KIEV, Ukraine -- The description of Belarusian President, Alyaksandr Lukashenka,  as “pro-Russian” has side-stepped the fact that he is a Soviet Belarusian  nationalist which developed after 2002, when he rejected the then Russian  President, Vladimir Putin’s, offer to unite both countries.
One factor behind Lukashenka’s Soviet Belarusian nationalism is his  unwillingness to open up the Belarusian economy to Russian economic take-over.  Moscow’s exasperation with Lukashenka partly rests on his economic protectionism  in relation to Russia, which closely resembles that of Latin American left-wing  nationalism vis-à-vis the US.
Hence, it is not surprising that Lukashenka  has developed close ties with left-wing, anti-American populist Venezuelan  President, Hugo Chavez.
The election of Viktor Yanukovych brought to  power in Ukraine a team with similar pro-Russian sentiments and Soviet nostalgia  as that found in Belarus – but with one major difference. Ukraine, unlike  Belarus, has undergone a transition to a market economy and the majority of its  GDP is produced by the private sector.
Russian investment in Ukraine, and  the takeover of strategic sectors of its economy, is therefore more likely than  in Belarus. Ironically therefore, Lukashenka looks more like a nationalist than  does Yanukovych. Economic protectionism (nationalism) has its supporters in the  Yanukovych team, but is directed against Western rather than Russian investors,  as the latter are seen as more benign.
This is assisted by the  inter-mixing of Russian, Ukrainian and former Soviet capital through Foreign  Direct Investment (FDI) from Cyprus and the Virgin Islands, two of the biggest  sources of FDI in Ukraine.
When the Yulia Tymoshenko government  nationalized and re-privatized the Kryvorizhstal plant to a Western investor,  Yanukovych and the Party of Regions criticized the sale on economic  protectionist grounds with the plant remaining under Ukrainian control.  Kryvoriozhstal was privatized in July 2004 by the oligarchs, Renat Akhmetov and  Viktor Pinchuk, for $800 million and re-sold in October 2005 for $4.8 billion to  Mittal Steel.
On June 8, Putin had dinner with Yanukovych in Istanbul and  told him about his irritation with Akhmetov for causing difficulties with  Russian companies trying to buy metallurgical businesses in  Ukraine.
Putin pressured Yanukovych to reduce Akhmetov’s influence within  the Party of Regions. Such a step would put Yanukovych and Akhmetov on a  collision course as the latter is the wealthiest person in Ukraine, closely  linked to the Donetsk clan since its incarnation as the Party of Regions in  2001, and hugely popular in that city.
Akhmetov is a major benefactor for  the Shakhtiar soccer team and financed the construction of its new stadium  opened in July 2008 at a cost of $250 million.
Akhmetov blocked the sale of  the Mariupol MMK Ilyich steel plant, one of Ukraine’s top three steel producers,  to a secretive group of Russian investors backed financially by Russia’s  state-owned Vnesheconombank, chaired by Putin.
Akhmetov’s Metinvest  agreed to take a 75 percent stake in the plant and invest $2 billion in return  for a merger of the two steel.
Prime Minister, Nikolai Azarov, stated:  “The government is on the side of the working collective and will not allow a  raider takeover of one of Ukraine’s flagship metallurgical enterprises”. Russian  investors Alexander Katunin and Troika Dialog Russian investment bank, had  earlier taken control of the Industrial Union of Donbas (ISD) group, one of  Ukraine’s top three steel producers.
Zaporizhstal, another large  Ukrainian steel producer, is also likely to fall under Russian  control.
Such a lack of transparency was also evident in Russia’s  acquisition of Luhanskteplovoz, one of the world’s largest producers of rail  locomotives. Deputy Prime Minister, Sergei Tigipko, complained about the lack of  transparency in the sale and the loss of 200 million hryvnia ($25.3  million).
Russia controls MTC (formerly UMC) and a controlling share in  Kyiv Star, Ukraine’s two biggest mobile phone operators, which have led to  warnings about the threat to national security if Russia gains access to  Ukraine’s mobile phone network.
Russia is also prioritizing Ukraine’s  nuclear energy sector. Ukrainian economic expert, Andriy Kolpakov, sees Russian  economic expansion into Ukraine in four waves.
The first, metallurgical, was  almost fully achieved except for one take-over being blocked by Akhmetov. 
The second is beginning in machine building, with the first attempted  take-over in Mykolayiv. The third will be into the banking sector.
The  final stage would witness a push to take over large areas of Ukrainian land.  Russia is not only seeking to acquire Ukrainian blue chip industries in a  non-transparent manner, but also land. Moscow will move into food processing at  the end of this year and within 2-3 years Russian capital will enter the land  market if a moratorium on land privatization is lifted, Kolpakov  believes.
First Deputy Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Iryna  Akimova, has called for the removal of the moratorium on land privatization. The  government will propose a law on land sales by the end of 2010. The Communist  and Volodymyr Lytvyn bloc (which includes the renamed Agrarian Party) factions  within the ruling Reforms and Stability coalition, who together provide 47  deputies, are opposed to land privatization.
Yet, with defections from  the opposition, the coalition has grown to 265 and the government could  eventually have sufficient deputies to initiate legislation to privatize land. A  high level source told Jamestown that Putin wants his people within the  Yanukovych administration to accelerate legislation to enable the privatization  of agricultural land in Ukraine.
The same source said Putin has offered  to make available $6 billion to Russian businesses to purchase huge tracts of  Ukrainian land.
Russian take-overs are non-transparent and unlikely to  bring new investment and capital. Their purpose is geopolitical and to remove  competitors rather than the profit motive. Akhmetov and Ukrainian oligarchs who  supported Yanukovych’s election have been side-lined from the Yanukovych  administration, which is controlled by the gas lobby and pro-Russian ideological  wing of the Party of Regions who provide it with a link to former communist  voters.
The weak influence of the oligarchs, long associated with  pragmatism, makes Ukraine’s foreign policy less pro-European as the energy and  ideological lobbies increase the influence of the eastern vector. This makes  Yanukovych’s foreign policy more pro-Russian and explains why a return to Leonid  Kuchma’s multi-vector approach so far has failed to occur.
 
No comments:
Post a Comment