the physical barrier along the US-Mexican border.

It does not matter how anyone feels or thinks. Walls work when used rightly. President Trump’s plan satisfies all the required needs for a good US immigration policy as regards the Mexican border.

 

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

Latest

US Women’s March implodes upon itself [Video]

This year’s Women’s March collapses due to not being politically woke enough, in a truly astounding fashion.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

If this doesn’t make your head spin, perhaps you are either dead, or sufficiently “woke.” The Humboldt County Annual Women’s March, set for January 19th of this year got canceled because it was “too white.”

Yes. Too white. This is a county in Northern California, 270 miles north of San Francisco. According to the Wikipedia entry, on this locale, the 2016 census gave this demographic result.

In other words, the county’s own demographics are very white.

So, does this make sense? No? Well, maybe the interview will clear it up.

Still no?

It seems that Jesse Watters was just as stunned as anyone else. The expression on his face is priceless. Should I laugh now, or later? How does this woman actually believe her own rhetoric?

But the woman, Kelsey Reedy, seems to have the logic worked out in her mind.

Maybe that is because she is a woman. A liberal woman. Fantasy turned inside out. But wait! She also even included expletive language on a televised interview, which is indecent in of itself.

It would appear that being “woke” can truly turn in on itself.

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