KIEV, Ukraine -- Jewish groups condemned Thursday a plan by authorities in the Ukrainian capital to build a hotel on what a leading scholar said was a killing field in the Babi Yar massacre, a horrific chapter of the Holocaust.
The controversy erupted days before the 68th anniversary of the killing of more than 30,000 Jews in late September 1941 at Babi Yar, a ravine that became choked with the bodies of victims shot at its edges.Legislators loyal to Kiev mayor Leonid Chernovetsky approved a plan last week to build dozens of hotels in the city over the next decade, including one across the street from a monument commemorating the victims.The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Israel decried the plan, saying it disrespected the dead and demonstrated Ukrainian authorities' reluctance to investigate wartime collaboration with the Nazis."The plan to build a hotel on the site of the one of the worst Holocaust massacres is an example of utter insensitivity to the terrible crimes committed by the Nazis and their Ukrainian collaborators during World War II," the Center said in a statement. "We urge the Ukrainian authorities to take all necessary measures to prevent the building of such an obviously inappropriate edifice at Babi Yar."More than 33,700 Jews were rounded up and shot at Babi Yar over 48 hours beginning on Sept. 29, 1941. In the ensuing months, the ravine was filled with an estimated 100,000 bodies, among them those of non-Jewish Kiev residents and Red Army prisoners of the Nazis.The hotel would be built in the middle of the main killing site, according to Vitaliy Nakhmanovich, a leading Ukrainian Babi Yar scholar."You wouldn't build a hotel in Babi Yar because you would be afraid that nobody would go there," Nakhmanovich said. "But they build for people like themselves."Oleksandr Bryhynets, who heads the Kiev city council's culture and tourism commission, said the planned three-star, 700-room hotel would be named Babi Yar. He called the plan immoral and said he would fight it."Such sacred places, which have already become the face of the city ... are no place for hotels," said Bryhynets, a member of Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko's faction in the city council. "The authorities have no morals."Lawmaker Viktor Hrinyuk, from Chernovetsky's faction, said the hotel would not disturb any remains. He also said the plan was not final and subject to change."We need to start somewhere," Hrinyuk said, according to his party's press service. "When the land is distributed, then we can start discussions."Jewish leaders have expressed concern over what they say are persistent instances of disrespect for Jewish heritage and of anti-Semitism in Ukraine, which lost 1.4 million of its 2.4 million Jews during the Holocaust.The mayor of the western city of Uzhhorod is under investigation for making what was widely seen as an anti-Semitic remark referring to a leading politician and presidential hopeful.Ukraine is also torn by controversy over the extent of wartime collaboration with the Nazis.Jewish leaders also condemned Tuesday's decision by lawmakers in the western city of Lviv to call on President Viktor Yushchenko to secure the release of a Ukrainian-born man accused by German authorities of involvement in the murder of 27,900 people at a Nazi death camp.The legislators say they believe 89-year-old John Demjanjuk, who lived for decades in the United States following the war, is innocent and that materials incriminating him were fabricated by Soviet authorities.
Sunday 27 September 2009
Czech Diplomat Accused In Ukraine Visa Scam
KIEV, Ukraine -- A senior diplomat from the Czech Republic working in Ukraine will face charges that he pocketed more than a half a million dollars in a visa scam, the Segodnia newpaper reported Thursday.
Czech ambassador Jaroslav Basta was the ringleader of an illegal visa application registration operation in the western Ukrainian city of Lviv, the Korrespondent web magazine reported, citing police investigators working for the Czech Republic's Foreign Ministry.Basta allegedly oversaw a business running for eight months in 2008, during which Czech consulate workers in Lviv instructed Ukrainians applying for visas to the Czech Republic to register their applications by telephone with a private company, rather than the consulate itself.The telephone registration procedure was illegal and not Czech Foreign Ministry policy, officials said. Czech diplomatic staff involved will face criminal charges, according to the reports.More than 30,000 applicants paying the equivalent of 20 dollars per telephone registration transferred money to the company before it ceased operation in January, according to the reports.The Segodnia article identified a Czech national, allegedly 'a close friend of ambassador Basta', as the owner-operator of the Lviv company registering the visa application phone-ins and accepting the application payments.Law enforcement officials became aware of the scam after more than 150 Ukrainians applying for Czech visas in Lviv complained to Ukrainian police, who informed their Czech counterparts, according to the Korrespondent report.Czech embassy staff in Kiev had no comment on the Ukrainian news reports.
Czech ambassador Jaroslav Basta was the ringleader of an illegal visa application registration operation in the western Ukrainian city of Lviv, the Korrespondent web magazine reported, citing police investigators working for the Czech Republic's Foreign Ministry.Basta allegedly oversaw a business running for eight months in 2008, during which Czech consulate workers in Lviv instructed Ukrainians applying for visas to the Czech Republic to register their applications by telephone with a private company, rather than the consulate itself.The telephone registration procedure was illegal and not Czech Foreign Ministry policy, officials said. Czech diplomatic staff involved will face criminal charges, according to the reports.More than 30,000 applicants paying the equivalent of 20 dollars per telephone registration transferred money to the company before it ceased operation in January, according to the reports.The Segodnia article identified a Czech national, allegedly 'a close friend of ambassador Basta', as the owner-operator of the Lviv company registering the visa application phone-ins and accepting the application payments.Law enforcement officials became aware of the scam after more than 150 Ukrainians applying for Czech visas in Lviv complained to Ukrainian police, who informed their Czech counterparts, according to the Korrespondent report.Czech embassy staff in Kiev had no comment on the Ukrainian news reports.
Financial Free Fall?
KIEV, Ukraine -- The official investigation into what the nation’s top cop is calling one of the worst financial frauds in the nation's history may be going nowhere fast.
Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko on Sept. 23 said employees with the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) are not cooperating with his ministry’s investigation into how the central bank has refinanced commercial banks and conducted foreign currency auctions.“We are questioning anyone who can give valuable information, but it is too early to talk about results. Much will depend on whether top NBU officials want to cooperate. We have asked for information about who was in charge of what, but we still have not received answers,” Lutsenko said. “We do not sense any desire on their part to cooperate with our investigation.”At issue is how billions of dollars got spent – or misspent – in government assistance that was supposed to help the nation’s banks recover from a raft of bad borrowing and lending. Much of the aid came from the International Monetary Fund or World Bank in loans that will have to be repaid by Ukrainian taxpayers.So far, the government has spent Hr 107 billion ($13 billion) to refinance many of the nation’s 170 or so commercial banks. Further, the government has recapitalized three of the most financially precarious – Rodovid Bank, Ukrgazbank and Kyiv Bank. The government now owns and runs those three banks. Currently, 15 of the most trouble banks are under temporary NBU administration and others might fail.If the central bank ended up helping favored insiders profit from sweetheart deals, then recovery of the banking sector – vital to getting the nation out of recession – could stall even further.Most Ukrainians distrust their banks anyway, so the burgeoning scandal will only reinforce these opinions. The lack of faith undermines Ukraine’s ability to emerge from one of the worst financial crises in its 18 years of independence. If disillusionment rises, more citizens may stop trusting banks altogether with their deposits or stop repaying their loans.Oleksandr Savchenko, who resigned as deputy head of the central bank on Sept. 11, said the central bank’s recapitalization of commercial banks was done in an unfair and non-transparent way that allowed insiders to profit on currency manipulation and speculation.Savchenko told Korrespondent magazine in an interview published on Sept. 18 that at least one scheme involved selling dollars to favored banks at the official NBU rate, which is much lower than the commercial rate. Those who benefited, Savchenko said, profited greatly.“The banks which were able to buy currency at the official rate made big profits because of the 8-12 percent difference between the official and commercial rates. Imagine you bought $20 million for Hr 7.55 and sold for Hr 8.55. That’s $2 million in your pocket,” Savchenko said.Suspicions of irregularities also haunt NBU’s infusions to improve their liquidity. Nadra Bank (Hr 7.1 billion), Rodovid Bank (Hr 2.1 billion), Ukrgazbank (Hr 1.2 billion) and Kyiv Bank (Hr 412 million) were among the top recipients.Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko flagged the problem as far back as December.“The redistribution of the Hr 40 billion among Ukraine’s commercial banks occurred in such a fashion that much of it went to individual banks conducting large-scale speculative attacks against the hryvnia,” Tymoshenko said on Dec. 18. “Nearly one-fifth went to a bankrupt bank, which turned around and bought cheap dollars at the NBU rate.”The IMF and World Bank, which have lent billions of dollars to support Ukraine’s currency and banking, commissioned their own probes months ago, analyzed the results and effectively reached a two-word conclusion: No wrongdoing.In its most recent country report this month, the IMF says that its special review of refinancing and foreign exchange interventions “suggests that the NBU had broadly followed approved procedures and authorization policies in conducting these operations.”And the World Bank chimed in: “A recently completed audit by Ernst & Young on behalf of the IMF of the NBU’s liquidity support suggests that the NBU followed approved procedures and authorization policies in conducting liquidity operations in late 2008.”But these findings appear to contradict the results of an audit by Ukraine’s Accounting Chamber, conducted in May, which said that most of the decisions taken by the NBU board on refinancing commercial banks in December 2008 “did not comply with existing laws and procedures.” The Accounting Chamber is responsible to parliament for reporting how budget funds are spent.One commercial bank manager, who did not want to be identified because of fear of central bank retaliation, said he regarded the NBU as opaque in its hard-currency dealings.The Ernst & Young report is considered confidential and neither the IMF nor World Bank responded to requests for comment on its findings.The Economist Intelligence Unit on Sept. 22 said that “an audit for the IMF showed that the NBU had not fully followed approved procedures and authorization policies in conducting refinancing and foreign-exchange operations.”The IMF last November began lending Ukraine money from a $16.4 billion credit limit to help restore confidence in the economy and financial sectors. Nearly one year later, after more than $10 billion in disbursed loans, stability is far from assured.Ukraine’s Finance Ministry, in the government’s 2010 draft budget, anticipates Hr 50 billion ($6.2 billion) for recapitalizing a dozen so or more banks.But government officials are still arguing with lawmakers and financiers over whether the new rules make sense. The list of candidates for recapitalization emerged in April, when eight of the country’s larger banks applied for assistance. The number dropped subsequently to three, as some banks withdrew because of their owners’ unwillingness to cede majority stakes to the state. The government was demanding stakes of at least 75 percent.Oleksandr Suhoniako, chairman of the Association of Ukrainian Banks, a non-governmental organization representing 130 commercial banks, said the new scheme is as vague as the old NBU scheme was secret.Suhoniako said his association “was excluded from the process of formulating a new recapitalization program because of our unequivocal opposition to the half-baked eligibility criteria proposed by the government. We think that the new recapitalization plan, which is actually a bank nationalization plan, is doomed. The proposed terms do not make sense and the program will serve clan interests.”Suhoniako continued: “Just take a look at the members of new supervisory council of the NBU, at how the NBU regulated the currency exchange during the crisis, how the NBU refinanced and capitalized banks, the central bank’s monetization policy. Its dependence on the different centers of power and business interests is obvious.”Victor Suslov, head of the state committee for regulation of financial services, agrees. He says by law the NBU has conflicting tasks, and this basic contradiction has to be removed. “It is difficult anywhere in the world besides Ukraine to find a central bank responsible for both the monetary policy and supervision of commercial banks.Overseeing commercial banks makes the NBU establish close ties with their owners. And in the end, instead of implementing the monetary policy in the best interests of the state, the National banks ends up protecting certain banks,” Suslov said.Victor Marchenko, former owner of Kyiv Bank, said that cordial relations with government banking officials are the most important eligibility requirement for recapitalization. “It is necessary to lobby in order to receive preference. Whether recapitalization is forthcoming depends more on government connections than a NBU recommendation,” Marchenko said.He says financial scandals are continuing. He said the now-government owned Rodovid, Ukrgazbank and Kyiv Bank are asking for more money than the government had been willing to give them earlier. Marchenko’s former Kyiv Bank received Hr 3.5 billion and he said its government-appointed managers are seeking an additional Hr 1.5 billion.“Hr 5 billion? Kyiv Bank doesn’t have that much in assets. I think the Finance Ministry is using recapitalized banks for their own purposes,” Marchenko said. “Imagine you want to buy a car for $20,000 and ask your parents to give you $30,000, so you can spend the difference on something else. The government acts the same way.”Millionaire confectioner Petro Poroshenko, chairman of the central bank’s advisory council, appeared sanguine during a cameo appearance at a telephone conference call by Concorde Capital on Sept. 22. He credited tighter monetary policy, including a revised procedure for hard-currency auctions put in place by the NBU, for decreasing the gap between the official and commercial exchange rate.That, in turn, has resulted in the hryvnia regaining “some equilibrium in recent days.” Other positive signs, he said, are that most of Ukraine’s corporate external debt has been restructured and there are no liquidity problems at any of Ukraine’s major banks.Poroshenko is unlikely to impress ordinary Ukrainians, who are finding it more difficult to afford imported goods, especially medicine, and to repay their bank loans denominated in hard currency, which has gained greatly in value against the hryvnia in the last year.According to a survey conducted Sept. 14-16 by the Horshenin Institute of Management Issues, 85 percent of Ukrainians call their banks “unreliable” places to keep money. Even more – 88 percent – are concerned by the hryvnia’s sharp devaluation.The bad news – discussed after Poroshenko delivered his monologue and departed – is that the percentage of loans not being repaid is rising. The NBU reported on Sept. 21 that the share of non-performing loans rose 0.6 percent in August, to 6.8 percent by Sept. 1.In volume, non-performing loans increased 11.6 percent, or by Hr. 5.3 billion in July, up from 5.4 percent registered at the end of June. Bankers fear the bad loans could hit 30 percent by year’s end, which would radically raise the cost of further government bailouts.
Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko on Sept. 23 said employees with the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) are not cooperating with his ministry’s investigation into how the central bank has refinanced commercial banks and conducted foreign currency auctions.“We are questioning anyone who can give valuable information, but it is too early to talk about results. Much will depend on whether top NBU officials want to cooperate. We have asked for information about who was in charge of what, but we still have not received answers,” Lutsenko said. “We do not sense any desire on their part to cooperate with our investigation.”At issue is how billions of dollars got spent – or misspent – in government assistance that was supposed to help the nation’s banks recover from a raft of bad borrowing and lending. Much of the aid came from the International Monetary Fund or World Bank in loans that will have to be repaid by Ukrainian taxpayers.So far, the government has spent Hr 107 billion ($13 billion) to refinance many of the nation’s 170 or so commercial banks. Further, the government has recapitalized three of the most financially precarious – Rodovid Bank, Ukrgazbank and Kyiv Bank. The government now owns and runs those three banks. Currently, 15 of the most trouble banks are under temporary NBU administration and others might fail.If the central bank ended up helping favored insiders profit from sweetheart deals, then recovery of the banking sector – vital to getting the nation out of recession – could stall even further.Most Ukrainians distrust their banks anyway, so the burgeoning scandal will only reinforce these opinions. The lack of faith undermines Ukraine’s ability to emerge from one of the worst financial crises in its 18 years of independence. If disillusionment rises, more citizens may stop trusting banks altogether with their deposits or stop repaying their loans.Oleksandr Savchenko, who resigned as deputy head of the central bank on Sept. 11, said the central bank’s recapitalization of commercial banks was done in an unfair and non-transparent way that allowed insiders to profit on currency manipulation and speculation.Savchenko told Korrespondent magazine in an interview published on Sept. 18 that at least one scheme involved selling dollars to favored banks at the official NBU rate, which is much lower than the commercial rate. Those who benefited, Savchenko said, profited greatly.“The banks which were able to buy currency at the official rate made big profits because of the 8-12 percent difference between the official and commercial rates. Imagine you bought $20 million for Hr 7.55 and sold for Hr 8.55. That’s $2 million in your pocket,” Savchenko said.Suspicions of irregularities also haunt NBU’s infusions to improve their liquidity. Nadra Bank (Hr 7.1 billion), Rodovid Bank (Hr 2.1 billion), Ukrgazbank (Hr 1.2 billion) and Kyiv Bank (Hr 412 million) were among the top recipients.Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko flagged the problem as far back as December.“The redistribution of the Hr 40 billion among Ukraine’s commercial banks occurred in such a fashion that much of it went to individual banks conducting large-scale speculative attacks against the hryvnia,” Tymoshenko said on Dec. 18. “Nearly one-fifth went to a bankrupt bank, which turned around and bought cheap dollars at the NBU rate.”The IMF and World Bank, which have lent billions of dollars to support Ukraine’s currency and banking, commissioned their own probes months ago, analyzed the results and effectively reached a two-word conclusion: No wrongdoing.In its most recent country report this month, the IMF says that its special review of refinancing and foreign exchange interventions “suggests that the NBU had broadly followed approved procedures and authorization policies in conducting these operations.”And the World Bank chimed in: “A recently completed audit by Ernst & Young on behalf of the IMF of the NBU’s liquidity support suggests that the NBU followed approved procedures and authorization policies in conducting liquidity operations in late 2008.”But these findings appear to contradict the results of an audit by Ukraine’s Accounting Chamber, conducted in May, which said that most of the decisions taken by the NBU board on refinancing commercial banks in December 2008 “did not comply with existing laws and procedures.” The Accounting Chamber is responsible to parliament for reporting how budget funds are spent.One commercial bank manager, who did not want to be identified because of fear of central bank retaliation, said he regarded the NBU as opaque in its hard-currency dealings.The Ernst & Young report is considered confidential and neither the IMF nor World Bank responded to requests for comment on its findings.The Economist Intelligence Unit on Sept. 22 said that “an audit for the IMF showed that the NBU had not fully followed approved procedures and authorization policies in conducting refinancing and foreign-exchange operations.”The IMF last November began lending Ukraine money from a $16.4 billion credit limit to help restore confidence in the economy and financial sectors. Nearly one year later, after more than $10 billion in disbursed loans, stability is far from assured.Ukraine’s Finance Ministry, in the government’s 2010 draft budget, anticipates Hr 50 billion ($6.2 billion) for recapitalizing a dozen so or more banks.But government officials are still arguing with lawmakers and financiers over whether the new rules make sense. The list of candidates for recapitalization emerged in April, when eight of the country’s larger banks applied for assistance. The number dropped subsequently to three, as some banks withdrew because of their owners’ unwillingness to cede majority stakes to the state. The government was demanding stakes of at least 75 percent.Oleksandr Suhoniako, chairman of the Association of Ukrainian Banks, a non-governmental organization representing 130 commercial banks, said the new scheme is as vague as the old NBU scheme was secret.Suhoniako said his association “was excluded from the process of formulating a new recapitalization program because of our unequivocal opposition to the half-baked eligibility criteria proposed by the government. We think that the new recapitalization plan, which is actually a bank nationalization plan, is doomed. The proposed terms do not make sense and the program will serve clan interests.”Suhoniako continued: “Just take a look at the members of new supervisory council of the NBU, at how the NBU regulated the currency exchange during the crisis, how the NBU refinanced and capitalized banks, the central bank’s monetization policy. Its dependence on the different centers of power and business interests is obvious.”Victor Suslov, head of the state committee for regulation of financial services, agrees. He says by law the NBU has conflicting tasks, and this basic contradiction has to be removed. “It is difficult anywhere in the world besides Ukraine to find a central bank responsible for both the monetary policy and supervision of commercial banks.Overseeing commercial banks makes the NBU establish close ties with their owners. And in the end, instead of implementing the monetary policy in the best interests of the state, the National banks ends up protecting certain banks,” Suslov said.Victor Marchenko, former owner of Kyiv Bank, said that cordial relations with government banking officials are the most important eligibility requirement for recapitalization. “It is necessary to lobby in order to receive preference. Whether recapitalization is forthcoming depends more on government connections than a NBU recommendation,” Marchenko said.He says financial scandals are continuing. He said the now-government owned Rodovid, Ukrgazbank and Kyiv Bank are asking for more money than the government had been willing to give them earlier. Marchenko’s former Kyiv Bank received Hr 3.5 billion and he said its government-appointed managers are seeking an additional Hr 1.5 billion.“Hr 5 billion? Kyiv Bank doesn’t have that much in assets. I think the Finance Ministry is using recapitalized banks for their own purposes,” Marchenko said. “Imagine you want to buy a car for $20,000 and ask your parents to give you $30,000, so you can spend the difference on something else. The government acts the same way.”Millionaire confectioner Petro Poroshenko, chairman of the central bank’s advisory council, appeared sanguine during a cameo appearance at a telephone conference call by Concorde Capital on Sept. 22. He credited tighter monetary policy, including a revised procedure for hard-currency auctions put in place by the NBU, for decreasing the gap between the official and commercial exchange rate.That, in turn, has resulted in the hryvnia regaining “some equilibrium in recent days.” Other positive signs, he said, are that most of Ukraine’s corporate external debt has been restructured and there are no liquidity problems at any of Ukraine’s major banks.Poroshenko is unlikely to impress ordinary Ukrainians, who are finding it more difficult to afford imported goods, especially medicine, and to repay their bank loans denominated in hard currency, which has gained greatly in value against the hryvnia in the last year.According to a survey conducted Sept. 14-16 by the Horshenin Institute of Management Issues, 85 percent of Ukrainians call their banks “unreliable” places to keep money. Even more – 88 percent – are concerned by the hryvnia’s sharp devaluation.The bad news – discussed after Poroshenko delivered his monologue and departed – is that the percentage of loans not being repaid is rising. The NBU reported on Sept. 21 that the share of non-performing loans rose 0.6 percent in August, to 6.8 percent by Sept. 1.In volume, non-performing loans increased 11.6 percent, or by Hr. 5.3 billion in July, up from 5.4 percent registered at the end of June. Bankers fear the bad loans could hit 30 percent by year’s end, which would radically raise the cost of further government bailouts.
Central Bank Salaries Higher Than President's
KIEV, Ukraine -- As more allegations of possible impropriety at the National Bank of Ukraine surface, lawmakers and others are also taking a closer look at the salaries and extravagant lifestyles of the central bank’s top management.
On Sept. 17, parliament vice chair Mykola Tomenko filed an official inquiry asking the NBU to reveal recent salary increases given to top management.Two days earlier, leading Ukrainian news portal www.pravda.com.ua reported that NBU Chairman Volodymyr Stelmakh and his first deputy, Anatoliy Shapovolov, had taken home more than $187,000, including $150,000 in salary and other compensation last year. If accurate, then Stelmakh’s income is about three times higher than what Ukraine’s president earns.Tomenko asked the NBU supervisory council to check if salaries have been doubled for the central bank’s top executives and, if so, to explain why. He cited press reports alleging that Stelmakh, a presidential ally, had received upwards of $57,000 during the first three months of 2009, including $55,000 in salary and $1,500 in perks. The reports suggest Stelmakh received a sizable increase on a $36,000 salary received during the first quarter of 2008.Stelmakh has neither confirmed nor denied these reports. Meanwhile, Shapovalov refused to divulge his official salary, citing privacy laws.“I am not a public person, and there are no grounds to publish the information because I do not give my consent,” Shapovalov said, delivering more ammunition to critics’ complaints that the central bank is secretive and non-transparent.However, Shapovalov said that salaries for NBU board members – which he would not disclose – were cut 8 percent in 2009 in connection with Ukraine’s precarious financial predicament.NBU spokesman Serhiy Kruglyk told the Kyiv Post on Sept. 16 that the base salary for NBU board members is $1,687 monthly. Kruglyk said supplementary payments to board members, including bonuses, are calculated based on civil service rank and seniority, in accordance with Ukrainian legislation.Vasyl Horbal, a parliament lawmaker and member of the opposition Party of Regions faction, is neither concerned nor surprised by the amounts that NBU board members are reportedly earning.“The salary of the board chairman of a commercial bank can easily reach $15,000 a month,” said Horbal, who is a banker and member of the NBU’s supervisory council.“The NBU needs to retain professional staff and prevent commercial banks from draining away talent. And the salaries of bank specialists are calculated on the basis how much bank board members are paid,” Horbal said.
On Sept. 17, parliament vice chair Mykola Tomenko filed an official inquiry asking the NBU to reveal recent salary increases given to top management.Two days earlier, leading Ukrainian news portal www.pravda.com.ua reported that NBU Chairman Volodymyr Stelmakh and his first deputy, Anatoliy Shapovolov, had taken home more than $187,000, including $150,000 in salary and other compensation last year. If accurate, then Stelmakh’s income is about three times higher than what Ukraine’s president earns.Tomenko asked the NBU supervisory council to check if salaries have been doubled for the central bank’s top executives and, if so, to explain why. He cited press reports alleging that Stelmakh, a presidential ally, had received upwards of $57,000 during the first three months of 2009, including $55,000 in salary and $1,500 in perks. The reports suggest Stelmakh received a sizable increase on a $36,000 salary received during the first quarter of 2008.Stelmakh has neither confirmed nor denied these reports. Meanwhile, Shapovalov refused to divulge his official salary, citing privacy laws.“I am not a public person, and there are no grounds to publish the information because I do not give my consent,” Shapovalov said, delivering more ammunition to critics’ complaints that the central bank is secretive and non-transparent.However, Shapovalov said that salaries for NBU board members – which he would not disclose – were cut 8 percent in 2009 in connection with Ukraine’s precarious financial predicament.NBU spokesman Serhiy Kruglyk told the Kyiv Post on Sept. 16 that the base salary for NBU board members is $1,687 monthly. Kruglyk said supplementary payments to board members, including bonuses, are calculated based on civil service rank and seniority, in accordance with Ukrainian legislation.Vasyl Horbal, a parliament lawmaker and member of the opposition Party of Regions faction, is neither concerned nor surprised by the amounts that NBU board members are reportedly earning.“The salary of the board chairman of a commercial bank can easily reach $15,000 a month,” said Horbal, who is a banker and member of the NBU’s supervisory council.“The NBU needs to retain professional staff and prevent commercial banks from draining away talent. And the salaries of bank specialists are calculated on the basis how much bank board members are paid,” Horbal said.
Thursday 24 September 2009
Canada, Ukraine Announce Free Trade Talks
OTTAWA, Canada -- Canada's Trade Minister Stockwell Day and Ukraine's Economics Minister Bohdan Danylyshyn on Tuesday launched "free trade" talks for their countries.
Representatives are to meet in the coming months to discuss a range of bilateral trade and investment issues "to facilitate economic relations and fight protectionism," Day said in a statement during a visit to Kiev."Free trade negotiations could help to extend our deepening partnership," Day said. "We know the support is there -- on both sides."According to Ottawa, a Canada-Ukraine free trade pact could boost Canadian exports of agricultural and seafood products, as well as machinery and pharmaceuticals to Ukraine.It could also help address non-tariff barriers.Canadian exports to Ukraine totaled $229.7 million Canadian dollars ($215 million US dollars) last year, up 80 percent from the year before and 400 percent from 2004.Over the past year, Canada has signed trade accords with Jordan, Peru and Colombia and has launched trade talks with the European Union.
Representatives are to meet in the coming months to discuss a range of bilateral trade and investment issues "to facilitate economic relations and fight protectionism," Day said in a statement during a visit to Kiev."Free trade negotiations could help to extend our deepening partnership," Day said. "We know the support is there -- on both sides."According to Ottawa, a Canada-Ukraine free trade pact could boost Canadian exports of agricultural and seafood products, as well as machinery and pharmaceuticals to Ukraine.It could also help address non-tariff barriers.Canadian exports to Ukraine totaled $229.7 million Canadian dollars ($215 million US dollars) last year, up 80 percent from the year before and 400 percent from 2004.Over the past year, Canada has signed trade accords with Jordan, Peru and Colombia and has launched trade talks with the European Union.
Time To De-Mothball The Budapest Memorandum For Ukraine
WASHINGTON, DC -- A representative group of Ukraine's cultural elite has alerted Western governments and public opinion to Russia's mounting threats against Ukrainian independence.
Alarmed by Moscow's latest moves, the signatories of the appeal are also concerned by the failure of Western governments to respond by using existing mechanisms. The appeal, published in the Ukrainian media, has also passed unnoticed by Western media and the governments to which it is addressed.The signatories include some 30 senior scientists, scholars, and artists. Most of them are the heads of research institutes and university departments in fields ranging from mathematics, physics, biology and medical sciences to economics and the social sciences. The document proposes reactivating the 1994 Budapest Memorandum (signed under OSCE aegis) on guarantees to Ukraine's security.The document notes that Ukraine's independence was central to ending the East-West conflict in Europe and remains a guarantee against its resumption. Recently, however, "the Russian government has embarked on a calculated policy to dismantle the existing system of international security: "As part of this policy, the Russian leadership seeks "to force Ukraine to serve Russia's geopolitical interests".Ukrainians are particularly concerned about Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's latest initiatives, two of which are singled out in the intelligentsia's appeal. One is the amending of Russia's Law on Defense to create a wide range of possibilities for Russia unilaterally to use military force beyond its borders, at short notice, and at the president's full discretion.The Russian Duma adopted these amendments on September 9, creating a wide range of potential casus belli situations that Russia reserves the right unilaterally to invoke. This initiative is meant to operationalize Medvedev's own ideas about military intervention, enunciated by him after the invasion in Georgia and dubbed as the "Medvedev doctrine."It justifies the use of military force to protect the "rights and dignity" [undefined] of Russian citizens and "Russian-speakers" in other countries. This excuse can find a wider scope for application in Ukraine than in any other country.Medvedev's other recent move was his prosecutorial letter, addressed formally to the Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, but directed in fact at the entire body politic in the run-up to the Ukrainian presidential election. The letter sets markers and red lines with regard to Ukrainian foreign policy and its internal national development in accordance with Russian strategies.Medvedev's open letter, which continues to be discussed in Ukraine in the pre-electoral context, presumes to veto Ukraine's future integration into NATO; asserts a droit de regard over Ukraine's international relationships; seeks explicitly to criminalize Ukrainian-Georgian military cooperation; accuses Ukraine of deviating from the 1997 bilateral treaty (a veiled threat to rescind Russia's recognition of Ukraine's territorial integrity under that treaty); implies that Ukraine's gas transit system should be part of a unified one with Russia; denounces (against all evidence) the "ousting of the Russian language" from Ukraine's public life; and demands bringing Ukrainian historiography into line with an officially backed Russian view of historical events. Medvedev demands policy changes across the board in accordance with Ukrainian-Russian "brotherhood."The intelligentsia's representatives noted in their document that Moscow misunderstands Ukrainian aspirations. Ukraine's western-oriented policy is not directed against Russia, but serves Ukrainian interests. Russian policy, however, aims to "turn Ukraine into a zone of Russian direct influence and control." In that event, "subordination of Ukraine to Russia's strategic objectives can bring back the division of Europe.It could directly threaten the security of European Union member countries." In this regard, Moscow's recent steps signify an escalation, "a new phase in the attitude of Russia's power-center toward Ukraine".The Ukrainian signatories observed that the existing security framework can no longer reliably protect Ukraine's sovereignty against pressure and intrusion from outside. The document appeals to E.U. governments and institutions "to take a clear and unambiguous stand regarding Ukraine's sovereignty; to restrain Russia from intruding into Ukraine's internal affairs."Invoking the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, they also noted that the security guarantees contained therein have diminished in their effectiveness, but remain useful and need reaffirmation. Under that memorandum (signed during the OSCE's summit that year), the nuclear powers extended security guarantees to Ukraine after the latter had completely renounced its arsenal of nuclear weapons.The intelligentsia representatives are appealing to the U.S., British, French, and Chinese governments to call a conference of the five nuclear powers -including Russia- with the aim of reaffirming the security guarantees as stipulated by the Budapest Memorandum. Those guarantees cover Ukraine's territorial integrity, the inviolability of its borders in accordance with the OSCE's Helsinki Final Act, and protection against other forms of external coercion on Ukraine.Given the growing uncertainties surrounding NATO and U.S. policies in Eastern Europe, where Moscow is moving into a perceived grey zone, a reaffirmation of the Budapest Memorandum would make sense at least as a stop-gap measure. Although the implementing mechanism may be subject to each signatory power's consent -or a Russian veto- discussion of this issue at an appropriately high international level could focus much needed attention on this major security issue in Eastern Europe. Beyond Ukraine itself, such a step could also positively affect the security environment in the Black Sea region.The Budapest Memorandum retains its validity continuously since 1994. Its de-mothballing could also help limit the intrusion of Russia's strategic agenda into Ukraine's presidential election campaign. Such intrusion demonstrated its explosive potential in Ukraine's 2004 presidential election.The security environment around Ukraine has since deteriorated markedly, and at an accelerating rate in recent months. The OSCE's upcoming year-end meeting would be the right venue for a reaffirmation of the Budapest Memorandum, 15 years after the same organization affirmed its support for the memorandum's signing.
Alarmed by Moscow's latest moves, the signatories of the appeal are also concerned by the failure of Western governments to respond by using existing mechanisms. The appeal, published in the Ukrainian media, has also passed unnoticed by Western media and the governments to which it is addressed.The signatories include some 30 senior scientists, scholars, and artists. Most of them are the heads of research institutes and university departments in fields ranging from mathematics, physics, biology and medical sciences to economics and the social sciences. The document proposes reactivating the 1994 Budapest Memorandum (signed under OSCE aegis) on guarantees to Ukraine's security.The document notes that Ukraine's independence was central to ending the East-West conflict in Europe and remains a guarantee against its resumption. Recently, however, "the Russian government has embarked on a calculated policy to dismantle the existing system of international security: "As part of this policy, the Russian leadership seeks "to force Ukraine to serve Russia's geopolitical interests".Ukrainians are particularly concerned about Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's latest initiatives, two of which are singled out in the intelligentsia's appeal. One is the amending of Russia's Law on Defense to create a wide range of possibilities for Russia unilaterally to use military force beyond its borders, at short notice, and at the president's full discretion.The Russian Duma adopted these amendments on September 9, creating a wide range of potential casus belli situations that Russia reserves the right unilaterally to invoke. This initiative is meant to operationalize Medvedev's own ideas about military intervention, enunciated by him after the invasion in Georgia and dubbed as the "Medvedev doctrine."It justifies the use of military force to protect the "rights and dignity" [undefined] of Russian citizens and "Russian-speakers" in other countries. This excuse can find a wider scope for application in Ukraine than in any other country.Medvedev's other recent move was his prosecutorial letter, addressed formally to the Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, but directed in fact at the entire body politic in the run-up to the Ukrainian presidential election. The letter sets markers and red lines with regard to Ukrainian foreign policy and its internal national development in accordance with Russian strategies.Medvedev's open letter, which continues to be discussed in Ukraine in the pre-electoral context, presumes to veto Ukraine's future integration into NATO; asserts a droit de regard over Ukraine's international relationships; seeks explicitly to criminalize Ukrainian-Georgian military cooperation; accuses Ukraine of deviating from the 1997 bilateral treaty (a veiled threat to rescind Russia's recognition of Ukraine's territorial integrity under that treaty); implies that Ukraine's gas transit system should be part of a unified one with Russia; denounces (against all evidence) the "ousting of the Russian language" from Ukraine's public life; and demands bringing Ukrainian historiography into line with an officially backed Russian view of historical events. Medvedev demands policy changes across the board in accordance with Ukrainian-Russian "brotherhood."The intelligentsia's representatives noted in their document that Moscow misunderstands Ukrainian aspirations. Ukraine's western-oriented policy is not directed against Russia, but serves Ukrainian interests. Russian policy, however, aims to "turn Ukraine into a zone of Russian direct influence and control." In that event, "subordination of Ukraine to Russia's strategic objectives can bring back the division of Europe.It could directly threaten the security of European Union member countries." In this regard, Moscow's recent steps signify an escalation, "a new phase in the attitude of Russia's power-center toward Ukraine".The Ukrainian signatories observed that the existing security framework can no longer reliably protect Ukraine's sovereignty against pressure and intrusion from outside. The document appeals to E.U. governments and institutions "to take a clear and unambiguous stand regarding Ukraine's sovereignty; to restrain Russia from intruding into Ukraine's internal affairs."Invoking the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, they also noted that the security guarantees contained therein have diminished in their effectiveness, but remain useful and need reaffirmation. Under that memorandum (signed during the OSCE's summit that year), the nuclear powers extended security guarantees to Ukraine after the latter had completely renounced its arsenal of nuclear weapons.The intelligentsia representatives are appealing to the U.S., British, French, and Chinese governments to call a conference of the five nuclear powers -including Russia- with the aim of reaffirming the security guarantees as stipulated by the Budapest Memorandum. Those guarantees cover Ukraine's territorial integrity, the inviolability of its borders in accordance with the OSCE's Helsinki Final Act, and protection against other forms of external coercion on Ukraine.Given the growing uncertainties surrounding NATO and U.S. policies in Eastern Europe, where Moscow is moving into a perceived grey zone, a reaffirmation of the Budapest Memorandum would make sense at least as a stop-gap measure. Although the implementing mechanism may be subject to each signatory power's consent -or a Russian veto- discussion of this issue at an appropriately high international level could focus much needed attention on this major security issue in Eastern Europe. Beyond Ukraine itself, such a step could also positively affect the security environment in the Black Sea region.The Budapest Memorandum retains its validity continuously since 1994. Its de-mothballing could also help limit the intrusion of Russia's strategic agenda into Ukraine's presidential election campaign. Such intrusion demonstrated its explosive potential in Ukraine's 2004 presidential election.The security environment around Ukraine has since deteriorated markedly, and at an accelerating rate in recent months. The OSCE's upcoming year-end meeting would be the right venue for a reaffirmation of the Budapest Memorandum, 15 years after the same organization affirmed its support for the memorandum's signing.
Gorbachev defends controversial legacy
Mikhail Gorbachev is remarkably serene about his record as the last leader of the Soviet Union.
He says he expected a different outcome, but he would do it all over again.
It was Mr Gorbachev's policies that sparked the 1989 revolutions which swept away communism in Eastern Europe.
But Russia, too, went through a metamorphosis - and after the loss of the Soviet empire two years later, it was the Soviet Union itself that fell apart.
The result is that for many Russians, Mr Gorbachev's years in the Kremlin remain bitterly contentious.
Greater freedom
Before this interview I was expecting to find a rather grumpy curmudgeon, worn down by the carping of his countrymen.
Instead I meet a genial and relaxed 78-year-old, who sweeps into the room, without tie and without aides, and insists on shaking hands with everyone before settling down for the interview.
But once we start he defends his record robustly.
He ticks off, in quick-fire sentences, the benefits he brought to Russia, which he says people are still enjoying today - more freedom and a reordering of Russia's relations with the world.
"I think that '89 was certainly change for the better - no doubt about it. We did not have… the necessary freedom, particularly freedom of speech," he says.
"One of the most educated countries in the world had elections that - let's put it mildly - were not real elections, half-elections - because you had a choice of just the one candidate."
"A lot needed to be done at that time. We needed change."
The most spectacular change was the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which Germany drove full-speed towards reunification.
Mr Gorbachev was against it - and so, he learnt, were Mrs Thatcher and France's President Mitterrand.
But he discovered that the Western leaders were relying on him to block the process.
"They insisted unification should not go on, that the process should be stopped," he says.
"I asked them if they had any suggestions. They had only one - that somebody else should pull their chestnuts out of the fire."
He says they wanted him to say no and send troops, then adds: "That would be irresponsible. They were mistaken."
He repeats it for emphasis: "They were mistaken".
He feels let down by Western leaders who he thinks took advantage of Russian weakness in the 1990s, and are to quick to criticise now when Russia asserts itself.
A 'non-person'
The interview is taking place in the Gorbachev Foundation - a modern purpose-built block on the outskirts of Moscow.
It is a bit like a US presidential library with archives from his time in office, a library for researchers and an exhibition of the awards and tributes to the man who effectively reshaped our world.
Among them is the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded in 1990.
But despite the international acclaim, in Russian politics Mr Gorbachev is something of non-person.
And he picks his words carefully - praising Vladimir Putin personally, as the man who stabilised the country, but leaving no doubt he sees a lot wrong with the way the country is run.
He dismisses United Russia, the dominant party which backs Mr Putin, as nothing more that a bad copy of the old Communist Party of the Soviet Union. And he believes what Russia needs now is more democracy.
"We need to transform our country; we need to modernise our country," he says.
"This cannot be done by pressure, by issuing commands and orders and administrative commands. It can only be done through democracy, by establishing a free and democratic environment with people's participation."
Its clear, though, that he thinks this is something for Russians to sort out, without lectures from the outside world.
So what if Mr Putin is a bit harsh sometimes - that, he says, is a matter of style. And so too is the current tandem leadership, split between the prime minister Mr Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev.
Voters' rights
What does provoke him are recent hints from Mr Putin that he may be contemplating a return to the presidency in 2012 which could see him running the country for another 12 years.
Mr Gorbachev remarks waspishly: "I didn't like the phrase 'I will sit down with the president and we will decide'."
"I think that it should be decided by the voters - by the people, and I didn't hear him mention the people. I don't think that this is right."
The one charge about his own time in power that Mr Gorbachev acknowledges is that he may have pushed change too quickly.
Today he leaves the impression that it is not coming fast enough.
He says he expected a different outcome, but he would do it all over again.
It was Mr Gorbachev's policies that sparked the 1989 revolutions which swept away communism in Eastern Europe.
But Russia, too, went through a metamorphosis - and after the loss of the Soviet empire two years later, it was the Soviet Union itself that fell apart.
The result is that for many Russians, Mr Gorbachev's years in the Kremlin remain bitterly contentious.
Greater freedom
Before this interview I was expecting to find a rather grumpy curmudgeon, worn down by the carping of his countrymen.
Instead I meet a genial and relaxed 78-year-old, who sweeps into the room, without tie and without aides, and insists on shaking hands with everyone before settling down for the interview.
But once we start he defends his record robustly.
He ticks off, in quick-fire sentences, the benefits he brought to Russia, which he says people are still enjoying today - more freedom and a reordering of Russia's relations with the world.
"I think that '89 was certainly change for the better - no doubt about it. We did not have… the necessary freedom, particularly freedom of speech," he says.
"One of the most educated countries in the world had elections that - let's put it mildly - were not real elections, half-elections - because you had a choice of just the one candidate."
"A lot needed to be done at that time. We needed change."
The most spectacular change was the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which Germany drove full-speed towards reunification.
Mr Gorbachev was against it - and so, he learnt, were Mrs Thatcher and France's President Mitterrand.
But he discovered that the Western leaders were relying on him to block the process.
"They insisted unification should not go on, that the process should be stopped," he says.
"I asked them if they had any suggestions. They had only one - that somebody else should pull their chestnuts out of the fire."
He says they wanted him to say no and send troops, then adds: "That would be irresponsible. They were mistaken."
He repeats it for emphasis: "They were mistaken".
He feels let down by Western leaders who he thinks took advantage of Russian weakness in the 1990s, and are to quick to criticise now when Russia asserts itself.
A 'non-person'
The interview is taking place in the Gorbachev Foundation - a modern purpose-built block on the outskirts of Moscow.
It is a bit like a US presidential library with archives from his time in office, a library for researchers and an exhibition of the awards and tributes to the man who effectively reshaped our world.
Among them is the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded in 1990.
But despite the international acclaim, in Russian politics Mr Gorbachev is something of non-person.
And he picks his words carefully - praising Vladimir Putin personally, as the man who stabilised the country, but leaving no doubt he sees a lot wrong with the way the country is run.
He dismisses United Russia, the dominant party which backs Mr Putin, as nothing more that a bad copy of the old Communist Party of the Soviet Union. And he believes what Russia needs now is more democracy.
"We need to transform our country; we need to modernise our country," he says.
"This cannot be done by pressure, by issuing commands and orders and administrative commands. It can only be done through democracy, by establishing a free and democratic environment with people's participation."
Its clear, though, that he thinks this is something for Russians to sort out, without lectures from the outside world.
So what if Mr Putin is a bit harsh sometimes - that, he says, is a matter of style. And so too is the current tandem leadership, split between the prime minister Mr Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev.
Voters' rights
What does provoke him are recent hints from Mr Putin that he may be contemplating a return to the presidency in 2012 which could see him running the country for another 12 years.
Mr Gorbachev remarks waspishly: "I didn't like the phrase 'I will sit down with the president and we will decide'."
"I think that it should be decided by the voters - by the people, and I didn't hear him mention the people. I don't think that this is right."
The one charge about his own time in power that Mr Gorbachev acknowledges is that he may have pushed change too quickly.
Today he leaves the impression that it is not coming fast enough.
Russia 'rethinks' Iran sanctions
The Russian president has signalled that Moscow might be prepared to soften its opposition to further sanctions against Iran over its nuclear plans.
Dmitry Medvedev, speaking after talks with US President Obama, said that in some cases sanctions were "inevitable".
But the Chinese foreign ministry has said that increasing pressure on Iran would not be effective.
"Sanctions and exerting pressure are not the way to solve problems," said spokeswoman Jiang Yu.
She said sanctions "are not conducive for the current diplomatic efforts on the Iran nuclear issue".
Iran's president did not refer directly to the nuclear stand-off in his address to the UN General Assembly in New York.
Unfortunately, Iran has been violating too many of its international commitments
Barack Obama
Obama urges world to unite
Big week for Obama at UN
However, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke of countries which undermined the development of other nations under the pretext of preventing arms proliferation.
He used his speech to accuse Israel of "inhuman policies in Palestine" and condemn US-led military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iran was ready, he said, to shake all hands "that are honestly extended to us".
Several countries' delegations walked out of the assembly during Mr Ahmadinejad's speech, including France and the United States.
The BBC's Jeremy Bowen says the speech appeared to be designed to send a variety of messages.
For his supporters, there were more harsh words about Israel.
But his remarks about shaking hands sounded like a deliberate echo of the language used by President Obama about the prospect of engagement with Iran, our correspondent says.
Missile move
President Obama wants a united position among the group of six global powers due to hold talks next week with Tehran on its nuclear programme.
Analysts say that if those talks yield nothing he wants to pursue tougher sanctions against Tehran.
Russia has so far opposed any fresh sanctions.
But last week President Obama dropped plans for an anti-missile defence shield close to Russian borders.
There was speculation that in exchange, Moscow would make a move on sanctions against Iran.
On Wednesday, a Russian official said Moscow could support fresh sanctions if there was enough evidence from UN inspectors.
Mr Medvedev said sanctions were rarely productive but he opened the door to the possibility if Iran pressed ahead with its suspected nuclear weapons programme.
"In some cases sanctions are inevitable," he said after he and Mr Obama met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
"We need to help Iran to (make) the right decisions," he said.
Mr Obama said he and Mr Medvedev shared the goal of allowing Iran to pursue peaceful nuclear energy, but not nuclear weapons.
"Unfortunately, Iran has been violating too many of its international commitments," Mr Obama said.
"What we have discussed is how we can move in a positive direction that can resolve a potential crisis."
Comments welcomed
Speaking earlier, an unnamed Russian official did not rule out UN sanctions against Iran "if there are objective grounds", Russia's state-run RIA-Novosti reported.
For Russia, "the criteria are not individual evaluations, not guesswork, but the report and recommendations of the (UN) International Atomic Energy Agency", the official reportedly said.
Those comments were quickly welcomed by the White House.
"Their willingness to play a constructive role is extremely important," said Robert Gibbs, quoted by AFP news agency.
British Foreign Minister David Miliband said on Wednesday that the six powers had agreed Iran must give a "serious response" in the forthcoming talks.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it was time "for Iran to engage with the international community".
Tehran says its nuclear programme is for civilian uses only, but Western powers suspect it is trying to develop a nuclear weapon.
Six world powers are to hold talks with Iranian officials on 1 October that are expected to cover global nuclear disarmament.
Iran's nuclear plans have also come under fire at the UN General Assembly.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Iranian leaders were "making a tragic mistake" if they thought the international community would not respond.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned Iran - and North Korea - that the world would be even tougher on proliferation.
Dmitry Medvedev, speaking after talks with US President Obama, said that in some cases sanctions were "inevitable".
But the Chinese foreign ministry has said that increasing pressure on Iran would not be effective.
"Sanctions and exerting pressure are not the way to solve problems," said spokeswoman Jiang Yu.
She said sanctions "are not conducive for the current diplomatic efforts on the Iran nuclear issue".
Iran's president did not refer directly to the nuclear stand-off in his address to the UN General Assembly in New York.
Unfortunately, Iran has been violating too many of its international commitments
Barack Obama
Obama urges world to unite
Big week for Obama at UN
However, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke of countries which undermined the development of other nations under the pretext of preventing arms proliferation.
He used his speech to accuse Israel of "inhuman policies in Palestine" and condemn US-led military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iran was ready, he said, to shake all hands "that are honestly extended to us".
Several countries' delegations walked out of the assembly during Mr Ahmadinejad's speech, including France and the United States.
The BBC's Jeremy Bowen says the speech appeared to be designed to send a variety of messages.
For his supporters, there were more harsh words about Israel.
But his remarks about shaking hands sounded like a deliberate echo of the language used by President Obama about the prospect of engagement with Iran, our correspondent says.
Missile move
President Obama wants a united position among the group of six global powers due to hold talks next week with Tehran on its nuclear programme.
Analysts say that if those talks yield nothing he wants to pursue tougher sanctions against Tehran.
Russia has so far opposed any fresh sanctions.
But last week President Obama dropped plans for an anti-missile defence shield close to Russian borders.
There was speculation that in exchange, Moscow would make a move on sanctions against Iran.
On Wednesday, a Russian official said Moscow could support fresh sanctions if there was enough evidence from UN inspectors.
Mr Medvedev said sanctions were rarely productive but he opened the door to the possibility if Iran pressed ahead with its suspected nuclear weapons programme.
"In some cases sanctions are inevitable," he said after he and Mr Obama met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
"We need to help Iran to (make) the right decisions," he said.
Mr Obama said he and Mr Medvedev shared the goal of allowing Iran to pursue peaceful nuclear energy, but not nuclear weapons.
"Unfortunately, Iran has been violating too many of its international commitments," Mr Obama said.
"What we have discussed is how we can move in a positive direction that can resolve a potential crisis."
Comments welcomed
Speaking earlier, an unnamed Russian official did not rule out UN sanctions against Iran "if there are objective grounds", Russia's state-run RIA-Novosti reported.
For Russia, "the criteria are not individual evaluations, not guesswork, but the report and recommendations of the (UN) International Atomic Energy Agency", the official reportedly said.
Those comments were quickly welcomed by the White House.
"Their willingness to play a constructive role is extremely important," said Robert Gibbs, quoted by AFP news agency.
British Foreign Minister David Miliband said on Wednesday that the six powers had agreed Iran must give a "serious response" in the forthcoming talks.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it was time "for Iran to engage with the international community".
Tehran says its nuclear programme is for civilian uses only, but Western powers suspect it is trying to develop a nuclear weapon.
Six world powers are to hold talks with Iranian officials on 1 October that are expected to cover global nuclear disarmament.
Iran's nuclear plans have also come under fire at the UN General Assembly.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Iranian leaders were "making a tragic mistake" if they thought the international community would not respond.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned Iran - and North Korea - that the world would be even tougher on proliferation.
Russian tower plans cause alarm
The UN's cultural watchdog has called on Russia to stop a 400m (1,312 ft) skyscraper being built in historic St Petersburg's city centre.
Unesco said the planned $2.4bn (£1.5bn) Okhta business centre tower would "damage the image of Russia".
Local authorities this week approved construction of the building, which will house offices of the state-controlled energy giant Gazprom.
St Petersburg's city centre is listed by Unesco as a world heritage site.
Unesco has warned the building of the skyscraper, which would tower over the city's Neva river and surrounding low-level buildings, could mean St Petersburg is added to the agency's list of endangered world heritage sites.
"We're hoping the (federal) decision to build it won't be taken," said Grigory Ordzhonikidze, the secretary-general of Unesco's Russian commission.
Twisting glass needle
The building's British designers describe the planned five-sided structure as a "396m-high twisting glass needle which echoes the spires across the city of St Petersburg".
St Petersburg usually has planning restrictions for buildings which are over 100m tall.
Announcing a relaxing of these rules for the skyscraper, Saint Petersburg Mayor Valentina Matviyenko said the Okhta project would bring more jobs and building projects to the city.
Unesco said the planned $2.4bn (£1.5bn) Okhta business centre tower would "damage the image of Russia".
Local authorities this week approved construction of the building, which will house offices of the state-controlled energy giant Gazprom.
St Petersburg's city centre is listed by Unesco as a world heritage site.
Unesco has warned the building of the skyscraper, which would tower over the city's Neva river and surrounding low-level buildings, could mean St Petersburg is added to the agency's list of endangered world heritage sites.
"We're hoping the (federal) decision to build it won't be taken," said Grigory Ordzhonikidze, the secretary-general of Unesco's Russian commission.
Twisting glass needle
The building's British designers describe the planned five-sided structure as a "396m-high twisting glass needle which echoes the spires across the city of St Petersburg".
St Petersburg usually has planning restrictions for buildings which are over 100m tall.
Announcing a relaxing of these rules for the skyscraper, Saint Petersburg Mayor Valentina Matviyenko said the Okhta project would bring more jobs and building projects to the city.
Gazprom, a key export earner for Russia, sees construction of the business centre and skyscraper as a prestige project that would boost the international image of Russia's second city, which was founded by Peter the Great in 1703.
But conservationists say the glass and metal structure - which would be three times as tall as St Petersburg's current tallest building, the St Peter and Paul Cathedral - would ruin the city's ambience.
Opponents have taken legal action to block the project and clashed with police at consultation sessions held by city authorities.
It remains unclear whether Moscow's central government could intervene to veto the skyscraper, which would take several years to build.
St Petersburg is the home city of President Vladimir Putin and Prsident Dmitry Medvedev, but has lagged behind Moscow in capitalising from the country's post-Soviet economic transformation.
But conservationists say the glass and metal structure - which would be three times as tall as St Petersburg's current tallest building, the St Peter and Paul Cathedral - would ruin the city's ambience.
Opponents have taken legal action to block the project and clashed with police at consultation sessions held by city authorities.
It remains unclear whether Moscow's central government could intervene to veto the skyscraper, which would take several years to build.
St Petersburg is the home city of President Vladimir Putin and Prsident Dmitry Medvedev, but has lagged behind Moscow in capitalising from the country's post-Soviet economic transformation.
British architectural company RMJM, which was appointed to design the building in December 2006, welcomed St Petersburg's decision to relax its building height limitations for the project, which it called "a major step forward for the city".
RMJM says the tower's design was inspired by the concept of energy in water, "with the form of the building deriving its shape from the changing nature of water, ever-changing light, reflections and refraction".
Unesco's national commissions are set up by member states to co-ordinate the organisation's work with national governments and NGOs.
Russia's Hermitage Museum and the St Petersburg Union of Architects had previously voiced opposition to Gazprom's plan.
RMJM says the tower's design was inspired by the concept of energy in water, "with the form of the building deriving its shape from the changing nature of water, ever-changing light, reflections and refraction".
Unesco's national commissions are set up by member states to co-ordinate the organisation's work with national governments and NGOs.
Russia's Hermitage Museum and the St Petersburg Union of Architects had previously voiced opposition to Gazprom's plan.
Tuesday 22 September 2009
China wants to construct highway in Odesa region
Oddesa – China is interested in a project to construct the Odesa-Reni highway, Odesa Regional Governor Mykola Serdiuk has said.
He made the comment at a press conference in Odesa on Tuesday, following a meeting with a Chinese delegation headed by Shanghai Municipal Party Committee Secretary Yu Zhengsheng.
Serdiuk said that the delegates were also interested in a project to restore a port on the Danube River as part of the development of the region's transit potential.
He also said that Odesa Regional State Administration had proposed that China import wine and wine making materials from the region.
He made the comment at a press conference in Odesa on Tuesday, following a meeting with a Chinese delegation headed by Shanghai Municipal Party Committee Secretary Yu Zhengsheng.
Serdiuk said that the delegates were also interested in a project to restore a port on the Danube River as part of the development of the region's transit potential.
He also said that Odesa Regional State Administration had proposed that China import wine and wine making materials from the region.
Tymoshenko denies claims of Yanukovych about her participation in speculation on sugar market
Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko has denied claims by Regions Party leader Viktor Yanukovych that she is participating in speculation on the sugar market.
She said this at a briefing on Tuesday in Vinnytsia region.
"I'm not against criticism, but I would like to disprove this report, as it doesn't correspond to reality," she said.
At the same time Tymoshenko said this is "absolutely normal for the opposition to criticize [the government], but I would like [the opposition] not to disturb work, not to block the parliament, where it is necessary to adopt very important decisions and laws."
She said this at a briefing on Tuesday in Vinnytsia region.
"I'm not against criticism, but I would like to disprove this report, as it doesn't correspond to reality," she said.
At the same time Tymoshenko said this is "absolutely normal for the opposition to criticize [the government], but I would like [the opposition] not to disturb work, not to block the parliament, where it is necessary to adopt very important decisions and laws."
President Medvedev in Switzerland
ANDERMATT, Switzerland - President Dmitry Medvedev, pressing the case for a new European security pact to replace NATO, said Russia's historic role in creating Swiss neutrality showed that it could play a positive role in Europe.
Mutual recrimination and Western distrust of Moscow have so far thwarted Medvedev's idea of forging a new European security architecture to succeed NATO, which Russia sees as an outdated Cold War institution.
Using history to underline his arguments, Medvedev celebrated Tuesday during a visit to Switzerland the anniversary of a 1799 march through the Alps by Russian forces under generalissimo Alexander Suvorov, which drove the French from Switzerland, laying the basis for the country's neutrality.
"It is important to remember that Suvorov carried out this campaign as part of Russia's role in a coalition," Medvedev said after laying a wreath at the Teufelsbrucke bridge over a deep mountain gorge where a dramatic battle took place.
"Just 15 years after that, Russia initiated Switzerland's permanent neutrality and became its guarantor," he added referring to the Vienna congress, which shaped Europe's political landscape after an allied victory over Napoleon.
Medvedev on Monday invited neutral Switzerland to mediate in his efforts to persuade sceptical European states and Washington to sign a new legally binding European Security treaty, one of his top diplomatic initiatives.
Western powers, angry at Russia's five-day war with Georgia last year, are sceptical of Medvedev's calls for a new start, first outlined in a speech in Berlin in June last year.
They are also reluctant to abandon NATO, which they see as a guarantee of security in Europe.
Medvedev is on his way to New York to take part in the U.N. General Assembly and meet U.S. President Barack Obama.
Obama, trying to improve U.S.-Russian ties strained under his predecessor George W. Bush, last week scrapped plans to deploy elements of a U.S. anti-missile shield in eastern Europe, viewed by Moscow as a threat.
Medvedev welcomed the move, and is expected to discuss with Obama progress on agreeing a new pact on nuclear arms cuts to replace the 1991 START-1 treaty that expires in December.
Mutual recrimination and Western distrust of Moscow have so far thwarted Medvedev's idea of forging a new European security architecture to succeed NATO, which Russia sees as an outdated Cold War institution.
Using history to underline his arguments, Medvedev celebrated Tuesday during a visit to Switzerland the anniversary of a 1799 march through the Alps by Russian forces under generalissimo Alexander Suvorov, which drove the French from Switzerland, laying the basis for the country's neutrality.
"It is important to remember that Suvorov carried out this campaign as part of Russia's role in a coalition," Medvedev said after laying a wreath at the Teufelsbrucke bridge over a deep mountain gorge where a dramatic battle took place.
"Just 15 years after that, Russia initiated Switzerland's permanent neutrality and became its guarantor," he added referring to the Vienna congress, which shaped Europe's political landscape after an allied victory over Napoleon.
Medvedev on Monday invited neutral Switzerland to mediate in his efforts to persuade sceptical European states and Washington to sign a new legally binding European Security treaty, one of his top diplomatic initiatives.
Western powers, angry at Russia's five-day war with Georgia last year, are sceptical of Medvedev's calls for a new start, first outlined in a speech in Berlin in June last year.
They are also reluctant to abandon NATO, which they see as a guarantee of security in Europe.
Medvedev is on his way to New York to take part in the U.N. General Assembly and meet U.S. President Barack Obama.
Obama, trying to improve U.S.-Russian ties strained under his predecessor George W. Bush, last week scrapped plans to deploy elements of a U.S. anti-missile shield in eastern Europe, viewed by Moscow as a threat.
Medvedev welcomed the move, and is expected to discuss with Obama progress on agreeing a new pact on nuclear arms cuts to replace the 1991 START-1 treaty that expires in December.
Black Sea Wars
WASHINGTON, DC -- In August, the Georgian navy seized a Turkish tanker carrying fuel to Abkhazia, Georgia’s former province whose declaration of independence a year ago is recognized by Russia but not the West.
The Turkish captain was sentenced to 24 years. When Ankara protested, he was released. Abkhazia has now threatened to sink any Georgian ship interfering in its “territorial waters,” but it has no navy.Russia, however, has a Black Sea Fleet and a treaty of friendship with Abkhazia, and has notified Tbilisi that the Russian coast guard will assure, peacefully, the sea commerce of Abkhazia.Not backing down, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili – who launched and lost a war for South Ossetia in 48 hours in August 2008 – has declared the blockade of Abkhazia, which he claims as Georgian national territory, will remain in force. And he has just appointed as defense minister a 29-year-old ex-penitentiary boss with a questionable record on human rights who wants to tighten ties to NATO.We have here the makings of a naval clash that Georgia, given Russian air, naval, and land forces in the eastern Black Sea, will lose.What is Saakashvili up to? He seems intent on provoking a new crisis to force NATO to stand with him and bring the United States in on his side – against Russia. Ultimate goal: Return the issue of his lost provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia back onto the world’s front burner.While such a crisis may be in the interests of Saakashvili and his Russophobic U.S neoconservative retainers, it is the furthest thing from U.S. national interests. President Obama should have Joe Biden, Saakashvili’s pal, phone him up and instruct him thus: “Mikheil, if you interfere with the sea commerce of Abkhazia, and provoke Russia into a Black Sea war, you fight it yourself. The Sixth Fleet is not going to steam into the Black Sea and pull your chestnuts out of the fire, old buddy. It will be your war, not ours.”Nor is the Abkhazian crisis the only one brewing in the Black Sea.Last month, Russian naval troops blocked Ukrainian bailiffs from seizing navigational equipment from a lighthouse outside Sevastopol, the Crimean base of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet for two centuries.The Sevastopol lease, however, runs out in 2017. And Kiev has informed Moscow there will be no renewal. Russia’s fleet will have to vacate Sevastopol and the Crimea, which belonged to Russia before Nikita Khrushchev ceded the entire peninsula to Ukraine in 1954 in a “brotherly gesture” while Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union.Russia also bears a deep animus toward Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko, for trying to bring his country into NATO. Yushchenko, whose approval rating is in single digits, has been seen, ever since the U.S.-backed Orange Revolution of 2004 that brought him to power, as America’s man in Kiev.Moreover, as religious, cultural, ethnic, and historic ties between Kiev and Moscow go back centuries, Russians remain unreconciled to the loss of what they regard as the cradle of their country.What is America’s vital interest in all these quarrels? Zero.The idea, mentioned in hawkish quarters, of having the Sixth Fleet take over the vacated naval base at Sevastopol would be as rash and provocative an act as having Chinese warships move into Guantanamo, were Havana to expel the United States.But that is unlikely to happen. For Obama appears to be rolling back the George W. Bush policy of expanding NATO into former republics of the Soviet Union.Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are already members, and Bush and John McCain were anxious to bring in Ukraine and Georgia. But, as Bush’s inaction during the Russia-Georgia war revealed, America is not going to fight Russia over who controls Abkhazia, North or South Ossetia, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Chechnya, or Georgia. All are beyond any vital interest or legitimate sphere of influence of the United States.With his cancellation of the U.S. missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic – a shield designed to defend against a nonexistent Iranian ICBM – Obama sent two messages to Moscow.First, Obama believes entente with Russia is a surer guarantee of the peace and security of Eastern Europe than any U.S. weapons system. Second, Obama puts Washington-Moscow ties before any U.S. military ties to NATO allies in Eastern Europe.Which means NATO is approaching an existential crisis.Almost all NATO troops, except U.S., are gone from Iraq, and the alliance’s minimal commitment to Afghanistan is ending with no victory in sight. NATO’s expansion eastward has come to a halt. Ukraine and Georgia are not coming in. And the United States is not going to place troops, warships, or missiles any closer than they are now to Russia’s frontiers.“NATO must go out of area, or go out of business,” said Sen. Richard Lugar at the Cold War’s end. NATO went out of area, and is coming back with its tail between its legs. The alternative arises.
The Turkish captain was sentenced to 24 years. When Ankara protested, he was released. Abkhazia has now threatened to sink any Georgian ship interfering in its “territorial waters,” but it has no navy.Russia, however, has a Black Sea Fleet and a treaty of friendship with Abkhazia, and has notified Tbilisi that the Russian coast guard will assure, peacefully, the sea commerce of Abkhazia.Not backing down, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili – who launched and lost a war for South Ossetia in 48 hours in August 2008 – has declared the blockade of Abkhazia, which he claims as Georgian national territory, will remain in force. And he has just appointed as defense minister a 29-year-old ex-penitentiary boss with a questionable record on human rights who wants to tighten ties to NATO.We have here the makings of a naval clash that Georgia, given Russian air, naval, and land forces in the eastern Black Sea, will lose.What is Saakashvili up to? He seems intent on provoking a new crisis to force NATO to stand with him and bring the United States in on his side – against Russia. Ultimate goal: Return the issue of his lost provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia back onto the world’s front burner.While such a crisis may be in the interests of Saakashvili and his Russophobic U.S neoconservative retainers, it is the furthest thing from U.S. national interests. President Obama should have Joe Biden, Saakashvili’s pal, phone him up and instruct him thus: “Mikheil, if you interfere with the sea commerce of Abkhazia, and provoke Russia into a Black Sea war, you fight it yourself. The Sixth Fleet is not going to steam into the Black Sea and pull your chestnuts out of the fire, old buddy. It will be your war, not ours.”Nor is the Abkhazian crisis the only one brewing in the Black Sea.Last month, Russian naval troops blocked Ukrainian bailiffs from seizing navigational equipment from a lighthouse outside Sevastopol, the Crimean base of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet for two centuries.The Sevastopol lease, however, runs out in 2017. And Kiev has informed Moscow there will be no renewal. Russia’s fleet will have to vacate Sevastopol and the Crimea, which belonged to Russia before Nikita Khrushchev ceded the entire peninsula to Ukraine in 1954 in a “brotherly gesture” while Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union.Russia also bears a deep animus toward Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko, for trying to bring his country into NATO. Yushchenko, whose approval rating is in single digits, has been seen, ever since the U.S.-backed Orange Revolution of 2004 that brought him to power, as America’s man in Kiev.Moreover, as religious, cultural, ethnic, and historic ties between Kiev and Moscow go back centuries, Russians remain unreconciled to the loss of what they regard as the cradle of their country.What is America’s vital interest in all these quarrels? Zero.The idea, mentioned in hawkish quarters, of having the Sixth Fleet take over the vacated naval base at Sevastopol would be as rash and provocative an act as having Chinese warships move into Guantanamo, were Havana to expel the United States.But that is unlikely to happen. For Obama appears to be rolling back the George W. Bush policy of expanding NATO into former republics of the Soviet Union.Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are already members, and Bush and John McCain were anxious to bring in Ukraine and Georgia. But, as Bush’s inaction during the Russia-Georgia war revealed, America is not going to fight Russia over who controls Abkhazia, North or South Ossetia, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Chechnya, or Georgia. All are beyond any vital interest or legitimate sphere of influence of the United States.With his cancellation of the U.S. missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic – a shield designed to defend against a nonexistent Iranian ICBM – Obama sent two messages to Moscow.First, Obama believes entente with Russia is a surer guarantee of the peace and security of Eastern Europe than any U.S. weapons system. Second, Obama puts Washington-Moscow ties before any U.S. military ties to NATO allies in Eastern Europe.Which means NATO is approaching an existential crisis.Almost all NATO troops, except U.S., are gone from Iraq, and the alliance’s minimal commitment to Afghanistan is ending with no victory in sight. NATO’s expansion eastward has come to a halt. Ukraine and Georgia are not coming in. And the United States is not going to place troops, warships, or missiles any closer than they are now to Russia’s frontiers.“NATO must go out of area, or go out of business,” said Sen. Richard Lugar at the Cold War’s end. NATO went out of area, and is coming back with its tail between its legs. The alternative arises.
Canny tourists go bargain-hunting
Tourism both in and out of Russia is being hit hard by the economic crisis this year, but the situation offers holidaymakers more chances to pick up a bargain, say tour operators.
A key indicator for tourism, the passenger flow at airports, shows a depressing picture for the industry. Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport, for example, has seen 10.3 per cent fewer passengers compared to last year, while the situation in regional airports is even worse.
And across the country, international flights over the first seven months of the year were 16.5 per cent down compared to the same period last year, while domestic flights were down 17.3 per cent. Changes in seat occupancy were minimal, however - airlines cut back on flights to keep seat occupancy above 70 per cent.
Industry players insist, however, that things aren't as bad as they feared, as discounts by hotels have cut the costs for tourists.
"Earlier this year, the mood in the industry was disturbed and even apocalyptic," said Maya Lomidze, executive director of the Russian Tour Operators Association.
Hotels had lowered their prices by 30 per cent or 40 per cent, she said.
"Prices in tours to popular destinations fell by an average of 15 per cent to 20 per cent. Although the price drop was not very significant in roubles, these prices still proved attractive for Russian holidaymakers," she said.
To cope with falling demand, agencies began offering special discounts and throwing in free extra nights for those who booked early. This tendency looks as if it will continue for the winter vacation season as well, Lomidze said.
The number of tourists coming to Russia has also fallen off, with 15 per cent fewer tourists coming to the country, the Russian Tourism Union said recently.
According to the State Statistics Service, there were 136,000 fewer visitors in the first half of 2009, compared to the same period last year. In some parts of the country, the fall-off has been as much as 25 to 30 per cent.
However, some of these "tourists" are from the Baltic states and Turkey, who are often businessmen travelling on tourist visas.
Cruises to St. Petersburg are among the worst-hit areas for tourists coming to Russia, with numbers falling as much as 30 per cent, while the number of Japanese tourists has been hit by concerns over swine flu.
Despite lagging figures from most European countries, there was a sudden spike in visitors from Israel (up 20.5 per cent), as Russia and Israel recently scrapped visa requirements in a bilateral deal.
For Russians holidaying abroad, package tours to Turkey and Egypt remain the most popular options - partly because it is easier to get a visa for those countries.
Such trips in late September were being offered from $400 per week at one Russian travel agency, and another agency had similar offers starting from $360.
For those on a tight budget, early booking is a money saver. Already, there are early booking discounts for ski vacations this winter, if you look hard enough.
"The important thing is to keep carefully checking the websites of various agencies for information about discounts and good offers," Lomidze said.
A key indicator for tourism, the passenger flow at airports, shows a depressing picture for the industry. Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport, for example, has seen 10.3 per cent fewer passengers compared to last year, while the situation in regional airports is even worse.
And across the country, international flights over the first seven months of the year were 16.5 per cent down compared to the same period last year, while domestic flights were down 17.3 per cent. Changes in seat occupancy were minimal, however - airlines cut back on flights to keep seat occupancy above 70 per cent.
Industry players insist, however, that things aren't as bad as they feared, as discounts by hotels have cut the costs for tourists.
"Earlier this year, the mood in the industry was disturbed and even apocalyptic," said Maya Lomidze, executive director of the Russian Tour Operators Association.
Hotels had lowered their prices by 30 per cent or 40 per cent, she said.
"Prices in tours to popular destinations fell by an average of 15 per cent to 20 per cent. Although the price drop was not very significant in roubles, these prices still proved attractive for Russian holidaymakers," she said.
To cope with falling demand, agencies began offering special discounts and throwing in free extra nights for those who booked early. This tendency looks as if it will continue for the winter vacation season as well, Lomidze said.
The number of tourists coming to Russia has also fallen off, with 15 per cent fewer tourists coming to the country, the Russian Tourism Union said recently.
According to the State Statistics Service, there were 136,000 fewer visitors in the first half of 2009, compared to the same period last year. In some parts of the country, the fall-off has been as much as 25 to 30 per cent.
However, some of these "tourists" are from the Baltic states and Turkey, who are often businessmen travelling on tourist visas.
Cruises to St. Petersburg are among the worst-hit areas for tourists coming to Russia, with numbers falling as much as 30 per cent, while the number of Japanese tourists has been hit by concerns over swine flu.
Despite lagging figures from most European countries, there was a sudden spike in visitors from Israel (up 20.5 per cent), as Russia and Israel recently scrapped visa requirements in a bilateral deal.
For Russians holidaying abroad, package tours to Turkey and Egypt remain the most popular options - partly because it is easier to get a visa for those countries.
Such trips in late September were being offered from $400 per week at one Russian travel agency, and another agency had similar offers starting from $360.
For those on a tight budget, early booking is a money saver. Already, there are early booking discounts for ski vacations this winter, if you look hard enough.
"The important thing is to keep carefully checking the websites of various agencies for information about discounts and good offers," Lomidze said.
Energy key to Chavez armaments deal
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has presented his recent arms deal with Russia as necessary to strengthen Venezuela's defences, but the weapons purchases outstrip those of any other country in the region, prompting concerns about a Latin American arms race.
Under the deal, Hugo Chavez got a wish-list of tanks and anti-aircraft missiles, plus a $2.2 billion loan to pay for them. Russia got another country to recognise the independence of the breakaway Georgian republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and an effective subsidy for its arms industry. The Russians also paid a lot - some say as much $1 billion - for the rights to exploit Venezuela's Orinoco oil and gas field.
Chavez has already called his visit to Russia "the most successful" of his recent 11-day world tour (which also took in Africa, the Middle East and the Venice film festival), and has been far more forthcoming about the details of the deal than the Russians.
While President Dmitry Medvedev demurely told the press that weapons deals, while important, "are not always signed in public," Chavez enthusiastically listed the hardware the Venezuelan military is about to receive (it includes T-72 and T-90 tanks, and S-300 and S-400 missiles).
But Russia's ties with Venezuela and Latin America in general are, more than anything, economic.
"Venezuela wants to boost its defensive capability. We need to boost our exports. Selling these weapons benefits the Russian arms industry, boosts our exports, and creates jobs," said Vladimir Davidov, head of the Moscow-based Institute for Latin America. "It's an anti-crisis measure more than anything else."
Not everyone is prepared to divorce the economic from the political, however. The United States has already voiced concern about the danger of sparking an arms race, and a State Department spokesman said that Venezuela's arms build-up "poses a serious challenge to stability in the Western hemisphere".
Davidov dismissed the suggestion that the sales could contribute to instability in the region. "They are not strategic, but conventional weapons - tanks and anti-aircraft missiles. They are for defensive purposes," he said.
US involvement in Colombia, which is allowing US forces to use bases for counter-narcotics missions, has created its own tensions, said Alexei Mukhin, head of the Centre for Political Technologies: "Venezuela in this case may be asymmetrically answering the challenge, but it must."
Nor should the deal be seen as a blossoming of Russian influence in Latin America. If anything, Russia is playing catch-up. "In both Africa and Latin America, China is several steps ahead. It picks up all the profitable contracts for raw materials, and all that is left for Russia is military-technical partnership," said Mukhin.
Even the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was a formality, "which Chavez knows perfectly well means nothing," he said.
In that sense the oil deal is more interesting than the arms sales. The deal sees a Russian consortium investing in production in the Orinoco basin, both heavily and long-term: investments of $30 billion are envisaged over 40 years. But insofar as it allows Russia to catch up with China in access to natural resources in the developing world, it is a coup for Moscow. Yet despite talk of diversification, weapons have long been the mainstay of Russia's manufactured exports. For the foreseeable future, they will also be the basis of Moscow's friendship with Caracas
Under the deal, Hugo Chavez got a wish-list of tanks and anti-aircraft missiles, plus a $2.2 billion loan to pay for them. Russia got another country to recognise the independence of the breakaway Georgian republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and an effective subsidy for its arms industry. The Russians also paid a lot - some say as much $1 billion - for the rights to exploit Venezuela's Orinoco oil and gas field.
Chavez has already called his visit to Russia "the most successful" of his recent 11-day world tour (which also took in Africa, the Middle East and the Venice film festival), and has been far more forthcoming about the details of the deal than the Russians.
While President Dmitry Medvedev demurely told the press that weapons deals, while important, "are not always signed in public," Chavez enthusiastically listed the hardware the Venezuelan military is about to receive (it includes T-72 and T-90 tanks, and S-300 and S-400 missiles).
But Russia's ties with Venezuela and Latin America in general are, more than anything, economic.
"Venezuela wants to boost its defensive capability. We need to boost our exports. Selling these weapons benefits the Russian arms industry, boosts our exports, and creates jobs," said Vladimir Davidov, head of the Moscow-based Institute for Latin America. "It's an anti-crisis measure more than anything else."
Not everyone is prepared to divorce the economic from the political, however. The United States has already voiced concern about the danger of sparking an arms race, and a State Department spokesman said that Venezuela's arms build-up "poses a serious challenge to stability in the Western hemisphere".
Davidov dismissed the suggestion that the sales could contribute to instability in the region. "They are not strategic, but conventional weapons - tanks and anti-aircraft missiles. They are for defensive purposes," he said.
US involvement in Colombia, which is allowing US forces to use bases for counter-narcotics missions, has created its own tensions, said Alexei Mukhin, head of the Centre for Political Technologies: "Venezuela in this case may be asymmetrically answering the challenge, but it must."
Nor should the deal be seen as a blossoming of Russian influence in Latin America. If anything, Russia is playing catch-up. "In both Africa and Latin America, China is several steps ahead. It picks up all the profitable contracts for raw materials, and all that is left for Russia is military-technical partnership," said Mukhin.
Even the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was a formality, "which Chavez knows perfectly well means nothing," he said.
In that sense the oil deal is more interesting than the arms sales. The deal sees a Russian consortium investing in production in the Orinoco basin, both heavily and long-term: investments of $30 billion are envisaged over 40 years. But insofar as it allows Russia to catch up with China in access to natural resources in the developing world, it is a coup for Moscow. Yet despite talk of diversification, weapons have long been the mainstay of Russia's manufactured exports. For the foreseeable future, they will also be the basis of Moscow's friendship with Caracas
Six-party talks on North Korean nukes may exclude Russia, Japan
Kim Jong Il told a special representative of Chinese President Hu Jintao last week that he is ready to resolve the issue of his country's national nuclear program through negotiation, perhaps even through multilateral talks. How serious is his intention, and what does it mean?
Obviously, his statement about the possibility of multilateral talks is worthy of attention. After the UN Security Council's recent denunciation of North Korea's attempt to launch an artificial satellite and the country's subsequent second nuclear test, Pyongyang rejected an opportunity to resume the six-party talks. In effect, North Korea began insisting on bilateral talks exclusively with the United States on the nuclear issue, as well as on other security issues on the Korean peninsula. Some other parties, for instance, South Korea and China, may join them. This four-party format was tried in the late 1990s.
Japan is actually obstructing the talks, to the obvious disappointment of North Korea. I believe the Japanese may be dismissed from the negotiations team for this reason. North Korea has publicly suggested this more than once.
During this year's Security Council discussion of the nuclear missile issue on the Korean peninsula, Russia largely shared the American and Japanese position, which upset Pyongyang. Russia may also be excluded from the talks, as was the case in the mid 1990s, when Russia generally supported Western policies towards North Korea, and Pyongyang considered Russian participation useless. However, Russia still hopes to join the discussion.
In any event, Kim Jong Il's statement about resuming international talks does not necessarily imply resuming the six-party talks.
But do you think his statement is encouraging?
Without a doubt. First, his statement means that North Korea has not renounced the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, or the previously declared ultimate goal of the Korean negotiating process.
Second, it shows that North Korea is willing to be flexible in determining the format of these talks - they could be bilateral or multilateral.
In principle, this opens up the opportunity of resuming the six-party talks under certain circumstances.
Obviously, his statement about the possibility of multilateral talks is worthy of attention. After the UN Security Council's recent denunciation of North Korea's attempt to launch an artificial satellite and the country's subsequent second nuclear test, Pyongyang rejected an opportunity to resume the six-party talks. In effect, North Korea began insisting on bilateral talks exclusively with the United States on the nuclear issue, as well as on other security issues on the Korean peninsula. Some other parties, for instance, South Korea and China, may join them. This four-party format was tried in the late 1990s.
Japan is actually obstructing the talks, to the obvious disappointment of North Korea. I believe the Japanese may be dismissed from the negotiations team for this reason. North Korea has publicly suggested this more than once.
During this year's Security Council discussion of the nuclear missile issue on the Korean peninsula, Russia largely shared the American and Japanese position, which upset Pyongyang. Russia may also be excluded from the talks, as was the case in the mid 1990s, when Russia generally supported Western policies towards North Korea, and Pyongyang considered Russian participation useless. However, Russia still hopes to join the discussion.
In any event, Kim Jong Il's statement about resuming international talks does not necessarily imply resuming the six-party talks.
But do you think his statement is encouraging?
Without a doubt. First, his statement means that North Korea has not renounced the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, or the previously declared ultimate goal of the Korean negotiating process.
Second, it shows that North Korea is willing to be flexible in determining the format of these talks - they could be bilateral or multilateral.
In principle, this opens up the opportunity of resuming the six-party talks under certain circumstances.
Moscow : A traffic free Day
Virtually the only days you can see empty Moscow streets are when police cordon off main thoroughfares on Victory Day and City Day.
But this Tuesday authorities hope a little gentle persuasion - and the odd incentive - may ease the city's horrendous traffic jams.
The initiative - to celebrate "No Car Day" - is happening for the second year running on September 22, in line with events in 2,000 cities around the world.
But Moscow residents or even officials aren't exactly optimistic that the city's baby steps will make much of a difference.
Among the tricks proposed to keep cars off the streets are halving bus fares, said Pyotr Ivanov, general director of Mosgortrans, RIA Novosti reported.
But the discount applies only to one-time tickets bought at a ticket vendor, and not to tickets bought in the bus from the driver, or to monthly tickets. Although it was possible to buy these discount tickets from last weekend, they are valid only on Tuesday, September 22.
Ivanov said that he himself would only walk or use public transport that day.
"I'll try to take a little load off the streets that way," he told reporters.
The city is appealing to employers to ask their employees not to bring their cars into work that day, Ivanov said. But as it's a voluntary scheme, not much difference is expected.
Meanwhile, although the Moscow metro system is formally backing the campaign, it is not lowering fares.
Moscow's piecemeal measures contrast poorly with some in other places, but many cities have experienced mixed results.
Paris, for example, has tried restricting the lanes private cars can travel in, but that led to excessive congestion, even during August when most Parisians are on vacation.
In London, vehicles that drive within a certain zone of central London between 7 am and 6 pm on weekdays are obliged to pay an £8 ($13) daily Congestion Charge. Those who pay the hefty fee are free to come and go as they please all day but those who are caught skipping the charge are fined between £60 and £180, depending on how quickly (and quietly) they pay.
The measure was introduced in February 2003. Other cities have tried to introduce such charges - Singapore was the first in 1975, and Rome, Milan and Stockholm use similar schemes to combat traffic jams. New York City tried to implement the measure, but plans ground to a halt in 2008 due to overwhelming opposition. San Francisco is considering the measure.
"In Brussels and Paris, they partition off some of the streets [for this day]. In New York City, they close off some of the streets," said Ivanov.
Moscow, he says, is trying a different approach: relying on the goodwill of Muscovites.
But this Tuesday authorities hope a little gentle persuasion - and the odd incentive - may ease the city's horrendous traffic jams.
The initiative - to celebrate "No Car Day" - is happening for the second year running on September 22, in line with events in 2,000 cities around the world.
But Moscow residents or even officials aren't exactly optimistic that the city's baby steps will make much of a difference.
Among the tricks proposed to keep cars off the streets are halving bus fares, said Pyotr Ivanov, general director of Mosgortrans, RIA Novosti reported.
But the discount applies only to one-time tickets bought at a ticket vendor, and not to tickets bought in the bus from the driver, or to monthly tickets. Although it was possible to buy these discount tickets from last weekend, they are valid only on Tuesday, September 22.
Ivanov said that he himself would only walk or use public transport that day.
"I'll try to take a little load off the streets that way," he told reporters.
The city is appealing to employers to ask their employees not to bring their cars into work that day, Ivanov said. But as it's a voluntary scheme, not much difference is expected.
Meanwhile, although the Moscow metro system is formally backing the campaign, it is not lowering fares.
Moscow's piecemeal measures contrast poorly with some in other places, but many cities have experienced mixed results.
Paris, for example, has tried restricting the lanes private cars can travel in, but that led to excessive congestion, even during August when most Parisians are on vacation.
In London, vehicles that drive within a certain zone of central London between 7 am and 6 pm on weekdays are obliged to pay an £8 ($13) daily Congestion Charge. Those who pay the hefty fee are free to come and go as they please all day but those who are caught skipping the charge are fined between £60 and £180, depending on how quickly (and quietly) they pay.
The measure was introduced in February 2003. Other cities have tried to introduce such charges - Singapore was the first in 1975, and Rome, Milan and Stockholm use similar schemes to combat traffic jams. New York City tried to implement the measure, but plans ground to a halt in 2008 due to overwhelming opposition. San Francisco is considering the measure.
"In Brussels and Paris, they partition off some of the streets [for this day]. In New York City, they close off some of the streets," said Ivanov.
Moscow, he says, is trying a different approach: relying on the goodwill of Muscovites.
Ukraine Leader Yushchenko Optimistic About NATO Membership, Re-Election Chances
NEW YORK, NY -- Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko says he is optimistic that his country will join NATO, declaring the tide of public opinion in the former Soviet republic is swinging in favor of membership in the Western military alliance.
Yushchenko, who faces a tough re-election battle in January, also disputed reports that only about 5 percent of Ukrainians support his re-election in January, saying his poll numbers show about 10 percent backing with the number rising.The embattled Ukrainian leader spoke Monday with The Associated Press shortly after arriving in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. He said NATO membership, which the United States supports, was not a matter for outsiders, like Russia, to decide.The Kremlin, smarting over NATO expansion into its former Baltic republics and Central and Eastern European satellites after the Soviet Union broke apart in 1991, has put extreme pressure on Ukraine not to join the alliance.But Yushchenko declared he was determined to bring Ukraine into the Western alliance, which was established after World War II to counter Soviet expansionism in Europe."I would like to underline that if you analyze the history of Ukraine in the 20th century," Yushchenko said, "you will see that from 1917 to 1991 Ukraine declared its independence six times and five times we lost it."He blamed the Soviet Union for the reversals.Yushchenko, who looked well after he was poisoned under suspicious circumstances as he successfully fought for a first term as president in 2004, declared that 33 percent of Ukrainians support NATO membership while the number opposed has slipped to 27 percent. He said that contrasted with figures four years ago of only 14 percent favoring alliance membership with 30 percent to 37 percent opposed. Independent polling in the country still shows a majority against joining NATO."We have good dynamics, and month by month the number of NATO supporters is growing," he said. "I'm a great optimist. I'm sure Ukraine will follow the path of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria."He pointed also to the Russian invasion of Georgia, another former Soviet republic, in August 2008 as a strong selling point for NATO membership, which includes a guarantee that an attack on any member state will be viewed as an attack on the alliance as a whole.The Russians swept into Georgia, also a candidate for NATO membership, after it sought to bring the breakaway region of South Ossetia back under central government control.After the invasion, Russia declared that South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another breakaway region in Georgia, were independent states under Moscow's protection.Appearing unfazed by his lack of support with the January election just four months away, Yushchenko said: "I plan to win.""I have done some things I can be proud of," he said. "In the last four years our GDP grew 7 to 7 1/2 percent (annually). ... We made considerable social changes. We took care of orphans. ... Unemployment is the lowest of the 18 years of our independence. Living standards are the best in 18 years. We've instituted free speech, free press, free elections."But this year Ukraine's economy is among the worst suffering in Europe from the global economic recession and the country has relied on an emergency loan from the International Monetary Fund to avoid a complete meltdown. The IMF has predicted that Ukraine's economy will shrink by 14 percent this year.In June, parliamentary auditors reported that unemployment had risen to 879,000 people since last year as the metals and chemical industries laid off thousands of workers.Independent polling shows Yushchenko likely to lose the presidential election. Polls have the incumbent trailing both Moscow-aligned Viktor Yanukovych, whom Yushchenko overwhelmed in the so-called "Orange Revolution" in 2004, and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. She was a close ally of Yushchenko in the last election, but they have become bitter enemies and do not speak to each other.
Yushchenko, who faces a tough re-election battle in January, also disputed reports that only about 5 percent of Ukrainians support his re-election in January, saying his poll numbers show about 10 percent backing with the number rising.The embattled Ukrainian leader spoke Monday with The Associated Press shortly after arriving in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. He said NATO membership, which the United States supports, was not a matter for outsiders, like Russia, to decide.The Kremlin, smarting over NATO expansion into its former Baltic republics and Central and Eastern European satellites after the Soviet Union broke apart in 1991, has put extreme pressure on Ukraine not to join the alliance.But Yushchenko declared he was determined to bring Ukraine into the Western alliance, which was established after World War II to counter Soviet expansionism in Europe."I would like to underline that if you analyze the history of Ukraine in the 20th century," Yushchenko said, "you will see that from 1917 to 1991 Ukraine declared its independence six times and five times we lost it."He blamed the Soviet Union for the reversals.Yushchenko, who looked well after he was poisoned under suspicious circumstances as he successfully fought for a first term as president in 2004, declared that 33 percent of Ukrainians support NATO membership while the number opposed has slipped to 27 percent. He said that contrasted with figures four years ago of only 14 percent favoring alliance membership with 30 percent to 37 percent opposed. Independent polling in the country still shows a majority against joining NATO."We have good dynamics, and month by month the number of NATO supporters is growing," he said. "I'm a great optimist. I'm sure Ukraine will follow the path of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria."He pointed also to the Russian invasion of Georgia, another former Soviet republic, in August 2008 as a strong selling point for NATO membership, which includes a guarantee that an attack on any member state will be viewed as an attack on the alliance as a whole.The Russians swept into Georgia, also a candidate for NATO membership, after it sought to bring the breakaway region of South Ossetia back under central government control.After the invasion, Russia declared that South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another breakaway region in Georgia, were independent states under Moscow's protection.Appearing unfazed by his lack of support with the January election just four months away, Yushchenko said: "I plan to win.""I have done some things I can be proud of," he said. "In the last four years our GDP grew 7 to 7 1/2 percent (annually). ... We made considerable social changes. We took care of orphans. ... Unemployment is the lowest of the 18 years of our independence. Living standards are the best in 18 years. We've instituted free speech, free press, free elections."But this year Ukraine's economy is among the worst suffering in Europe from the global economic recession and the country has relied on an emergency loan from the International Monetary Fund to avoid a complete meltdown. The IMF has predicted that Ukraine's economy will shrink by 14 percent this year.In June, parliamentary auditors reported that unemployment had risen to 879,000 people since last year as the metals and chemical industries laid off thousands of workers.Independent polling shows Yushchenko likely to lose the presidential election. Polls have the incumbent trailing both Moscow-aligned Viktor Yanukovych, whom Yushchenko overwhelmed in the so-called "Orange Revolution" in 2004, and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. She was a close ally of Yushchenko in the last election, but they have become bitter enemies and do not speak to each other.
Yushchenko Unrepentant As Ukraine Sours On Orange Revolution
KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko swept into power five years ago at the head of an Orange Revolution that promised national revival. Now he is running fourth in polls as voters blame him for political paralysis and a collapsing economy.
Even as he faces likely defeat in Jan. 17 elections, Yushchenko offers no regrets. He casts his rivals, Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko and pro-Russian leader Viktor Yanukovych, as “populist” vote-chasers and himself as a champion of unpopular truths about the need for an independent national identity.“I say words that many don’t like, but I won’t give up,” said Yushchenko, 55, in a Sept. 17 interview in his Kiev office. “If a lot of people don’t agree with you, that doesn’t mean that you are wrong. Either you aren’t popular but deliver a strategic service to the nation, or you dream about elections.”Others say the unrelenting enmity between the president and his adversaries has created a deadlocked government and exacerbated the former Soviet republic’s economic troubles.“This disunity and continual political infighting is setting back the cause of reform and the ability of the country to consolidate its independence and stand comfortably on its own two feet,” said John Lough, an associate fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the London-based research group Chatham House.Parliament has been dissolved on two occasions in the past two years, Russia has twice shut off the country’s natural gas supply and the European Union is withholding concrete promises of membership talks.Economic WoesThe Ukrainian hryvnia has shed 45 percent against the dollar in the past year, the worst-performing of all currencies tracked by Bloomberg. The economy contracted 20.3 percent in the first quarter, the most for all 32 European countries tracked by Bloomberg. Inflation -- 15.3 percent in August -- is the highest of any European country tracked.Investors have noticed. Elena Suslova, a Moscow-based portfolio adviser with Wermuth Asset Management GmbH, said Ukrainian investments represent only 2 percent of the $250 million in assets under management that she advises.After a surge of interest in Ukraine after the 2004 political upheaval that brought Yushchenko to power, Wermuth Asset Management in early 2008 advised its funds to stop all projects in the portfolio for now, Suslova said.High RisksUkrainian voters have also noticed. A poll released Aug. 10 by the Kiev-based Razumkov Center, a research institute, showed Yanukovych, head of the opposition Regions of Ukraine political party, with 21.7 percent, followed by Timoshenko with 13.2 percent, former parliamentary Speaker Arseniy Yatsenyuk with 10.9 percent and Yushchenko with 4.2 percent. The margin of error was 2.3 percentage points.An unpublished poll by Washington-based PBN Co., an advisory firm for business leaders, investors and governments in eastern Europe, showed a similar result, with Yushchenko in fourth, according to figures provided by Myron Wasylyk, managing director of PBN’s Kiev office.“Five years ago, I believed my country had a chance and was so proud of it and now I am very disappointed,” said Lyudmyla Telnyuk, 63, as she waited for her granddaughter at a Kiev music school.“Yushchenko has been trying really hard to restore Ukrainian culture as well as people’s memories of Ukraine’s real history, but fights between all these politicians stole away everyone’s attention,” Telnyuk said.Ukraine has made some progress, Wasylyk said. It joined the World Trade Organization, the poverty level has dropped to less than 20 percent from 45 percent in 2004 and a free press has emerged, he said.Falling Jobless RateUnemployment fell to 6.9 percent in 2008 from 9.2 percent in 2004, using International Labor Organization standards, Ukrainian state data shows. The International Monetary Fund projects a 2.7 percent growth rate for 2010.Yushchenko took credit for the progress, saying in the interview: “Today, Ukraine is another country, a country used to the freedom of speech and freedom of choice. That is due to my policies.”Yushchenko spoke about his battles with his adversaries in his high-ceilinged office in the center of Kiev, adorned with a large portrait of Ukrainian writer and painter Taras Shevchenko. He and Timoshenko, 48, have clashed over her push to raise social spending and his demands for budget cuts. Next year’s budget deficit, Yushchenko said, may reach 12 percent of gross domestic product.The prime minister has already started her presidential campaign, with billboards around Kiev that say, “They are blocking, she works.”‘Won’t Give Up’“I don’t think about elections, I think about my kids -- what country I am going to leave them?” the president said. “I say words that many don’t like, but I won’t give up.”Yushchenko spoke about the tensions during his tenure between Ukraine and Russia, which opposes Ukraine’s stalled bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last month said he hoped to rebuild ties under “Ukraine’s new political leadership” after the elections. Yanukovych blamed Yushchenko for “poor relations” with Russia in a Sept. 19 campaign speech posted on his Web site. He said he shared Medvedev’s view that under the current “authorities it is impossible to improve ties.”Yushchenko said that Russia “will have less influence on the January presidential elections. But it is not because they are now less interested and their desire is less. It is only because my nation became more independent.”His face still bears some of the scars from an illness during the 2004 presidential campaign that he said was caused by poisoning from dioxin produced by Russia, a charge Russia denies.Though Yushchenko didn’t mention Yanukovych, 59, by name, he made clear he knows he is far behind him in the polls.“High ratings are easy to get,” Yushchenko said. “You just play populism games and it’s there. That is not my way.”
Even as he faces likely defeat in Jan. 17 elections, Yushchenko offers no regrets. He casts his rivals, Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko and pro-Russian leader Viktor Yanukovych, as “populist” vote-chasers and himself as a champion of unpopular truths about the need for an independent national identity.“I say words that many don’t like, but I won’t give up,” said Yushchenko, 55, in a Sept. 17 interview in his Kiev office. “If a lot of people don’t agree with you, that doesn’t mean that you are wrong. Either you aren’t popular but deliver a strategic service to the nation, or you dream about elections.”Others say the unrelenting enmity between the president and his adversaries has created a deadlocked government and exacerbated the former Soviet republic’s economic troubles.“This disunity and continual political infighting is setting back the cause of reform and the ability of the country to consolidate its independence and stand comfortably on its own two feet,” said John Lough, an associate fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the London-based research group Chatham House.Parliament has been dissolved on two occasions in the past two years, Russia has twice shut off the country’s natural gas supply and the European Union is withholding concrete promises of membership talks.Economic WoesThe Ukrainian hryvnia has shed 45 percent against the dollar in the past year, the worst-performing of all currencies tracked by Bloomberg. The economy contracted 20.3 percent in the first quarter, the most for all 32 European countries tracked by Bloomberg. Inflation -- 15.3 percent in August -- is the highest of any European country tracked.Investors have noticed. Elena Suslova, a Moscow-based portfolio adviser with Wermuth Asset Management GmbH, said Ukrainian investments represent only 2 percent of the $250 million in assets under management that she advises.After a surge of interest in Ukraine after the 2004 political upheaval that brought Yushchenko to power, Wermuth Asset Management in early 2008 advised its funds to stop all projects in the portfolio for now, Suslova said.High RisksUkrainian voters have also noticed. A poll released Aug. 10 by the Kiev-based Razumkov Center, a research institute, showed Yanukovych, head of the opposition Regions of Ukraine political party, with 21.7 percent, followed by Timoshenko with 13.2 percent, former parliamentary Speaker Arseniy Yatsenyuk with 10.9 percent and Yushchenko with 4.2 percent. The margin of error was 2.3 percentage points.An unpublished poll by Washington-based PBN Co., an advisory firm for business leaders, investors and governments in eastern Europe, showed a similar result, with Yushchenko in fourth, according to figures provided by Myron Wasylyk, managing director of PBN’s Kiev office.“Five years ago, I believed my country had a chance and was so proud of it and now I am very disappointed,” said Lyudmyla Telnyuk, 63, as she waited for her granddaughter at a Kiev music school.“Yushchenko has been trying really hard to restore Ukrainian culture as well as people’s memories of Ukraine’s real history, but fights between all these politicians stole away everyone’s attention,” Telnyuk said.Ukraine has made some progress, Wasylyk said. It joined the World Trade Organization, the poverty level has dropped to less than 20 percent from 45 percent in 2004 and a free press has emerged, he said.Falling Jobless RateUnemployment fell to 6.9 percent in 2008 from 9.2 percent in 2004, using International Labor Organization standards, Ukrainian state data shows. The International Monetary Fund projects a 2.7 percent growth rate for 2010.Yushchenko took credit for the progress, saying in the interview: “Today, Ukraine is another country, a country used to the freedom of speech and freedom of choice. That is due to my policies.”Yushchenko spoke about his battles with his adversaries in his high-ceilinged office in the center of Kiev, adorned with a large portrait of Ukrainian writer and painter Taras Shevchenko. He and Timoshenko, 48, have clashed over her push to raise social spending and his demands for budget cuts. Next year’s budget deficit, Yushchenko said, may reach 12 percent of gross domestic product.The prime minister has already started her presidential campaign, with billboards around Kiev that say, “They are blocking, she works.”‘Won’t Give Up’“I don’t think about elections, I think about my kids -- what country I am going to leave them?” the president said. “I say words that many don’t like, but I won’t give up.”Yushchenko spoke about the tensions during his tenure between Ukraine and Russia, which opposes Ukraine’s stalled bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last month said he hoped to rebuild ties under “Ukraine’s new political leadership” after the elections. Yanukovych blamed Yushchenko for “poor relations” with Russia in a Sept. 19 campaign speech posted on his Web site. He said he shared Medvedev’s view that under the current “authorities it is impossible to improve ties.”Yushchenko said that Russia “will have less influence on the January presidential elections. But it is not because they are now less interested and their desire is less. It is only because my nation became more independent.”His face still bears some of the scars from an illness during the 2004 presidential campaign that he said was caused by poisoning from dioxin produced by Russia, a charge Russia denies.Though Yushchenko didn’t mention Yanukovych, 59, by name, he made clear he knows he is far behind him in the polls.“High ratings are easy to get,” Yushchenko said. “You just play populism games and it’s there. That is not my way.”
Emotional Politics: The Orange And The Anti-Obama Type
KIEV, Ukraine -- Politics ruled by emotions is biased, as it lacks an open mind that can objectively evaluate more than one side on any issue. People who are unable to control their emotions are an easy prey to be exploited by any political force. Be it national or foreign. Not excluding those foreign forces represented by political NGOs. Politics without reason creates people who are hateful, panicky and vicious.
In general, people who are followers of politics of hate, do not think for themselves. Rather, they are told what to think, what to say, and how to act. They trust their ears better than their eyes and their minds. It is easier. No effort. Let somebody else do the thinking for you.The Orange Revolution in Ukraine, which brought a pro-western government to power in 2005, thanks to largely an euphoric public organized and funded by well oiled western NGOs has led the citizens to be disillusioned and hopeless of their future. Today, that very popular leader of the orange revolution, president Yushchenko has an approval rate of 3.5%.What the orange revolution has to show for the euphoria of 2004 and massive western support is, factory closings, massive job cuts, the reduction of GDP by thirty percent, the resignation of at least four cabinet ministers, corruption, serious political in-fighting, and on the way of a total economic collapse in spite of a $16.5 billion dollars of IMF bailout.In a recent interview president Yushchenko gave to Der Spiegel, when asked about “rumors of mafia-style groups in parliament” he replied by saying, “We have a number of convicted criminals there; they could form their own parliamentary group. The failed constitutional reform has meant that we have representatives in parliament who are only interested in acquiring certain companies and controlling private financial interests.”I doubt, even if Prime Minister Tymoshenko, the so-called “goddess of the revolution”, with the peasant-braid as tiara hairstyle is going to have a solution to the disaster wrought on Ukraine , by the euphoric orange revolution and its handlers. The political NGOs that primarily focus on, and are actively engaged in influencing policy outcomes by putting pressure on policy makers.While emotion is based on subjectivity, reason is based on objectivity. In a Democracy, people have the right to disagree. They also have the right to have religious, political, and philosophical disagreements. But, when certain opposition forces believe that those who do not think as they do are evil, and must be destroyed, it raises the issue of dealing with an irrational force that doesn’t understand in a dialogue and an open debate.How else can one explain, the rally in Washington , D.C. against president Obama? During the rally in Freedom Plaza, the demonstrators carried signs that read, “ Liar In Chief”, “ Parasite In Chief”, “save freedom , stop Obama”, “Don’t blame me ,I voted for the American”, etc. Is this not a clear example of politics of hate? Politics of irrational folks? As the great Kahlil Gibran wrote in his poem “Reason and Passion”, “Passion unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction”.
In general, people who are followers of politics of hate, do not think for themselves. Rather, they are told what to think, what to say, and how to act. They trust their ears better than their eyes and their minds. It is easier. No effort. Let somebody else do the thinking for you.The Orange Revolution in Ukraine, which brought a pro-western government to power in 2005, thanks to largely an euphoric public organized and funded by well oiled western NGOs has led the citizens to be disillusioned and hopeless of their future. Today, that very popular leader of the orange revolution, president Yushchenko has an approval rate of 3.5%.What the orange revolution has to show for the euphoria of 2004 and massive western support is, factory closings, massive job cuts, the reduction of GDP by thirty percent, the resignation of at least four cabinet ministers, corruption, serious political in-fighting, and on the way of a total economic collapse in spite of a $16.5 billion dollars of IMF bailout.In a recent interview president Yushchenko gave to Der Spiegel, when asked about “rumors of mafia-style groups in parliament” he replied by saying, “We have a number of convicted criminals there; they could form their own parliamentary group. The failed constitutional reform has meant that we have representatives in parliament who are only interested in acquiring certain companies and controlling private financial interests.”I doubt, even if Prime Minister Tymoshenko, the so-called “goddess of the revolution”, with the peasant-braid as tiara hairstyle is going to have a solution to the disaster wrought on Ukraine , by the euphoric orange revolution and its handlers. The political NGOs that primarily focus on, and are actively engaged in influencing policy outcomes by putting pressure on policy makers.While emotion is based on subjectivity, reason is based on objectivity. In a Democracy, people have the right to disagree. They also have the right to have religious, political, and philosophical disagreements. But, when certain opposition forces believe that those who do not think as they do are evil, and must be destroyed, it raises the issue of dealing with an irrational force that doesn’t understand in a dialogue and an open debate.How else can one explain, the rally in Washington , D.C. against president Obama? During the rally in Freedom Plaza, the demonstrators carried signs that read, “ Liar In Chief”, “ Parasite In Chief”, “save freedom , stop Obama”, “Don’t blame me ,I voted for the American”, etc. Is this not a clear example of politics of hate? Politics of irrational folks? As the great Kahlil Gibran wrote in his poem “Reason and Passion”, “Passion unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction”.
Sunday 20 September 2009
The Kremlin’s think tank
From the Cold War days, when foreign experts would try to work out who was really in charge in Moscow from the septuagenarian lineup on Lenin's mausoleum, Kremlinology has always been a funny old game.
Proof of this was supplied again last week, when the country's two leaders showed in their different ways that while Dmitry Medvedev may be the president, for many Vladimir Putin is still the boss.
First, Medvedev launched a policy initiative, reiterating the call for liberal reforms he first made while still a candidate for president.
His description of the country was one that many of the Kremlin's toughest critics could agree with in large part: "An ineffective economy, a semi-Soviet social sphere, a weak democracy, negative demographic trends and an unstable Caucasus. These are very big problems, even for a state like Russia."
In fact, if you didn't know who was behind the words, you could almost imagine them being penned by the Kremlin's least-favourite oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Officials quickly pointed out that there was no real difference between Medvedev's position and that of Putin, who has always acknowledged the challenges ahead. But the strange thing was the way Medvedev delivered his message.
It wasn't legislation, or even a speech on primetime TV. No, it was a 5,000-word article posted on the Internet - the equivalent of a policy paper prepared by a think tank for the country's leader, not by him.
"You have to ask Medvedev some primitive questions," The Guardian quoted analyst Andrei Ryabov as saying. "What are you doing? You are the president. You have all the constitutional powers."
In contrast, Putin was more straightforward when asked at a meeting with the Valdai Club if he was planning to return to the presidency in 2012. He simply compared the situation to that in Britain when Tony Blair promised the premiership to Gordon Brown and handed him the job without an election.
In 2012, Putin said he and Medvedev would take a decision about who would stand for president - just like they did in late 2007. If that decision is anything to go by, it will still be Putin calling the shots - and showing he's very much in control. And that, when the country is seeking strong leadership in the depths of a economic crisis, was precisely the message the boss wished to convey.
Proof of this was supplied again last week, when the country's two leaders showed in their different ways that while Dmitry Medvedev may be the president, for many Vladimir Putin is still the boss.
First, Medvedev launched a policy initiative, reiterating the call for liberal reforms he first made while still a candidate for president.
His description of the country was one that many of the Kremlin's toughest critics could agree with in large part: "An ineffective economy, a semi-Soviet social sphere, a weak democracy, negative demographic trends and an unstable Caucasus. These are very big problems, even for a state like Russia."
In fact, if you didn't know who was behind the words, you could almost imagine them being penned by the Kremlin's least-favourite oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Officials quickly pointed out that there was no real difference between Medvedev's position and that of Putin, who has always acknowledged the challenges ahead. But the strange thing was the way Medvedev delivered his message.
It wasn't legislation, or even a speech on primetime TV. No, it was a 5,000-word article posted on the Internet - the equivalent of a policy paper prepared by a think tank for the country's leader, not by him.
"You have to ask Medvedev some primitive questions," The Guardian quoted analyst Andrei Ryabov as saying. "What are you doing? You are the president. You have all the constitutional powers."
In contrast, Putin was more straightforward when asked at a meeting with the Valdai Club if he was planning to return to the presidency in 2012. He simply compared the situation to that in Britain when Tony Blair promised the premiership to Gordon Brown and handed him the job without an election.
In 2012, Putin said he and Medvedev would take a decision about who would stand for president - just like they did in late 2007. If that decision is anything to go by, it will still be Putin calling the shots - and showing he's very much in control. And that, when the country is seeking strong leadership in the depths of a economic crisis, was precisely the message the boss wished to convey.
Crisis Still Grips Ukraine Amid IMF Jitters
KIEV, Ukraine -- One year after the economic crisis plunged Ukraine into one of Europe's deepest slowdowns, the country's economy remains fragile amid fears the IMF may suspend billions of dollars in credit.
The International Monetary Fund may not release the next tranche of its pledged 16.4-billion-dollar (11.2-billion-euro) loan to Ukraine due to fears over the government's control of the budget deficit and inflation, analysts and officials say."There is a considerable risk that the release of the new tranche could be delayed until the start of 2010," said Mykyta Mikhailichenko, an economist at Concorde Capital, an investment fund in Kiev.Ukraine, one of world's hardest-hit countries by the crisis, was the first country to get IMF help last year, a shocking setback for an economy that had enjoyed strong growth of around 7.0 percent per year from 2000 to 2007.The economy ministry is now forecasting a contraction in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 10-12 percent in 2009 after a dramatic fall of over 20 percent in the first quarter.So far the Washington-based IMF has released three tranches worth a total of 10.6 billion dollars.But the release of the next tranche of 3.8 billion dollars, due in November, is uncertain because the government has been dragging its feet in implementing unpopular measures demanded by the Fund.In particular, the government has been reluctant to raise prices for natural gas and electricity, moves that would be politically risky ahead of presidential elections set for January 2010, Mikhailichenko said.The IMF is also unhappy about a bill under consideration that calls for 1.15 billion dollars to be spent on preparations for the Euro-2012 football tournament."If the authorities conduct the policy that leads to inflation and undermines stability of (the) banking and financial system, we cannot support that," the IMF's top representative in Ukraine, Max Alier, said in an interview with the Kontrakty business weekly."We are prepared to provide assistance to Ukraine and be partners of Ukraine in successfully overcoming the crises, but we are not prepared to support a policy that deepens the economic crisis."Ukraine's government submitted a draft budget for 2010 last Tuesday that was based on a deficit equal to just under 4.0 percent of total economic output, in line with IMF demands.But the opposition Regions Party criticised the document as unrealistic and the Moscow-based investment bank Renaissance Capital said it was based on a "rather optimistic" economic forecast.Officials close to Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko have expressed doubt about the IMF's continued support."I believe they won't give anything else," the deputy head of Yushchenko's administration, Olexander Shlapak, said last week.Yushchenko is expected to run in the January 2010 election, as is his bitter political arch-rival, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.If the IMF halts its support, "Ukraine would find itself in a difficult situation, without money, with a collapsed currency ... and a paralysed economy," the business weekly Investgazeta wrote."The suspension of cooperation with the IMF is a great danger, above all for the financial sector," said Olena Belan, an analyst with the Ukrainian investment fund Dragon Capital.An IMF cutoff could push the government into a "considerable monetary emission" to cover its deficit, Belan said.That would further weaken Ukraine's currency, the hryvnia, after it lost over 40 percent of its value against the dollar in the past year.Others warn that the end of IMF support would tarnish Ukraine's image abroad."This is a very negative signal in the eyes of investors," said Dmytro Boyarchuk, head of CASE Ukraine, an economics research centre in Kiev."Nobody will want to work with a country that the IMF does not want to cooperate with anymore."But indicators have emerged of a gradual improvement in the economy with, activity picking up in the crucial metals sector where production rose 15.3 percent in July from the month earlier."We think that Ukraine has hit the bottom," Renaissance Capital said in its latest report on the Ukrainian economy, saying there was now "macroeconomic evidence of a real economy recovery, at a basic level."With the economy contracting by 18 percent year-on-year in the second quarter compared with a 20.3 percent fall in the first quarter, Ukraine recorded quarter-on-quarter GDP growth in the April-June period.
The International Monetary Fund may not release the next tranche of its pledged 16.4-billion-dollar (11.2-billion-euro) loan to Ukraine due to fears over the government's control of the budget deficit and inflation, analysts and officials say."There is a considerable risk that the release of the new tranche could be delayed until the start of 2010," said Mykyta Mikhailichenko, an economist at Concorde Capital, an investment fund in Kiev.Ukraine, one of world's hardest-hit countries by the crisis, was the first country to get IMF help last year, a shocking setback for an economy that had enjoyed strong growth of around 7.0 percent per year from 2000 to 2007.The economy ministry is now forecasting a contraction in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 10-12 percent in 2009 after a dramatic fall of over 20 percent in the first quarter.So far the Washington-based IMF has released three tranches worth a total of 10.6 billion dollars.But the release of the next tranche of 3.8 billion dollars, due in November, is uncertain because the government has been dragging its feet in implementing unpopular measures demanded by the Fund.In particular, the government has been reluctant to raise prices for natural gas and electricity, moves that would be politically risky ahead of presidential elections set for January 2010, Mikhailichenko said.The IMF is also unhappy about a bill under consideration that calls for 1.15 billion dollars to be spent on preparations for the Euro-2012 football tournament."If the authorities conduct the policy that leads to inflation and undermines stability of (the) banking and financial system, we cannot support that," the IMF's top representative in Ukraine, Max Alier, said in an interview with the Kontrakty business weekly."We are prepared to provide assistance to Ukraine and be partners of Ukraine in successfully overcoming the crises, but we are not prepared to support a policy that deepens the economic crisis."Ukraine's government submitted a draft budget for 2010 last Tuesday that was based on a deficit equal to just under 4.0 percent of total economic output, in line with IMF demands.But the opposition Regions Party criticised the document as unrealistic and the Moscow-based investment bank Renaissance Capital said it was based on a "rather optimistic" economic forecast.Officials close to Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko have expressed doubt about the IMF's continued support."I believe they won't give anything else," the deputy head of Yushchenko's administration, Olexander Shlapak, said last week.Yushchenko is expected to run in the January 2010 election, as is his bitter political arch-rival, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.If the IMF halts its support, "Ukraine would find itself in a difficult situation, without money, with a collapsed currency ... and a paralysed economy," the business weekly Investgazeta wrote."The suspension of cooperation with the IMF is a great danger, above all for the financial sector," said Olena Belan, an analyst with the Ukrainian investment fund Dragon Capital.An IMF cutoff could push the government into a "considerable monetary emission" to cover its deficit, Belan said.That would further weaken Ukraine's currency, the hryvnia, after it lost over 40 percent of its value against the dollar in the past year.Others warn that the end of IMF support would tarnish Ukraine's image abroad."This is a very negative signal in the eyes of investors," said Dmytro Boyarchuk, head of CASE Ukraine, an economics research centre in Kiev."Nobody will want to work with a country that the IMF does not want to cooperate with anymore."But indicators have emerged of a gradual improvement in the economy with, activity picking up in the crucial metals sector where production rose 15.3 percent in July from the month earlier."We think that Ukraine has hit the bottom," Renaissance Capital said in its latest report on the Ukrainian economy, saying there was now "macroeconomic evidence of a real economy recovery, at a basic level."With the economy contracting by 18 percent year-on-year in the second quarter compared with a 20.3 percent fall in the first quarter, Ukraine recorded quarter-on-quarter GDP growth in the April-June period.
Ukrainian Prosecutor Says Evidence Was Falsified In Yushchenko Poisoning Case
KIEV, Ukraine -- High-ranking officials from the presidential secretariat and family members of Ukrainian President Victor Yuschenko falsified evidence in his poisoning case, according to Larysa Cherednichenko, head of the department for supervision over investigations into criminal cases of the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office.
Cherednichenko came to this conclusion while working in the parliamentary permanent investigations commission investigating the circumstances surrounding Yuschenko's poisoning, and reported it to Ukrainian Prosecutor General Oleksandr Medvedko, the Segodnya newspaper reported on Saturday.In her report to the prosecutor general, Cherednichenko accused some officials close to Yushchenko, led by his wife Kateryna, of interfering with the investigation and try to hide the "artificiality" of the fact of the poisoning, which is believed to have taken place when Yuschenko ran for president."As Davyd Zhvaniya, member of the Our Ukraine faction of the Ukrainian parliament, who has more than once denied Yuschenko's poisoning said, the victim had blood samples taken from him in September-October 2004 with help from an Austrian doctor.However, the samples were not studied in Ukraine or another European country. They were secretly taken to the U.S., where they were enriched with dioxin and were later taken to the UK with help from the U.S. special services.Those blood samples were sent by the administration of the Austrian clinic Rudolfinerhous to expert establishments, which found dioxin," Segodnya quoted Cherednichenko as saying.Yuschenko's wife said in an interview with the Ukraina Moloda newspaper, commenting on this statement, that she has been accused of involvement in her husband's poisoning."I was accused of falsifying the test results and making that plan to help him win the elections," she said.According to information possessed by Segodnya, Cherednichenko was warned that she would be dismissed from her office immediately after she wrote her report on August 26. She was offered two positions, which she refused and contested her dismissal in court.
Cherednichenko came to this conclusion while working in the parliamentary permanent investigations commission investigating the circumstances surrounding Yuschenko's poisoning, and reported it to Ukrainian Prosecutor General Oleksandr Medvedko, the Segodnya newspaper reported on Saturday.In her report to the prosecutor general, Cherednichenko accused some officials close to Yushchenko, led by his wife Kateryna, of interfering with the investigation and try to hide the "artificiality" of the fact of the poisoning, which is believed to have taken place when Yuschenko ran for president."As Davyd Zhvaniya, member of the Our Ukraine faction of the Ukrainian parliament, who has more than once denied Yuschenko's poisoning said, the victim had blood samples taken from him in September-October 2004 with help from an Austrian doctor.However, the samples were not studied in Ukraine or another European country. They were secretly taken to the U.S., where they were enriched with dioxin and were later taken to the UK with help from the U.S. special services.Those blood samples were sent by the administration of the Austrian clinic Rudolfinerhous to expert establishments, which found dioxin," Segodnya quoted Cherednichenko as saying.Yuschenko's wife said in an interview with the Ukraina Moloda newspaper, commenting on this statement, that she has been accused of involvement in her husband's poisoning."I was accused of falsifying the test results and making that plan to help him win the elections," she said.According to information possessed by Segodnya, Cherednichenko was warned that she would be dismissed from her office immediately after she wrote her report on August 26. She was offered two positions, which she refused and contested her dismissal in court.
Saturday 19 September 2009
NATO Envoy Says No Missiles to Kaliningrad
BRUSSELS — New missiles will not be deployed in the Kaliningrad enclave now that the United States has dropped plans to build an anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, Russia's envoy to NATO said on Friday.
Dmitry Rogozin also welcomed a proposal from NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen for more cooperation with Russia on anti-missile systems.
"It was very positive, very constructive and we have to analyze together all the sec-gen's proposals for the new beginning of NATO-Russia cooperation," Rogozin told a news conference.
On Russian plans to deploy medium-range missiles in Kaliningrad, which borders Poland and Lithuania, he said: "I hope you can understand logic ... if we have no radars or no missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland, we don't need to find some response."
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen urged the Western alliance and Russia to consider linking their defensive missile systems in a policy speech Friday, as well as said that Russia should join other global powers in pressing Iran to abandon its nuclear aspirations.
Rasmussen said NATO and Russia have a shared interest in combating the proliferation of intercontinental ballistic missile technology in other countries.
"If North Korea stays nuclear and if Iran becomes nuclear, some of their neighbors might feel compelled to follow their example," Rasmussen said in a policy speech.
The secretary-general also encouraged Russia to play a role in exerting pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear program.
"What I would expect is that Russia will join us in putting maximum political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to stop Iran's nuclear aspirations," he said.
Dmitry Rogozin also welcomed a proposal from NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen for more cooperation with Russia on anti-missile systems.
"It was very positive, very constructive and we have to analyze together all the sec-gen's proposals for the new beginning of NATO-Russia cooperation," Rogozin told a news conference.
On Russian plans to deploy medium-range missiles in Kaliningrad, which borders Poland and Lithuania, he said: "I hope you can understand logic ... if we have no radars or no missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland, we don't need to find some response."
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen urged the Western alliance and Russia to consider linking their defensive missile systems in a policy speech Friday, as well as said that Russia should join other global powers in pressing Iran to abandon its nuclear aspirations.
Rasmussen said NATO and Russia have a shared interest in combating the proliferation of intercontinental ballistic missile technology in other countries.
"If North Korea stays nuclear and if Iran becomes nuclear, some of their neighbors might feel compelled to follow their example," Rasmussen said in a policy speech.
The secretary-general also encouraged Russia to play a role in exerting pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear program.
"What I would expect is that Russia will join us in putting maximum political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to stop Iran's nuclear aspirations," he said.
Yanukovych slams Tymoshenko's policies in shipbuilding industry
Regions Party leader Viktor Yanukovych has criticized the policies followed by the current government of Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko in the country's shipbuilding industry.
"Ukraine's shipbuilding can yet be rescued. However, with such an approach that has been used in the last five years, the state has little time to [save the industry]," he told reporters in Mykolaiv on Saturday, while attending the 61 Communards Shipyard.
Yanukovych said that crisis in this sector had been triggered by the government's refusal to ensure that the state budget for 2009 foresees funds for the creation of the Mykolaiv special economic zone.
"This practically served as the disruption of investment projects and, in fact, the halt of the entire shipbuilding sector in Ukraine," he said.
"Ukraine's shipbuilding can yet be rescued. However, with such an approach that has been used in the last five years, the state has little time to [save the industry]," he told reporters in Mykolaiv on Saturday, while attending the 61 Communards Shipyard.
Yanukovych said that crisis in this sector had been triggered by the government's refusal to ensure that the state budget for 2009 foresees funds for the creation of the Mykolaiv special economic zone.
"This practically served as the disruption of investment projects and, in fact, the halt of the entire shipbuilding sector in Ukraine," he said.
Ukraine prevents theft of Chernobyl radioactive material
Ukrainian authorities have arrested four police officers linked to an attempt to take 25 tons of radioactive metal from the site of the defunct Chernobyl nuclear reactor.
The seized metal emits 13 times more radiation than is acceptable, said Ukrainian State Security Service spokeswoman Maryna Ostapenko.
The Chernobyl site has remained under guard since 1986, when an explosion destroyed the reactor and dispersed radiation throughout the surrounding environment.
The seized metal emits 13 times more radiation than is acceptable, said Ukrainian State Security Service spokeswoman Maryna Ostapenko.
The Chernobyl site has remained under guard since 1986, when an explosion destroyed the reactor and dispersed radiation throughout the surrounding environment.
Behind The Golden Doors
MOSCOW, Russia -- Sometimes you have to admire the candour of Russian leaders. Whereas Kremlinologists love conspiracy theories, Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s president, and Vladimir Putin, its prime minister, tell things how they are.
On September 10th Mr Medvedev published a manifesto on gazeta.ru, a Russian website, highlighting Russia’s failings. He wrote of a primitive, oil-dependent economy, weak democracy, a shrinking population, an explosive north Caucasus and all-pervasive corruption. His critics would not disagree with this stark diagnosis, even if he offered few answers. A day later Mr Putin told the visiting Valdai club of foreign journalists and academics that he and Mr Medvedev would decide between themselves who is going to be president when Mr Medvedev’s first term expires in 2012. Most Russians already assumed as much.One subject both leaders avoided was how this tallies with Mr Medvedev’s lament about the weakness of democracy. Nor do they explain what they have been doing in their past ten years in charge. Mr Medvedev’s article reads like a cry of desperation, an attempt to appeal to Russian progressives over the heads of corrupt bureaucrats. “The global economic crisis has shown that our affairs are far from being in the best state. Twenty years of tumultuous change has not spared our country from its humiliating dependence on raw materials,” he notes. He predicts optimistically that Russia will develop a knowledge-based economy and lead the way in new technologies, which may in time lead to an open and flexible political system that fits the requirements of a free, prosperous and confident people.In politics, however, Mr Medvedev is more cautious. “Not everyone is satisfied with the pace at which we are moving in this direction. They talk about the need to accelerate changes in the political system. We will not rush.” He ends with a dramatic flourish. “Influential groups of corrupt officials and do-nothing entrepreneurs are well ensconced. They have everything and are satisfied…But the future does not belong to them—it belongs to us. And we are an absolute majority.”Mr Medvedev’s article evoked memories of Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika speeches in the 1980s; he said this week that what went wrong with Mr Gorbachev was that he began but failed to complete his reforms. Mr Medvedev, however, has not ever started. But cynics also saw an echo of Mr Putin’s first state-of-the-nation address as president in July 2000. Mr Putin talked then of a shrinking population, a backward economy and the importance of freedom of speech and human rights.So it is not surprising that many Russians were unimpressed. As one website visitor commented: “Mr President, your mostly correct words have nothing in common with what is happening in the country of which you are the leader. I don’t believe you. Do something first, something that would illustrate your readiness to modernise the country and move it forward. Fire the government or let Khodorkovsky out. At least do something!”The problem, argues Nikolai Petrov of the Carnegie Moscow Centre, is that the economy cannot become dynamic and progressive if the political system is not fair and free. But Mr Medvedev’s liberalism is virtual not real. In 18 months of his presidency, the Russian media has not become any freer. Political opponents have not gained access to television. The number of murders and attacks on human-rights activists has gone up. And the trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once one of the country’s wealthiest oligarchs, has turned into a showpiece of political repression.Mr Medvedev’s article and Mr Putin’s comments on 2012 may reflect a tension between the two men and their teams that has brought Russia into a state of inactivity caused by competing forces. Stasis is certainly visible in Mr Khodorkovsky’s trial. In what looks like the theatre of the absurd, prosecutors have for weeks been senselessly reading out pages from their multi-volume case, often confusing pages and repeating passages twice. Their aim seems to be to drag out the case while the powers-that-be decide what to do.In the past few months some of Mr Medvedev’s supporters have defected to Mr Putin’s camp, arguing that modernisation is possible under the prime minister’s leadership. Others, such as Gleb Pavlovsky, a weathered Kremlin spin-doctor, have been trumpeting Mr Medvedev’s emergence as an independent and powerful leader. Mr Medvedev’s new-found ambition may also have been boosted by Barack Obama. The American president went out of his way during his July visit to treat Mr Medvedev as the real leader. Mr Medvedev talked to the Valdai club about the joys of spending eight hours with Mr Obama, whereas Mr Putin reminisced more about his old friend George.Mr Putin’s words about 2012 undermine Mr Medvedev, making him a lame duck 30 months before his term runs out. Mr Medvedev has spent most of his career as Mr Putin’s subordinate. It was his loyalty, not his independence, that qualified him for the top job. As president he has largely followed Mr Putin’s policies, including in last year’s war with Georgia. He visited South Ossetia and introduced a new law that makes it easier to deploy Russian forces outside the country. And it was Mr Medvedev who sent an aggressive and insulting letter to Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine’s president, blaming him for supplying arms to Georgia and falsifying history.Indeed, January’s presidential election in Ukraine may be the key event in Russia’s new political season. Five years ago Mr Putin suffered the biggest embarrassment of his presidency when he rushed prematurely to congratulate Viktor Yanukovich as winner, only to see him pushed aside in the “orange” revolution. The election offers him an opportunity for revenge. Gazprom, Russia’s gas giant, is already muttering belligerently that Ukraine may be unable to pay its gas bill after the vote.As Mr Medvedev’s letter to Mr Yushchenko shows, he fits in with the Kremlin’s policy of confrontation and the search for enemies, particularly at times of crisis. The tension at the top of the government does not seem to make Russia any friendlier towards the West. Although his article said that Russian foreign policy should be defined by the goal of modernisation, Mr Medvedev shook hands with Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez on an arms deal (see article). “We will supply Venezuela with the types of arms it asks for, acting in compliance with our international obligations. We will certainly deliver tanks too, why not? We have good tanks.”On September 14th, at a conference on global security in Yaroslavl, Mr Medvedev again lambasted America for causing the global crisis. He also called for a new European security architecture that would give Russia greater influence, particularly in the former Soviet space. For the moment, though, European and American security experts are more interested in another matter: what cargo a Russian vessel, Arctic Sea, was carrying when it vanished in closely monitored European waters, why a journalist who alerted the world to its disappearance had to flee Russia and why Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, paid an urgent and secret visit to Moscow just a few days later. True to form, Mr Medvedev’s article gives no answers to any of these questions.
On September 10th Mr Medvedev published a manifesto on gazeta.ru, a Russian website, highlighting Russia’s failings. He wrote of a primitive, oil-dependent economy, weak democracy, a shrinking population, an explosive north Caucasus and all-pervasive corruption. His critics would not disagree with this stark diagnosis, even if he offered few answers. A day later Mr Putin told the visiting Valdai club of foreign journalists and academics that he and Mr Medvedev would decide between themselves who is going to be president when Mr Medvedev’s first term expires in 2012. Most Russians already assumed as much.One subject both leaders avoided was how this tallies with Mr Medvedev’s lament about the weakness of democracy. Nor do they explain what they have been doing in their past ten years in charge. Mr Medvedev’s article reads like a cry of desperation, an attempt to appeal to Russian progressives over the heads of corrupt bureaucrats. “The global economic crisis has shown that our affairs are far from being in the best state. Twenty years of tumultuous change has not spared our country from its humiliating dependence on raw materials,” he notes. He predicts optimistically that Russia will develop a knowledge-based economy and lead the way in new technologies, which may in time lead to an open and flexible political system that fits the requirements of a free, prosperous and confident people.In politics, however, Mr Medvedev is more cautious. “Not everyone is satisfied with the pace at which we are moving in this direction. They talk about the need to accelerate changes in the political system. We will not rush.” He ends with a dramatic flourish. “Influential groups of corrupt officials and do-nothing entrepreneurs are well ensconced. They have everything and are satisfied…But the future does not belong to them—it belongs to us. And we are an absolute majority.”Mr Medvedev’s article evoked memories of Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika speeches in the 1980s; he said this week that what went wrong with Mr Gorbachev was that he began but failed to complete his reforms. Mr Medvedev, however, has not ever started. But cynics also saw an echo of Mr Putin’s first state-of-the-nation address as president in July 2000. Mr Putin talked then of a shrinking population, a backward economy and the importance of freedom of speech and human rights.So it is not surprising that many Russians were unimpressed. As one website visitor commented: “Mr President, your mostly correct words have nothing in common with what is happening in the country of which you are the leader. I don’t believe you. Do something first, something that would illustrate your readiness to modernise the country and move it forward. Fire the government or let Khodorkovsky out. At least do something!”The problem, argues Nikolai Petrov of the Carnegie Moscow Centre, is that the economy cannot become dynamic and progressive if the political system is not fair and free. But Mr Medvedev’s liberalism is virtual not real. In 18 months of his presidency, the Russian media has not become any freer. Political opponents have not gained access to television. The number of murders and attacks on human-rights activists has gone up. And the trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once one of the country’s wealthiest oligarchs, has turned into a showpiece of political repression.Mr Medvedev’s article and Mr Putin’s comments on 2012 may reflect a tension between the two men and their teams that has brought Russia into a state of inactivity caused by competing forces. Stasis is certainly visible in Mr Khodorkovsky’s trial. In what looks like the theatre of the absurd, prosecutors have for weeks been senselessly reading out pages from their multi-volume case, often confusing pages and repeating passages twice. Their aim seems to be to drag out the case while the powers-that-be decide what to do.In the past few months some of Mr Medvedev’s supporters have defected to Mr Putin’s camp, arguing that modernisation is possible under the prime minister’s leadership. Others, such as Gleb Pavlovsky, a weathered Kremlin spin-doctor, have been trumpeting Mr Medvedev’s emergence as an independent and powerful leader. Mr Medvedev’s new-found ambition may also have been boosted by Barack Obama. The American president went out of his way during his July visit to treat Mr Medvedev as the real leader. Mr Medvedev talked to the Valdai club about the joys of spending eight hours with Mr Obama, whereas Mr Putin reminisced more about his old friend George.Mr Putin’s words about 2012 undermine Mr Medvedev, making him a lame duck 30 months before his term runs out. Mr Medvedev has spent most of his career as Mr Putin’s subordinate. It was his loyalty, not his independence, that qualified him for the top job. As president he has largely followed Mr Putin’s policies, including in last year’s war with Georgia. He visited South Ossetia and introduced a new law that makes it easier to deploy Russian forces outside the country. And it was Mr Medvedev who sent an aggressive and insulting letter to Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine’s president, blaming him for supplying arms to Georgia and falsifying history.Indeed, January’s presidential election in Ukraine may be the key event in Russia’s new political season. Five years ago Mr Putin suffered the biggest embarrassment of his presidency when he rushed prematurely to congratulate Viktor Yanukovich as winner, only to see him pushed aside in the “orange” revolution. The election offers him an opportunity for revenge. Gazprom, Russia’s gas giant, is already muttering belligerently that Ukraine may be unable to pay its gas bill after the vote.As Mr Medvedev’s letter to Mr Yushchenko shows, he fits in with the Kremlin’s policy of confrontation and the search for enemies, particularly at times of crisis. The tension at the top of the government does not seem to make Russia any friendlier towards the West. Although his article said that Russian foreign policy should be defined by the goal of modernisation, Mr Medvedev shook hands with Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez on an arms deal (see article). “We will supply Venezuela with the types of arms it asks for, acting in compliance with our international obligations. We will certainly deliver tanks too, why not? We have good tanks.”On September 14th, at a conference on global security in Yaroslavl, Mr Medvedev again lambasted America for causing the global crisis. He also called for a new European security architecture that would give Russia greater influence, particularly in the former Soviet space. For the moment, though, European and American security experts are more interested in another matter: what cargo a Russian vessel, Arctic Sea, was carrying when it vanished in closely monitored European waters, why a journalist who alerted the world to its disappearance had to flee Russia and why Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, paid an urgent and secret visit to Moscow just a few days later. True to form, Mr Medvedev’s article gives no answers to any of these questions.
Ukraine Debates The Russian Threat
KIEV, Ukraine -- The poor state of Ukrainian-Russian relations, as vividly noted in Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's August letter to President Viktor Yushchenko, the expulsion of two Russian spies from Ukraine and Russia's newly adopted law giving its military the right to intervene abroad is intensifying the debate in Ukraine over the Russian threat
On September 18 three journalists from the Rossiya channel were banned for five years from entering Ukraine for conducting "falsified information propaganda against Ukraine". Earlier, Medvedev told the Valdai Club that his letter had fulfilled its purpose.Acting Foreign Minister Yuriy Kostenko explained that the expulsion of the two spies was seen by Moscow as an "aggressive attack against Russia, and a provocation". Russia did not attempt to understand Ukraine's argument that the spies were acting in a manner "contrary to their diplomatic status."Medvedev's staunch and unprecedented criticism of Ukrainian domestic and foreign policies was worsened by the fact that two of the three leading presidential candidates -Party of Regions leader Viktor Yanukovych and Front for Change leader Arseniy Yatseniuk- supported the Russian side. On August 26 Yanukovych told a phone-in to Segodnya: "Never before have we had such unpleasant relations with Russia as at present."Yanukovych promised that relations would improve if he is elected. Such promises echo the 1994 presidential elections when Leonid Kuchma claimed that he -rather than the incumbent Leonid Kravchuk- would be in a position to improve such relations.Both Kuchma and Yanukovych failed to see the deeper issue involved; namely, Moscow's "refusal to recognize the existence of the Ukrainian nation," explained Volodymyr Horbulin, the former National Security and Defense Council (NRBO) Secretary and the security expert Valentyn Badrak."In the last 18 years since the disintegration of the USSR the Kremlin elite has not come to terms with the existence of an independent Ukraine,' as another Ukrainian newspaper noted.These experts suggested that the situation in Ukraine resembled Austria in the 1930's before its anschluss with Germany. Various political experts provided pessimistic answers as to why they did not believe that the quarreling Ukrainian elites could mobilize Ukrainians against a foreign aggressor.Russia is held back from direct military intervention in Ukraine, Ukrainian experts believe, due to two factors. Firstly, it would destroy any hope of CIS integration. Secondly, "a war with Ukraine could destroy Russia as a state". If Russia successfully took the Crimea, "Moscow would forever lose Ukraine," Horbulin and Badrak asserted.Although any Russian invasion into Eastern Ukraine or the Crimea might at first be successful, it would eventually be met by fierce resistance from guerrilla and loyal Ukrainian units. Interestingly, no Ukrainian experts believe that Russian aggression would be prevented by Moscow taking Western responses into consideration; this itself reflects the E.U. and NATO's ineffectual response to the Russian invasion of Georgia.Anatoliy Grytsenko, the former Ukrainian Defense Minister and the head of the parliamentary committee on defense and national security has advised the military to develop additional spetsnaz units capable of taking conflict deep into enemy territory.Horbulin, the director of the National Institute on the Problems of International Security, affiliated to the NRBO, and Badrak, a senior expert at the Kyiv think tank the Center for Research into the Army, Conversion and Disarmament, advised the NRBO to relocate spetsnaz units Special Forces, Security Service (SBU) and interior ministry units to southern and eastern Ukraine.Grytsenko also warned the E.U. and NATO to not continue to ignore the Russian threat, as any conflict in Ukraine might risk damaging the gas pipelines crossing Ukraine. Europe could not stand aside from such a conflict, as it could severely undermine European energy security.Critical, but diplomatic, responses to Medvedev were given by Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Tymoshenko, who is running second in the polls and is likely to face Yanukovych in the second round of the presidential election, has adopted a pragmatic nationalist position that has permitted her to court western and central Ukrainian voters while continuing a dialogue on energy and economic issues with Russia.Yushchenko, in contrast, has moved towards a more nationalistic position that has narrowed his support to only Galicia, giving him just 3 percent in opinion polls -making him the sixth most "popular" candidate.Horbulin and Badrak concluded that following the 2008 Georgian-Russian war "international law" no longer works in dealing with Russia. Moscow wants to alter "the Ukrainian foreign policy trajectory, split the country and annex portions of its territory and indefinitely extend the basing of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol.Russia seeks a ‘politically loyal, pro-Russian Ukraine'". In the January 2010 elections, Moscow also wants to see the election of a "Kremlin vassal who would lead the country as a Little Russia".Two conclusions can be drawn from this discussion. Firstly, Ukraine is being given an impossible task by western E.U. and NATO members: to pursue good relations with Russia at a time when it seeks to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and assassinate its pro-Western leaders (Ukrainian investigators reached the conclusion earlier this month that the Russian authorities were behind Yushchenko's 2004 poisoning).Moreover, Ukrainian-Russian relations might deteriorate further in the next eight years as the deadline approaches for Russia to withdraw the Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol.The recent adoption of the Russian law on military intervention abroad provides for "the ability for a direct military threat from the Black Sea Fleet". Horbulin and Badrak advised the SBU to ensure "control over extremist and radically oriented Ukrainian groups in the south and southeast of the country".Secondly, the West's reputation is at stake in dealing with countries such as Iran and North Korea. Ukraine gave up the third largest nuclear weapons stockpile in 1994-1996 in return for "security assurances" from the five nuclear powers, one of whom -Russia- constitutes its main threat. In 2003, less than a decade after the "Budapest Memorandum," Russia sought to annex the Tuzla Island off the Crimean coast.As Horbulin and Badrak argued, the nuclear powers are "de facto demonstrating a rejection of their responsibilities" and "those who are not speaking of a repetition of Munich in 1938 today in Europe and Ukraine are only ignoring the facts'. If Tehran interprets Western policy towards Kyiv as weak, then it is less likely to halt its nuclear weapon ambitions.
On September 18 three journalists from the Rossiya channel were banned for five years from entering Ukraine for conducting "falsified information propaganda against Ukraine". Earlier, Medvedev told the Valdai Club that his letter had fulfilled its purpose.Acting Foreign Minister Yuriy Kostenko explained that the expulsion of the two spies was seen by Moscow as an "aggressive attack against Russia, and a provocation". Russia did not attempt to understand Ukraine's argument that the spies were acting in a manner "contrary to their diplomatic status."Medvedev's staunch and unprecedented criticism of Ukrainian domestic and foreign policies was worsened by the fact that two of the three leading presidential candidates -Party of Regions leader Viktor Yanukovych and Front for Change leader Arseniy Yatseniuk- supported the Russian side. On August 26 Yanukovych told a phone-in to Segodnya: "Never before have we had such unpleasant relations with Russia as at present."Yanukovych promised that relations would improve if he is elected. Such promises echo the 1994 presidential elections when Leonid Kuchma claimed that he -rather than the incumbent Leonid Kravchuk- would be in a position to improve such relations.Both Kuchma and Yanukovych failed to see the deeper issue involved; namely, Moscow's "refusal to recognize the existence of the Ukrainian nation," explained Volodymyr Horbulin, the former National Security and Defense Council (NRBO) Secretary and the security expert Valentyn Badrak."In the last 18 years since the disintegration of the USSR the Kremlin elite has not come to terms with the existence of an independent Ukraine,' as another Ukrainian newspaper noted.These experts suggested that the situation in Ukraine resembled Austria in the 1930's before its anschluss with Germany. Various political experts provided pessimistic answers as to why they did not believe that the quarreling Ukrainian elites could mobilize Ukrainians against a foreign aggressor.Russia is held back from direct military intervention in Ukraine, Ukrainian experts believe, due to two factors. Firstly, it would destroy any hope of CIS integration. Secondly, "a war with Ukraine could destroy Russia as a state". If Russia successfully took the Crimea, "Moscow would forever lose Ukraine," Horbulin and Badrak asserted.Although any Russian invasion into Eastern Ukraine or the Crimea might at first be successful, it would eventually be met by fierce resistance from guerrilla and loyal Ukrainian units. Interestingly, no Ukrainian experts believe that Russian aggression would be prevented by Moscow taking Western responses into consideration; this itself reflects the E.U. and NATO's ineffectual response to the Russian invasion of Georgia.Anatoliy Grytsenko, the former Ukrainian Defense Minister and the head of the parliamentary committee on defense and national security has advised the military to develop additional spetsnaz units capable of taking conflict deep into enemy territory.Horbulin, the director of the National Institute on the Problems of International Security, affiliated to the NRBO, and Badrak, a senior expert at the Kyiv think tank the Center for Research into the Army, Conversion and Disarmament, advised the NRBO to relocate spetsnaz units Special Forces, Security Service (SBU) and interior ministry units to southern and eastern Ukraine.Grytsenko also warned the E.U. and NATO to not continue to ignore the Russian threat, as any conflict in Ukraine might risk damaging the gas pipelines crossing Ukraine. Europe could not stand aside from such a conflict, as it could severely undermine European energy security.Critical, but diplomatic, responses to Medvedev were given by Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Tymoshenko, who is running second in the polls and is likely to face Yanukovych in the second round of the presidential election, has adopted a pragmatic nationalist position that has permitted her to court western and central Ukrainian voters while continuing a dialogue on energy and economic issues with Russia.Yushchenko, in contrast, has moved towards a more nationalistic position that has narrowed his support to only Galicia, giving him just 3 percent in opinion polls -making him the sixth most "popular" candidate.Horbulin and Badrak concluded that following the 2008 Georgian-Russian war "international law" no longer works in dealing with Russia. Moscow wants to alter "the Ukrainian foreign policy trajectory, split the country and annex portions of its territory and indefinitely extend the basing of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol.Russia seeks a ‘politically loyal, pro-Russian Ukraine'". In the January 2010 elections, Moscow also wants to see the election of a "Kremlin vassal who would lead the country as a Little Russia".Two conclusions can be drawn from this discussion. Firstly, Ukraine is being given an impossible task by western E.U. and NATO members: to pursue good relations with Russia at a time when it seeks to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and assassinate its pro-Western leaders (Ukrainian investigators reached the conclusion earlier this month that the Russian authorities were behind Yushchenko's 2004 poisoning).Moreover, Ukrainian-Russian relations might deteriorate further in the next eight years as the deadline approaches for Russia to withdraw the Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol.The recent adoption of the Russian law on military intervention abroad provides for "the ability for a direct military threat from the Black Sea Fleet". Horbulin and Badrak advised the SBU to ensure "control over extremist and radically oriented Ukrainian groups in the south and southeast of the country".Secondly, the West's reputation is at stake in dealing with countries such as Iran and North Korea. Ukraine gave up the third largest nuclear weapons stockpile in 1994-1996 in return for "security assurances" from the five nuclear powers, one of whom -Russia- constitutes its main threat. In 2003, less than a decade after the "Budapest Memorandum," Russia sought to annex the Tuzla Island off the Crimean coast.As Horbulin and Badrak argued, the nuclear powers are "de facto demonstrating a rejection of their responsibilities" and "those who are not speaking of a repetition of Munich in 1938 today in Europe and Ukraine are only ignoring the facts'. If Tehran interprets Western policy towards Kyiv as weak, then it is less likely to halt its nuclear weapon ambitions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)