KIEV, Ukraine -- The European Union on Monday balked at signing a landmark cooperation agreement with Ukraine over the jailing of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, in a move that could push Kiev back into Russia’s orbit as it lobbies Moscow for cheaper gas prices.
EU President Herman van Rompuy said that the long-awaited deal outlining political and economic cooperation between Kiev and Brussels has been finalized, but its signing hinges on Tymoshenko’s fate.
“We want to take steps to sign and ratify the agreement as soon as we can, but this would depend on political circumstances,” van Rompuy said at the end of an EU-Ukraine summit.
“In this regard, a number of recent domestic developments in Ukraine have led to a difficult atmosphere between the European Union and Ukraine.”
“Our strong concern is primarily related to the politically motivated justice in Ukraine and the Tymoshenko case.”
The EU and the United States have strongly condemned the October sentencing of Tymoshenko, now the top opposition leader, to seven years in prison on charges of abuse of office as politically motivated and demanded her release.
Tymoshenko, who became an opposition leader after losing the premiership in 2010, was found guilty of overstepping her authority while negotiating a natural gas import contract with Russian in 2009.
She charges that her longtime foe, President Viktor Yanukovych, has ordered her imprisonment in order to bar her from elections.
Yanukovych has defied Western pressure to release Tymoshenko, saying prosecutors and courts acted independently in her trial.
Moreover, Tymoshenko has been charged and investigated in scores of new criminal cases since her imprisonment and a court ordered her indefinite arrest as part of new probe, even if her current jail term is overturned.
Ukrainian and EU officials had long planned to sign the agreement during Monday’s summit.
Yanukovych expressed hope on Friday that the deal would be signed.
The failure to sign it comes as major disappointment for Yanukovych, who has made membership in the 27-nation bloc a top priority.
Tymoshenko’s jailing has presented the EU with a dilemma.
Some experts believe the bloc should not be partners with a government that throws opposition leaders in jail.
Others say that snubbing Ukraine would push it back under Russia’s influence as Kiev is courting Moscow for cheaper natural gas.
Yanukovych reiterated Monday that Kiev is seeking a lower price and expressed hope that a new deal would be reached soon.
High-level talks between Russian and Ukrainian officials are expected this week.
Von Rompuy also called on Ukraine to implement legal reforms, ensure media and civic freedoms and conduct a clean parliamentary election next year.
“The key to strengthening our relations is in the hands of the Ukrainian authorities,” European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said at a joint press conference at the end of the summit.
Wednesday 21 December 2011
Law On Land Market May Damage Ukraine's Investment Climate, Says Expert
KIEV, Ukraine -- The law on the land market, which was passed in first reading by the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament, on December 9, 2011, might negatively affect the investment climate in Ukraine and form a caste of speculators on the land market, President of the Ukrainian Agribusiness Club Association Alex Lissitsa has told a press conference hosted by Interfax-Ukraine on December 16.
"In my opinion, the bill that was passed last week can be described only as 'cheap populism.' We don't understand where our agrarian policy is moving and where will we find ourselves on some ten years," he said.
The expert stressed that the bill that prohibits sale of farming land to legal entities, restricts sales of farming land to 100 hectares, and limits leasing of land to 6,000 hectares in one district and not more than 5% of farming land on one region will have negative effect for development of the country's agroindustrial segment.
Lissitsa said that significant investments, both foreign and domestic, have been made in Ukraine's economy over the recent five years.
In particular, direct foreign investments in the agrarian segment in 2004-2010 amounted to $834 million.
"It's very difficult to understand whether these investments will be directed to the agrarian segment in the next five or six years. We know perfectly well that the state does not have funds for the agrarian segment, unlike the European Union [which invests EUR 52 billion]," he said.
In addition, according to Lissitsa, the current version of the bill on the land market may lead to the formation of "a caste of speculators" on the land market.
He noted that this version of the bill contains a provision under which only those people who submitted declarations on incomes earlier will have the right to buy 100 hectares of land.
"This means that owners of homestead land plots or private economies, who never submitted declarations on incomes, will be unable to buy land. As a result, a caste of speculators will appear that will buy 100 hectares of land and lease it to big agrarian companies," he said.
As reported, the Verkhovna Rada, passed in first reading a bill on the land market on December 9, 2011 and prolonged the moratorium on the sale of land until January 1, 2013.
"In my opinion, the bill that was passed last week can be described only as 'cheap populism.' We don't understand where our agrarian policy is moving and where will we find ourselves on some ten years," he said.
The expert stressed that the bill that prohibits sale of farming land to legal entities, restricts sales of farming land to 100 hectares, and limits leasing of land to 6,000 hectares in one district and not more than 5% of farming land on one region will have negative effect for development of the country's agroindustrial segment.
Lissitsa said that significant investments, both foreign and domestic, have been made in Ukraine's economy over the recent five years.
In particular, direct foreign investments in the agrarian segment in 2004-2010 amounted to $834 million.
"It's very difficult to understand whether these investments will be directed to the agrarian segment in the next five or six years. We know perfectly well that the state does not have funds for the agrarian segment, unlike the European Union [which invests EUR 52 billion]," he said.
In addition, according to Lissitsa, the current version of the bill on the land market may lead to the formation of "a caste of speculators" on the land market.
He noted that this version of the bill contains a provision under which only those people who submitted declarations on incomes earlier will have the right to buy 100 hectares of land.
"This means that owners of homestead land plots or private economies, who never submitted declarations on incomes, will be unable to buy land. As a result, a caste of speculators will appear that will buy 100 hectares of land and lease it to big agrarian companies," he said.
As reported, the Verkhovna Rada, passed in first reading a bill on the land market on December 9, 2011 and prolonged the moratorium on the sale of land until January 1, 2013.
Authorities Find Ukrainian Activists Allegedly Kidnapped, Terrorized In Belarus
MINSK, Belarus -- Belarusian police have located three female activists from the Ukrainian women's rights group, FEMEN, who say they were abducted and terrorized by security forces after they staged one of their signature topless protests against the regime of President Alyaksandr Lukashenka in Minsk on Monday.
Belarusian service reports that the women, who were found in the Yelsk district of the country's southeastern Gomel oblast, were taken to a local hospital for medical examinations.
They are now said to be at a local police station.
A correspondent for the Belarusian state news agency BelaPan reported that doctors observed bruises on the women's hands and other parts of their body.
The women told journalists at the scene that on the evening of their protest, December 19, they were at a Minsk bus station when six men abducted them and brought them to a forest far from the capital.
They repeated details about their ordeal that FEMEN's leader, Anna Hutsol, had told RFE/RL earlier in the day from Kiev.
"They are alive but not in good health. They are very scared. They were detained by the KGB yesterday. They drove them around in a car all night, then brought them to the woods, poured oil on them, threatened to set them on fire, threatened them with a knife, cut their hair with a knife, videotaped everything, and then left them in the woods."
Hustol identified the three women as Alexandra Nemchinova, Oksana Shachko, and Inna Shevchenko and said the KGB seized their documents.
Aleksei Emelyanenko, a spokesperson the Ukrainian Embassy in Minsk, told RFE/RL that the women's identities could not immediately be confirmed.
"We hope to be able to return them to Ukraine soon and from our side, we will continue to follow their situation," he said.
Earlier in the day, Kiev sent its embassy consul in Minsk to the region to investigate the story.
He later met with the activists.
RFE/RL's Belarusian service spoke to people in Byaki, the village where the women were found.
They said the women told them that after being terrorized in the woods, their captors had brought them to the nearby border with Ukraine and ordered them to cross it.
The women instead made their way to the village, where a local resident took them in.
A man who gave his name as Yuri told RFE/RL that he had lent the activists his mobile phone so they could reach Hutsol.
The Belarusian authorities have not publicly commented on the women's allegations.
But earlier today, Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Oleksandr Dikusarov told RFE/RL that officials in Minsk said no one had detained the activists and the women had left the city voluntarily.
FEMEN, which claims to have hundreds of members and thousands of supporters, formed in 2008 to protest discrimination against women in what the group describes as Ukraine's patriarchal post-Soviet society.
Its members' signature strategy of protesting topless has earned the group admiration and ridicule, and no shortage of headlines.
The group's agenda has expanded from protesting domestic inequalities to championing international causes.
In June, FEMEN activists wore hijabs, the traditional Muslim headscarf, but nothing on top, at a protest in front of Kiev's Saudi Arabian Embassy over Riyadh's ban on women drivers.
They've also stopped traffic in Zurich and caused a stir at the Vatican.
Earlier this month, FEMEN attempted to stage a protest in Moscow before Russia's parliamentary elections, but were quickly overpowered by security guards.
On Monday, the one-year anniversary of Belarus's disputed presidential election, the activists gathered in front of the KGB headquarters in Minsk to express solidarity with the demonstrators, politicians, and journalists who were detained in the ensuing protests and government crackdown.
Bare-chested and wearing fake Lukashenka-style moustaches, the women held placards that read, "Freedom to Political Prisoners" and "Long Live Belarus," a mantra of the protest movement.
One FEMEN member painted a red star on her stomach and partially shaved her head in imitation of Lukashenka's receding hairline.
Several journalists were arrested while attempting to cover the group's demonstration.
While FEMEN's activities are largely tolerated in Ukraine, all signs of dissent are quickly quashed under the Lukashenka regime.
To intimidate activists and protesters, security forces have used tactics similar to what FEMEN says happened to its three members.
Ukrainian human rights activist Yevhen Zakharov told RFE/RL that if the group's claims are confirmed, those responsible must be held accountable.
"If this information is confirmed and it is in fact torture [used against FEMEN activists in Belarus], then Ukraine should demand the punishment of the law-enforcement officers responsible for it. If that is not done, then measures of diplomatic pressure should be taken against Belarus. In my view, this cannot be left without a response," he said.
Hutsol, meanwhile, pledged to take matters into her own hands if necessary.
"We'll do everything to have the Belarusian ambassador to Ukraine deported from here," she said from Kiev. "If he doesn't leave tomorrow, we'll take him to the woods ourselves and shave his head."
Belarusian service reports that the women, who were found in the Yelsk district of the country's southeastern Gomel oblast, were taken to a local hospital for medical examinations.
They are now said to be at a local police station.
A correspondent for the Belarusian state news agency BelaPan reported that doctors observed bruises on the women's hands and other parts of their body.
The women told journalists at the scene that on the evening of their protest, December 19, they were at a Minsk bus station when six men abducted them and brought them to a forest far from the capital.
They repeated details about their ordeal that FEMEN's leader, Anna Hutsol, had told RFE/RL earlier in the day from Kiev.
"They are alive but not in good health. They are very scared. They were detained by the KGB yesterday. They drove them around in a car all night, then brought them to the woods, poured oil on them, threatened to set them on fire, threatened them with a knife, cut their hair with a knife, videotaped everything, and then left them in the woods."
Hustol identified the three women as Alexandra Nemchinova, Oksana Shachko, and Inna Shevchenko and said the KGB seized their documents.
Aleksei Emelyanenko, a spokesperson the Ukrainian Embassy in Minsk, told RFE/RL that the women's identities could not immediately be confirmed.
"We hope to be able to return them to Ukraine soon and from our side, we will continue to follow their situation," he said.
Earlier in the day, Kiev sent its embassy consul in Minsk to the region to investigate the story.
He later met with the activists.
RFE/RL's Belarusian service spoke to people in Byaki, the village where the women were found.
They said the women told them that after being terrorized in the woods, their captors had brought them to the nearby border with Ukraine and ordered them to cross it.
The women instead made their way to the village, where a local resident took them in.
A man who gave his name as Yuri told RFE/RL that he had lent the activists his mobile phone so they could reach Hutsol.
The Belarusian authorities have not publicly commented on the women's allegations.
But earlier today, Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Oleksandr Dikusarov told RFE/RL that officials in Minsk said no one had detained the activists and the women had left the city voluntarily.
FEMEN, which claims to have hundreds of members and thousands of supporters, formed in 2008 to protest discrimination against women in what the group describes as Ukraine's patriarchal post-Soviet society.
Its members' signature strategy of protesting topless has earned the group admiration and ridicule, and no shortage of headlines.
The group's agenda has expanded from protesting domestic inequalities to championing international causes.
In June, FEMEN activists wore hijabs, the traditional Muslim headscarf, but nothing on top, at a protest in front of Kiev's Saudi Arabian Embassy over Riyadh's ban on women drivers.
They've also stopped traffic in Zurich and caused a stir at the Vatican.
Earlier this month, FEMEN attempted to stage a protest in Moscow before Russia's parliamentary elections, but were quickly overpowered by security guards.
On Monday, the one-year anniversary of Belarus's disputed presidential election, the activists gathered in front of the KGB headquarters in Minsk to express solidarity with the demonstrators, politicians, and journalists who were detained in the ensuing protests and government crackdown.
Bare-chested and wearing fake Lukashenka-style moustaches, the women held placards that read, "Freedom to Political Prisoners" and "Long Live Belarus," a mantra of the protest movement.
One FEMEN member painted a red star on her stomach and partially shaved her head in imitation of Lukashenka's receding hairline.
Several journalists were arrested while attempting to cover the group's demonstration.
While FEMEN's activities are largely tolerated in Ukraine, all signs of dissent are quickly quashed under the Lukashenka regime.
To intimidate activists and protesters, security forces have used tactics similar to what FEMEN says happened to its three members.
Ukrainian human rights activist Yevhen Zakharov told RFE/RL that if the group's claims are confirmed, those responsible must be held accountable.
"If this information is confirmed and it is in fact torture [used against FEMEN activists in Belarus], then Ukraine should demand the punishment of the law-enforcement officers responsible for it. If that is not done, then measures of diplomatic pressure should be taken against Belarus. In my view, this cannot be left without a response," he said.
Hutsol, meanwhile, pledged to take matters into her own hands if necessary.
"We'll do everything to have the Belarusian ambassador to Ukraine deported from here," she said from Kiev. "If he doesn't leave tomorrow, we'll take him to the woods ourselves and shave his head."
Topless Protest Group Claims Belarus Police Abuse
MINSK, Belarus -- A Ukrainian organization of topless women activists says three of its members were abducted by security officers during a protest against Belarus authoritarian president, beaten, humiliated and left naked in a forest.
The group, called FEMEN, is widely known in Ukraine and neighboring countries for its demonstrations in which women bare their breasts to draw attention to an array of causes.
A statement on FEMEN's website Tuesday says the three were seized by agents of the Belarusian KGB at Minsk's train station on Monday evening, several hours after they held a protest against President Alexander Lukashenko.
FEMEN said they were blindfolded and driven in a bus to the Gomel region, about 200 kilometers (120 miles) southeast of the capital.
There, they were taken to a forest, beaten and forced to undress, doused with oil and threatened with being set on fire.
Their captors hacked off their hair with knives and turned them loose in the woods, the group said.
The women were able to walk from the forest to a nearby village, the statement said.
"They were able to telephone and told me they were in awful condition, barely alive," the group's leader Anna Gutsol told The Associated Press.
A spokesman for the KGB, Alexander Antanovich, declined to comment on the allegation.
The three had bared their breasts on the steps of the KGB headquarters in Minsk on Monday in a demonstration against Lukashenko on the first anniversary of his re-election.
Agents quickly broke up that demonstration and arrested several journalists and FEMEN's Australian videographer Kitti Green, but the three activists were able to flee, FEMEN said.
It said Green was deported to Lithuania.
Lukashenko has repressed opposition and independent media since becoming leader of the former Soviet republic in 1994.
In December 2010 elections, he was declared winner of a new term, but tens of thousands of protesters assembled to denounce alleged vote fraud.
Police harshly broke up that demonstration and arrested around 700 people, some of whom remain in jail including two of the candidates who opposed Lukashenko.
The group, called FEMEN, is widely known in Ukraine and neighboring countries for its demonstrations in which women bare their breasts to draw attention to an array of causes.
A statement on FEMEN's website Tuesday says the three were seized by agents of the Belarusian KGB at Minsk's train station on Monday evening, several hours after they held a protest against President Alexander Lukashenko.
FEMEN said they were blindfolded and driven in a bus to the Gomel region, about 200 kilometers (120 miles) southeast of the capital.
There, they were taken to a forest, beaten and forced to undress, doused with oil and threatened with being set on fire.
Their captors hacked off their hair with knives and turned them loose in the woods, the group said.
The women were able to walk from the forest to a nearby village, the statement said.
"They were able to telephone and told me they were in awful condition, barely alive," the group's leader Anna Gutsol told The Associated Press.
A spokesman for the KGB, Alexander Antanovich, declined to comment on the allegation.
The three had bared their breasts on the steps of the KGB headquarters in Minsk on Monday in a demonstration against Lukashenko on the first anniversary of his re-election.
Agents quickly broke up that demonstration and arrested several journalists and FEMEN's Australian videographer Kitti Green, but the three activists were able to flee, FEMEN said.
It said Green was deported to Lithuania.
Lukashenko has repressed opposition and independent media since becoming leader of the former Soviet republic in 1994.
In December 2010 elections, he was declared winner of a new term, but tens of thousands of protesters assembled to denounce alleged vote fraud.
Police harshly broke up that demonstration and arrested around 700 people, some of whom remain in jail including two of the candidates who opposed Lukashenko.
Ukraine Is Still Searching For An Identity
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- Ukrainians had a number of reasons to celebrate this year. They commemorated the twentieth anniversary of their country’s independence — declared by parliament in August 1991 — and its first manifestation of universal suffrage when in December of that same year roughly 90 percent of the population backed the parliament’s declaration.
Ukrainians had high hopes for a democratic and prosperous future.
However, two decades on, the direction their country will take is still far from clear.
While many observers would like to attribute this stagnation to ineffective politicians or the population’s flawed mentality, the roots of Ukraine’s problems run deeper.
The source of Ukraine’s problems lies in the country’s Soviet legacy and the consequent lack of a national narrative and identity.
This explains the chaotic nature of Ukrainian politics as well as the population’s alienation from the state.
Politicians are seemingly the only beneficiaries of the status quo, as it grants them virtual immunity to rob their own country.
Ukrainian independence happened by and large by default.
Few observers would argue that it was the result of popular desire or a long-term struggle on behalf of the nation’s elite.
Ukraine’s leadership — largely former communist party members — had to bring the country out of a massive economic downturn while simultaneously building the state and its institutions.
In effect, they had to build the ship while it was sailing.
Issues of national identity were therefore largely ignored in the 1990s.
It was difficult to find a unifying narrative for a population that had been brought together within the same borders for the first time in history and that comprised numerous different cultural, linguistic, and religious backgrounds as well as diverging historical outlooks.
There were subsequent efforts to forge a Ukrainian national identity based on language and culture.
This started with a process of “silent Ukrainianization” during Leonid Kuchma’s second presidency — from 1999 to 2005 — when the Ukrainian language began to play a more prominent role in education and the public sector.
It proceeded with “imposed Ukrainianization” during Viktor Yuschenko’s presidency from 2005 to 2010.
This process, however, was not well received in certain parts of the country.
While many eastern and southern Ukrainians did not object to western Ukrainian language and culture, they did not want these to be imposed upon them.
The current president, Viktor Yanukovych, is therefore making concerted efforts to reverse both the subtle and harsher policies of his predecessors.
Despite numerous declarations to the contrary, Ukraine’s elite has little vision for the country’s future.
No single politician or political party has yet suggested a narrative capable of unifying all Ukrainians.
Even the Euro 2012 European Football Championship, which was touted as an opportunity to unite the nation, has resulted in little more than oligarchs across Ukraine replenishing their coffers courtesy of the state.
Political parties still prefer to identify with either eastern or western Ukraine, with no single party drawing strong support across the country.
Parties continue to exploit divisions between east and west, or Ukrainian and Russian speakers, and still rely on pro-Western or pro-Russian rhetoric during elections.
Politicians fight for power to ensure their own personal enrichment, while Ukrainians are left to fend for themselves.
The population’s view of their country’s future is no clearer.
The situation in Ukraine differs significantly from that in Poland.
In the 1990s, Poles wanted to embrace democracy and the market economy and to reintegrate with Europe, which they saw as their traditional home.
Ukrainians lack a similar sense of purpose as a nation.
They are ambitious and want to be a strong nation, but in reality they are disappointed and disillusioned after twenty years of independence.
Ukrainians are still in favor of independent statehood.
According to the Kiev International Institute of Sociology, if a referendum were to be held this year, 83 percent of Ukrainians would support independence.
This support has fluctuated over the years, yet it has never dropped below 50 percent.
Moreover, these fluctuations should be attributed to the public’s disillusionment with Ukraine’s politics rather than skepticism toward the meaning and value of the country’s statehood.
Few Ukrainians have any faith in the institutions of their government.
According to the Razumkov Centre, a Kiev-based think tank, only 6.5 percent of Ukrainians fully support their government.
Ten percent support the president, 5.3 percent support the parliament, while a paltry 4.2 percent support the judiciary.
Alarmingly, only 2.2 percent of those interviewed trust the political parties in Ukraine.
Nor do many Ukrainians believe in their own power.
Prior to the presidential elections in 2010, nearly 85 percent of voters felt disenchanted with those in office and nearly 60 percent had little faith that the election would bring positive change.
Additionally, nearly 50 percent of Ukrainian voters believed that their participation in elections would have no impact on government policies or the future of the country.
There is still a gap between western and eastern Ukraine.
However, this gap does not pose a significant threat to the country’s statehood.
While there are still differences between the eastern and western, and central and southern, regions of the country, there are also a number of shared traits.
According to the Sofia Centre, an independent think tank in Kiev, Ukrainians are individualistic, preferring to distance themselves from society.
As in Soviet times, they have little trust in their fellow citizens and prefer to rely on kinship and friendship networks.
By and large the kitchen remains the primary forum for Ukrainians to express their patriotism and discuss their problems — involvement in the public sphere of politics is comparatively rare.
Although Ukrainians still look to the state to provide public goods and services, if and when the state fails, they are used to ignoring or giving in to corruption to satisfy their needs.
With politicians serving their own interests and the population fighting for survival, Ukraine has nowhere to go but down without a change.
The issue of a national narrative and national identity, therefore, becomes more vital.
While uniting Ukraine around language, culture, or history may prove to be elusive, focusing on building a political nation could provide a solution.
The basis for this alternative is already in place.
Ukrainians from Donetsk to Lviv to Simferopol, and to Kiev have already identified themselves as holders of Ukrainian passports.
The Orange Revolution brought Ukrainians to life as a nation.
However, the mistakes of that moment in the country’s history should not be repeated.
Relying on a single politician to sort out all of Ukraine’s problems is no longer an option.
The same goes for external support.
The West cannot help Ukraine and its people find direction and purpose.
Nation-building cannot be imposed through a top-down process, nor can it be brought about by spontaneous grassroots movements or a popular revolt.
A society-wide discussion is needed to establish the parameters of any future political nation.
The building of such a nation is a prerequisite for building a multicultural, multiethnic, and otherwise diverse Ukraine.
The question of who will lead this grand debate and reach out to the disillusioned Ukrainian population, though, remains unanswered.
Ukrainians had high hopes for a democratic and prosperous future.
However, two decades on, the direction their country will take is still far from clear.
While many observers would like to attribute this stagnation to ineffective politicians or the population’s flawed mentality, the roots of Ukraine’s problems run deeper.
The source of Ukraine’s problems lies in the country’s Soviet legacy and the consequent lack of a national narrative and identity.
This explains the chaotic nature of Ukrainian politics as well as the population’s alienation from the state.
Politicians are seemingly the only beneficiaries of the status quo, as it grants them virtual immunity to rob their own country.
Ukrainian independence happened by and large by default.
Few observers would argue that it was the result of popular desire or a long-term struggle on behalf of the nation’s elite.
Ukraine’s leadership — largely former communist party members — had to bring the country out of a massive economic downturn while simultaneously building the state and its institutions.
In effect, they had to build the ship while it was sailing.
Issues of national identity were therefore largely ignored in the 1990s.
It was difficult to find a unifying narrative for a population that had been brought together within the same borders for the first time in history and that comprised numerous different cultural, linguistic, and religious backgrounds as well as diverging historical outlooks.
There were subsequent efforts to forge a Ukrainian national identity based on language and culture.
This started with a process of “silent Ukrainianization” during Leonid Kuchma’s second presidency — from 1999 to 2005 — when the Ukrainian language began to play a more prominent role in education and the public sector.
It proceeded with “imposed Ukrainianization” during Viktor Yuschenko’s presidency from 2005 to 2010.
This process, however, was not well received in certain parts of the country.
While many eastern and southern Ukrainians did not object to western Ukrainian language and culture, they did not want these to be imposed upon them.
The current president, Viktor Yanukovych, is therefore making concerted efforts to reverse both the subtle and harsher policies of his predecessors.
Despite numerous declarations to the contrary, Ukraine’s elite has little vision for the country’s future.
No single politician or political party has yet suggested a narrative capable of unifying all Ukrainians.
Even the Euro 2012 European Football Championship, which was touted as an opportunity to unite the nation, has resulted in little more than oligarchs across Ukraine replenishing their coffers courtesy of the state.
Political parties still prefer to identify with either eastern or western Ukraine, with no single party drawing strong support across the country.
Parties continue to exploit divisions between east and west, or Ukrainian and Russian speakers, and still rely on pro-Western or pro-Russian rhetoric during elections.
Politicians fight for power to ensure their own personal enrichment, while Ukrainians are left to fend for themselves.
The population’s view of their country’s future is no clearer.
The situation in Ukraine differs significantly from that in Poland.
In the 1990s, Poles wanted to embrace democracy and the market economy and to reintegrate with Europe, which they saw as their traditional home.
Ukrainians lack a similar sense of purpose as a nation.
They are ambitious and want to be a strong nation, but in reality they are disappointed and disillusioned after twenty years of independence.
Ukrainians are still in favor of independent statehood.
According to the Kiev International Institute of Sociology, if a referendum were to be held this year, 83 percent of Ukrainians would support independence.
This support has fluctuated over the years, yet it has never dropped below 50 percent.
Moreover, these fluctuations should be attributed to the public’s disillusionment with Ukraine’s politics rather than skepticism toward the meaning and value of the country’s statehood.
Few Ukrainians have any faith in the institutions of their government.
According to the Razumkov Centre, a Kiev-based think tank, only 6.5 percent of Ukrainians fully support their government.
Ten percent support the president, 5.3 percent support the parliament, while a paltry 4.2 percent support the judiciary.
Alarmingly, only 2.2 percent of those interviewed trust the political parties in Ukraine.
Nor do many Ukrainians believe in their own power.
Prior to the presidential elections in 2010, nearly 85 percent of voters felt disenchanted with those in office and nearly 60 percent had little faith that the election would bring positive change.
Additionally, nearly 50 percent of Ukrainian voters believed that their participation in elections would have no impact on government policies or the future of the country.
There is still a gap between western and eastern Ukraine.
However, this gap does not pose a significant threat to the country’s statehood.
While there are still differences between the eastern and western, and central and southern, regions of the country, there are also a number of shared traits.
According to the Sofia Centre, an independent think tank in Kiev, Ukrainians are individualistic, preferring to distance themselves from society.
As in Soviet times, they have little trust in their fellow citizens and prefer to rely on kinship and friendship networks.
By and large the kitchen remains the primary forum for Ukrainians to express their patriotism and discuss their problems — involvement in the public sphere of politics is comparatively rare.
Although Ukrainians still look to the state to provide public goods and services, if and when the state fails, they are used to ignoring or giving in to corruption to satisfy their needs.
With politicians serving their own interests and the population fighting for survival, Ukraine has nowhere to go but down without a change.
The issue of a national narrative and national identity, therefore, becomes more vital.
While uniting Ukraine around language, culture, or history may prove to be elusive, focusing on building a political nation could provide a solution.
The basis for this alternative is already in place.
Ukrainians from Donetsk to Lviv to Simferopol, and to Kiev have already identified themselves as holders of Ukrainian passports.
The Orange Revolution brought Ukrainians to life as a nation.
However, the mistakes of that moment in the country’s history should not be repeated.
Relying on a single politician to sort out all of Ukraine’s problems is no longer an option.
The same goes for external support.
The West cannot help Ukraine and its people find direction and purpose.
Nation-building cannot be imposed through a top-down process, nor can it be brought about by spontaneous grassroots movements or a popular revolt.
A society-wide discussion is needed to establish the parameters of any future political nation.
The building of such a nation is a prerequisite for building a multicultural, multiethnic, and otherwise diverse Ukraine.
The question of who will lead this grand debate and reach out to the disillusioned Ukrainian population, though, remains unanswered.
Ukraine's Political Priority Still Unclear After Summit With EU
KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukraine on Monday hosted the 15th annual summit with European Union (EU) leaders aiming at deepening cooperation.
he political situation, economic relations, mobility issues and regional and international relations were decided as priority topics on the agenda.
But the main issue for Kiev was signing an Association Agreement (AA) -- the deal that was to take Ukraine a step closer to membership of the 27-nation bloc.
Ukraine's EU bid, which was repeatedly declared by the authorities, has been shaken after the conference.
The delegates to the summit did not as planned sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, which includes arrangements for a free trade area and a roadmap for abolishing the visa regime for Ukrainian citizens due to unresolved political issues.
European Council President Herman Van Rompuy told the summit that EU was concerned about the politicization of Ukraine's court systems, and the lack of freedom of speech and assembly.
Though EU hopes to carry out steps toward signing the association agreement as quickly as possible, but this, he said will depend on political circumstances in Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, for his part, was tolerant after the meeting, saying that Ukraine was satisfied with the results of the forum.
He added that that Ukraine would continue comprehensive transformations in the country, and confirmed that both parties agreed to speed up preparation of the text of the Agreement for initialing.
he deepening relations between the EU and Ukraine is in the interests of both parties.
For Ukraine, it is advantageous from an economic point of view, as well as political one.
The European Union market is the largest in the world.
It covers 27 countries with more than 500 million consumers with an average annual income of about $40,000 U. S. dollars.
This is a good foreign outlet for Ukrainian goods. Ukraine is already in Europe geographically, therefore, the visa-free regime will be very useful for tourists from Ukraine.
In addition, partnership with such a strong player in the international arena will bring political dividends to Ukraine.
These factors together will raise the prestige of Yanukovych and the ruling Party of Regions, before the Parliament elections in October 2012.
At the same time, Ukraine is a big and geo-strategically important state for Europe.
Brussels wants Kiev to become its strategic partner to increase its influence in Eastern Europe.
Ukraine attaches great importance to its European identity, especially those Ukrainians living in Western regions.
According to a poll conducted by the Kiev-based International Institute of Sociology in October, 33 percent of Ukrainians want to enter the EU.
But at the same time, there are more pro-Russian citizens in Ukraine.
Forty-five percent of Ukrainians support joining the Russian-led Customs Union.
There is no doubt that all of them will support Ukraine entering the Eurasian Union, if it is created.
After the Association Agreement signing was delayed on Monday, Ukraine seems to be more interested in economic integration with Russia rather than with the European Union, which constantly creates new requirements for Ukraine.
After the controversial outcome of the summit, Russia is likely to try to strengthen its cooperation with Kiev, because Russia Prime Minister Vladimir Putin sees Ukraine as a crucial part of his plan to reintegrate former Soviet republics into a new Eurasian union that would rival the EU.
Moscow is seeking to allure Ukraine into the Eurasian Union with cheaper gas and other financial benefits, which is very important for Kiev.
Modifying the unfavorable gas deals of 2009 is in Ukraine's priority interest.
In addition, Moscow is not as critical as the EU in the so-called "freedom questions."
It is always very hard to make political forecasts, but most likely frustration at the EU summit will push Ukraine towards Moscow.
Where this will eventually lead remains to be seen.
However, one thing is for sure: the side that would be the first to understand the political importance of Ukraine and propose Kiev a really advantageous cooperation will benefit.
he political situation, economic relations, mobility issues and regional and international relations were decided as priority topics on the agenda.
But the main issue for Kiev was signing an Association Agreement (AA) -- the deal that was to take Ukraine a step closer to membership of the 27-nation bloc.
Ukraine's EU bid, which was repeatedly declared by the authorities, has been shaken after the conference.
The delegates to the summit did not as planned sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, which includes arrangements for a free trade area and a roadmap for abolishing the visa regime for Ukrainian citizens due to unresolved political issues.
European Council President Herman Van Rompuy told the summit that EU was concerned about the politicization of Ukraine's court systems, and the lack of freedom of speech and assembly.
Though EU hopes to carry out steps toward signing the association agreement as quickly as possible, but this, he said will depend on political circumstances in Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, for his part, was tolerant after the meeting, saying that Ukraine was satisfied with the results of the forum.
He added that that Ukraine would continue comprehensive transformations in the country, and confirmed that both parties agreed to speed up preparation of the text of the Agreement for initialing.
he deepening relations between the EU and Ukraine is in the interests of both parties.
For Ukraine, it is advantageous from an economic point of view, as well as political one.
The European Union market is the largest in the world.
It covers 27 countries with more than 500 million consumers with an average annual income of about $40,000 U. S. dollars.
This is a good foreign outlet for Ukrainian goods. Ukraine is already in Europe geographically, therefore, the visa-free regime will be very useful for tourists from Ukraine.
In addition, partnership with such a strong player in the international arena will bring political dividends to Ukraine.
These factors together will raise the prestige of Yanukovych and the ruling Party of Regions, before the Parliament elections in October 2012.
At the same time, Ukraine is a big and geo-strategically important state for Europe.
Brussels wants Kiev to become its strategic partner to increase its influence in Eastern Europe.
Ukraine attaches great importance to its European identity, especially those Ukrainians living in Western regions.
According to a poll conducted by the Kiev-based International Institute of Sociology in October, 33 percent of Ukrainians want to enter the EU.
But at the same time, there are more pro-Russian citizens in Ukraine.
Forty-five percent of Ukrainians support joining the Russian-led Customs Union.
There is no doubt that all of them will support Ukraine entering the Eurasian Union, if it is created.
After the Association Agreement signing was delayed on Monday, Ukraine seems to be more interested in economic integration with Russia rather than with the European Union, which constantly creates new requirements for Ukraine.
After the controversial outcome of the summit, Russia is likely to try to strengthen its cooperation with Kiev, because Russia Prime Minister Vladimir Putin sees Ukraine as a crucial part of his plan to reintegrate former Soviet republics into a new Eurasian union that would rival the EU.
Moscow is seeking to allure Ukraine into the Eurasian Union with cheaper gas and other financial benefits, which is very important for Kiev.
Modifying the unfavorable gas deals of 2009 is in Ukraine's priority interest.
In addition, Moscow is not as critical as the EU in the so-called "freedom questions."
It is always very hard to make political forecasts, but most likely frustration at the EU summit will push Ukraine towards Moscow.
Where this will eventually lead remains to be seen.
However, one thing is for sure: the side that would be the first to understand the political importance of Ukraine and propose Kiev a really advantageous cooperation will benefit.
Sunday 18 December 2011
Bonuses still to be had for Russia’s workers
Many employees will receive bonuses this year despite a grim economic outlook, says a study commissioned from the Headhunter staffing agency.
The company surveyed 2,300 personnel, 150 HR directors and heads of companies as part of the study. The decision to pay bonuses had already been taken by 41 percent of companies, of which 22 percent were planning to pay bonuses to all their staff members and 19 percent only to those “who were particularly successful at work,” . Thirteen percent said only management would be receiving an extra payment.
The situation concerning bonuses has returned to pre-crisis levels,” quoted the head of Headhunter, Yury Virovets, as saying on Friday. “For the first time since the crisis businesses have started to notice a shortage of workers and companies are trying in any way hold onto people, including via bonuses.”
Last year, 30 percent of companies surveyed paid bonuses, 19 percent only paid outstanding workers and 16 percent gave bonuses only to management. Twenty-seven percent did not paying any bonuses at all, compared with 25 percent this year.
Superjob.ru conducted a similar survey in November. Results from the 1,600 people surveyed indicated that 16 percent of companies were planning on paying bonuses to all their employees, while a further 24 percent were planning on paying bonuses to selected workers. All the results match last year’s figures.
Headhunter’s survey also looked into the size of the bonuses. One-third of bonuses paid were an extra month’s wages, 22 percent paid from one to three months’ wages in the form of a bonus and 5 percent paid more than three month’s wages. The remainder was undetermined.
The financial situation has, nonetheless, led to uncertainty. Forty-seven percent of workers surveyed by Headhunter said that they did not know yet whether they would be receiving anything extra this year.
“This is a big problem for employers -- they are stretching out till the end of the year the announcement about annual bonuses," said Virovets. He added that waiting until the very last moment was problematic: "Such a state of suspense, degenerates into alarm and eventually pushes the worker to seek a more transparent company."
Major Moscow road closed before New Year’s rush
Moscow authorities started a major reconstruction of one of the city’s busiest roads Novoryazanskoye Shosse right before New Year’s peak traffic flows.
The reconstruction practically blocked the road and limited it to two lanes, Vesti-Moskva reported.
Due to the road works, traffic has been gridlocked on Ural federal road, in the Moscow region towns of Lyubertsy, Dzerzhinsky and Kotelniki.
The reconstruction is set to last for two years.
The traffic is set to get much worse with many Moscow region residents coming into Moscow during the New Year’s rush.
Traffic police offered alternate routes, but drivers are complaining that they are too long and inconvenient.
Putin may face 'vote fraud' questions at annual Q&A
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin holds his annual Q&A session with the nation on Thursday amid public anger over alleged vote fraud on behalf of his United Russia party.
The Q&A session will begin at noon Moscow time (8:00 am GMT) and will be broadcast live on state television and radio stations.
Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, has said that the prime minister will answer "real questions from real people" during the live session.
Peskov also said public figures who have “their own civil stance and opinion, which may not always coincide with that of the government,” will be present at the Q&A session.
Last weekend saw the largest anti-government protests in Russia for almost two decades, as thousands marched to demand new parliamentary polls. Putin has said the protests were encouraged by the United States, in particular U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. A new mass rally is due to take place in Moscow on Dec. 24.
Both Russian and international observers reported numerous violations during the Dec. 4 polls, including ballot-staffing and other fraud cases. United Russia was declared to have won the elections with almost half of the vote.
President Dmitry Medvedev has pledged that allegations of electoral fraud will be investigated.
This will be Putin’s tenth live Q&A session since 2001, when he first answered questions on air. Last year, it took the premier a record 4.5 hours to answer a total of 90 questions, 31 of which he selected himself.
Russians have been invited to submit their questions for the session via the internet and text messages. Phone calls will also be taken during the broadcast.
Boxer Weighs Into Kiev Politics
KIEV, Ukraine -- He is the heavyweight champion of the world, but the fight for Ukraine’s future may turn out to be the toughest contest of Vitali Klitschko’s career.
“It is a big challenge to build European and democratic standards here in Ukraine,” Mr Klitschko said in an interview .
“But I know that if you don’t fight you won’t win. If it is necessary for me to quit my boxing career to win this fight for Ukraine’s future, I will do it.”
The towering fighter may look awkward shaking hands with the likes of Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor. But he might just have the right balance of brawn, brain and backing from voters to succeed in the ring of Ukrainian politics.
“Of course, people know me first as a boxer,” Mr Klitschko told “[But] is there a school that produces politicians? Anyone who has the honest desire to do good for their people and country can and should be a politician.”
Most Ukrainians desperately want reform that would combat widespread corruption and bring higher living standards.
They see the promise of closer relations with the European Union as a step in that direction.
But the ever more authoritarian and kleptocratic nature of the country under President Viktor Yanukovich is putting EU integration and the nation’s fragile democracy at risk.
At an EU summit on Monday, talks on a broad framework for relations with Ukraine that encompasses a trade deal are likely to be overshadowed by dismay at the opposition’s treatment.
For these reasons, Mr Klitschko’s Udar (Punch) party is expected to enter Ukraine’s national parliament for the first time after elections next autumn.
“When a leading opposition figure lands in prison, it smells like dictatorship,” Mr Klitschko said, referring to the seven-year jail sentence handed to Mr Yanukovich’s main rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, in October.
Vitali, 40, is the elder brother of 35-year-old Wladimir Klitschko.
The two have in recent years dominated heavyweight boxing and between them hold all the main boxing belts in their weight class.
They are respected at home and recognised abroad, often acting as informal ambassadors for their country.
They command a big following in Germany, having trained and boxed there for more than a decade.
But Vitali is not your typical slugger.
He has a PhD in sports science, is softly spoken and witty.
He speaks English, German, Ukrainian and Russian fluently.
“I am drawn to politics because, although Ukraine has vast potential, it has struggled to break free of massive cronyism and corruption under existing politicians, to establish a vibrant democracy where any citizen has a fair chance to prosper,” he said.
As in boxing, where he patiently waits to unleash a big punch that has knocked out some of the world’s strongest men, Mr Klitschko said he knew how to pace himself in politics.
He entered public service soon after Ukraine’s 2004 pro-democracy Orange Revolution, which he and his brother supported.
In Kiev’s city council he leads a dozen lawmakers who consistently stand up against corruption.
His party holds about 400 seats on the councils of other Ukrainian cities.
Mr Klitschko has his eyes on winning Kiev’s next mayoral election, and his chances are considered good.
The key quality for a politician, according to Mr Klitschko, is “morality”. That is a view that strikes a chord with 46 million Ukrainian citizens who have long lost trust in mainstream politicians.
“Many are sitting and waiting for something to change, not doing anything and losing hope. I want to show the way and get results,” he said.
Asked if he would run for president, Mr Klitschko said his focus now was on defending Ukraine’s democracy and EU membership hopes.
Many of Ukraine’s politicians talked of European values but lived in ways that contradicted them, he said.
“In spending much time abroad during my sports career in Europe and the US, I have seen and experienced the values and living standards that exist there. My countrymen deserve to live this way too.”
“But I know that if you don’t fight you won’t win. If it is necessary for me to quit my boxing career to win this fight for Ukraine’s future, I will do it.”
The towering fighter may look awkward shaking hands with the likes of Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor. But he might just have the right balance of brawn, brain and backing from voters to succeed in the ring of Ukrainian politics.
“Of course, people know me first as a boxer,” Mr Klitschko told “[But] is there a school that produces politicians? Anyone who has the honest desire to do good for their people and country can and should be a politician.”
Most Ukrainians desperately want reform that would combat widespread corruption and bring higher living standards.
They see the promise of closer relations with the European Union as a step in that direction.
But the ever more authoritarian and kleptocratic nature of the country under President Viktor Yanukovich is putting EU integration and the nation’s fragile democracy at risk.
At an EU summit on Monday, talks on a broad framework for relations with Ukraine that encompasses a trade deal are likely to be overshadowed by dismay at the opposition’s treatment.
For these reasons, Mr Klitschko’s Udar (Punch) party is expected to enter Ukraine’s national parliament for the first time after elections next autumn.
“When a leading opposition figure lands in prison, it smells like dictatorship,” Mr Klitschko said, referring to the seven-year jail sentence handed to Mr Yanukovich’s main rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, in October.
Vitali, 40, is the elder brother of 35-year-old Wladimir Klitschko.
The two have in recent years dominated heavyweight boxing and between them hold all the main boxing belts in their weight class.
They are respected at home and recognised abroad, often acting as informal ambassadors for their country.
They command a big following in Germany, having trained and boxed there for more than a decade.
But Vitali is not your typical slugger.
He has a PhD in sports science, is softly spoken and witty.
He speaks English, German, Ukrainian and Russian fluently.
“I am drawn to politics because, although Ukraine has vast potential, it has struggled to break free of massive cronyism and corruption under existing politicians, to establish a vibrant democracy where any citizen has a fair chance to prosper,” he said.
As in boxing, where he patiently waits to unleash a big punch that has knocked out some of the world’s strongest men, Mr Klitschko said he knew how to pace himself in politics.
He entered public service soon after Ukraine’s 2004 pro-democracy Orange Revolution, which he and his brother supported.
In Kiev’s city council he leads a dozen lawmakers who consistently stand up against corruption.
His party holds about 400 seats on the councils of other Ukrainian cities.
Mr Klitschko has his eyes on winning Kiev’s next mayoral election, and his chances are considered good.
The key quality for a politician, according to Mr Klitschko, is “morality”. That is a view that strikes a chord with 46 million Ukrainian citizens who have long lost trust in mainstream politicians.
“Many are sitting and waiting for something to change, not doing anything and losing hope. I want to show the way and get results,” he said.
Asked if he would run for president, Mr Klitschko said his focus now was on defending Ukraine’s democracy and EU membership hopes.
Many of Ukraine’s politicians talked of European values but lived in ways that contradicted them, he said.
“In spending much time abroad during my sports career in Europe and the US, I have seen and experienced the values and living standards that exist there. My countrymen deserve to live this way too.”
EU Stalls Ukraine Trade Deal Over Tymoshenko Treatment
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- The European Union will not formalise any deal it reaches with Ukraine at a summit on Monday, EU diplomats said on Friday, even as the country’s president expressed confidence that an agreement would in fact be signed.
At stake for Ukraine is an association agreement, a broad framework for relations that encompasses a free trade deal with the EU.
But this appears likely to be derailed by the EU’s dismay at the treatment of opposition figures in Ukraine, including jailed former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
EU diplomats said it remained unclear if the text of the agreement would be concluded, and EU ambassadors had agreed at a meeting on Thursday they would not initial the deal even if it were finalised.
The two sides had concluded an integral text for the agreement but were still haggling over a clause in the preamble of the deal, said one EU official.
Ukraine wants this to confirm its identity as a European country and thus its eligibility for eventual EU membership, the EU diplomats said.
However, the EU wanted to see evidence of improvement in Ukraine’s treatment of political opponents.
“We have seen...a number of shortcomings throughout the whole cycle of the judicial process,” said one of the EU officials.
“It’s a systematic problem for which Yulia Tymoshenko has become a symbol.”
Any deal would still need to be ratified by parliaments of all the 27 EU states and the European Parliament before if could be implemented, a process that at the best of times can take many months.
However, President Viktor Yanukovich said Monday’s summit marked the culmination of four years negotiations and he expected it to be a success.
“We are geared up for the signing of the agreement on association with the European Union, which has recognized Ukraine’s right to become a full-fledged member of the European community,” he told the diplomatic community in Kiev on Friday.
Earlier this year, the two sides had looked to Monday’s summit to showcase the agreement.
But the EU side has recently been offering an ambiguous construction merely “noting the importance Ukraine attaches to its European identity”.
“We will have to see if Ukraine can accept that,” one diplomat said.
“If they do, the initialling can be done, but not during the summit, because we do not want to make it look like business as usual. The initialling could take place some days afterwards and before the year-end, but the pre-requisite is an agreement on the preamble.”
Progress needed
Diplomats said Ukraine would have to show clear progress in political reform and its treatment of opponents for all member states to agree to ratification.
“For our government we do not want to ratify, or sign, unless there is change in Ukraine’s internal politics,” one EU diplomat said.
Diplomats said a joint statement from the summit simply acknowledging the talks had been formally concluded may be the best that can come from the summit — but this would be tantamount to a diplomatic failure.
And it would come despite the fact Tymoshenko and her daughter have called for the process of concluding and signing the agreement to go ahead.
On Wednesday, her daughter Yevgenia, told Reuters the EU should sign, but impose sanctions on Ukrainian leaders.
Tymoshenko was jailed for seven years in October on charges of abuse of office.
She called the verdict a “lynching” by Yanukovich, her old political enemy, and the EU said it was politically motivated.
Her family and defence counsel say her health in prison is deteriorating and she is suffering skin problems and serious back pain requiring treatment and physiotherapy.
But this appears likely to be derailed by the EU’s dismay at the treatment of opposition figures in Ukraine, including jailed former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
EU diplomats said it remained unclear if the text of the agreement would be concluded, and EU ambassadors had agreed at a meeting on Thursday they would not initial the deal even if it were finalised.
The two sides had concluded an integral text for the agreement but were still haggling over a clause in the preamble of the deal, said one EU official.
Ukraine wants this to confirm its identity as a European country and thus its eligibility for eventual EU membership, the EU diplomats said.
However, the EU wanted to see evidence of improvement in Ukraine’s treatment of political opponents.
“We have seen...a number of shortcomings throughout the whole cycle of the judicial process,” said one of the EU officials.
“It’s a systematic problem for which Yulia Tymoshenko has become a symbol.”
Any deal would still need to be ratified by parliaments of all the 27 EU states and the European Parliament before if could be implemented, a process that at the best of times can take many months.
However, President Viktor Yanukovich said Monday’s summit marked the culmination of four years negotiations and he expected it to be a success.
“We are geared up for the signing of the agreement on association with the European Union, which has recognized Ukraine’s right to become a full-fledged member of the European community,” he told the diplomatic community in Kiev on Friday.
Earlier this year, the two sides had looked to Monday’s summit to showcase the agreement.
But the EU side has recently been offering an ambiguous construction merely “noting the importance Ukraine attaches to its European identity”.
“We will have to see if Ukraine can accept that,” one diplomat said.
“If they do, the initialling can be done, but not during the summit, because we do not want to make it look like business as usual. The initialling could take place some days afterwards and before the year-end, but the pre-requisite is an agreement on the preamble.”
Progress needed
Diplomats said Ukraine would have to show clear progress in political reform and its treatment of opponents for all member states to agree to ratification.
“For our government we do not want to ratify, or sign, unless there is change in Ukraine’s internal politics,” one EU diplomat said.
Diplomats said a joint statement from the summit simply acknowledging the talks had been formally concluded may be the best that can come from the summit — but this would be tantamount to a diplomatic failure.
And it would come despite the fact Tymoshenko and her daughter have called for the process of concluding and signing the agreement to go ahead.
On Wednesday, her daughter Yevgenia, told Reuters the EU should sign, but impose sanctions on Ukrainian leaders.
Tymoshenko was jailed for seven years in October on charges of abuse of office.
She called the verdict a “lynching” by Yanukovich, her old political enemy, and the EU said it was politically motivated.
Her family and defence counsel say her health in prison is deteriorating and she is suffering skin problems and serious back pain requiring treatment and physiotherapy.
Is Ukraine Heading East?
MOSCOW, Russia -- On the eve of an EU-Ukraine summit on December 19, Ukraine’s relations with Brussels are deteriorating.
EU officials have warned that the detention of opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko is damaging Kiev’s hopes of signing an Association Agreement by the end of the year.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is considering relinquishing a 50%-share of its pipelines to Russia for cheaper gas.
David Marples looks at the possible political direction Ukraine is headed for in 2012.
As Ukraine’s relationship with the EU continues to flounder over human rights issues, the imprisonment of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and the lengthy detention of former Interior Minister Yuri Lutsenko, there are signs that the government is prepared to flout existing laws to gain closer association with Gazprom and the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.
The consequences could be not only the loss of links with the European Energy Community (EEC) but also the undermining of Ukraine’s sovereignty.
On December 4, Russia’s Ambassador to Ukraine Mikhail Zurabov announced that the new gas agreement between the two states would have the status of an international agreement, rather than a business arrangement between the two responsible companies, Gazprom and Naftohaz.
The evident tolerance of the EU for the abuses of power in Kiev is, perhaps, even more important for the ruling party’s survival. Ukraine has not been subject to the kind sanctions the EU has applied in Belarus.
Russia is evidently responding to the EU’s plans for closer integration with Ukraine and greater transparency in the transit of gas from Russia to Western Europe.
Analyst Maksim Alinov argues that the results of the inter-state agreement proposed by the Russian ambassador would override current Ukrainian laws, which make it illegal to transfer Ukraine’s transit system to Russian control.
A similar sale to Gazprom occurred recently in Belarus.
In the Ukrainian weekly, Zerkalo Nedeli, Alinov writes that the flouting of the agreement in place would also give Russia significant influence over the internal economic and political situation in Ukraine.
In the same paper, analyst, Maksim Honchar, goes further, maintaining that Kiev’s apparent reversal of policy on the EEC would violate Article 7 of a 2010 legislation, which stipulates that Ukraine’s oil, gas, and electricity networks should operate in accordance with EU rules.
In his view this indicates a willingness to surrender national interests, which would be an even more serious threat to Ukraine’s pro-European policy than the imprisonment of Tymoshenko.
It would also strengthen considerably the position of Gazprom, a monopolist enterprise that seeks to deploy energy as an instrument of political control.
Honchar predicts that Ukraine could acquire cheap gas but at the price of gradually losing its sovereignty and the Association Agreement with the EU.
This, Honchar believes, would lead to an inevitable defensive alliance with Russia.
Meanwhile, the EU continues to demand the release of Tymoshenko as a prequel to the initializing of the Association Agreement, though with diminishing hopes and growing frustration.
Ukraine’s leaders are posing serious threats to the sovereignty of Ukraine, relinquishing hard-won rights for the immediate prospect of cheap gas and permitting a much more powerful role for Russian agencies like Gazprom to step in and purchase Naftohaz.
Wilfred Martens, President of the European People’s Party, stated that Ukraine, like Poland, could be an important EU player, and that without it, the EU project could not be complete.
He insisted, however, that as a prerequisite to the start of the process leading to the Agreement, Ukraine’s Party of Regions must release Tymoshenko, Lutsenko, and other political prisoners.
Foreign Minister Kostyantyn Hryshchenko has demurred, stating that Tymoshenko could not be used as a bargaining chip in trade relations and that her situation was a matter for the Ukrainian Judiciary.
He recently wrote, in the Ukrainian paper, Unian, that to do so would be tantamount to indicating that the latter is not an independent body.
Although Ukraine’s leadership faces several serious economic problems and recently, for a second time, rejected the IMF’s demand to raise energy prices, it does not seem to be facing a serious threat from the opposition.
Indeed, the political situation seems relatively unaffected by the Tymoshenko saga.
Analyst Kost Bondarenko maintains that the population has lost interest in the struggle between Tymoshenko and the ruling elite, while Vadim Karasev considers that the apparent lack of public sympathy for Tymoshenko reflects the general perception of her as a former representative of the political establishment.
This has proven to be a positive sign for the authorities and shows that the arrest of Tymoshenko has not affected ratings for the president and The Party of Regions.
Ratings polls show that Yanukovych remains the leading individual politician with ratings between 17.4 and 20.7%, whereas the ratings of Tymoshenko, the only serious contender, range from 13 to 14.1%.
Yatsenyuk in third place has, at most, 9.9% support. In short, with Tymoshenko out of the picture, there is no longer a serious contender from the opposition.
The ruling party seems to be calculating each step in a cynical fashion, taking action and then monitoring the response.
Vadim Karasev points out that the leadership thinks the release of Tymoshenko would be seen as a sign of weakness.
Ukrainian leaders are closely watching political events in Russia, where the rise of oppositional activities could have a domino effect in Ukraine.
Ratings polls show that Yanukovych remains the leading individual politician with ratings between 17.4 and 20.7%, whereas the ratings of Tymoshenko, the only serious contender, range from 13 to 14.1%.
Yatsenyuk in third place has, at most, 9.9% support.
In short, with Tymoshenko out of the picture, there is no longer a serious contender from the opposition.
The ruling party may also consider that in 2011 popularity might have been expected to drop because of the introduction of unpopular measures such as pension and taxation codes.
The party can expect even better fortune in the New Year, not least because Ukraine will host the UEFA Championship, Euro-2012.
The evident tolerance of the EU for the abuses of power in Kiev is, perhaps, even more important for the ruling party’s survival.
Ukraine has not been subject to the kind sanctions the EU has applied in Belarus.
Ukraine has moved rapidly from one of the most democratic of post-Soviet states to a position well down the scale.
At the same time the corruption that has long pervaded the Ukrainian economy has not diminished.
In a foreign policy report for the Brookings Institute, Former US ambassador to Ukraine, Steven Pifer observed that the United States is preoccupied with other issues and unlikely to engage with Ukraine at the highest level until after the 2012 presidential election.
Thus Yanukovych and The Party of Regions effectively have carte blanche to continue their current path.
The EEC agreement appears to have been jettisoned.
For the second time since the January 2010 election (the first being the Kharkiv Accords on the Black Sea Fleet), Ukraine’s leaders are posing serious threats to the sovereignty of Ukraine, relinquishing hard-won rights for the immediate prospect of cheap gas and permitting a much more powerful role for Russian agencies like Gazprom to step in and purchase Naftohaz.
The next logical stage would be for Ukraine to join the Customs Union (with Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus).
Only a year ago that would have been unthinkable, but it is now a serious possibility.
EU officials have warned that the detention of opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko is damaging Kiev’s hopes of signing an Association Agreement by the end of the year.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is considering relinquishing a 50%-share of its pipelines to Russia for cheaper gas.
David Marples looks at the possible political direction Ukraine is headed for in 2012.
As Ukraine’s relationship with the EU continues to flounder over human rights issues, the imprisonment of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and the lengthy detention of former Interior Minister Yuri Lutsenko, there are signs that the government is prepared to flout existing laws to gain closer association with Gazprom and the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.
The consequences could be not only the loss of links with the European Energy Community (EEC) but also the undermining of Ukraine’s sovereignty.
On December 4, Russia’s Ambassador to Ukraine Mikhail Zurabov announced that the new gas agreement between the two states would have the status of an international agreement, rather than a business arrangement between the two responsible companies, Gazprom and Naftohaz.
The evident tolerance of the EU for the abuses of power in Kiev is, perhaps, even more important for the ruling party’s survival. Ukraine has not been subject to the kind sanctions the EU has applied in Belarus.
Russia is evidently responding to the EU’s plans for closer integration with Ukraine and greater transparency in the transit of gas from Russia to Western Europe.
Analyst Maksim Alinov argues that the results of the inter-state agreement proposed by the Russian ambassador would override current Ukrainian laws, which make it illegal to transfer Ukraine’s transit system to Russian control.
A similar sale to Gazprom occurred recently in Belarus.
In the Ukrainian weekly, Zerkalo Nedeli, Alinov writes that the flouting of the agreement in place would also give Russia significant influence over the internal economic and political situation in Ukraine.
In the same paper, analyst, Maksim Honchar, goes further, maintaining that Kiev’s apparent reversal of policy on the EEC would violate Article 7 of a 2010 legislation, which stipulates that Ukraine’s oil, gas, and electricity networks should operate in accordance with EU rules.
In his view this indicates a willingness to surrender national interests, which would be an even more serious threat to Ukraine’s pro-European policy than the imprisonment of Tymoshenko.
It would also strengthen considerably the position of Gazprom, a monopolist enterprise that seeks to deploy energy as an instrument of political control.
Honchar predicts that Ukraine could acquire cheap gas but at the price of gradually losing its sovereignty and the Association Agreement with the EU.
This, Honchar believes, would lead to an inevitable defensive alliance with Russia.
Meanwhile, the EU continues to demand the release of Tymoshenko as a prequel to the initializing of the Association Agreement, though with diminishing hopes and growing frustration.
Ukraine’s leaders are posing serious threats to the sovereignty of Ukraine, relinquishing hard-won rights for the immediate prospect of cheap gas and permitting a much more powerful role for Russian agencies like Gazprom to step in and purchase Naftohaz.
Wilfred Martens, President of the European People’s Party, stated that Ukraine, like Poland, could be an important EU player, and that without it, the EU project could not be complete.
He insisted, however, that as a prerequisite to the start of the process leading to the Agreement, Ukraine’s Party of Regions must release Tymoshenko, Lutsenko, and other political prisoners.
Foreign Minister Kostyantyn Hryshchenko has demurred, stating that Tymoshenko could not be used as a bargaining chip in trade relations and that her situation was a matter for the Ukrainian Judiciary.
He recently wrote, in the Ukrainian paper, Unian, that to do so would be tantamount to indicating that the latter is not an independent body.
Although Ukraine’s leadership faces several serious economic problems and recently, for a second time, rejected the IMF’s demand to raise energy prices, it does not seem to be facing a serious threat from the opposition.
Indeed, the political situation seems relatively unaffected by the Tymoshenko saga.
Analyst Kost Bondarenko maintains that the population has lost interest in the struggle between Tymoshenko and the ruling elite, while Vadim Karasev considers that the apparent lack of public sympathy for Tymoshenko reflects the general perception of her as a former representative of the political establishment.
This has proven to be a positive sign for the authorities and shows that the arrest of Tymoshenko has not affected ratings for the president and The Party of Regions.
Ratings polls show that Yanukovych remains the leading individual politician with ratings between 17.4 and 20.7%, whereas the ratings of Tymoshenko, the only serious contender, range from 13 to 14.1%.
Yatsenyuk in third place has, at most, 9.9% support. In short, with Tymoshenko out of the picture, there is no longer a serious contender from the opposition.
The ruling party seems to be calculating each step in a cynical fashion, taking action and then monitoring the response.
Vadim Karasev points out that the leadership thinks the release of Tymoshenko would be seen as a sign of weakness.
Ukrainian leaders are closely watching political events in Russia, where the rise of oppositional activities could have a domino effect in Ukraine.
Ratings polls show that Yanukovych remains the leading individual politician with ratings between 17.4 and 20.7%, whereas the ratings of Tymoshenko, the only serious contender, range from 13 to 14.1%.
Yatsenyuk in third place has, at most, 9.9% support.
In short, with Tymoshenko out of the picture, there is no longer a serious contender from the opposition.
The ruling party may also consider that in 2011 popularity might have been expected to drop because of the introduction of unpopular measures such as pension and taxation codes.
The party can expect even better fortune in the New Year, not least because Ukraine will host the UEFA Championship, Euro-2012.
The evident tolerance of the EU for the abuses of power in Kiev is, perhaps, even more important for the ruling party’s survival.
Ukraine has not been subject to the kind sanctions the EU has applied in Belarus.
Ukraine has moved rapidly from one of the most democratic of post-Soviet states to a position well down the scale.
At the same time the corruption that has long pervaded the Ukrainian economy has not diminished.
In a foreign policy report for the Brookings Institute, Former US ambassador to Ukraine, Steven Pifer observed that the United States is preoccupied with other issues and unlikely to engage with Ukraine at the highest level until after the 2012 presidential election.
Thus Yanukovych and The Party of Regions effectively have carte blanche to continue their current path.
The EEC agreement appears to have been jettisoned.
For the second time since the January 2010 election (the first being the Kharkiv Accords on the Black Sea Fleet), Ukraine’s leaders are posing serious threats to the sovereignty of Ukraine, relinquishing hard-won rights for the immediate prospect of cheap gas and permitting a much more powerful role for Russian agencies like Gazprom to step in and purchase Naftohaz.
The next logical stage would be for Ukraine to join the Customs Union (with Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus).
Only a year ago that would have been unthinkable, but it is now a serious possibility.
Gazprom: No New Year's Gifts For Ukraine
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- Ukraine has long been seeking to alter the terms of the 2009 gas deal it signed with Russia.
The deal ties the price of gas to oil prices, which have risen strongly since 2009, boosting Ukraine's gas bill.
The contract says Ukraine must import no less than 33 billion cubic metres of gas from Russia, but Kiev is insisting on reducing both the price and the volume of gas imports.
Ukrainian Premier Mykola Azarov has stated that Kiev is ready to pay $400 per 1,000 cubic metres of gas if it fails to agree with Moscow on better terms for gas supplies.
"If we have to pay $400 for gas, we will pay it – we have no other choice," Azarov told reporters in Kiev on 13 December.
The government cannot delay the drafting of the 2012 national budget any longer, because it has to be adopted by the New Year, he said.
Azarov added that Ukraine-Russia negotiations had been going on in Moscow for two days.
Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller announced earlier last week, however, that "no New Year's presents" should be expected in bilateral talks on the reduction of the price for Russian natural gas.
Kommersant reported on 13 December that Gazprom might lower the gas price for Ukraine to $210-220 per 1,000 cubic metres if Kiev sold part of its gas transportation system to Moscow.
A similar scheme was adopted by the gas monopolist in early December, when it announced that it took control of Beltransgaz as part of a revised energy deal with Belarus.
The Ukraine- Russia deal would exclude European participation.
Miller met Ukrainian Energy Minister Yury Boiko on 12 December, Gazprom said in a statement.
Joint control of the transit pipelines, which carry Russian gas to Europe through the territory of the former Soviet republic, is seen as a way to preclude their use as a bargaining chip in price conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, which depends on Russia for almost all of its gas.
Direct European participation in a pipeline deal had appeared possible.
Azarov said earlier that they had discussed a 40-40 division of control between Russia and Ukraine, with a European entity as a third party.
Russia annually pumps around 100 billion cubic metres of gas to European countries via Ukraine, which makes up 80% of its total gas supplies to Europe.
Meanwhile, Naftogaz Deputy CEO Vadym Chuprun was quoted as saying by the press that Ukraine needs guarantees from Russia and the EU regarding gas transit across Ukrainian territory.
"It is impossible to preserve and maintain our gas transport system without Russian gas. Our national property - Ukraine's gas transport system - must be preserved, so it needs guaranteed volumes of gas. We need guarantees from Russia and from the European Union," Chuprun said, adding that it was possible to use the Ukrainian gas transport system in full with the trilateral participation of Ukraine, Russia and Europe.
"It can be used only at the trilateral level, with Russia being a supplier, Ukraine a transit country, and the European Union as a consumer, on such a solid basis," Chuprun said.
He added that the construction of gas pipelines bypassing Ukraine - Nord Stream and South Stream - posed a direct threat to Ukraine's transit potential.
"We are surprised that European officials have not responded to [the construction of South Stream or Nord Stream. And silence is a sign of consent. This is a serious signal to Ukraine. This is a direct threat to Ukraine's gas-transport system."
Chuprun said that the Ukrainian gas transport system had a unique potential and that it was economically more profitable than the construction of pipelines bypassing Ukraine.
"The cost of [the construction of ] South Stream is $27 billion. For the sake of momentary gain, in order to get lower gas prices, certain EU countries forget that in five years they will have to pay for this," he concluded.
The contract says Ukraine must import no less than 33 billion cubic metres of gas from Russia, but Kiev is insisting on reducing both the price and the volume of gas imports.
Ukrainian Premier Mykola Azarov has stated that Kiev is ready to pay $400 per 1,000 cubic metres of gas if it fails to agree with Moscow on better terms for gas supplies.
"If we have to pay $400 for gas, we will pay it – we have no other choice," Azarov told reporters in Kiev on 13 December.
The government cannot delay the drafting of the 2012 national budget any longer, because it has to be adopted by the New Year, he said.
Azarov added that Ukraine-Russia negotiations had been going on in Moscow for two days.
Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller announced earlier last week, however, that "no New Year's presents" should be expected in bilateral talks on the reduction of the price for Russian natural gas.
Kommersant reported on 13 December that Gazprom might lower the gas price for Ukraine to $210-220 per 1,000 cubic metres if Kiev sold part of its gas transportation system to Moscow.
A similar scheme was adopted by the gas monopolist in early December, when it announced that it took control of Beltransgaz as part of a revised energy deal with Belarus.
The Ukraine- Russia deal would exclude European participation.
Miller met Ukrainian Energy Minister Yury Boiko on 12 December, Gazprom said in a statement.
Joint control of the transit pipelines, which carry Russian gas to Europe through the territory of the former Soviet republic, is seen as a way to preclude their use as a bargaining chip in price conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, which depends on Russia for almost all of its gas.
Direct European participation in a pipeline deal had appeared possible.
Azarov said earlier that they had discussed a 40-40 division of control between Russia and Ukraine, with a European entity as a third party.
Russia annually pumps around 100 billion cubic metres of gas to European countries via Ukraine, which makes up 80% of its total gas supplies to Europe.
Meanwhile, Naftogaz Deputy CEO Vadym Chuprun was quoted as saying by the press that Ukraine needs guarantees from Russia and the EU regarding gas transit across Ukrainian territory.
"It is impossible to preserve and maintain our gas transport system without Russian gas. Our national property - Ukraine's gas transport system - must be preserved, so it needs guaranteed volumes of gas. We need guarantees from Russia and from the European Union," Chuprun said, adding that it was possible to use the Ukrainian gas transport system in full with the trilateral participation of Ukraine, Russia and Europe.
"It can be used only at the trilateral level, with Russia being a supplier, Ukraine a transit country, and the European Union as a consumer, on such a solid basis," Chuprun said.
He added that the construction of gas pipelines bypassing Ukraine - Nord Stream and South Stream - posed a direct threat to Ukraine's transit potential.
"We are surprised that European officials have not responded to [the construction of South Stream or Nord Stream. And silence is a sign of consent. This is a serious signal to Ukraine. This is a direct threat to Ukraine's gas-transport system."
Chuprun said that the Ukrainian gas transport system had a unique potential and that it was economically more profitable than the construction of pipelines bypassing Ukraine.
"The cost of [the construction of ] South Stream is $27 billion. For the sake of momentary gain, in order to get lower gas prices, certain EU countries forget that in five years they will have to pay for this," he concluded.
No Association Deal Expected At EU Summit
KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukraine and the European Union will probably not initial a political association agreement at their Kiev summit on December 19, Leonid Kozhara, a lawmaker from the governing Regions Party, said Thursday, citing an undisclosed communication from Brussels.
The development would be a major setback for Ukraine’s declared policy of European integration and may potentially tilt the country towards greater cooperation with Russia.
“That’s true: the association agreement will not be initialed at the summit,” Kozhara said in an interview with Channel 5.
“Today we have received such information. Not even today, it existed before.”
Relations between Ukraine and the EU strained after Kiev has refused to release opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, a former prime minister, who was arrested in August and sentenced in October to seven years in prison for abuse of office.
The EU said the arrest and the sentencing had been politically motivated and aimed against the opposition leader.
President Viktor Yanukovych on Thursday confirmed that the issue of Tymoshenko had been the main problem in relations between Ukraine and the EU.
“One of the issues that remain to be hot on agenda is the issue of former prime minister Tymoshenko,” Yanukovych said at a press conference in Kiev.
Ukraine and the EU were in talks for almost five years over the free trade agreement and the political association agreements, and both had been basically agreed upon except for the Tymoshenko issue.
Yanukovych said Thursday that Ukraine still hoped to achieve a “positive decision” at the summit in Kiev that would lead to singing of both agreements.
But not only the authorities refused to release Tymoshenko from jail, they moved last week to “re-arrest” her at a special court session from within her jail cell on other charges.
This makes her release impossible before the summit even if she wins an appeal against the seven-year verdict given her in October.
The “re-arrest” of Tymoshenko was sought by the security service SBU investigators and was based on the charges dating back more than 15 years ago.
The court session at bedside of Tymoshenko’s jail cell stunned many politicians and some alleged that the SBU may have been working to undermine the Ukraine-EU summit in order to change the country’s foreign policy towards Russia.
EU commissioner Stefan Fuele, the bloc's point man on Ukraine, was in Kiev on Tuesday to voice “serious concern” to Yanukovych over the jailing of Tymoshenko.
"I informed her about the EUs concerns regarding this process and assured her that we would continue to follow closely her appeal and would insist upon the need for her to benefit from of all her rights to defend herself in a fair process," Fuele said.
But the concerns expressed by the senior EU official did not stop the Ukrainian authorities from making just another controversial move against Tymoshenko, underscoring the lack of the rule of law and potentially undermining the summit.
Without her will, an undisclosed camera crew assisted by the authorities, filmed Tymoshenko lying in her jail cell bed and posted the controversial video on YouTube on Wednesday.
The leader of the camera crew introduced himself to Tymoshenko as the “colonel of SBU,” before he ordered the crew to continue shooting the video even as Tymoshenko had vehemently objected.
“I spoke with the Yulia Volodymyrivna today on this issue,” Serhiy Vlasenko, the leader of Tymoshenko’s defense team, said.
“She said the person had introduced himself as the colonel of SBU, and against her will they had started to film.”
Maryna Ostapenko, a spokeswoman at the SBU, on Thursday denied involvement of SBU agents in the filming of the video.
“That’s true: the association agreement will not be initialed at the summit,” Kozhara said in an interview with Channel 5.
“Today we have received such information. Not even today, it existed before.”
Relations between Ukraine and the EU strained after Kiev has refused to release opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, a former prime minister, who was arrested in August and sentenced in October to seven years in prison for abuse of office.
The EU said the arrest and the sentencing had been politically motivated and aimed against the opposition leader.
President Viktor Yanukovych on Thursday confirmed that the issue of Tymoshenko had been the main problem in relations between Ukraine and the EU.
“One of the issues that remain to be hot on agenda is the issue of former prime minister Tymoshenko,” Yanukovych said at a press conference in Kiev.
Ukraine and the EU were in talks for almost five years over the free trade agreement and the political association agreements, and both had been basically agreed upon except for the Tymoshenko issue.
Yanukovych said Thursday that Ukraine still hoped to achieve a “positive decision” at the summit in Kiev that would lead to singing of both agreements.
But not only the authorities refused to release Tymoshenko from jail, they moved last week to “re-arrest” her at a special court session from within her jail cell on other charges.
This makes her release impossible before the summit even if she wins an appeal against the seven-year verdict given her in October.
The “re-arrest” of Tymoshenko was sought by the security service SBU investigators and was based on the charges dating back more than 15 years ago.
The court session at bedside of Tymoshenko’s jail cell stunned many politicians and some alleged that the SBU may have been working to undermine the Ukraine-EU summit in order to change the country’s foreign policy towards Russia.
EU commissioner Stefan Fuele, the bloc's point man on Ukraine, was in Kiev on Tuesday to voice “serious concern” to Yanukovych over the jailing of Tymoshenko.
"I informed her about the EUs concerns regarding this process and assured her that we would continue to follow closely her appeal and would insist upon the need for her to benefit from of all her rights to defend herself in a fair process," Fuele said.
But the concerns expressed by the senior EU official did not stop the Ukrainian authorities from making just another controversial move against Tymoshenko, underscoring the lack of the rule of law and potentially undermining the summit.
Without her will, an undisclosed camera crew assisted by the authorities, filmed Tymoshenko lying in her jail cell bed and posted the controversial video on YouTube on Wednesday.
The leader of the camera crew introduced himself to Tymoshenko as the “colonel of SBU,” before he ordered the crew to continue shooting the video even as Tymoshenko had vehemently objected.
“I spoke with the Yulia Volodymyrivna today on this issue,” Serhiy Vlasenko, the leader of Tymoshenko’s defense team, said.
“She said the person had introduced himself as the colonel of SBU, and against her will they had started to film.”
Maryna Ostapenko, a spokeswoman at the SBU, on Thursday denied involvement of SBU agents in the filming of the video.
Saturday 10 December 2011
Weapons exports up by $1 billion
Russia’s weapons export via the state Rosoboronexport enterprise grew by about $1 billion to reach $9.7 billion,citing Viktor Komardin, Rosoboronexport representative at the Lima-2011 weapons expo in Malaysia. He added that last year Rosoboronexport signed contracts worth $9.5 billion and “this year we will sign more.” He added that the enterprise’s portfolio of orders amounted to $36 billion.
Russia faces nationwide vote protests
Voters took to the streets Saturday across Russia to protest elections they charge were rigged in favor of Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party, a mass demonstration of public anger not seen in years and a critical test for the country’s leadership.
The rolling, nationwide demonstrations came a day after Russian election authorities announced the final official results of legislative elections of December 4, giving United Russia 238 seats in the 450-seat State Duma with just under 50 percent of the popular vote.
Around 1,000 people rallied in the southern Siberian city of Barnaul while smaller crowds numbering in the hundreds turned out in the cities of Krasnoyarsk, Vladivostok, Chita and Khabarovsk in eastern Russia, RIA Novosti correspondents reported from those cities.
The largest crowd however was expected in Moscow, where city officials gave permission for several demonstrations including one by those angry over the results of the elections for up to 30,000 people. A demonstration was also planned for Russia's second largest city of St. Petersburg.
As of 2:30 p.m. Moscow time (10:30 GMT), according to police reports, 15,000 of the expected 30,000 protesters have so far gathered at the venue in downtown Moscow.
Security was tight in the Russian capital, where several hundred people had gathered on a square near the Kremlin and planned to make their way to a different location further from the center of the city where the largest demonstration was to take place.
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said ahead of the demonstrations that all Russians had the right to assemble and express their political views publicly, but warned that security forces would use “all legal methods” to maintain law and order.
The December 4 vote polarized Russian society, with Putin and supporters describing the outcome as a “real” reflection of the mood in the country while others – both Russian political activists and international observers – saying the vote was slanted in United Russia’s favor.
Although United Russia won nearly half the popular vote, the election was a huge setback for the “party of power” and Putin directly accused the United States of seeking to stir up trouble in Russian politics after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the conduct of the vote.
"People in our country don't want the situation in Russia to develop like it did in Kyrgyzstan and, not so long ago, in Ukraine," Putin said Thursday. "Nobody wants chaos."
He was referring to popular uprisings, referred to in Russia as “color revolutions,” that led to the downfall of leaders in both former Soviet republics and another, Georgia, which he did not mention.
Meanwhile, the Communist Party announced in a statement posted on its website Saturday that it does not recognize the results of the elections in many Russian regions, including the North Caucasus republics and the largest cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg, citing massive violations there.
“We consider the vote illegitimate from the moral and political points of view,” the party’s presidium said in the statement.
Another political party, the liberal Yabloko party, separately vowed to contest the results of the December 4 elections in court.
Disgruntlement over the polls saw some 5,000 protesters rally in central Moscow on Monday. Demonstrations continued across Russia, although on a smaller scale, for the next two evenings.
Some 1,000 people have so far been detained in protests, police said, including influential blogger and opposition activist Alexei Navalny.
Navalny, along with another opposition leader, Ilya Yashin, was jailed for 15 days on Tuesday as a result of their participation in Monday’s unsanctioned protest.
The protests have been largely ignored by state-run televisions channels, which chose instead to broadcast images of United Russia supporters parading near the Kremlin. Demonstrations have been organized via Facebook and Vkontakte, a popular internet social networking site. Vkontakte’s founder, Pavel Durov, said this week he had refused a request by the security services to deactivate accounts belonging to opposition groups.
Are post-poll protests a Russian Spring?
Are we witnessing a Russian Spring this winter? This is the question my US and European colleagues have been asking me over and over again in recent days.
I am not certain that developments in Russia will mirror those in the Arab world but one thing is certain - what we witnessed on 4 December was a return of live politics to Russia, a politics that everyone thought was comatose.
For a second day running, in Moscow and St Petersburg, we have witnessed the kind of pro-democracy rallies that the cities had not seen since the rough and tumble of the early 1990s. And, although the outcome is far from clear, a few things are already coming into focus.
This election turned out to be a de-facto referendum on Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's United Russia party and on his decade in power.
Even if we believe the official results to be without doubt - which they are definitely not - a very serious signal has been sent to the country's ruling class.
December's vote can be seen as a kind of "ground zero" for Russia's presidential elections, scheduled for March 2012.
Mr Putin is widely expected to be elected to his third term in power, but the Duma election has a cast a shadow.
If, in spring, Mr Putin goes into a kind of mock battle similar to those of most of the previous elections, he will lose even more credibility.
He could have gambled - opening the field to genuine competition and following a kind of Putin 2.0 strategy, a move his aides predict will happen eventually. However, if he does, he will have to opt for general liberalisation as opposed to cosmetic liberalisation, and be prepared to face a barrage of criticism.
Knowing the Russian leader, this is a very unlikely scenario. Mr Putin, it seems, will either have to crack down hard on dissent or face growing dissatisfaction among the masses and an increasing disappointment with his ability to control the situation from within the ruling class.
There are a few other new developments too. This was the final election in which state-controlled still TV has still played a decisive role. Internet penetration in Russia has already grown massively but, by 2016, when the next voting cycle starts, as much as 75% or 80% of voters will have online access.
And, although 80% or 90% of users surf the web in search of celebrity gossip, dating or bargains, politically-minded citizens now have a free platform to engage in debates and organise themselves.
Unmasking the vote-rigging would have been impossible without smartphones, Facebook and Twitter.
Online activism made offline self-organisation not only possible, but effective.
This is why it is possible that the government will attempt to introduce restrictive legislation around the internet - a development to watch in 2012.
This was also the first Russian election in which the country's nascent middle class - the self-sufficient, English-speaking, iPad-juggling 30-somethings - really went out to vote.
This is the generation which benefited from the oil boom of Mr Putin's presidency between 2000 and 2008.
But economic crisis, political stagnation and corruption has turned them against the regime.
These people are a minority, but an increasingly influential one in the big cities, which is where real politics happens in Russia.
These people are the future of Russia and the Kremlin has lost them, irrevocably.
While this may not be a Russian Spring quite yet, Russia's ruling class has been engulfed by a crisis of legitimacy and I cannot see it ending any time soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)