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

New Zealand enacts new weapons ban just six days after massacre

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

Latest

ABC’s Ted Koppel admits mainstream media bias against Trump [Video]

The mainstream news media has traded informing the public for indoctrinating them, but the change got called out by an “old-school” journo.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Fox News reported on March 19th that one of America’s most well-known TV news anchors, Ted Koppel, noted that the once-great media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post, have indeed traded journalistic excellence for hit pieces for political purposes. While political opinions in the mainstream press are certainly within the purview of any publication, this sort of writing can hardly be classified as “news” but as “Opinion” or more widely known, “Op-Ed.”

We have two videos on this. The first is the original clip showing the full statement that Mr. Koppel gave. It is illuminating, to say the least:

Tucker Carlson and Brit Hume, a former colleague of Mr. Koppel, added their comments on this admission in this second short video piece, shown here.

There are probably a number of people who have watched this two-year onslaught of slander and wondered why there cannot be a law preventing this sort of misleading reporting. Well, Russia passed a law to stop it, hitting dishonest media outlets in their pocketbook. It is a smart law because it does not advocate imprisonment for bad actors in the media, but it does fine them.

Going to prison for reporting “the truth” looks very noble. Having to pay out of pocket for it is not so exciting.

Newsmax and Louder with Crowder both reported on this as well.

This situation of dishonest media has led to an astonishing 77% distrust rating among Americans of their news media, this statistic being reported by Politico in 2018. This represents a nearly diametric reversal in trust from the 72% trust rating the country’s news viewers gave their news outlets in 1972. These statistics come from Gallup polls taken through the years.

 

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

Latest

Lori Loughlin’s daughter was aboard USC official’s yacht in Bahamas when mom was charged

Lori Loughlin’s daughter was on the yacht of USC’s Board of Trustees when her mom was accused in scheme.

The Duran

Published

on

Via Fox News


Lori Loughlin’s daughter Olivia Jade Giannulli was spending spring break on a University of Southern California official’s yacht when her mother was accused Tuesday of involvement in a college admissions scheme, reports said.

Giannulli, 19, was on Rick Caruso’s luxury yacht Invictus in the Bahamas, a report said. Caruso is chairman of USC’s Board of Trustees.

Giannulli, who currently attends USC, was with Caruso’s daughter Gianna and several other friends, the outlet reported.

“My daughter and a group of students left for spring break prior to the government’s announcement yesterday,” Caruso told TMZ. “Once we became aware of the investigation, the young woman decided it would be in her best interests to return home.”

Loughlin’s daughter has since returned to Los Angeles to face the allegations that could result in her getting expelled from USC.

USC’s Board of Trustees will not decide the status of Giannulli and the other students involved in the case, but rather, the university’s president will make the decisions, according to TMZ.

Business deals in jeopardy?

Giannulli is a YouTube beauty vlogger and social media star, but in the midst of her mother’s charges, she may lose the lucrative brand-sponsorship deals she has landed over the years, Variety reported.

HP, having cut ties with Giannulli, said in a statement, “HP worked with Lori Loughlin and Olivia Jade in 2017 for a one-time product campaign. HP has removed the content from its properties.”

Giannulli also cut brand deals with partners including Amazon, Dolce & Gabbana, Lulus, Marc Jacobs Beauty, Sephora, Smashbox Beauty Cosmetics, Smile Direct Club, Too Faced Cosmetics, Boohoo, and Unilever’s TRESemmé, the report said.

Giannulli’s rep declined to comment, Variety reported. Estée Lauder Companies, which owns Smashbox and Too Faced, also declined to comment, while the other brands or companies the magazine reached out to did not immediately respond to their requests for comment.

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