Replies

Duly elected my azzz!

THE WASHINGTON POST

9 February 2010

By Philip P. Pan

International monitors on Monday described Ukraine's presidential election as free and fair, putting pressure on Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to concede defeat despite a tight vote count and charges of irregularities.

…

Joao Soares, president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, said the election was an "impressive display of democracy" and called on politicians to honor the outcome.

I noticed you ducked my question:

So to be clear, if a mob of Democrats in pussy hats descend on Washington D.C., take over and squat in government buildings, and kill police officers, and 60 Senators vote to impeach Trump, you think he should be removed from office because 'it is the will of the people'? Our elections and laws be damned?

Do you seek a free Republic, or mobocracy?

I noticed you ducked my question:

It's a dumb question. I don't deal in hypotheticals.

So, why don't you deal with the debunking TRUTHS I posted to deal with the lies you posted?

So to be clear, if a mob of Democrats in pussy hats descend on Washington D.C., take over and squat in government buildings, and kill police officers, and 60 Senators vote to impeach Trump, you think he should be removed from office because 'it is the will of the people'? Our elections and laws be damned?

That NEVER happened, and what I did post completely debunked your posted lies about what occurred in Ukraine with the Putin puppets. Deal with truth and facts, and not imaginary scenarios.

International monitors on Monday described Ukraine's presidential election as free and fair, putting pressure on Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to concede defeat despite a tight vote count and charges of irregularities.

Once an elections is declared 'fair', nobody is going to challenge the claim. Same with the U.S. 2020 election, where nobody dared to declare the outcome as a stolen election. Nothing to gain after the 'results' are in. And the international monitors were there just to confirm the outcome that they were given. They were NEVER there to challenge the results; it wasn't in their job description. Duh!

Joao Soares, president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, said the election was an "impressive display of democracy" and called on politicians to honor the outcome.

They also would've declared the 2020 U.S. election as an 'impressive display of democracy', and would've called Biden and democrats to honor the outcome. Same with all elections that occur in Russia. No international election monitors would dare to challenge elections that they're called to 'monitor'. The stamp of approval was set in stone before they arrived.

I noticed you ducked my question

Read my comments above and below:

So to be clear, if a mob of Democrats in pussy hats descend on Washington D.C., take over and squat in government buildings, and kill police officers, and 60 Senators vote to impeach Trump, you think he should be removed from office because 'it is the will of the people'? Our elections and laws be damned?

You are the one dismissing my responses. I already said that I don't deal in hypotheticals, especially dumb and made-up ones.

Do you seek a free Republic, or mobocracy?

America has a free republic now, after correcting the fraud of the 2020 election.

And thankfully, Ukraine also has a free and independent country, after correcting the sham elections processes of 2004 and 2010. You may not like it, but, it's what the people of Ukraine wanted, not what Russia and YOU wanted.

It helps to understand how the stage was set for the phony election result of 2010, which was declared 'fair' by the investigators/monitors.

But fair is not correct when the conditions for fraud and Russian involvement for a predetermined outcome are considered (the stage was set starting in 2004):

Did Russia intervene in the 2010 election in Ukraine?

SEE IF YOU CAN FOLLOW ALONG:

Russia did not intervene in the 2010 Ukrainian presidential election with the same overt, heavy-handed tactics it deployed during the fraudulent 2004 election.

Instead, the Kremlin took a more hands-off approach publicly, relying on economic pressure beforehand and the organic political collapse of the pro-Western "Orange Revolution" coalition to achieve its goals.

International observers, including the OSCE, largely declared the 2010 election to be fair, transparent, and democratic.

1. Shift from the 2004 Strategy

In 2004, Russia aggressively interfered by sending political strategists, funding candidate Viktor Yanukovych, and having Vladimir Putin openly campaign for him.

PUTIN OPENLY CAMPAIGNING FOR HIS CANDIDATE inside Ukraine. Is that interference or not?

In contrast, Russia's 2010 strategy shifted to a more passive role because Moscow felt comfortable with both major frontrunners, Viktor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko.

While Yanukovych was traditionally pro-Russian, Tymoshenko had also negotiated pragmatic, multi-billion dollar gas deals directly with Putin in 2009.

OBVIOUSLY, the candidates had been corrupted with special deals by Putin before the election. They had been BOUGHT!

2. Pre-Election Economic Pressure

Rather than direct covert or overt political interference during the campaign, Russia leveraged economic leverage to influence voter sentiment. IOW, the voters had been BOUGHT.

Energy Sanctions: The Kremlin weaponized Ukraine's dependence on natural gas by imposing steep price hikes and cutting off supplies during the winters of 2006 and 2009.

Nice guys, those Russians!

Economic Fallout: These actions severely crippled the Ukrainian economy under the incumbent pro-Western President Viktor Yushchenko.

Voter Backlash: The resulting economic hardship successfully alienated the Ukrainian public, priming them to vote against the fracturing "Orange" government.

3. Diplomatic Posturing

While Moscow avoided covert election meddling, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev engaged in public diplomatic interference.

In August 2009, Medvedev released an open video letter fiercely criticizing President Yushchenko for pursuing anti-Russian policies, such as seeking NATO membership.

This public condemnation was widely viewed by international analysts and Yushchenko himself as direct interference designed to torpedo Yushchenko's reelection chances.

4. Election Outcome

The strategies effectively yielded Moscow's desired result without a public scandal. The pro-Western incumbent Yushchenko was eliminated in the first round after receiving only around 5% of the vote.

Viktor Yanukovych won the subsequent runoff against Tymoshenko. Shortly after taking office, Yanukovych rapidly realigned Ukraine toward Moscow's sphere of influence, famously signing the April 2010 Kharkiv Pact to extend Russia's military lease on the Sevastopol naval base in Crimea.

***********************************************************

No doubt if that kind of interference had occurred in the U.S. or any other western country, the pro-Russia election results would have been declared unfair and illegal and null and void. But the damage had been done, with Ukrainians correcting the interference and mistakes after 2014.

But, not too many people, including YOU know of the circumstances which made Russia seem like a victim and Ukraine as the instigator of negative publicity for Putin and Russia.