Posted on

One Day in the Life of Yulia Tymoshenko

The arrest, trial and conviction of former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko by former KGB agent Victor Yanukovych is certainly the most interesting foreign policy event involving Russia that occurred this year.

Russia’s foreign policy has been beset by humiliating failures as one after another of the malignant dictators supported by Russia in the Middle East have fallen under the wheel of popular revolution.  Seeing Libyan maniac Muammar Qaddafi, long beloved by Russia, being dragged through the streets of his home town bloodied and dazed, and then watching him executed, must surely have struck fear into the hearts of the Putin regime, and it must have been bitter indeed to listen to U.S. Senator John McCain taunt the Kremlin from afar.

And then there is Georgia, where President Mikheil Saakashvili continues to laugh in the Kremlin’s face, building his democracy despite Russian threats and recently scoring 16 in the world for ease of doing business, compared to Russia’s pathetic 120.

But, for a while at least, the Kremlin hoped it still had a victory in Ukraine when the ostensibly pro-Moscow Yanukovich deposed the very pro-West Victor Yushchenko.  Yet soon after it came to power, the Yanukovich regime arrested Tymoshenko, a tough critic of Yushchenko, on palpably ridiculous political charges, and accused her of handing over Ukrainian wealth to Russia.  This earned a stern condemnation from the Kremlin, and even from Vladimir Putin himself, and it looked like Russia’s big win in Ukraine had been undone.

But now, it looks like Russia may still have an ace up its sleeve where Ukraine is concerned.  The West’s condemnation of Tymoshenko’s conviction has been so intense that it may be driving Ukraine back into the waiting arms of Russia.

Tymoshenko is, by far, the most glamorous, captivating and compelling personality to emerge from post-Soviet space.  She sat through her sham “trial” tapping away on her Apple I-pad and routinely shouting down the ape-like “judge” who presided over the kangaroo court. And the charges leveled against her are even more laughable than those faced by Mikhail Khodorkovsky. She has been sent to jail for seven years simply because a successor regime disagrees about the terms of a gas deal she made. Criminal liability on such grounds (when nobody at all claims a single penny from the deal went to Tymoshenko’s pocket) is unheard of in civilized countries. Who in their right mind would now want to lead Ukraine, knowing that policy disagreements can result in lengthy criminal terms?  Ukraine will be left with only rapacious criminals as her leaders.

But for all that, Tymoshenko remains a mysterious creature.  She opposed both Yushchenko and Yanukovych. Does she have a clear vision for Urkaine? If so, what is it?

So the question for the West is:  Should it support Tymoshenko in the hopes that she returns to power and drags Ukraine once and for all into the Western camp? Or should it abandon her and continue to court Yanukovych, who seemed more than willing to follow the Western siren right into the EU and perhaps even NATO?

This depends, of course, on whether Tymoshenko actually is pro-West or not. What do you think?

20 responses to “One Day in the Life of Yulia Tymoshenko

  1. Victor

    The post describes her 2009 gas deals extremely wrong. The reaction of the “west” is as wrong as it only could be.

    For a better analysis see articles translated into english here:
    What exactly the Attorney General’s Office accuses Tymoshenko of
    Putin — Tymoshenko Gas Deal: What is really in there?

    Tymoshenko was accused of a criminal crime: abuse of powers. Such criminal acts are punishable in all modern civilized democratic countries, and Ukraine is not an exception.

    Tymoshenko is only “allegedly” pro-West. All her activity, however, shows that she is a corrupt oligarch working as a close buisness-partner of RAO Gazprom. If Tymoshenko, God forbid, gets into power, she will finally destroy Ukraine and will join Kremlin to restore the beloved Soviet Union.

    If you know russian, and you should, check this clip:

    Tymoshenko has other problems to worry about beyond the corrupt gaz deals. She is charged for burdening the state budget with her company debts. Then there is still the shadow of Pavlo Lazarenko chasing her. And it is still not clear yet if she paid for assassination of Evgen Sherban.

    Tymoshenko is a dirty criminal. The worst mistake the West can do is to give her support.

    • LES ⋅

      Do you think that your idiotic comment will influence anybody other than a useful idiot?

      She was convicted under a 1927 statute created by the insanely delusional savage uncivilized pagan barbarians in the Kremlin.


      • LES ⋅

        The secret of Dmytro Firtash and Yuri Boyko !!

      • Victor

        I’ve read enough of dirty propaganda like that “article” in the Spiegel. ARD had a similar dirty propaganda show described here

        The article she was sentenced against is present in the criminal codes of all modern nations, including USA.

        • elmer ⋅

          Give us the citation to the statute in the US that says the same thing as Article 365 of Ukraine’s criminal code.

          It does not exist in the US.

          Article 365 was derived from a 1927 stalin statute. The crime? “exceeding the government, or powers of office, with heavy consequences.”

          You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, because such a statute would be held to be unconstitutionally vague – the statute would be declared to be unconstitutional.

          Another stupid sovok plastering falsehoods over the Internet about how stalin statutes in Ukraine are also present in “all modern nations.”

          • Victor

            Here we go. Great Britain:

            The offence is committed when:
            a public officer acting as such
            wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself
            to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder
            without reasonable excuse or justification.

            As to the USA: have you read the linked articles at all?

            Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do.
            —Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted)

            If you are not capable to grasp even such simple truths of the real world, and live instead in an imagined world, how can you even call me a “sovok”?

            How do you explain that people are charged and indicted for misconduct in office in all modern and civilized nations on the planet Earth, including USA, EU, etc?

            • elmer ⋅

              Well, lookie lookie here, the little sovoks in the Party of Regions has gone to great lengths – maybe even paying some non-Ukrainian lawyers – to look up abuse of office statutes in other countries, in order to justify the lack of a legal system in Ukraine.

              What is the difference between Ukraine’s statute, Victor, and the statutes in the other countries? Well, I’ll tell you – the statutes in the other countries are far more specific – you did not quote the statute in Great Britain, you quoted Legal Guidance published by the Crown Prosecutors, for the benefit of the public.

              And look at what is in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, ESPECIALLY THE LAST PART, VICTOR:

              2.2 It is the duty of prosecutors to review, to advise on and to
              prosecute cases or to offer an appropriate out-of-court disposal to the offender. Prosecutors must ensure that the law is properly applied; that all relevant evidence is put before the court; and that obligations of disclosure are complied with, in accordance with the principles set out in this Code.
              2.3 Although each case must be considered on its own facts and on its own merits, there are general principles that apply to the way in which prosecutors must approach every case.
              2.4 Prosecutors must be fair, independent and objective. They must not let any personal views about the ethnic or national origin, gender, disability, age, religion or belief, political views, sexual orientation, or gender identity of the suspect, victim or any witness influence their decisions. Neither must prosecutors be affected by improper or undue pressure from any source. Prosecutors must always act in the interests of justice and not solely for the purpose of obtaining a conviction.

              • elmer ⋅

                Furthermore, Victor, in countries other than Ukraine, THERE IS AN INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL JUDICIARY.

                Furthermore, Victor, as I said, you did not quote the statute in Great Britain.

                But, lookie lookie here, the Legal Guidance for Crown Prosecutors to which you referred contains this:

                In order to establish whether the behaviour is sufficiently serious to amount to the offence, the officer’s motive is also relevant: the question has always been, not whether the act done might, upon full and mature investigation, be found strictly right, but from what motive it had proceeded; whether from a dishonest, oppressive, or corrupt motive, under which description, fear and favour may generally be included, or from mistake or error

                To punish as a criminal any person who, in the gratuitous exercise of a public trust, may have fallen into error or mistake belongs only to the despotic ruler of an enslaved people, and is wholly abhorrent from the jurisprudence of this kingdom.
                (R v Borron [1820] 3 B&Ald 432: Abbott CJ, at page 434.)


                So that even a sovok idiot like you can understand:


                Furthermore, Victor, in other countries, proper legal procedure is followed.

                Ukraine’s constitution guarantees a jury trial – a fundamental, basic, legal right.


                The Pineapple, Yanukonvikt, is supposed to be the “guarantor” of the Constitution in Ukraine. Гарант конституції, as they keep saying in Ukraine. With reference to that, every Savik Shuster Show opens with a clip of Savik asking The Pineapple whether he will be the guarantor of freedom of speech – to which, after some hard thinking on the part of The Pineapple (he has a very hard time thinking) he answers – буду – I will.

                But there is no jury.

                спасибо жителям Донбассса
                за президента пидирасссса

                спасибо жителям Донбассса
                за президента ананасссса

                That’s what they chant as soccer games in Ukraine, Victor. For good reason.

                Where is the citation to the Uinited Stated Code, Victor?

                Or did the sovok mafiosi run out of money to pay to look it up?

                Or maybe, like you, they expect you to try to bamboozle people with typical sovok leaps of logic.

                • Victor

                  The problem is not a “better” or “worse” deal. The problem is that she has overstepped powers granted her both by constitution and the laws of the country.

                  She tried to legalize her directives on the government meeting, the government refused and she falsified the decision. She broke the law and must be held accountable. Especially because her contracts mean essentially that she has sold Ukraine into the neo-Soviet empire.

                  • elmer ⋅

                    Oh, this is funny.

                    The little sovok mafiosi are putting on a blitz of false accusations and false evidence. It’s really eating their livers.

                    Like stalin, they want to try to put some sort of legitimacy on their kangaroo court process.


                    Furthermore, exactly what powers did Tymoshenko “exceed” again?

                    Tymo, as prime minister, had every right to be involved in international negotiations, which were eventually signed by Ukraine’s Naftohaz (not by Tymoshenko) and by Putler’s Gazprom.

                    Such contracts had been signed previously, and they were also confirmed again when The Pineapple, Yanukonvikt, signed the Kharkiv Accords with Medvedev, the “karlik”.

                    They used the prior deal as a base, which means they legitimized it.

                    Do you sovoks even understand what kind of absolutely stupid cow dung you are spewing?

                    You and your fellow sovok mafiosis can spew all you want, but you are not going to legitimize a kangaroo court process – except with people who are brain dead.

          • Victor

            Here we have Sweden:
            Chapter 20
            On Misuse of Office, etc.
            Section 1
            A person who in the exercise of public authority by act or by
            omission, intentionally or through carelessness, disregards the
            duties of his office, shall be sentenced for misuse of office to a fine
            or imprisonment for at most two years. If, having regard to the
            perpetrator’s official powers or the nature of his office considered
            in relation to his exercise of public power in other respects or
            having regard to other circumstances, the act may be regarded as
            petty, punishment shall not be imposed.
            If a crime mentioned in the first paragraph has been committed
            intentionally and is regarded as gross, a sentence for gross misuse
            of office to imprisonment for at least six months and at most six
            years shall be imposed. In assessing whether the crime is gross,
            special attention shall be given to whether the offender seriously
            abused his position or whether the crime occasioned serious harm to
            an individual or the public sector or a substantial improper benefit.
            A member of a decision-making national or municipal assembly
            shall not be held responsible under the provisions of the first or
            second paragraphs of this Section for any action taken in that
            Nor shall the provisions of the first and second paragraphs of
            this Section apply if the crime is subject to a punishment under this
            or some other Law. (Law 1989:608)

            And check what is going on in Iceland:

            But only in Ukraine the modest norm present in all modern civilized nations laws became the rudiment of the stalinist past. Or probably only in Ukraine we’ve got a dirty lying criminal Tymoshenko with an army of on-line trolls who will spread any crap her propaganda officers tell.

    • LES ⋅

      Ukraine’s prosecutors are powerful, dangerous and ridiculously unprofessional.

      Surely it’s illegal for a prosecutor in a major case to meet up with a key witness minutes before the trial to discuss future testimony, especially in what appears to have been an attempt to extract false testimony?

      Yet this appears to be the modus operandi of Ukraine’s prosecutors.

      Read more:

  2. kabod

    Tymoshenko married into a family of the CENTRAL COMMITTEE COMMUNIST PARTY USSR member- one of several hundreds of TOP soviet ruling clans

    She is head of the few THE TOP ruling collective leadership of former soviet union in its current format

    Tymoshenko founded and succesfully ran a company that was for years more rich then GAZPROM

    Tymoshenko became a major partner of GAZPROM since then and STILL REMAINS A NUMBER ONE PARTBNER

    and very likely one of the real top owners of GAZPROM

    So dear Kim


    or ..else

  3. LES ⋅

    Bohdan Futey, Judge of the US Federal Claims Court considers the trial of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to be in breach of the principles of the rule of law. Judge Futey took part in drawing up Ukraine’s 1996 Constitution and has closely followed the development of Ukraine’s legal system. In an interview to the Radio Svoboda Ukrainian Service he also expressed concern that judicial reform in Ukraine was stalled.

    – I have worked in this field for 20 years and am extremely concerned at what is going on. According to the Constitution, Ukraine is a democracy with the rule of law and an independent judiciary. Yet unfortunately this is all only on paper. And if there is no rule of law, and no independent judiciary, then there is authoritarianism.

    The verdict issued on 11 October to the former Prime Minister, these charges mean nothing. President Kravchuk said it best: if you’re going to accuse anybody of exceeding their authority, then you need to prosecute four Presidents and 18 Prime Ministers. This is all, it would seem done in order to settle political scores with the leader of the opposition. In this trial neither the pre-trail nor the court procedures were observed. Ukraine’s Constitution guarantees an adversarial system. Did you see an adversarial system in this trial? Absolutely not. I witnessed it all. There were procedural infringements and they place in question defence of fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. You know what most amazes me? In America – if something like this happened – the American Chamber of Bar Lawyers, and lawyers would definitely express their view – how a law-based state should work according to constitutional guarantees. In Ukraine, where this is a Union of Lawyers, a Union of Bar Lawyers, a World Congress of Bar Lawyers – why do they not speak? Where, among others, is the Legal Policy Committee of the Verkhovna Rada, or that on court issues? Why do they not draw attention to it? All must bear responsibility for preserving the legal system and rule of law!

    President Yanukovych states that he does not interfere in the work of the courts, while Ukrainian diplomats express surprise why in the West they criticize a court trial in process, after all there is an appeal procedure and they stress that this is an issue of Ukraine’s internal policy.

    If diplomats talk like that, then they don’t understand what is happening. The norms of justice in the trial which has taken place were absolutely not adhered to. In America, of course, such a case would never have even got to court. What does exceeding authority mean? There was nothing that the Prime Minister herself personally in any form made use of what happened. And agreements sometimes come out well, some times not so well. If we talk of exceeding authority, then the signing of the Kharkiv Accords extending the Black Sea Fleet lease with Russia also exceeding authority and were against the Constitution.

    If the former Ukrainian President signed a law prohibiting the Constitutional Court from reviewing the constitutional reform (of December 2004 – translator) which is the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, that is also exceeding authority. And what is happening? Nothing’s happening to them! Attention needs to be drawn to that. I think that all these assertions that the world is reacting badly are unwarranted. The world is showing concern for democracy. We live in a global era. A global era requires all countries which communicate with one another to adhere to certain international procedures.

    There is a view that the trial of Yulia Tymoshenko gives Ukraine a chance of reforming its judicial system. How should Ukraine make use of this chance?

    Reform of the judiciary is very important. In 2010 there was supposedly an attempt to reform the judicial system and approach international organizations for their expert assessment. We were working on that but then suddenly the Verkhovna Rada passed a law, not even waiting for that expert view.

    When you say “we”, who do you mean?

    A group of experts – the Rule of Law Project in Kyiv – I am working with them and there’s the Venice Commission. They approached us for help and we are trying, now after the law has been adopted to make corrections. The Law has some positive features. However there is a lot which runs counter to the Constitution. For example, “The President has the right to dissolve courts”. Then all courts must act as the President wishes. Another matter is that according to the Constitution, the highest court among courts of general jurisdiction is the Supreme Court The Law passed says that “the High Specialized Courts will decide whether they pass cases to the Supreme Court or not”. The Law cannot deny that which the Constitution guarantees. Since when the law was passed in July 2010, we have been working on amendments. Unfortunately, however, the Verkhovna Rada has not up till now accepted for consideration any of this, as far as I know. And that staggers me! Are they really serious about this, or just talking to themselves, but not wanting to implement anything?

  4. Victor

    Here the ex-president of Ukraine Victor Yuschenko explains in a very plain language what her gas deals mean for the country: and they mean bankruptcy of the industry and serfdom for the nation.

    Tymoshenko is a traitor. Kremlin’s fifth column in Ukraine!

  5. LES ⋅

    No fair trial

    Tymoshenko was denied the right to a proper, fair defense and a host of other guaranteed constitutional rights. It should be mentioned that Yanukovych’s denial of responsibility in principle constitutes an impeachable offense, as he has failed to fulfill his constitutional duties.

    Other political prisoners

    Besides Tymoshenko, there are at least 125 innocent political prisoners and repressed people in Ukraine in 2011 alone. Many have died in pre-trial detention. Tymoshenko and others in pre-trial detention are routinely denied basic human rights by being refused proper, independent, medical attention.

    Read more:

  6. LES ⋅

    Organizer “tax Square” faces up to 15 years in prison

    Chairman of the Board “the Coalition of Orange Revolution” were charged in the intentional destruction of state property during protests entrepreneurs.

    Defence Ministry in Kiev has charged head of government “Coalition of Orange Revolution” Sergey Melnichenko. He was charged with a criminal group that during the protest action of entrepreneurs late last year damaged tiles on the Square.

Talk back to La Russophobe

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s