In turbulent times of my restless youth, for a while, I was a journalist. And my nightmare was “yeah” This is when I invite a guest, get ready, collect questions, facts, interesting stories. And a person comes to the studio, looks at me as at “surströmming” (stinky Norwegian goodies or just fermented herring) and answers to all my carefully thought out questions with “yeah”, and also “I have no answer to this question”.
Yesterday, I saw the embodiment of my nightmare —a look, as if it were surströmming, and total “yeah”, and even some mysterious big guys that instruct the team. Brrrr. Here I even crossed myself and was glad that I escaped from journalism.
The interview began with secret subtitles behind the scenes. Then Yanina clarified “Nastya (informal – translator’s note ) or Anastasia (formal – translator’s note )”, Mrs. Prykhodko replied that Anastasia, and I think if she immediately asked to switch to Russian, it would be easier for her. Because sometimes it was even pitiful to Anastasia, who with such difficulty, with such suffering, processed what she heard in her head and picked up words. The words were somewhere lost in most of the moments, then it turned into “yeah” or “constant utterances of Ukrainian politician”.
I sometimes get a clear impression that Ukrainian politicians are taught by the same maniac philologist, otherwise, why do they all speak with these wooden, heavy, and clumsy meaningless phrases?
Briefly about the main thing
Social policy ‒ Nastya goes into social policy because she loves helping people. I even saluted on this pretentious pathos, as a former pioneer.
The crooked hole of 1984 is undoubtedly the meme of the year. And it is beautiful in the context of her speech than the equipment from the parade does not stand on the front lines. This is a favorite “betrayal” since the Independence Day. And at least a hundred times they explained that the majority of new heavy machinery is prohibited by the Minsk agreements at the front. It makes no difference ‒ this “betrayal” never grows old. And speech about naked, barefoot and hungry ones with a crooked hole is for centuries to sound from the “betrayal speeches”.
She’s smart enough ‒ it’s simply the best. A journalist asks for what wealth does Tymoshenko live, if she has no business, and wears the most expensive shoes and clothes among all women in Ukrainian politics. To what Nastya, with absolute love in her voice, says “she’s smart enough”. Have you understood, morons? If you are still working, building a business, opening a company, declaring income and paying taxes, it’s not because you are bold, strong, smart, and honest, but simply because you do not have enough brains while being a truly homeless person to buy Louboutin, to travel the world and wear expensive clothes without a business. You need to learn.
Faith ‒ you just need to have faith. Anastasia Prykhodko believes. I even had to go out of the full-screen mode to check, is it just an interview with a newly-born “Batkivshchyna”(political party – translator’s note) member, or maybe it’s Volodymyr Muntyan (pastor of one of the Ukrainian cults – translator’s note) who speaks, and now she will say “Tachch Pyshchsch” and everyone will fall. But no… This was Anastasiya Prykhodko, she was sitting in the bar and from time to time she said “yeah” in the pauses between speeches of Yanina Sokolova.
By the way, listening to Yanina’s speech with short pauses, I wanted to mute her for a while. Therefore, the impression was that it was not a story about Prykhodko, but a story about Sokolova. And it was no less difficult to understand it. Sometimes Yanina led to the question so that I had forgotten what the essence of the question was, and also in the voice shouting “slow down, stop, what was there at the beginning?”.
And on the one hand, I understand her, and I understand that one cannot cover half an hour either with Nastya’s “yeahs”, but on the other, Yanina opened the door to the new “hell” for herself ‒ what about the Donbas?
There are two cornerstones in Ukrainian journalism. One thing is “when World War II began” – and this is the test of Tsaryov’s syndrome. And the second is “how to return the Donbas”. As for me, the second question is more difficult, because it does not have the correct answer. No matter what you say, something will be tossed in your direction. Of course, Yanina could not resist and asked Anastasia about the de-occupation of the Donbas, but she cunningly gave the pass to Yanina. And here the host couldn’t stop. Judging by her speech, the language and harassment of national minorities are the main problems of the war in Donbas. That is, the Kremlin’s policy has disappeared somewhere, the Russian military has disappeared, the years of pro-Russian ideological work have disappeared, the Russian machinery has disappeared. We must give them the right to speak in Russian, and “authoritarianism”, and everything will be good.
And here I should say, did this very language produce Pushilin and the rest of like-minded clowns on that land? When did they oppress national minorities? I want to remind you that all Ukraine “listened to the Donbas” for a couple of decades. Yanina hopes that the question of the language is far-fetched because most people speak Russian in Kyiv. Then I, as a 100% Ukrainian-speaking citizen, demand to reckon with my language needs and my rights of an actual “minority”.
As for the “authoritarianism”, it is even somehow difficult to explain what the host had in mind? Indeed, according to the thesaurus, authoritarian means unconditional subordination to authority, power. And then, I confusedly asked, “to give them the right of authoritarianism”, what is this? To hand over the right of unconditional power to all those Russian clowns, who became commanders? Or what?
Oh, it would be better if Yanina was raising questions, but not answering them. Because it happened so that she actually fell into her own trap. It is like if Skrypin asked himself about the Second World War, and would answer to himself ‒ “whaaat?”
Mysterious big guys, or stand up and leave
If there is a rifle on the stage, then before the intermission, it will fire. Mysterious big guys, which were stated at the beginning, appeared at the end, their low voice lectured the journalist and as if they were trying to put some questions of their own. We only managed to find out that one of those guys was Kostya, a citizen of Ukraine, then Nastya got up, stripped off the microphone and left.
This way ended the 34 minutes’ speech of Yanina Sokolova, with short and incredibly stupid remarks of the newest politician…